feat(decompose): make reckon invocation explicit in ceremony#186
feat(decompose): make reckon invocation explicit in ceremony#186pentaxis93 merged 3 commits intomainfrom
Conversation
Reckon is the cognitive discipline that enforces the sovereignty boundary (WHAT vs HOW), yet decompose's procedures jumped straight to framing without verifying constraints. The connection existed only through orient's integration principles — assumed, not enforced. Add reckon as step 1 in create-issue and decompose-epic procedures, a preamble reference, and a cross-reference entry. Matches the three-layer integration pattern used by plan, begin, and survey. https://claude.ai/code/session_01SXNcH3btveaAnHH76zdZhh
![chatgpt-codex-connector[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/1144995?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: c082d3f086
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
- Open a pull request for review
- Mark a draft as ready
- Comment "@codex review".
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.
Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".
| 1. Reckon the epic's constraints. Verify what the epic must deliver | ||
| against actual need — not against the requirements document's | ||
| framing or the existing system's structure. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
decompose is defined to consume a requirements artifact (docs/architecture/connecting-structure.md:558-563), and survey already uses reckon before writing that artifact (protocols/survey/PROTOCOL.md:160-204). This new step tells the decomposer to re-evaluate the epic against “actual need” instead of the requirements framing, so a later agent can legitimately produce issues that diverge from the approved requirements without ever regenerating them. In a multi-agent handoff, that breaks the artifact contract and makes downstream execution follow a different scope than the one selected in survey.
Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.
Address review feedback: - refine-issue now reckon-checks the issue's framing before diagnosing weaknesses, closing the gap where inherited problem statements survive refinement unchallenged - Cross-references reordered by flow position: reckon first (fires earliest), then begin, specify, plan, land, document https://claude.ai/code/session_01SXNcH3btveaAnHH76zdZhh
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: 1a555e645e
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
- Open a pull request for review
- Mark a draft as ready
- Comment "@codex review".
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.
Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".
| 1. Reckon the issue's framing. Before editing, verify that the problem | ||
| statement reflects actual need — not an inherited solution dressed as | ||
| a requirement. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
refine-issue is currently a structural cleanup pass on an existing issue, but decompose is also the bridge from requirements into the execution chain (docs/architecture/connecting-structure.md:533-545), and downstream artifacts trace directly from that issue’s acceptance criteria (docs/architecture/connecting-structure.md:721-739). In the common case where triage/refinement is being applied to an already-approved task or epic child, telling the editor to re-verify the problem statement against “actual need” lets them silently change scope or criteria without regenerating the parent issue/requirements, so begin and specify can execute a different unit of work than the one survey/decompose selected.
Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.
Cross-reference description now accurately reflects all three procedures where reckon fires: issue framing, refinement, and epic decomposition. https://claude.ai/code/session_01SXNcH3btveaAnHH76zdZhh
2 participants
Summary
Changes
Three-layer reckon integration matching the pattern used by plan, begin, and survey:
reckonlisted alongside templates and issue-model referencescreate-issuestep 1 — "Reckon constraints" before classification, because even the issue type can be an inherited assumptiondecompose-epicstep 1 — "Reckon the epic's constraints" before extracting deliverables, preventing requirements-document framing from leaking prescription into decompositionreckonadded to the cross-references section, which previously listed every connected skill except the one that prevents decompose's primary corruption mode (implicit-how)No frontmatter change: reckon is a procedural invocation, not an artifact dependency. Consistent with how every other protocol references reckon.
Test plan
https://claude.ai/code/session_01SXNcH3btveaAnHH76zdZhh