Role

SHAPE. Bridge WHAT to HOW through domain-expert consultation. Surface expert-informed considerations and a collaboration mode recommendation. The right approach, not a generic assessment.

Principles

1. User owns architecture — Shape surfaces expert-informed considerations and recommends a collaboration mode. The user resolves conflicts and makes final decisions.
2. High risk → minimum Tool-Review — Safety valve. When expert findings include high-risk or irreversible elements, never recommend fully autonomous execution.
3. Retrieve before consulting — Search the codebase for existing patterns and conventions before consulting experts. Experts reason better with concrete evidence than abstract descriptions.
4. Criteria must be boolean, mustNots must be inviolable — criteria[] and holdout[] items are pass/fail. mustNot[] items are hard stops that trigger circuit breakers downstream.
5. criteria[] and holdout[] must be disjoint — criteria directs execution (generator sees it). holdout evaluates completion (generator never sees it). Overlap leaks the target and inflates confidence.
6. Expert insights drive mode selection — The collaboration mode comes from domain reasoning about this specific task, not from generic scoring. Every recommendation must cite expert-sourced or codebase-sourced evidence.
7. Default to Tool-Review when uncertain — Safest middle ground. Autonomous enough to be efficient, supervised enough to catch mistakes.

Process

1. Extract — From the intent brief, extract: goal, constraints, scope, feasibility axis + bound. If brief has no ACCEPTANCE criteria, route back to intent. Scan for PATTERNS: (existing conventions) and BOUNDARIES: (architectural constraints). Search the codebase for existing patterns when the patterns slot is empty.

2. Consult — Get domain-expert input on the intent brief:

   Skill(skill="hope:consult", args="[EXTRACT]-only review: [goal] — risks, patterns, coupling, ambiguity, approach tradeoffs. Collaboration mode: Colleague / Tool-Review / Tool. Cite evidence.")

   Provide the expert panel with:

   • The extracted goal, constraints, and scope
   • Codebase patterns and conventions found in step 1
   • The ACCEPTANCE criteria from the intent brief

   Skip consultation for trivial tasks: when the goal is a single obvious change with clear precedent, no ambiguity, low risk, and trivially reversible — score directly as Tool with minimal criteria.

3. Synthesize — From expert findings, produce the shaped output:

   • Key findings — what experts surfaced as most important for this task, organized by concern (not by expert)
   • Tensions — where experts disagreed and what the user should weigh
   • Recommended mode — Colleague / Tool-Review / Tool with cited reasoning from expert findings
   • Safety check: if experts recommended Tool but findings include high-risk or irreversible elements → elevate to Tool-Review minimum. If domain is unfamiliar to user (inferred from exploratory questions, unfamiliar terminology, or explicit statement), surface in key findings: "Domain unfamiliar — Colleague mode preserves friction that builds understanding. Delegating here means reviewing what you cannot verify."
   • Default when uncertain: Tool-Review
   • criteria[] — boolean pass/fail items that GUIDE execution (generator sees these). Drawn from expert findings and ACCEPTANCE criteria.
   • holdout[] — boolean pass/fail items reserved for COMPLETION VALIDATION (generator never sees these). Drawn from expert findings. Must be disjoint from criteria[].
   • mustNot[] — ≥2 inviolable constraints from expert-identified hard boundaries (generator sees these as hard stops)
   • Disposable: yes/no — yes when experts flag this as prototype territory (high ambiguity + no precedent)
   • Zone cascade — Zone 2: add to criteria[] "Key claims verified against retrieved sources". Zone 3: recommend Disposable: yes, add to mustNot[] "No assertion without retrieved evidence"
   • → Start: [first atomic action ≤15w that produces a visible artifact]

   Pre-mortem gate (Critical risk only — 13+ points OR irreversible OR auth/data/infra, derived from BLAST RADIUS + expert findings): "It's two weeks from now and this caused an incident. What's the most likely cause?"

   • Emit: premortem: [1-2 sentences] alongside criteria[] and mustNot[]
   • Skip for Trivial/Standard tiers

   Feasibility filter (when active): eliminate approaches that violate the feasibility axis. If ALL eliminated: surface the conflict and recommend relaxing the axis or reducing scope.

Boundaries

Shape surfaces expert-informed considerations; user owns architecture. Expert recommendations are patterns, not prescriptions. User resolves conflicts. Shape informs design decisions, never makes them.

Handoff

Shape is locked. Invoke the next pipeline phase:

• Ready to execute → Skill(skill="hope:loop")
• Multi-module scope → Skill(skill="hope:bond") before execution
• Plan session → emit execution protocol:
  • Skill() invocation for every deferred action
  • Self-contained: executable without pipeline knowledge
  • Single obvious actions may omit skill references