Merge 4fd8b9018f into 23f650ff4d
This commit is contained in:
Mario Semper
GitHub
commit
367937769d
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,383 @@
|
|||
# BMad Method PR #2: Agent Task Pre-Flight Protocol
|
||||
|
||||
**Feature Type**: Safety & quality framework
|
||||
**Status**: Draft for community review
|
||||
**Origin**: tellingCube project learnings (masemIT e.U.)
|
||||
**Author**: Mario Semper (@sempre)
|
||||
**Date**: 2025-11-23
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Summary
|
||||
|
||||
**Agent Task Pre-Flight Protocol** establishes mandatory safety checks for high-risk agent tasks (marketing, legal, deployment) to prevent factual errors, trademark violations, privacy breaches, and assumption-based mistakes.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Problem Statement
|
||||
|
||||
### Real-World Failure Case
|
||||
|
||||
**Scenario**: Marketing agent (Sophie) created LinkedIn launch posts for tellingCube without:
|
||||
- Reading existing project documentation
|
||||
- Verifying pricing against actual implementation
|
||||
- Checking trademark compliance rules
|
||||
- Reviewing privacy guidelines
|
||||
|
||||
**Result**: Multiple critical errors:
|
||||
- ❌ Mentioned user's day job title (privacy/legal risk)
|
||||
- ❌ Used family member's name (privacy violation)
|
||||
- ❌ Claimed "60 seconds" generation time (factually wrong)
|
||||
- ❌ Advertised "€9/month" pricing (doesn't exist - actual: €29-€999 ONE-TIME)
|
||||
- ❌ Used "IBCS-compliant" (trademark violation - should be "inspired by IBCS©")
|
||||
|
||||
**Root Cause**: Agent operated independently without pre-task verification protocol.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Current BMad Behavior (Risky)
|
||||
|
||||
```yaml
|
||||
User: "Sophie, create LinkedIn launch posts"
|
||||
|
||||
Sophie:
|
||||
1. Generates content based on general knowledge
|
||||
2. Makes assumptions about features/pricing
|
||||
3. Uses marketing best practices
|
||||
4. Presents to user
|
||||
|
||||
❌ Problem: No verification step before creation
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Proposed Solution: Pre-Flight Protocol
|
||||
|
||||
### Mandatory Checks Before High-Risk Tasks
|
||||
|
||||
```yaml
|
||||
Agent Task Pre-Flight Protocol:
|
||||
|
||||
BEFORE executing tasks with external impact:
|
||||
1. Discover Critical Context
|
||||
- Search for CRITICAL-GUIDELINES.md or similar
|
||||
- Read recent related work in project
|
||||
- Check actual implementation (code, configs, not assumptions)
|
||||
|
||||
2. Verify Assumptions
|
||||
- Pricing: Read Stripe config / pricing components
|
||||
- Features: Grep codebase for actual capabilities
|
||||
- Legal/Trademark: Check documented compliance rules
|
||||
- Privacy: Verify no personal info in public content
|
||||
|
||||
3. Cross-Agent Review (for high-risk outputs)
|
||||
- Orchestrator reviews before user sees
|
||||
- Fact-checker agent validates claims
|
||||
- Minimum 2 agents verify before publishing
|
||||
|
||||
4. User Approval Gate
|
||||
- Present content as DRAFT
|
||||
- Highlight assumptions made
|
||||
- Get explicit approval before finalizing
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## High-Risk Task Categories
|
||||
|
||||
### 1. Marketing & Public Content
|
||||
**Examples**: LinkedIn posts, press releases, demo videos, website copy
|
||||
|
||||
**Pre-Flight Required**:
|
||||
- [ ] Read `CRITICAL-GUIDELINES.md` (legal, trademark, privacy rules)
|
||||
- [ ] Verify pricing from actual Stripe/payment config
|
||||
- [ ] Verify features from actual codebase (not roadmap ideas)
|
||||
- [ ] Check trademark compliance (e.g., "IBCS©" usage rules)
|
||||
- [ ] Privacy review (no personal identifiers without consent)
|
||||
- [ ] Cross-agent fact-check before presenting to user
|
||||
|
||||
### 2. Legal & Compliance
|
||||
**Examples**: Terms of service, privacy policy, license agreements
|
||||
|
||||
**Pre-Flight Required**:
|
||||
- [ ] Read existing legal docs (don't start from scratch)
|
||||
- [ ] Check jurisdiction-specific requirements
|
||||
- [ ] Verify against actual product behavior (data handling, cookies, etc.)
|
||||
- [ ] Legal expert review (human or specialized agent)
|
||||
- [ ] User final approval required
|
||||
|
||||
### 3. Deployment & Infrastructure
|
||||
**Examples**: Database migrations, production deployments, DNS changes
|
||||
|
||||
**Pre-Flight Required**:
|
||||
- [ ] Read deployment runbooks/checklists
|
||||
- [ ] Verify current production state
|
||||
- [ ] Check for breaking changes
|
||||
- [ ] Backup strategy confirmed
|
||||
- [ ] Rollback plan documented
|
||||
- [ ] User explicit approval with understanding of risks
|
||||
|
||||
### 4. Financial & Billing
|
||||
**Examples**: Stripe configuration, pricing changes, refund policies
|
||||
|
||||
**Pre-Flight Required**:
|
||||
- [ ] Read current Stripe dashboard state
|
||||
- [ ] Verify tax/legal implications
|
||||
- [ ] Check grandfather clause impacts
|
||||
- [ ] Financial impact assessment
|
||||
- [ ] User approval with revenue projections
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Implementation Guidelines
|
||||
|
||||
### For Agent Developers
|
||||
|
||||
**In agent YAML definition**:
|
||||
|
||||
```yaml
|
||||
agent:
|
||||
name: Sophie
|
||||
id: marketing
|
||||
high_risk_tasks: true # Triggers pre-flight protocol
|
||||
|
||||
pre_flight:
|
||||
required_reads:
|
||||
- docs/marketing/CRITICAL-GUIDELINES.md
|
||||
- components/landing/PricingSection.tsx
|
||||
- docs/_masemIT/readme.md
|
||||
|
||||
verification_steps:
|
||||
- Grep for actual pricing tiers in codebase
|
||||
- Check trademark compliance rules
|
||||
- Privacy scan (no personal names/details)
|
||||
|
||||
cross_check:
|
||||
agents: [river, mary]
|
||||
approval_required: true
|
||||
|
||||
tasks:
|
||||
create-linkedin-post:
|
||||
pre_flight_mandatory: true
|
||||
approval_gate: user
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
### For Orchestrators (River-like agents)
|
||||
|
||||
**Orchestrator responsibilities**:
|
||||
|
||||
```python
|
||||
def execute_high_risk_task(agent, task, user_request):
|
||||
# Step 1: Pre-flight checks
|
||||
critical_docs = discover_critical_guidelines()
|
||||
agent.read(critical_docs)
|
||||
|
||||
# Step 2: Agent executes with verification
|
||||
draft_output = agent.execute_task(task)
|
||||
|
||||
# Step 3: Cross-agent review
|
||||
fact_check_agent = get_agent("mary")
|
||||
verification = fact_check_agent.verify(draft_output, codebase)
|
||||
|
||||
# Step 4: Present as DRAFT to user
|
||||
if verification.has_issues:
|
||||
present_issues_to_user(verification.issues)
|
||||
|
||||
present_as_draft(draft_output)
|
||||
|
||||
# Step 5: User approval gate
|
||||
approval = get_user_approval()
|
||||
|
||||
if approval:
|
||||
finalize(draft_output)
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Example: Correct Marketing Flow
|
||||
|
||||
### Before (Risky)
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
User: "Create LinkedIn launch posts"
|
||||
Sophie: [Generates 3 posts with assumptions]
|
||||
Sophie: "Here are your posts!"
|
||||
|
||||
❌ Contains errors user must catch
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
### After (Safe)
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
User: "Create LinkedIn launch posts"
|
||||
|
||||
River: "Sophie, this is a high-risk task. Running pre-flight..."
|
||||
|
||||
Sophie:
|
||||
✅ Read CRITICAL-GUIDELINES.md
|
||||
✅ Read PricingSection.tsx (actual pricing: €29-€999)
|
||||
✅ Checked IBCS© compliance rules (must say "inspired by")
|
||||
✅ Privacy check (no "Product Owner", no "brother")
|
||||
|
||||
Sophie: [Generates 3 posts with verified facts]
|
||||
|
||||
River: "Mary, fact-check Sophie's output..."
|
||||
|
||||
Mary:
|
||||
✅ Pricing correct (€29-€999 lifetime)
|
||||
✅ No trademark violations ("inspired by IBCS©")
|
||||
✅ No privacy issues
|
||||
✅ Generation time accurate ("minutes")
|
||||
|
||||
River: "Sempre, here's the DRAFT (pre-flight verified). Approve?"
|
||||
|
||||
User: [Reviews, approves]
|
||||
|
||||
✅ No errors, factually accurate
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Critical Guidelines Template
|
||||
|
||||
**Every project should have**: `docs/PROJECT-NAME/CRITICAL-GUIDELINES.md`
|
||||
|
||||
```markdown
|
||||
# CRITICAL Guidelines for [Project Name]
|
||||
|
||||
## ❌ NEVER MENTION
|
||||
- Confidential info (list specific items)
|
||||
- Personal details (family, private life)
|
||||
- Competitor names (if under NDA)
|
||||
|
||||
## ✅ ALWAYS VERIFY
|
||||
- Pricing: Check [file path]
|
||||
- Features: Grep [codebase location]
|
||||
- Legal: Comply with [trademark/license rules]
|
||||
|
||||
## Trademark Compliance
|
||||
- "IBCS©" → Always say "inspired by IBCS©" (not "compliant")
|
||||
- [Other trademarks...]
|
||||
|
||||
## Privacy Rules
|
||||
- No personal job titles in public content
|
||||
- No family member names
|
||||
- [Other privacy rules...]
|
||||
|
||||
## Approval Requirements
|
||||
- Marketing content: River + Mary review
|
||||
- Legal docs: Legal expert review
|
||||
- Deployment: User explicit approval
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Benefits
|
||||
|
||||
✅ **Prevents costly mistakes** - Catches errors before they're public
|
||||
✅ **Protects legal compliance** - Trademark, privacy, licensing
|
||||
✅ **Ensures factual accuracy** - Features/pricing match reality
|
||||
✅ **Builds user trust** - Agents don't hallucinate facts
|
||||
✅ **Scalable safety** - Works across all BMad projects
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Tradeoffs & Considerations
|
||||
|
||||
### Slower Task Execution
|
||||
- **Before**: Agent outputs in 30 seconds
|
||||
- **After**: Pre-flight adds 1-2 minutes
|
||||
- **Worth it?**: YES for high-risk tasks (marketing, legal, deployment)
|
||||
|
||||
### More Agent Coordination
|
||||
- Requires orchestrator (River) to manage pre-flight
|
||||
- Cross-agent reviews add complexity
|
||||
- **Mitigation**: Only for high-risk tasks, not every task
|
||||
|
||||
### User Approval Friction
|
||||
- Adds approval gate before finalization
|
||||
- **Mitigation**: Present as DRAFT with verification status
|
||||
- User can fast-track if comfortable
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Rollout Strategy
|
||||
|
||||
### Phase 1: Opt-In (Recommended)
|
||||
- Projects mark agents as `high_risk_tasks: true`
|
||||
- Orchestrators enforce pre-flight for marked agents
|
||||
- Community feedback on friction/benefits
|
||||
|
||||
### Phase 2: Default for Risky Categories
|
||||
- Marketing, legal, deployment agents default to pre-flight
|
||||
- Other agents opt-in if needed
|
||||
|
||||
### Phase 3: Configurable Per-Task
|
||||
- Users set risk level per task
|
||||
- `*create-post --risk high` triggers pre-flight
|
||||
- `*create-post --risk low` skips for drafts
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Real-World Validation
|
||||
|
||||
**Origin Project**: tellingCube (masemIT e.U.)
|
||||
|
||||
**Failure Scenario**:
|
||||
- Marketing agent created launch posts without verification
|
||||
- 5 critical errors caught by user (should have been caught earlier)
|
||||
- 30 minutes of rework to fix
|
||||
|
||||
**After Implementing Protocol**:
|
||||
- CRITICAL-GUIDELINES.md created
|
||||
- Pre-flight checklist enforced
|
||||
- Cross-agent review (River → Sophie → Mary → User)
|
||||
- **Result**: Zero errors in final content
|
||||
|
||||
**User Feedback (Mario Semper)**:
|
||||
> "I love BMad, but I don't want to repeat the ChatGPT hallucination nightmare. This protocol gives me confidence that agents verify facts before presenting them."
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Open Questions for Community
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Scope**: Which task types should default to pre-flight?
|
||||
2. **Performance**: Is 1-2 minute overhead acceptable for high-risk tasks?
|
||||
3. **Configurability**: Per-project, per-agent, or per-task risk settings?
|
||||
4. **Tooling**: Should pre-flight be a separate tool or built into agent execution?
|
||||
5. **Enforcement**: Optional best practice or mandatory for certain agents?
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Next Steps
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Community feedback** on protocol design
|
||||
2. **Reference implementation** in BMad core
|
||||
3. **Agent template updates** to include pre-flight hooks
|
||||
4. **Documentation** with examples for common scenarios
|
||||
5. **Testing** across different project types
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Comparison to Similar Patterns
|
||||
|
||||
| Pattern | Focus | When to Use |
|
||||
|---------|-------|-------------|
|
||||
| **Pre-Flight Protocol** | Safety & accuracy | High-risk external outputs |
|
||||
| **Code Review** | Code quality | Before merging code |
|
||||
| **QA Gates** | Testing | Before production deployment |
|
||||
| **Approval Workflows** | Governance | Multi-stakeholder decisions |
|
||||
|
||||
**Pre-Flight Protocol** = "Code review + QA gate" for **agent outputs**.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## References
|
||||
|
||||
- **Source Project**: tellingCube (https://github.com/masemIT/telling-cube) [if public]
|
||||
- **Failure Case**: `docs/bmad-contributions/` (this document)
|
||||
- **Implementation**: `docs/marketing/CRITICAL-GUIDELINES.md` (tellingCube)
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
**Contribution ready for review.** This came from painful real-world experience - let's make BMad safer for everyone! 🛡️
|
||||
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,256 @@
|
|||
# BMad Method PR #1: Ring of Fire (ROF) Sessions
|
||||
|
||||
**Feature Type**: Core workflow enhancement
|
||||
**Status**: Draft for community review
|
||||
**Origin**: tellingCube project (masemIT e.U.)
|
||||
**Author**: Mario Semper (@sempre)
|
||||
**Date**: 2025-11-23
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Summary
|
||||
|
||||
**Ring of Fire (ROF) Sessions** enable multi-agent collaborative sessions that run in parallel to the user's main workflow, allowing users to delegate complex multi-perspective analysis while continuing other work.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Problem Statement
|
||||
|
||||
Current BMad Method requires **sequential agent interaction**. When users need multiple agents to collaborate on a complex topic, they must:
|
||||
- Manually orchestrate each agent conversation
|
||||
- Stay in the loop for every exchange
|
||||
- Wait for sequential responses before proceeding
|
||||
- Context-switch constantly between tasks
|
||||
|
||||
This creates **bottlenecks** and prevents **parallel work streams**.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Proposed Solution: Ring of Fire Sessions
|
||||
|
||||
A new command pattern that enables **scoped multi-agent collaboration sessions** that run while the user continues other work.
|
||||
|
||||
### Command Syntax
|
||||
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
*rof "<topic>" --agents <agent-list> [--report brief|detailed|live]
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
### Example Usage
|
||||
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
*rof "API Refactoring Strategy" --agents dev,architect,qa --report brief
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
**What happens**:
|
||||
1. Dev, Architect, and QA agents enter a collaborative session
|
||||
2. They analyze the topic together (code review, design discussion, testing concerns)
|
||||
3. When agents need tool access (read files, run commands), they request user approval
|
||||
4. User continues working on other tasks in parallel
|
||||
5. Session ends with consolidated report (brief: just recommendations, detailed: full transcript)
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Key Features
|
||||
|
||||
### 1. User-Controlled Scope
|
||||
- **Small**: 2 agents, 5-minute quick discussion
|
||||
- **Large**: 10 agents, 2-hour deep analysis
|
||||
- User decides granularity based on complexity
|
||||
|
||||
### 2. Approval-Gated Tool Access
|
||||
- Agents can **discuss** freely within the session
|
||||
- When agents need **tools** (read files, execute commands, make changes), they:
|
||||
- Pause the session
|
||||
- Request user approval
|
||||
- Resume after user decision
|
||||
|
||||
**Why**: Maintains user control, prevents runaway agent actions
|
||||
|
||||
### 3. Flexible Reporting
|
||||
|
||||
| Mode | Description | Use Case |
|
||||
|------|-------------|----------|
|
||||
| `brief` | Final recommendations only | "Just tell me what to do" |
|
||||
| `detailed` | Full transcript + recommendations | "Show me the reasoning" |
|
||||
| `live` | Real-time updates as agents discuss | "I want to observe" |
|
||||
|
||||
**Default**: `brief` with Q&A available
|
||||
|
||||
### 4. Parallel Workflows
|
||||
- User works on **Task A** while ROF session tackles **Task B**
|
||||
- No context-switching overhead
|
||||
- Efficient use of time
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Use Cases
|
||||
|
||||
### 1. Architecture Reviews
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
*rof "Evaluate microservices vs monolith for new feature" --agents architect,dev,qa
|
||||
```
|
||||
**Agents collaborate on**: Design trade-offs, implementation complexity, testing implications
|
||||
|
||||
### 2. Code Refactoring
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
*rof "Refactor authentication module" --agents dev,architect --report detailed
|
||||
```
|
||||
**Agents collaborate on**: Current code analysis, refactoring approach, migration strategy
|
||||
|
||||
### 3. Feature Planning
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
*rof "Plan user notifications feature" --agents pm,ux,dev --report brief
|
||||
```
|
||||
**Agents collaborate on**: Requirements, UX flow, technical feasibility, timeline
|
||||
|
||||
### 4. Quality Gates
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
*rof "Investigate test failures in CI/CD" --agents qa,dev --report live
|
||||
```
|
||||
**Agents collaborate on**: Root cause analysis, fix recommendations, regression prevention
|
||||
|
||||
### 5. Documentation Sprints
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
*rof "Document API endpoints" --agents dev,pm,ux
|
||||
```
|
||||
**Agents collaborate on**: Technical accuracy, user-friendly examples, completeness
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## User Experience Flow
|
||||
|
||||
```mermaid
|
||||
sequenceDiagram
|
||||
User->>River: *rof "Topic" --agents dev,architect
|
||||
River->>Dev: Join ROF session
|
||||
River->>Architect: Join ROF session
|
||||
River->>User: Session started, continue your work
|
||||
|
||||
Dev->>Architect: Discuss approach
|
||||
Architect->>Dev: Suggest alternatives
|
||||
|
||||
Dev->>User: Need to read auth.ts - approve?
|
||||
User->>Dev: Approved
|
||||
Dev->>Architect: After reading file...
|
||||
|
||||
Architect->>Dev: Recommendation
|
||||
Dev->>River: Session complete
|
||||
River->>User: Brief report: [Recommendations]
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Implementation Considerations
|
||||
|
||||
### Technical Requirements
|
||||
- **Session state management**: Track active ROF sessions, participating agents
|
||||
- **Agent context sharing**: Agents share knowledge within session scope
|
||||
- **User approval workflow**: Clear prompt for tool requests
|
||||
- **Report generation**: Brief/detailed/live output formatting
|
||||
- **Workflow integration**: Link ROF findings to existing workflow plans/todos
|
||||
|
||||
### Open Questions for Community
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Integration**: Core BMad feature or plugin/extension?
|
||||
2. **Concurrency**: How to handle file conflicts if multiple agents want to edit?
|
||||
3. **Cost Model**: Guidance for LLM call budgeting with multiple agents?
|
||||
4. **Session Limits**: Recommended max agents/duration?
|
||||
5. **Agent Communication**: Free-form discussion or structured turn-taking?
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Real-World Validation
|
||||
|
||||
**Origin Project**: tellingCube (BI dashboard, masemIT e.U.)
|
||||
|
||||
**Validation Scenario**:
|
||||
- **Topic**: "Next steps for tellingCube after validation test"
|
||||
- **Agents**: River (orchestrator), Mary (analyst), Winston (architect)
|
||||
- **Report Mode**: Brief
|
||||
- **Outcome**: Successfully analyzed post-validation roadmap with 3 scenarios (GO/CHANGE/NO-GO), delivered consolidated recommendations in 5 minutes
|
||||
|
||||
**User Feedback (Mario Semper)**:
|
||||
> "This is exactly what I needed - I wanted multiple perspectives without having to orchestrate every conversation. The brief report gave me actionable next steps immediately."
|
||||
|
||||
**Documentation**: `docs/_masemIT/readme.md` in tellingCube repository
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Proposed Documentation Structure
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
.bmad-core/
|
||||
features/
|
||||
ring-of-fire.md # Feature specification
|
||||
|
||||
docs/
|
||||
guides/
|
||||
using-rof-sessions.md # User guide with examples
|
||||
|
||||
architecture/
|
||||
agent-collaboration.md # Technical design
|
||||
rof-session-management.md # State handling approach
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Benefits
|
||||
|
||||
✅ **Unlocks parallel workflows** - User productivity gains
|
||||
✅ **Reduces context-switching** - Cognitive load reduction
|
||||
✅ **Enables complex analysis** - Multi-perspective insights
|
||||
✅ **Maintains user control** - Approval gates for tools
|
||||
✅ **Scales flexibly** - From quick checks to deep dives
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Comparison to Existing Patterns
|
||||
|
||||
| Feature | Standard Agent Use | ROF Session |
|
||||
|---------|-------------------|-------------|
|
||||
| Agent collaboration | Sequential (one at a time) | Parallel (multiple simultaneously) |
|
||||
| User involvement | Required for every exchange | Only for approvals |
|
||||
| Parallel work | No (user waits) | Yes (user continues tasks) |
|
||||
| Output | Chat transcript | Consolidated report |
|
||||
| Use case | Single-perspective tasks | Multi-perspective analysis |
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Next Steps
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Community feedback** on approach and open questions
|
||||
2. **Technical design** refinement (state management, agent communication)
|
||||
3. **Prototype implementation** in BMad core or as extension
|
||||
4. **Beta testing** with real projects (beyond tellingCube)
|
||||
5. **Documentation** completion with examples
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Alternatives Considered
|
||||
|
||||
### Alt 1: "Breakout Session"
|
||||
- **Pros**: Clear meeting metaphor
|
||||
- **Cons**: Less evocative, doesn't convey "continuous collaborative space"
|
||||
|
||||
### Alt 2: "Agent Huddle"
|
||||
- **Pros**: Short, casual
|
||||
- **Cons**: Implies quick/informal only
|
||||
|
||||
### Alt 3: "Lagerfeuer" (original German name)
|
||||
- **Pros**: Warm, campfire metaphor
|
||||
- **Cons**: Poor i18n, hard to pronounce/remember for non-German speakers
|
||||
|
||||
**Chosen**: **Ring of Fire** - evokes continuous collaboration circle, internationally understood, memorable, shortcut "ROF" works well
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## References
|
||||
|
||||
- **Source Project**: tellingCube (https://github.com/masemIT/telling-cube) [if public]
|
||||
- **Documentation**: `docs/_masemIT/readme.md`
|
||||
- **Discussion**: [Link to BMad community discussion if applicable]
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
**Contribution ready for review.** Feedback welcome! 🔥
|
||||
Loading…
Reference in New Issue