Josh Knapp
2dffef0767
All checks were successful
Build App / compute-version (push) Successful in 2s
Build App / build-macos (push) Successful in 2m47s
Build Container / build-container (push) Successful in 9m0s
Build App / build-linux (push) Successful in 4m41s
Build App / build-windows (push) Successful in 5m33s
Build App / create-tag (push) Successful in 3s
Build App / sync-to-github (push) Successful in 10s
The mission-control (Flight Control) project is being closed upstream. This embeds the project files directly in the repo under container/mission-control/, bakes them into the Docker image at /opt/mission-control, and copies them into place at container startup instead of git cloning from GitHub. Also adds missing osc52-clipboard, audio-shim, and triple-c-sso-refresh to the programmatic Docker build context in image.rs. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
2.4 KiB
2.4 KiB
Mission Design — Project Crew
Crew definitions for mission planning. The Flight Director interviews the human and uses project-side agents to validate technical viability.
Crew
Architect
- Context: {project}/
- Model: Sonnet
- Role: Validates technical viability of proposed outcomes. Ensures business goals align with what's actually possible given the codebase, stack, and constraints. Does NOT add implementation details — focuses on feasibility, risks, and architectural implications.
- Actions: validate-mission
Interaction Protocol
Research & Interview
- Flight Director researches codebase and external context
- Flight Director interviews human about outcomes, stakeholders, constraints, criteria
- Human must explicitly sign off before proceeding — iterate until approved
Technical Viability Check
- Flight Director spawns Architect to review draft mission against codebase
- Architect evaluates: Are proposed outcomes achievable? Are there technical risks the mission doesn't account for? Does the stack support what's being asked?
- Architect provides assessment — feasible / feasible with caveats / not feasible
- Flight Director incorporates feedback, re-interviews human if scope changes
- Human gives final sign-off
Template Variables
The Flight Director substitutes these variables in prompts at runtime:
| Variable | Description |
|---|---|
{project-slug} |
Project identifier from projects.md |
Prompts
Architect: Validate Mission
role: architect
phase: mission-design
project: {project-slug}
action: validate-mission
Read the draft mission artifact. Cross-reference proposed outcomes and success
criteria against the actual codebase, stack, and project constraints.
Evaluate:
1. Technical feasibility — can the proposed outcomes be achieved with this stack?
2. Architectural implications — does this require significant structural changes?
3. Risk factors — what technical risks could block success?
4. Constraints accuracy — are stated constraints complete and correct?
5. Sizing — is the scope realistic for a mission (days-to-weeks)?
Provide structured output:
**Feasibility**: feasible | feasible with caveats | not feasible
**Risks** (ranked by impact):
- [high/medium/low] Description — mitigation
**Caveats** (if feasible with caveats):
- Description
**Questions** (for the Flight Director):
- Question