1200 lines
28 KiB
Markdown
1200 lines
28 KiB
Markdown
|
|
# CCPE Migration Policy
|
|
|
|
## 1. Purpose
|
|
|
|
This document defines how to migrate older CCPE 2.0 artifacts into the new CCPE System.
|
|
|
|
The migration policy applies to:
|
|
|
|
```text id="tkiqa5"
|
|
Old CCPE 2.0 prompts
|
|
Custom GPT / Gem instructions
|
|
Single-agent expert prompts
|
|
Self-contained model-backed agents
|
|
Multi-agent committees
|
|
Old Skill-like procedures
|
|
Workflow descriptions
|
|
Prompt templates
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
The goal is not to rewrite everything into a heavier format.
|
|
|
|
The goal is to identify what each artifact really contains and move each component into its most useful form.
|
|
|
|
Migration must begin with scenario probing. The same source artifact may become only a Lite prompt, or may become Lite + Model Card + Skill + Agent + Runtime, depending on how the user actually uses it.
|
|
|
|
## 2. Migration Principle
|
|
|
|
The central migration principle is:
|
|
|
|
> Preserve cognitive power while improving structure.
|
|
|
|
For mature single-agent expert prompts, preserve the working prompt kernel before extracting components.
|
|
|
|
Migration should improve:
|
|
|
|
```text id="hlv3nb"
|
|
Clarity
|
|
Reusability
|
|
Maintainability
|
|
Portability
|
|
Safety
|
|
Evaluation
|
|
Model fidelity
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
Migration should not destroy:
|
|
|
|
```text id="bf1z9d"
|
|
Original metaphor
|
|
Conceptual force
|
|
Distinctive terminology
|
|
User's intellectual intent
|
|
Useful personality
|
|
Domain-specific sharpness
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
Do not turn powerful cognitive tools into bland generic templates.
|
|
|
|
## 2.1 Scenario Probe
|
|
|
|
Before migrating an old CCPE 2.0 artifact, determine:
|
|
|
|
```text
|
|
current_usage:
|
|
- Web / GPT / Gemini / Claude single-agent prompt?
|
|
- Codex local workspace artifact?
|
|
- committee member manually invoked by the user?
|
|
- automated workflow node?
|
|
|
|
planned_usage:
|
|
- copy-paste prompt?
|
|
- Codex-callable Skill?
|
|
- durable Agent Spec?
|
|
- multi-agent Runtime?
|
|
|
|
orchestration:
|
|
- human manually passes context?
|
|
- a lead agent routes work?
|
|
- system automation routes and synthesizes outputs?
|
|
|
|
depth_orientation:
|
|
- deep expert thinking?
|
|
- workflow execution?
|
|
- hybrid?
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
If scenario information is unavailable, produce a scenario assumption and mark it as a migration risk.
|
|
|
|
## 2.2 Mature Agent Minimal Expansion Rule
|
|
|
|
For a proven old agent that is mainly used as a single expert in chat:
|
|
|
|
```text
|
|
default_migration: CCPE-Lite
|
|
recommended_addition: Model Card if the embedded model is stable and valuable
|
|
defer: Agent Spec, Skill, Runtime
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
Create additional layers only when the scenario requires them:
|
|
|
|
```text
|
|
Skill:
|
|
Needed when Codex should invoke the method automatically, or the method is reused across agents.
|
|
|
|
Agent Spec:
|
|
Needed when the role participates in a durable workflow or committee and needs handoff, authority, and evaluation rules.
|
|
|
|
Runtime:
|
|
Needed when multiple roles, stages, state, synthesis, archival, tools, or automation must be coordinated.
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
Do not treat four-layer expansion as a default migration outcome.
|
|
|
|
## 2.3 Minimal-Kernel First Rule
|
|
|
|
For mature CCPE 2.0 single-agent expert prompts, the default first migration should be:
|
|
|
|
```text
|
|
original-ccpe-2
|
|
→ original-kernel-minimal-lite
|
|
→ optional refined-lite A/B optimization
|
|
→ later-layer decision if needed
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
This rule exists because a full Lite rewrite can improve structure while losing the old prompt's working kernel.
|
|
|
|
`original-kernel-minimal-lite` is a simple wrapper around the chosen original source version. It is the highest-ROI migration baseline and a kernel-fidelity reference, not the same thing as a fully optimized refined Lite prompt.
|
|
|
|
`original-kernel-minimal-lite` should preserve:
|
|
|
|
```text
|
|
original objective
|
|
original method pressure
|
|
original report behavior
|
|
distinctive terminology
|
|
core metaphor when structurally meaningful
|
|
domain worldview
|
|
productive sharpness
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
### 2.3.1 Original Kernel Means Verbatim Kernel
|
|
|
|
In Fast Migration Lane, `Original Kernel` means the original CCPE 2.0 prompt kernel is preserved verbatim.
|
|
|
|
Allowed outside the `Original Kernel` block:
|
|
|
|
```text
|
|
front matter
|
|
classification note
|
|
minimal Lite wrapper
|
|
platform boundary
|
|
source / retrieval boundary
|
|
hidden chain-of-thought disclosure repair
|
|
output validation discipline
|
|
minimal conflict override notes
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
Forbidden inside the `Original Kernel` block:
|
|
|
|
```text
|
|
translation
|
|
paraphrase
|
|
deduplication
|
|
section reordering
|
|
terminology replacement
|
|
workflow rewrite
|
|
style smoothing
|
|
template normalization
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
If any forbidden operation is performed on the original prompt body, the artifact is no longer `original-kernel-minimal-lite`. It is a `refined-lite candidate` and must enter Refinement Lane before production promotion.
|
|
|
|
It should add only minimal migration repairs:
|
|
|
|
```text
|
|
platform boundary
|
|
hidden reasoning disclosure repair
|
|
source / retrieval boundary if needed
|
|
output validation discipline
|
|
version or status metadata
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
Do not use a full refined Lite rewrite as the default first move for every mature agent.
|
|
|
|
### 2.3.2 Pre-Migration Source Judgment Gate
|
|
|
|
Before generating or planning `original-kernel-minimal-lite` for any mature original CCPE 2.0 agent, run a source judgment pass for the original CCPE 2.0 prompt.
|
|
|
|
The purpose is to decide whether the current source version is good enough to preserve verbatim, or whether the source prompt itself should be repaired first.
|
|
|
|
This gate must always produce a distinct `Original Source Judgment Report` before migration.
|
|
|
|
Do not collapse the Original Source Judgment Report into a general audit summary.
|
|
|
|
Default report path:
|
|
|
|
```text
|
|
workbench/analysis/{artifact-slug}-original-source-judgment-report.md
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
If no visible source-level risks are found, the report must explicitly record:
|
|
|
|
```text
|
|
no blocking source-level risks found
|
|
source decision: use source as-is
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
If visible risks are found, the report must classify each finding and recommend a source decision before migration proceeds.
|
|
|
|
Judgment categories:
|
|
|
|
```text
|
|
Source defect:
|
|
A real flaw in the original prompt body that may degrade output quality.
|
|
|
|
Platform incompatibility:
|
|
A statement that is acceptable in the old prompt but unsafe or false in the current target platform.
|
|
|
|
Kernel feature:
|
|
A sharp, strange, severe, or distinctive behavior that looks risky but is part of the prompt's useful force.
|
|
|
|
Ambiguous finding:
|
|
A possible defect that requires review by the user or by the original CCPE agent.
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
Typical findings:
|
|
|
|
```text
|
|
omniscience or retrieval claims
|
|
hidden chain-of-thought disclosure risk
|
|
duplicated sections
|
|
contradictory authority rules
|
|
outdated tool claims
|
|
unsafe factual confidence
|
|
unclear output contract
|
|
valuable but severe critique style
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
The report must recommend one of these source decisions:
|
|
|
|
```text
|
|
Use source as-is:
|
|
Generate original-kernel-minimal-lite with the current source body verbatim.
|
|
|
|
Patch only in wrapper:
|
|
Keep source verbatim, and resolve platform or disclosure conflicts through the wrapper.
|
|
|
|
Repair source first:
|
|
Create a revised source version, such as v1.2, then use that chosen source version verbatim.
|
|
|
|
Enter Refinement Lane:
|
|
Do not claim original-kernel-minimal-lite; produce a refined-lite candidate instead.
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
Human decision gate:
|
|
|
|
```text
|
|
The user must choose the source decision before Fast Migration Lane generates the final minimal-kernel artifact.
|
|
The report may be sent to the original CCPE agent on its native platform, such as Gemini, for second judgment.
|
|
If the user provides Gemini's reply, a rejection, or a new source prompt version, Codex must align the judgment and migration plan before generating the minimal-kernel artifact.
|
|
Codex must not silently repair, translate, deduplicate, reorder, or smooth the original source body before this decision.
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
### 2.3.3 Fast Migration Lane
|
|
|
|
Use Fast Migration Lane when:
|
|
|
|
```text
|
|
the old agent already works
|
|
the target is short-term migration or batch upgrade
|
|
the user needs low evaluation burden
|
|
the artifact is mainly a portable single-agent expert prompt
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
Fast Migration Lane workflow:
|
|
|
|
```text
|
|
1. Receive the original prompt from the user.
|
|
2. Run Source Judgment Gate and produce a distinct Original Source Judgment Report.
|
|
3. Let the user choose the source decision, or send the report to the original CCPE agent for second judgment.
|
|
4. Align with Gemini / original-agent feedback, user rejection, or a new source prompt version.
|
|
5. Preserve the chosen CCPE 2.0 source version verbatim under `## Original Kernel`.
|
|
6. Generate `original-kernel-minimal-lite`; this step is mandatory in the original-agent upgrade flow.
|
|
7. Stop here by default when batch migration ROI matters.
|
|
8. Keep original and any full rewrite candidates as regression references.
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
If the minimal-kernel version performs acceptably, stop the migration for now.
|
|
|
|
### 2.3.4 Refined Lite Optimization Lane
|
|
|
|
Use this lane only after `original-kernel-minimal-lite` exists.
|
|
|
|
This is the formal Lite optimization stage. It is optional, expensive, and should not be treated as the default migration requirement.
|
|
|
|
Use this lane when:
|
|
|
|
```text
|
|
the agent is high-value or high-frequency
|
|
the minimal-kernel version has a concrete weakness
|
|
the current Lite must improve production stability or output usability
|
|
the user has time and budget for A/B testing
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
Refined Lite Optimization workflow:
|
|
|
|
```text
|
|
1. Start from original-kernel-minimal-lite, not from a fresh rewrite.
|
|
2. Identify a concrete improvement target.
|
|
3. Add targeted discipline rules or wrapper changes.
|
|
4. Run A/B comparisons against the original and kernel versions.
|
|
5. Compare Kernel Force and Production Stability.
|
|
6. Promote the refined Lite only if it improves production stability without losing kernel force.
|
|
7. If refined Lite loses kernel force, pause and keep original-kernel-minimal-lite.
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
Regression pattern proven in `workbench/analysis/review-agent-regression-2026-06-02`:
|
|
|
|
```text
|
|
One agent family:
|
|
3 prompt variants:
|
|
- original-ccpe-2
|
|
- ccpe-system-lite / refined-lite candidate
|
|
- original-kernel-minimal-lite
|
|
2 platforms:
|
|
- ChatGPT / Codex
|
|
- Gemini
|
|
4 article types:
|
|
- strong metaphor
|
|
- business analysis
|
|
- logical argument
|
|
- value philosophy
|
|
24 result files
|
|
1 agent-level regression report
|
|
|
|
Two agent families:
|
|
48 result files
|
|
2 agent-level reports
|
|
1 strategy summary report
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
Current known examples:
|
|
|
|
```text
|
|
Cognitive Imaging:
|
|
refined Lite success after multiple A/B rounds.
|
|
Current canonical Lite is beyond original-kernel-minimal-lite.
|
|
|
|
Giant Cognition:
|
|
intentionally stopped at original-kernel-minimal-lite because that had the best ROI and stronger kernel fidelity.
|
|
|
|
Zhang Liao:
|
|
intentionally stopped at original-kernel-minimal-lite after source judgment and source alignment.
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
### 2.3.5 Later-Layer Decision
|
|
|
|
Later-layer upgrades are not assumed. Model Card, Skill, Agent Spec, Runtime, and Model Index work should be decided only after:
|
|
|
|
```text
|
|
1. Original Source Judgment Report exists.
|
|
2. Source decision is aligned.
|
|
3. original-kernel-minimal-lite exists.
|
|
4. The user decides whether refined Lite optimization is worth the A/B cost.
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
### 2.3.6 Refinement Lane For Non-Lite Layers
|
|
|
|
Use this lane only when:
|
|
|
|
```text
|
|
the user explicitly wants deeper non-Lite expansion
|
|
the usage scenario requires Model Card, Skill, Agent Spec, Runtime, or Model Index work
|
|
the original-kernel-minimal-lite and any chosen refined Lite status are already clear
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
Non-Lite refinement workflow:
|
|
|
|
```text
|
|
1. Identify the target layer and reason for expansion.
|
|
2. Produce a layer-specific plan.
|
|
3. Extract only what improves reuse, clarity, maintainability, orchestration, or evaluation.
|
|
4. Keep the Lite / kernel artifact as the production or regression reference unless the user explicitly changes canonical status.
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
### 2.3.7 A/B Budget Rule
|
|
|
|
Do not spend multi-round A/B testing on every migrated agent.
|
|
|
|
Default test budget:
|
|
|
|
```text
|
|
Fast Migration Lane:
|
|
no A/B by default; optional small regression only when confidence is unclear
|
|
|
|
Refined Lite Optimization Lane:
|
|
multiple A/B rounds only for high-value or high-frequency agents
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
Manual result inspection is a real migration cost and should be reserved for artifacts where the improvement is worth it.
|
|
|
|
## 3. Old CCPE 2.0 Layer Mapping
|
|
|
|
Old CCPE 2.0 used four major layers:
|
|
|
|
```text id="rp6kkn"
|
|
Core Layer
|
|
Execution Layer
|
|
Constraint Layer
|
|
Operation Layer
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
The new CCPE System expands these into more precise structures.
|
|
|
|
For CCPE-Lite migration, these four layers remain the preferred prompt-construction kernel:
|
|
|
|
```text
|
|
Core Layer
|
|
Execution Layer
|
|
Constraint Layer
|
|
Operation Layer
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
Do not collapse a Web-style Lite prompt into an Agent Spec outline if the target use is direct single-agent deployment.
|
|
|
|
### 3.1 Core Layer Migration
|
|
|
|
Old:
|
|
|
|
```text id="n4jlin"
|
|
Core Layer
|
|
= identity, role, professional background, style, values, reasoning preference
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
New:
|
|
|
|
```text id="o2nyw1"
|
|
Objective Layer
|
|
Role Layer
|
|
Model Layer if cognitive model is embedded
|
|
Collaboration Layer if role participates in workflow
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
Migration action:
|
|
|
|
* Extract objective from role description.
|
|
* Preserve meaningful role identity.
|
|
* Move cognitive model content into Model Layer or Model Card.
|
|
* Move collaboration-related content into Collaboration Layer or Runtime.
|
|
|
|
### 3.2 Execution Layer Migration
|
|
|
|
Old:
|
|
|
|
```text id="iyw8qq"
|
|
Execution Layer
|
|
= functional range, skills, knowledge base, tools, decision authority
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
New:
|
|
|
|
```text id="o96kei"
|
|
Capability Layer
|
|
Context Layer
|
|
Tool Layer
|
|
Authority Layer
|
|
Skill references
|
|
Model references
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
Migration action:
|
|
|
|
* Separate capability from authority.
|
|
* Separate knowledge assumptions from source policy.
|
|
* Separate internal methods from reusable Skills.
|
|
* Separate tool abilities from general reasoning abilities.
|
|
* Replace omniscience with evidence and uncertainty rules.
|
|
|
|
### 3.3 Constraint Layer Migration
|
|
|
|
Old:
|
|
|
|
```text id="vtu6vs"
|
|
Constraint Layer
|
|
= hard constraints, soft constraints, safety boundaries, conflict resolution
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
New:
|
|
|
|
```text id="168nze"
|
|
Constraint Layer
|
|
Authority Layer
|
|
Safety Rules
|
|
Refusal Conditions
|
|
Conflict Resolution
|
|
Evaluation Layer
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
Migration action:
|
|
|
|
* Keep hard constraints.
|
|
* Mark soft constraints as preferences.
|
|
* Move permission-related rules to Authority Layer.
|
|
* Add testable refusal conditions.
|
|
* Add evaluation rules where constraints imply quality standards.
|
|
|
|
### 3.4 Operation Layer Migration
|
|
|
|
Old:
|
|
|
|
```text id="b7likk"
|
|
Operation Layer
|
|
= input processing, context, memory, workflow, output, validation, feedback, exceptions
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
New:
|
|
|
|
```text id="qw7p36"
|
|
Context Layer
|
|
Workflow Layer
|
|
State Layer
|
|
Output Layer
|
|
Evaluation Layer
|
|
Runtime Layer
|
|
Collaboration Layer if multi-agent
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
Migration action:
|
|
|
|
* Separate input handling from workflow.
|
|
* Separate state from memory.
|
|
* Replace chain-of-thought requirements with auditable reasoning summaries.
|
|
* Move output format to Output Layer.
|
|
* Move validation to Evaluation Layer.
|
|
* Move long-running process rules to Runtime Layer.
|
|
|
|
## 4. Migration Decision Tree
|
|
|
|
Before migrating, classify the artifact.
|
|
|
|
### 4.1 If it is a portable expert prompt
|
|
|
|
Target:
|
|
|
|
```text id="m2dk5a"
|
|
CCPE-Lite
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
Actions:
|
|
|
|
* Keep concise.
|
|
* Preserve persona.
|
|
* Preserve the four-layer CCPE 2.0 working kernel when the prompt is deep or expert-like.
|
|
* Keep necessary workflow, output, validation, and feedback rules.
|
|
* Add minimal objective, boundary, and evaluation rules without weakening the original effect.
|
|
* Do not extract components unless reuse, indexing, Codex invocation, or workflow participation is likely.
|
|
|
|
### 4.2 If it is a durable work role
|
|
|
|
Target:
|
|
|
|
```text id="degvph"
|
|
CCPE-Agent
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
Actions:
|
|
|
|
* Add input/output contract.
|
|
* Add authority rules.
|
|
* Add collaboration rules if applicable.
|
|
* Add evaluation criteria.
|
|
* Reference Skills and Models instead of embedding everything.
|
|
|
|
### 4.3 If it contains a reusable procedure
|
|
|
|
Target:
|
|
|
|
```text id="68z4dk"
|
|
CCPE-Skill
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
Actions:
|
|
|
|
* Extract trigger conditions.
|
|
* Define inputs and outputs.
|
|
* Define procedure.
|
|
* Add validation and failure handling.
|
|
* Reference the Skill from relevant Agents.
|
|
|
|
### 4.4 If it contains a cognitive model
|
|
|
|
Target:
|
|
|
|
```text id="ea70zl"
|
|
Model Card
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
Actions:
|
|
|
|
* Extract model name, scope, assumptions, mechanism, procedure, failure modes, and falsification boundary.
|
|
* Keep source trace.
|
|
* Add related agents and skills.
|
|
* Register in Model Index if accepted.
|
|
|
|
### 4.5 If it coordinates multiple roles or stages
|
|
|
|
Target:
|
|
|
|
```text id="ysdc8s"
|
|
CCPE-Runtime
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
Actions:
|
|
|
|
* Define stages.
|
|
* Define participants.
|
|
* Define handoff.
|
|
* Define state.
|
|
* Define human decision gates.
|
|
* Define automation boundaries.
|
|
* Define outputs and archival rules.
|
|
|
|
## 5. Self-Contained Model Agent Migration
|
|
|
|
Many old agents combine:
|
|
|
|
```text id="y6zibx"
|
|
Role
|
|
Model
|
|
Method
|
|
Workflow
|
|
Output format
|
|
Tool policy
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
This is common and acceptable in CCPE 2.0.
|
|
|
|
In the new system, inspect whether to split.
|
|
|
|
### 5.1 Migration Pattern
|
|
|
|
Preferred pattern:
|
|
|
|
```text id="hc1wia"
|
|
Original self-contained agent
|
|
→ Portable Lite Prompt
|
|
→ Durable Agent Spec
|
|
→ Model Card
|
|
→ Executable Skill
|
|
→ Runtime node if needed
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
Not all outputs are always required.
|
|
|
|
For mature Web-style expert agents, the preferred initial pattern is:
|
|
|
|
```text
|
|
Original self-contained agent
|
|
→ Original Source Judgment Report
|
|
→ original-kernel-minimal-lite preserving the original working kernel
|
|
→ optional refined Lite A/B optimization only when cost is justified
|
|
→ later-layer decision only if the usage scenario requires it
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
The Lite or kernel-preserving prompt is not a byproduct. In single-agent scenarios it is the primary production artifact or regression reference.
|
|
|
|
For mature expert prompts, prefer this staged pattern before full refinement:
|
|
|
|
```text
|
|
Original self-contained agent
|
|
→ original-kernel-minimal-lite
|
|
→ optional refined Lite A/B optimization only when cost is justified
|
|
→ Model Card / Skill / Agent Spec / Runtime only after the Lite status is clear
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
Do not confuse a refined Lite success case with a default migration requirement.
|
|
|
|
### 5.2 Example Pattern
|
|
|
|
Original:
|
|
|
|
```text id="80wjxv"
|
|
Cognitive Imaging Specialist
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
Possible migration:
|
|
|
|
```text id="89xear"
|
|
cognitive-imaging-specialist.prompt.md
|
|
cognitive-imaging-specialist.agent.md
|
|
cognitive-imaging-model.md
|
|
cognitive-imaging.skill.md
|
|
review-committee.runtime.md reference
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
### 5.3 Keep Lite Version When
|
|
|
|
* The user wants copy-paste deployment.
|
|
* The agent is used in GPT / Gemini / Claude.
|
|
* The model is short enough to embed.
|
|
* Platform cannot load external references.
|
|
* One-piece portability matters.
|
|
|
|
### 5.4 Extract Model Card When
|
|
|
|
* The model is an intellectual asset.
|
|
* The model appears in multiple agents.
|
|
* The model comes from long-form writing.
|
|
* The model deserves indexing.
|
|
* The model has independent value.
|
|
|
|
### 5.5 Extract Skill When
|
|
|
|
* The method is reusable.
|
|
* The method has stable steps.
|
|
* The method can be called by multiple agents.
|
|
* The method has clear inputs and outputs.
|
|
* The method can be validated.
|
|
|
|
### 5.6 Create Agent Spec When
|
|
|
|
* The role will be maintained over time.
|
|
* The role participates in workflows.
|
|
* The role needs authority and collaboration rules.
|
|
* The role calls Skills or tools.
|
|
* The role has evaluation criteria.
|
|
|
|
### 5.7 Create Runtime When
|
|
|
|
* Multiple agents are involved.
|
|
* Outputs are routed or synthesized.
|
|
* Human approval gates exist.
|
|
* State must be tracked.
|
|
* Automation is introduced.
|
|
|
|
## 6. CoT and Reasoning Migration
|
|
|
|
Old prompts may include instructions such as:
|
|
|
|
```text id="v27ug5"
|
|
Must include internal thought
|
|
Must show chain of thought
|
|
Must reveal full reasoning process
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
Migrate these instructions.
|
|
|
|
### 6.1 Replace With
|
|
|
|
```text id="3zjj27"
|
|
Reasoning Summary
|
|
Decision Criteria
|
|
Validation Checklist
|
|
Assumptions
|
|
Evidence Used
|
|
Uncertainty Notes
|
|
Intermediate Findings
|
|
Self-Check Results
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
### 6.2 Do Not Require
|
|
|
|
```text id="w49vl0"
|
|
Full hidden chain-of-thought
|
|
Private internal reasoning
|
|
Raw scratchpad
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
### 6.3 Acceptable Pattern
|
|
|
|
```text id="k03mfq"
|
|
Before final output, perform internal analysis.
|
|
In the response, provide:
|
|
- Key assumptions
|
|
- Reasoning summary
|
|
- Main checks performed
|
|
- Uncertainty or failure points
|
|
- Final conclusion
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
## 7. Retrieval and Source Policy Migration
|
|
|
|
Old prompts may say:
|
|
|
|
```text id="grrl3c"
|
|
Can use online search
|
|
Can use latest facts
|
|
Can retrieve external data
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
Migrate to explicit Source Policy.
|
|
|
|
### 7.1 Required Fields
|
|
|
|
```text id="zu8u7v"
|
|
When retrieval is required
|
|
What sources are acceptable
|
|
How retrieved facts are treated
|
|
How source conflicts are handled
|
|
How uncertainty is marked
|
|
Whether retrieved material is evidence, raw material, or context
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
### 7.2 Example
|
|
|
|
```text id="4ej1xe"
|
|
Retrieved data is not self-evident truth.
|
|
It is treated as raw observational material.
|
|
The agent must distinguish:
|
|
- reported fact
|
|
- interpretation
|
|
- correlation
|
|
- causal claim
|
|
- noise
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
## 8. Tool Policy Migration
|
|
|
|
Old prompts may mention tools informally.
|
|
|
|
Migrate informal tool rules into Tool Layer and Authority Layer.
|
|
|
|
### 8.1 Required Fields
|
|
|
|
```text id="m1as8m"
|
|
Tool Name
|
|
Purpose
|
|
Allowed Use
|
|
Trigger Conditions
|
|
Input
|
|
Output
|
|
Permission Level
|
|
Failure Handling
|
|
Validation
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
### 8.2 Authority Mapping
|
|
|
|
Separate:
|
|
|
|
```text id="5mzlwg"
|
|
Can propose tool use
|
|
Can invoke tool automatically
|
|
Requires confirmation
|
|
Forbidden tool use
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
## 9. Output Format Migration
|
|
|
|
Old prompts may contain long report formats.
|
|
|
|
Migrate output formats into Output Layer.
|
|
|
|
### 9.1 Keep
|
|
|
|
```text id="rk0qly"
|
|
Distinctive report sections
|
|
Useful terminology
|
|
Required analysis fields
|
|
Downstream usability
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
### 9.2 Remove or Simplify
|
|
|
|
```text id="alr6kq"
|
|
Duplicate sections
|
|
Ceremonial headings with no function
|
|
Excessive mandatory verbosity
|
|
Unclear formatting
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
### 9.3 Add
|
|
|
|
```text id="ybluv7"
|
|
Concise mode if needed
|
|
Full report mode if needed
|
|
Follow-up discussion mode if needed
|
|
Delivery checklist
|
|
Output hierarchy rules
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
### 9.4 Output Structure Discipline
|
|
|
|
When migrating old prompts with report formats, preserve useful sections but repair hierarchy.
|
|
|
|
```text
|
|
Keep:
|
|
Distinctive section names, required fields, and downstream-useful report shape.
|
|
|
|
Repair:
|
|
Flattened list levels, ambiguous heading hierarchy, repeated fields, and formatting that hides conclusions.
|
|
|
|
Require:
|
|
Each major section should begin with a clear judgment, followed by supporting evidence or subpoints.
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
## 10. Constraint Migration
|
|
|
|
Old hard constraints should be preserved when still useful.
|
|
|
|
But separate:
|
|
|
|
```text id="37a548"
|
|
Safety constraint
|
|
Quality constraint
|
|
Role boundary
|
|
Permission rule
|
|
Evaluation requirement
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
### 10.1 Example
|
|
|
|
Old:
|
|
|
|
```text id="5py4vo"
|
|
Must always follow five-step workflow.
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
Possible migration:
|
|
|
|
```text id="pwhbz1"
|
|
For full report mode, execute five-step workflow.
|
|
For follow-up discussion mode, use the relevant step only.
|
|
For non-CAS input, refuse or switch to general analysis.
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
This preserves rigor while reducing unnecessary rigidity.
|
|
|
|
## 10A. Concept and Reconstruction Discipline
|
|
|
|
When migrating critique, review, modeling, or pressure-test agents, add rules that prevent false targets.
|
|
|
|
### 10A.1 Concept Function Discipline
|
|
|
|
Before testing or refactoring a concept, classify its function:
|
|
|
|
```text
|
|
lens
|
|
claim
|
|
metaphor
|
|
mechanism
|
|
generator
|
|
procedure
|
|
constraint
|
|
output form
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
Do not force a lens, metaphor, or local heuristic to carry full causal-generator responsibility unless the source artifact explicitly or implicitly assigns that role.
|
|
|
|
### 10A.2 Reconstruction Discipline
|
|
|
|
When testing implicit claims:
|
|
|
|
```text
|
|
1. Separate explicit source claims from reconstructed claims.
|
|
2. Mark reconstructed claims before testing them.
|
|
3. Use the strongest plausible reconstruction, not a straw version.
|
|
4. Note uncertainty when source intent is ambiguous.
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
## 11. Multi-Agent Migration
|
|
|
|
Old multi-agent systems may exist as separate prompts manually coordinated by the user.
|
|
|
|
Do not assume immediate automation. First determine whether the current system is:
|
|
|
|
```text
|
|
Manual committee:
|
|
The user manually invokes each agent and passes context.
|
|
|
|
Lead-agent committee:
|
|
A director / project manager agent coordinates known members.
|
|
|
|
Automated Runtime:
|
|
The system routes, stores, synthesizes, and resumes work.
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
Migrate into full Runtime only when state, handoff, synthesis, archival, or automation is actually needed:
|
|
|
|
```text id="i3lzhk"
|
|
Runtime Spec
|
|
+ Member Agent Specs
|
|
+ Shared Skills
|
|
+ Human Decision Gates
|
|
+ Output Synthesis Rules
|
|
+ Archival Rules
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
### 11.1 Pre-Composed Committee Pattern
|
|
|
|
Use this pattern for stable human-led committees.
|
|
|
|
```text id="kpbhdr"
|
|
Committee Runtime
|
|
├── Director Agent
|
|
├── Specialist Agents
|
|
├── Shared Skills
|
|
├── State Rules
|
|
├── Human Decision Gates
|
|
├── Synthesis Rules
|
|
└── Knowledge Archival Rules
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
### 11.2 Do Not Default to Dynamic Agent Creation
|
|
|
|
If roles are already known and valuable, preserve them.
|
|
|
|
Dynamic role generation is optional, not default.
|
|
|
|
## 12. Model Index Migration
|
|
|
|
When extracting models from old artifacts or articles, update Model Index.
|
|
|
|
### 12.1 Required Index Fields
|
|
|
|
```text id="vn7yps"
|
|
Model Name
|
|
Model Type
|
|
Layer
|
|
Status
|
|
Source
|
|
Related Models
|
|
Related Agents
|
|
Related Skills
|
|
Runtime Usage
|
|
Canonical Path
|
|
Review Status
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
### 12.2 Candidate vs Canonical
|
|
|
|
Do not promote extracted models to canonical status automatically.
|
|
|
|
Use statuses:
|
|
|
|
```text id="umzv4j"
|
|
candidate
|
|
draft
|
|
active
|
|
deprecated
|
|
archived
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
Human confirmation is required to promote important models.
|
|
|
|
## 13. Migration Output Format
|
|
|
|
Every migration should produce an Upgrade Report.
|
|
|
|
Use this format:
|
|
|
|
```text id="oqxwgj"
|
|
# CCPE Upgrade Report
|
|
|
|
## 1. Original Artifact
|
|
Name:
|
|
Path:
|
|
Version:
|
|
Original Format:
|
|
|
|
## 2. Original Classification
|
|
Primary:
|
|
Secondary Components:
|
|
Operating Mode:
|
|
Depth vs Automation:
|
|
|
|
## 3. Target Classification
|
|
Primary:
|
|
Secondary Outputs:
|
|
Runtime Need:
|
|
|
|
## 4. Preserved Elements
|
|
...
|
|
|
|
## 5. Extracted Elements
|
|
...
|
|
|
|
## 6. Modified Elements
|
|
...
|
|
|
|
## 7. Deprecated or Removed Elements
|
|
...
|
|
|
|
## 8. Generated Files
|
|
...
|
|
|
|
## 9. Model Index Updates
|
|
...
|
|
|
|
## 10. Human Decisions Required
|
|
...
|
|
|
|
## 11. Next Step
|
|
...
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
## 14. Migration Severity
|
|
|
|
Use severity labels for problems:
|
|
|
|
```text id="s0s4oh"
|
|
S = Must fix before reuse
|
|
A = Major issue
|
|
B = Should improve
|
|
C = Minor cleanup
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
### 14.1 S-Level Issues
|
|
|
|
Examples:
|
|
|
|
```text id="fjkx10"
|
|
Unsafe tool authority
|
|
Contradictory instructions
|
|
No clear objective
|
|
High-risk automation without human approval
|
|
Model flattened into false universality
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
### 14.2 A-Level Issues
|
|
|
|
Examples:
|
|
|
|
```text id="5ikd98"
|
|
Model and role too tightly coupled
|
|
No source policy for retrieval
|
|
No evaluation criteria
|
|
Workflow unclear
|
|
Scope boundary vague
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
### 14.3 B-Level Issues
|
|
|
|
Examples:
|
|
|
|
```text id="w7pwey"
|
|
Output format too long
|
|
Duplicate sections
|
|
Skill extraction opportunity
|
|
Missing version metadata
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
### 14.4 C-Level Issues
|
|
|
|
Examples:
|
|
|
|
```text id="arwdj5"
|
|
Naming inconsistency
|
|
Minor formatting issues
|
|
Section order could improve
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
## 15. Migration Safety Rules
|
|
|
|
Before modifying files:
|
|
|
|
1. Read the artifact.
|
|
2. Classify it.
|
|
3. Produce a migration plan.
|
|
4. List proposed output files.
|
|
5. Ask for confirmation before large changes.
|
|
6. Write upgraded drafts first.
|
|
7. Do not overwrite originals.
|
|
8. Preserve an archive copy if replacing canonical versions.
|
|
|
|
## 16. Migration Completion Criteria
|
|
|
|
A migration is complete when:
|
|
|
|
```text id="9u9vg9"
|
|
Scenario probe is documented.
|
|
The artifact has a clear target form.
|
|
Embedded models are handled.
|
|
Reusable Skills are identified or extracted.
|
|
Runtime needs are addressed or explicitly rejected.
|
|
Agent Spec and Skill extraction are justified by usage scenario.
|
|
Human decision gates are defined where needed.
|
|
Output format is usable.
|
|
Evaluation criteria exist.
|
|
Model Index is updated when relevant.
|
|
Original intent is preserved.
|
|
Original working prompt kernel is preserved when target is Lite.
|
|
Regression test or comparison is planned for mature agents.
|
|
Fast Migration Lane or Refinement Lane is explicitly chosen for mature Lite migrations.
|
|
Kernel Force and Production Stability are both considered before promotion.
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
## 17. Final Rule
|
|
|
|
Migration is not modernization theater.
|
|
|
|
Do not split an artifact just because the new system has more categories.
|
|
|
|
Split only when it improves reuse, clarity, safety, evaluation, or long-term maintenance.
|
|
|
|
Preserve the portable Lite form when it remains useful.
|
|
|
|
Upgrade the structure without sanding off the mind behind it.
|