writing-workbench/docs/ccpe-rebuild-context.md

CCPE Rebuild Context From Writing Workbench

Use this file as input context when starting a CCPE optimization or rebuild session.

Why This Exists

Writing Workbench was rebuilt on 2026-06-15 because the earlier attempt treated deep writing as an end-to-end article production runtime. That failed in practice.

The new Writing Workbench starts only after the user has already produced a Web initial outline. CCPE should therefore stop optimizing for a fully autonomous article production pipeline and instead supply the concrete agents, protocols, and safety rules needed by this narrower workflow.

Current Writing Workbench Model

Web discussion and source digestion
  -> Web initial outline v1.0
  -> Writing Workbench project
  -> outline review preparation
  -> user-named reviewer audit invocation
  -> user reflection and decision
  -> user-directed lead writer repair
  -> revised outline v2.0+
  -> user-directed section/chapter drafting

The user decides every stage transition.

What CCPE Should Supply First

CCPE is currently most useful as a supplier for Writing Workbench.

Priority capabilities:

1. Lead writer agents

   • 韩愈 for academic essay / structured prose.
   • 蒙田 for essayistic reflection.
   • Other lead writers only when the user requests them.

2. Reviewer agents

   • 张辽 red-team review.
   • 巨人认知 macro-model review.
   • 认知显影 cognitive-structure inspection.
   • Any additional reviewer only after a concrete Writing Workbench requirement exists.

3. Invocation protocols

   • single external CCPE interface path, C:\Users\wangq\Documents\Codex\ccpe-system\Interface.md;
   • root-level Writing Workbench CCPE agent registry;
   • reviewer invocation packet;
   • lead writer repair packet;
   • reviewer audit run contract;
   • thread ID and returned-output record;
   • no-simulation rule.

4. Context preparation rules

   • how to prepare source digests under context-window limits;
   • how to avoid compressing away material not represented in the initial outline;
   • how to distinguish source-grounded content from model-supplied additions.

5. Evaluation and decision support

   • reviewer returned-output contract;
   • conflict synthesis for user decision;
   • repair instruction builder;
   • outline versioning rules.

Hard Boundaries For CCPE

CCPE should not store article project process records.

Do not put these in CCPE:

• full article project folders;
• source digests made for one article;
• reviewer audit/<reviewer-id>/rS.R/ run files for one article;
• draft chapters;
• user decision logs;
• publication metadata for one essay.

These belong in writing-workbench or knowledge-vault.

No-Simulation Requirement

The earlier workflow failed because the controller session simulated reviewer outputs after reading prompts.

For CCPE:

• dispatch packet is not execution;
• prompt-to-send is not execution;
• a controller summary is not a reviewer report;
• a formal reviewer or writer output requires real invocation;
• missing capability must block the project or produce a supplier request.

Formal simulation, when used for planning, must be labeled:

simulation_only: true
formal_output: false
excluded_from_synthesis: true

Supplier Relationship

Writing Workbench sends requests to CCPE through:

writing-workbench/requirements/ccpe/

CCPE should treat those files as client requirements.

CCPE may produce:

• agent specs;
• runtime protocols;
• invocation contracts;
• model cards;
• evaluation rubrics;
• usage notes for Writing Workbench.

CCPE should not implement deterministic scripts that belong in skills-vault.

Recommended CCPE Rebuild Focus

For the next CCPE optimization pass, prioritize:

1. Replace the old full Article Production Runtime assumption with a narrower outline-review-and-repair runtime.
2. Encode Writing Workbench as the first concrete consumer of article-writing assets.
3. Add a clear intake rule: CCPE builds only assets requested by a project, proven by recurring use, or required for invocation safety.
4. Separate expert-agent assets from deterministic automation skills.
5. Make the no-simulation boundary visible in every article-writing agent and runtime protocol.
6. Add usage notes showing how Writing Workbench should call each agent without copying canonical specs into project folders.

Summary For A New CCPE Session

Writing Workbench is not asking CCPE for a complete autonomous writing machine.

It needs a reliable supplier layer for:

• real lead writer invocation;
• real reviewer invocation;
• source/context preparation under context limits;
• review synthesis for user decision;
• user-directed outline repair;
• careful section-level drafting support.

The user remains the director. CCPE supplies the actors, contracts, and guardrails.