145 lines
4.8 KiB
Markdown
145 lines
4.8 KiB
Markdown
# 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
|
|
|
|
```text
|
|
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:
|
|
|
|
```yaml
|
|
simulation_only: true
|
|
formal_output: false
|
|
excluded_from_synthesis: true
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
## Supplier Relationship
|
|
|
|
Writing Workbench sends requests to CCPE through:
|
|
|
|
```text
|
|
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.
|