fix: ChatBubble crash and DeepSeek API compatibility
- Fix ChatBubble to handle non-string content with String() wrapper - Fix API route to use generateText for non-streaming requests - Add @ai-sdk/openai-compatible for non-OpenAI providers (DeepSeek, etc.) - Use Chat Completions API instead of Responses API for compatible providers - Update ChatBubble tests and fix component exports to kebab-case - Remove stale PascalCase ChatBubble.tsx file
This commit is contained in:
Max
@@ -0,0 +1,195 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
name: 'step-06-validation-design-check'
|
||||
description: 'Check if workflow has proper validation steps that load validation data (if validation is critical)'
|
||||
|
||||
nextStepFile: './step-07-instruction-style-check.md'
|
||||
targetWorkflowPath: '{workflow_folder_path}'
|
||||
validationReportFile: '{workflow_folder_path}/validation-report-{datetime}.md'
|
||||
workflowPlanFile: '{workflow_folder_path}/workflow-plan.md'
|
||||
trimodalWorkflowStructure: '../data/trimodal-workflow-structure.md'
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Validation Step 6: Validation Design Check
|
||||
|
||||
## STEP GOAL:
|
||||
|
||||
To check if the workflow has proper validation steps when validation is critical - validation steps should load from validation data and perform systematic checks.
|
||||
|
||||
## MANDATORY EXECUTION RULES (READ FIRST):
|
||||
|
||||
### Universal Rules:
|
||||
|
||||
- 🛑 DO NOT BE LAZY - LOAD AND REVIEW EVERY FILE
|
||||
- 📖 CRITICAL: Read the complete step file before taking any action
|
||||
- 🔄 CRITICAL: When loading next step, ensure entire file is read
|
||||
- ✅ Validation does NOT stop for user input - auto-proceed through all validation steps
|
||||
- ⚙️ If any instruction references a subprocess, subagent, or tool you do not have access to, you MUST still achieve the outcome in your main context
|
||||
|
||||
### Step-Specific Rules:
|
||||
|
||||
- 🎯 Check if workflow needs validation steps - use subprocess optimization (per-file deep analysis for Pattern 2)
|
||||
- 🚫 DO NOT skip any validation step reviews - DO NOT BE LAZY
|
||||
- 💬 Subprocess must either update validation report directly OR return findings to parent for aggregation
|
||||
- 🚪 This is validation - systematic and thorough
|
||||
|
||||
## EXECUTION PROTOCOLS:
|
||||
|
||||
- 🎯 Determine if validation is critical for this workflow - use subprocess optimization when available
|
||||
- 💾 Check validation steps exist and are well-designed - launch subprocess for per-file deep analysis (Pattern 2)
|
||||
- 💬 Subprocesses must either update validation report OR return findings for parent aggregation
|
||||
- 📖 Append findings to validation report
|
||||
- 🚫 DO NOT halt for user input - validation runs to completion
|
||||
|
||||
## CONTEXT BOUNDARIES:
|
||||
|
||||
- Some workflows need validation (compliance, safety, quality gates)
|
||||
- Others don't (creative, exploratory)
|
||||
- Check the design to determine if validation steps are needed
|
||||
|
||||
## MANDATORY SEQUENCE
|
||||
|
||||
**CRITICAL:** Follow this sequence exactly. Do not skip or shortcut.
|
||||
|
||||
### 1. Determine If Validation Is Critical
|
||||
|
||||
From {workflowPlanFile}, check:
|
||||
|
||||
**Does this workflow NEED validation?**
|
||||
|
||||
**YES - Validation Critical If:**
|
||||
- Compliance/regulatory requirements (tax, legal, medical)
|
||||
- Safety-critical outputs
|
||||
- Quality gates required
|
||||
- User explicitly requested validation steps
|
||||
|
||||
**NO - Validation Not Critical If:**
|
||||
- Creative/exploratory workflow
|
||||
- User-driven without formal requirements
|
||||
- Output is user's responsibility to validate
|
||||
|
||||
### 2. If Validation Is Critical, Check Validation Steps
|
||||
|
||||
**DO NOT BE LAZY - For EVERY validation step file, launch a subprocess that:**
|
||||
|
||||
1. Loads that validation step file
|
||||
2. Reads and analyzes the step's content deeply (prose, logic, quality, flow, anti-lazy language)
|
||||
3. Returns structured analysis findings to parent for aggregation
|
||||
|
||||
**SUBPROCESS ANALYSIS PATTERN - Check each validation step file for:**
|
||||
|
||||
**Proper Validation Step Design:**
|
||||
- ✅ Loads validation data/standards from `data/` folder
|
||||
- ✅ Has systematic check sequence (not hand-wavy)
|
||||
- ✅ Auto-proceeds through checks (not stopping for each)
|
||||
- ✅ Clear pass/fail criteria
|
||||
- ✅ Reports findings to user
|
||||
|
||||
**"DO NOT BE LAZY" Language Check:**
|
||||
- ✅ Step includes "DO NOT BE LAZY - LOAD AND REVIEW EVERY FILE" or similar mandate
|
||||
- ✅ Step instructs to "Load and review EVERY file" not "sample files"
|
||||
- ✅ Step has "DO NOT SKIP" or "DO NOT SHORTCUT" language
|
||||
- ⚠️ WARNING if validation step lacks anti-lazy language
|
||||
|
||||
**Critical Flow Check:**
|
||||
- ✅ For critical flows (compliance, safety, quality gates): validation steps are in steps-v/ folder (tri-modal)
|
||||
- ✅ Validation steps are segregated from create flow
|
||||
- ✅ Validation can be run independently
|
||||
- ⚠️ For non-critical flows (entertainment, therapy, casual): validation may be inline
|
||||
- ❌ ERROR if critical validation is mixed into create steps
|
||||
|
||||
**RETURN FORMAT:**
|
||||
Return a structured analysis containing:
|
||||
- Step file name
|
||||
- Proper design checklist (loads data, systematic checks, auto-proceeds, clear criteria, reports findings)
|
||||
- Anti-lazy language check (has mandate, mandate text, comprehensive coverage)
|
||||
- Critical flow check (location, segregation, independence)
|
||||
- Any issues found
|
||||
- Overall status (PASS/FAIL/WARN)
|
||||
|
||||
**Context savings:** Each subprocess returns analysis (~30 lines), not full step file (~200 lines). Parent gets structured findings, not file contents.
|
||||
|
||||
### 3. Aggregate Findings from All Subprocesses
|
||||
|
||||
After all validation step files have been analyzed in subprocesses, aggregate findings:
|
||||
|
||||
**Process subprocess results:**
|
||||
- Compile all structured analysis findings
|
||||
- Identify patterns across validation steps
|
||||
- Note any critical issues or warnings
|
||||
|
||||
### 4. Check Validation Data Files
|
||||
|
||||
**If workflow has validation steps:**
|
||||
|
||||
1. Check `data/` folder for validation data
|
||||
2. Verify data files exist and are properly structured:
|
||||
- CSV files have headers
|
||||
- Markdown files have clear criteria
|
||||
- Data is referenced in step frontmatter
|
||||
|
||||
### 5. Document Findings
|
||||
|
||||
**Create/Update "Validation Design Check" section in {validationReportFile} using aggregated subprocess findings:**
|
||||
|
||||
Document the following information:
|
||||
|
||||
**Whether validation is required:** Indicate if this workflow needs validation steps based on its domain type (critical/compliance/safety workflows vs. creative/exploratory ones)
|
||||
|
||||
**List of validation steps found:** Provide the names/paths of all validation step files in the workflow
|
||||
|
||||
**Validation step quality assessment:** For each validation step, document:
|
||||
- Whether it loads validation data/standards from the data/ folder
|
||||
- Whether it has a systematic check sequence
|
||||
- Whether it auto-proceeds through checks (vs. stopping for user input)
|
||||
- Whether it includes "DO NOT BE LAZY" or similar anti-lazy language mandates
|
||||
- Whether it has clear pass/fail criteria
|
||||
- Overall status (PASS/FAIL/WARN)
|
||||
|
||||
**"DO NOT BE LAZY" language presence:** For each validation step, note whether anti-lazy language is present and what it says
|
||||
|
||||
**Critical flow segregation:** For workflows requiring validation, document:
|
||||
- The workflow domain type
|
||||
- Whether validation steps are in the steps-v/ folder (tri-modal structure) or inline with create steps
|
||||
- Whether this segregation is appropriate for the workflow type
|
||||
|
||||
**Validation data files:** List any validation data files found in the data/ folder, or note if they are missing
|
||||
|
||||
**Issues identified:** List any problems found with the validation design, missing data files, or quality concerns
|
||||
|
||||
**Overall status:** Provide final assessment (PASS/FAIL/WARN/N/A) with reasoning
|
||||
|
||||
### 6. Append to Report
|
||||
|
||||
Update {validationReportFile} - replace "## Validation Design Check *Pending...*" with actual findings from subprocess aggregation.
|
||||
|
||||
### 7. Save Report and Auto-Proceed
|
||||
|
||||
**CRITICAL:** Save the validation report BEFORE loading next step.
|
||||
|
||||
Then immediately load, read entire file, then execute {nextStepFile}.
|
||||
|
||||
**Display:**
|
||||
"**Validation Design check complete.** Proceeding to Instruction Style Check..."
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 🚨 SYSTEM SUCCESS/FAILURE METRICS
|
||||
|
||||
### ✅ SUCCESS:
|
||||
|
||||
- Determined if validation is critical
|
||||
- If critical: checked all validation steps
|
||||
- Validated validation step quality
|
||||
- Checked validation data files
|
||||
- Findings documented
|
||||
- Report saved before proceeding
|
||||
- Next validation step loaded
|
||||
|
||||
### ❌ SYSTEM FAILURE:
|
||||
|
||||
- Not checking validation steps when critical
|
||||
- Missing validation data files
|
||||
- Not documenting validation design issues
|
||||
- Not saving report before proceeding
|
||||
|
||||
**Master Rule:** Validation is systematic and thorough. DO NOT BE LAZY. Check validation steps thoroughly. Auto-proceed through all validation steps.
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user