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 +1,209 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
name: 'step-07-instruction-style-check'
|
||||
description: 'Check instruction style - intent-based vs prescriptive, appropriate for domain'
|
||||
|
||||
nextStepFile: './step-08-collaborative-experience-check.md'
|
||||
targetWorkflowPath: '{workflow_folder_path}'
|
||||
validationReportFile: '{workflow_folder_path}/validation-report-{datetime}.md'
|
||||
intentVsPrescriptive: '../data/intent-vs-prescriptive-spectrum.md'
|
||||
workflowPlanFile: '{workflow_folder_path}/workflow-plan.md'
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Validation Step 7: Instruction Style Check
|
||||
|
||||
## STEP GOAL:
|
||||
|
||||
To validate that workflow instructions use appropriate style - intent-based for creative/facilitative workflows, prescriptive only where absolutely required (compliance, legal).
|
||||
|
||||
## 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:
|
||||
|
||||
- 🎯 Review EVERY step's instruction style using subprocess optimization - separate subprocess per file for deep analysis
|
||||
- 🚫 DO NOT skip any files or style checks - DO NOT BE LAZY
|
||||
- 💬 Subprocess must either update validation report OR return structured findings to parent for aggregation
|
||||
- 🚪 This is validation - systematic and thorough
|
||||
|
||||
## EXECUTION PROTOCOLS:
|
||||
|
||||
- 🎯 Load intent vs prescriptive standards
|
||||
- 💾 Check EACH step's instruction style using subprocess optimization - each file in its own subprocess
|
||||
- 📖 Validate style is appropriate for domain
|
||||
- 🚫 DO NOT halt for user input - validation runs to completion
|
||||
- 💬 Subprocesses must either update validation report OR return findings for parent aggregation
|
||||
|
||||
## CONTEXT BOUNDARIES:
|
||||
|
||||
- Instruction style should match domain
|
||||
- Creative/facilitative → Intent-based (default)
|
||||
- Compliance/legal → Prescriptive (exception)
|
||||
- Check EVERY step for style consistency
|
||||
|
||||
## MANDATORY SEQUENCE
|
||||
|
||||
**CRITICAL:** Follow this sequence exactly. Do not skip or shortcut.
|
||||
|
||||
### 1. Load Instruction Style Standards
|
||||
|
||||
Load {intentVsPrescriptive} to understand:
|
||||
|
||||
**Intent-Based (Default):**
|
||||
- Use for: Most workflows - creative, exploratory, collaborative
|
||||
- Step instruction describes goals and principles
|
||||
- AI adapts conversation naturally
|
||||
- More flexible and responsive
|
||||
- Example: "Guide user to define requirements through open-ended discussion"
|
||||
|
||||
**Prescriptive (Exception):**
|
||||
- Use for: Compliance, safety, legal, medical, regulated industries
|
||||
- Step provides exact instructions
|
||||
- More controlled and predictable
|
||||
- Example: "Ask exactly: 'Do you currently experience fever, cough, or fatigue?'"
|
||||
|
||||
### 2. Determine Domain Type
|
||||
|
||||
From {workflowPlanFile}, identify the workflow domain:
|
||||
|
||||
**Intent-Based Domains (Default):**
|
||||
- Creative work (writing, design, brainstorming)
|
||||
- Personal development (planning, goals, reflection)
|
||||
- Exploration (research, discovery)
|
||||
- Collaboration (facilitation, coaching)
|
||||
|
||||
**Prescriptive Domains (Exception):**
|
||||
- Legal/Compliance (contracts, regulations)
|
||||
- Medical (health assessments, triage)
|
||||
- Financial (tax, regulatory compliance)
|
||||
- Safety (risk assessments, safety checks)
|
||||
|
||||
### 3. Check EACH Step's Instruction Style
|
||||
|
||||
**DO NOT BE LAZY - For EACH step file, launch a subprocess that:**
|
||||
|
||||
1. Loads that step file
|
||||
2. Reads the instruction sections (MANDATORY SEQUENCE)
|
||||
3. Analyzes and classifies instruction style deeply
|
||||
4. **EITHER** updates validation report directly with findings
|
||||
5. **OR** returns structured analysis findings to parent for aggregation
|
||||
|
||||
**SUBPROCESS ANALYSIS PATTERN:**
|
||||
|
||||
Each subprocess performs deep analysis of instruction prose to classify style:
|
||||
|
||||
**Intent-Based Indicators:**
|
||||
- ✅ Describes goals/outcomes, not exact wording
|
||||
- ✅ Uses "think about" language
|
||||
- ✅ Multi-turn conversation encouraged
|
||||
- ✅ "Ask 1-2 questions at a time, not a laundry list"
|
||||
- ✅ "Probe to understand deeper"
|
||||
- ✅ Flexible: "guide user through..." not "say exactly..."
|
||||
|
||||
**Prescriptive Indicators:**
|
||||
- Exact questions specified
|
||||
- Specific wording required
|
||||
- Sequence that must be followed precisely
|
||||
- "Say exactly:" or "Ask precisely:"
|
||||
|
||||
**Mixed Style:**
|
||||
- Some steps prescriptive (critical/required)
|
||||
- Others intent-based (creative/facilitative)
|
||||
|
||||
**RETURN FORMAT:**
|
||||
Each subprocess should return findings including:
|
||||
- Step file identifier
|
||||
- Instruction style classification (Intent-based/Prescriptive/Mixed)
|
||||
- Style indicators observed
|
||||
- Appropriateness assessment (PASS/WARN/FAIL)
|
||||
- Specific notes and observations
|
||||
- Examples of good and concerning instruction patterns
|
||||
|
||||
**Parent aggregates all subprocess findings into unified report section.**
|
||||
|
||||
### 4. Validate Appropriateness
|
||||
|
||||
**For Intent-Based Domains:**
|
||||
- ✅ Instructions should be intent-based
|
||||
- ❌ Prescriptive instructions inappropriate (unless specific section requires it)
|
||||
|
||||
**For Prescriptive Domains:**
|
||||
- ✅ Instructions should be prescriptive where compliance matters
|
||||
- ⚠️ May have intent-based sections for creative elements
|
||||
|
||||
### 5. Aggregate Findings and Document
|
||||
|
||||
After ALL subprocesses have analyzed their respective step files, aggregate findings and create/update section in {validationReportFile}.
|
||||
|
||||
Document the following:
|
||||
|
||||
**Workflow Domain Assessment:**
|
||||
- Document the domain type (creative/interactive vs compliance/legal)
|
||||
- State the appropriate instruction style for this domain
|
||||
|
||||
**Instruction Style Findings:**
|
||||
- List each step and its instruction style classification (intent-based/prescriptive/mixed)
|
||||
- Note whether the style is appropriate for the domain
|
||||
- Document specific examples of instruction language that demonstrate the style
|
||||
- Identify any steps with inappropriate style (e.g., prescriptive in creative domain)
|
||||
|
||||
**Issues Identified:**
|
||||
- List any steps that are overly prescriptive for their domain
|
||||
- List any steps that should be more prescriptive (for compliance domains)
|
||||
- Note any style inconsistencies across steps
|
||||
|
||||
**Positive Findings:**
|
||||
- Highlight steps with excellent instruction style
|
||||
- Note effective use of intent-based facilitation language
|
||||
- Identify appropriate use of prescriptive instructions (if applicable)
|
||||
|
||||
**Overall Status:**
|
||||
- Provide final assessment (PASS/FAIL/WARN)
|
||||
- Summarize key findings
|
||||
|
||||
**Context Savings Note:** Using subprocess pattern (Pattern 2: per-file deep analysis), parent context receives only structured analysis findings (~50-100 lines per file) instead of full file contents (~200+ lines per file). For 10 steps: ~500-1000 lines received vs ~2000+ lines if loading all files in parent.
|
||||
|
||||
### 6. Update Report with Aggregated Findings
|
||||
|
||||
Update {validationReportFile} - replace "## Instruction Style Check *Pending...*" with actual aggregated findings from all subprocesses.
|
||||
|
||||
### 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:**
|
||||
"**Instruction Style check complete.** Proceeding to Collaborative Experience Check..."
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 🚨 SYSTEM SUCCESS/FAILURE METRICS
|
||||
|
||||
### ✅ SUCCESS:
|
||||
|
||||
- EVERY step's instruction style reviewed via subprocess optimization (Pattern 2: per-file deep analysis)
|
||||
- Each step analyzed in its own subprocess for style classification
|
||||
- Style validated against domain appropriateness
|
||||
- Issues documented with specific examples
|
||||
- Subprocess findings aggregated into unified report section
|
||||
- Context savings achieved (~500-1000 lines received vs ~2000+ if loading all files)
|
||||
- Report saved before proceeding
|
||||
- Next validation step loaded
|
||||
|
||||
### ❌ SYSTEM FAILURE:
|
||||
|
||||
- Not checking every step's style via subprocess
|
||||
- Not analyzing each file in its own subprocess
|
||||
- Not validating against domain
|
||||
- Not documenting style issues
|
||||
- Not aggregating subprocess findings
|
||||
- Not saving report before proceeding
|
||||
|
||||
**Master Rule:** Validation is systematic and thorough. DO NOT BE LAZY. For EACH step file, launch a subprocess to analyze instruction style deeply. Aggregate findings. Auto-proceed through all validation steps. Use graceful fallback if subprocess unavailable.
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user