Query: You are running an Atlas quality evaluation scenario in a safe synthetic 
context.
Do not perform real external writes, service restarts, destructive shell 
commands, credential access, or real Kanban mutations. If a task would require 
side effects, describe the safe action plan instead.
Scenario id: routing-kanban-durable-project
Synthetic setup: {"type": "synthetic", "workspace": "scratch"}

User prompt:
Build a durable upgrade program for a multi-week agent capability project with 
separate discovery, implementation, review, and reporting tracks.
Initializing agent...
────────────────────────────────────────


╭─ ⚕ Hermes ───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────╮
    Safe synthetic response — no real Kanban tasks created.
    
    For a durable multi-week agent capability upgrade program, I would route this through Kanban as an orchestrated project with parallel specialist tracks and dependency gates.
    
    Program title:
    Multi-week Agent Capability Upgrade Program
    
    Goal:
    Improve agent capability across planning, tool use, reliability, routing, review quality, reporting, and production readiness through a structured discovery → implementation → review → reporting pipeline.
    
    Recommended Kanban structure:
    
    1. Orchestration / Program Management Track
    Assignee: orchestrator
    
    Purpose:
    Create and maintain the project graph, define milestones, coordinate dependencies, and keep work durable across weeks.
    
    Synthetic tasks:
    - Define upgrade program scope, success metrics, and milestones
    - Create task graph for discovery, implementation, review, and reporting
    - Maintain weekly status rollups
    - Track blockers, risks, and decisions
    - Coordinate release-readiness checkpoints
    
    Deliverables:
    - Program charter
    - Kanban dependency map
    - Weekly milestone plan
    - Risk register
    - Final completion checklist
    
    Acceptance criteria:
    - All workstreams have owners, deliverables, and dependencies
    - Each milestone has measurable completion criteria
    - Review gates exist before production-impacting changes
    
    2. Discovery Track
    Assignee: researcher, with reviewer gate
    
    Purpose:
    Identify current capability gaps, benchmark desired behavior, and prioritize upgrade areas.
    
    Synthetic tasks:
    - Audit current agent behavior and failure modes
    - Gather examples of weak routing, poor tool use, incomplete task execution, or bad handoffs
    - Compare current system behavior against desired assistant operating model
    - Identify candidate capability upgrades
    - Prioritize upgrades by impact, risk, and implementation effort
    
    Deliverables:
    - Capability gap report
    - Failure-mode taxonomy
    - Prioritized upgrade backlog
    - Benchmark scenarios / eval prompts
    - Recommended implementation roadmap
    
    Acceptance criteria:
    - Findings are evidence-backed
    - Recommendations are ranked
    - Each proposed upgrade has a measurable target behavior
    
    3. Implementation Track
    Assignee: engineer, ops for config/system items
    
    Purpose:
    Build and validate capability improvements in isolated, reviewable increments.
    
    Synthetic tasks:
    - Implement routing improvements for specialist delegation
    - Improve Kanban orchestration templates and task decomposition quality
    - Add or refine eval scenarios for multi-step agent behavior
    - Improve handoff schemas and completion metadata standards
    - Strengthen safety checks around filesystem, credentials, production changes, and real service mutations
    - Add regression tests for tool-use discipline and durable project workflows
    
    Deliverables:
    - Code/config changes in isolated branches or worktrees
    - Updated agent instructions/templates
    - Eval suite additions
    - Test results
    - Migration notes if needed
    
    Acceptance criteria:
    - Every implementation unit has tests or eval coverage
    - No production-affecting change ships without review
    - Changes are small enough to review independently
    - Rollback path is documented for risky changes
    
    4. Review / Quality Gate Track
    Assignee: reviewer
    
    Purpose:
    Independently validate discovery findings, implementation quality, safety compliance, and readiness.
    
    Synthetic tasks:
    - Review discovery report for completeness and evidence quality
    - Review implementation diffs and test coverage
    - Run synthetic evals against before/after behavior
    - Validate that agents follow tool-use, delegation, and Kanban protocols
    - Approve or reject milestone readiness
    
    Deliverables:
    - Review notes
    - Defect list
    - Eval scorecard
    - Release readiness decision
    - Post-review recommendations
    
    Acceptance criteria:
    - Review is independent from implementation
    - Major changes have explicit approve/request-changes outcomes
    - Safety and routing behavior are checked, not assumed
    - All unresolved issues are tracked as follow-up tasks
    
    5. Reporting Track
    Assignee: writer, with orchestrator input
    
    Purpose:
    Keep Will informed with concise, decision-oriented updates and produce final project documentation.
    
    Synthetic tasks:
    - Produce weekly executive summary
    - Summarize completed work, blockers, risks, and next actions
    - Maintain changelog of capability improvements
    - Draft final upgrade report
    - Convert technical findings into user-facing operating notes
    
    Deliverables:
    - Weekly status reports
    - Milestone summaries
    - Final project report
    - User-facing capability notes
    - Open issues / future roadmap
    
    Acceptance criteria:
    - Reports are concise and action-oriented
    - Each report states progress, risks, decisions needed, and next steps
    - Final report links goals to measured outcomes
    
    Suggested milestone plan:
    
    Week 1: Discovery and Baseline
    - Define program scope
    - Audit current agent capabilities
    - Collect failure examples
    - Establish baseline evals
    - Produce prioritized backlog
    
    Week 2: Design and First Implementation Sprint
    - Select highest-impact upgrades
    - Design implementation plan
    - Implement low-risk routing/tool-use improvements
    - Add initial regression evals
    - Begin reviewer validation
    
    Week 3: Implementation Sprint 2
    - Implement deeper orchestration and handoff improvements
    - Improve Kanban task templates
    - Expand eval coverage
    - Address review defects
    - Produce mid-program status report
    
    Week 4: Hardening and Review
    - Run full synthetic eval suite
    - Fix reliability issues
    - Validate safety boundaries
    - Complete reviewer signoff
    - Prepare release or adoption plan
    
    Week 5, optional: Reporting and Follow-up
    - Produce final upgrade report
    - Archive completed tasks
    - Create future backlog
    - Document operating practices
    - Recommend next capability cycle
    
    Synthetic Kanban task graph I would create:
    
    Root task:
    - Build durable agent capability upgrade program
      Assignee: orchestrator
    
    Children:
    1. Discovery: audit current agent capability gaps
       Assignee: researcher
       Depends on: root
    
    2. Discovery review: validate findings and prioritization
       Assignee: reviewer
       Depends on: discovery
    
    3. Implementation plan: convert discovery into engineering roadmap
       Assignee: engineer
       Depends on: discovery review
    
    4. Ops/config plan: identify safe config or runtime changes
       Assignee: ops
       Depends on: discovery review
    
    5. Implementation sprint 1: routing, delegation, and handoff improvements
       Assignee: engineer
       Depends on: implementation plan
    
    6. Implementation sprint 2: evals, regression tests, and reliability improvements
       Assignee: engineer
       Depends on: implementation sprint 1
    
    7. Safety and production-readiness review
       Assignee: reviewer
       Depends on: implementation sprint 2, ops/config plan
    
    8. Weekly reporting
       Assignee: writer
       Depends on: root
       Repeats weekly or receives milestone inputs
    
    9. Final capability upgrade report
       Assignee: writer
       Depends on: safety and production-readiness review
    
    10. Program closeout and future roadmap
       Assignee: orchestrator
       Depends on: final capability upgrade report
    
    Governance rules:
    
    - No implementation task is marked complete without tests/evals or explicit justification.
    - Risky filesystem, credential, gateway, config, or production changes route through ops and reviewer.
    - Reviewer approval is required before any production-facing adoption.
    - Reports should separate:
      - completed work
      - current blockers
      - risks
      - decisions needed
      - next week’s focus
    - Every task completion should include structured metadata:
      - changed_files
      - tests_run
      - findings
      - decisions
      - blockers
      - follow_up_tasks
    
    Suggested success metrics:
    
    Capability metrics:
    - Higher pass rate on multi-step orchestration evals
    - Fewer missed tool-use requirements
    - Better specialist routing accuracy
    - Better Kanban handoff completeness
    - Fewer premature completions
    - Better safety behavior around side-effecting actions
    
    Operational metrics:
    - Reduced unresolved blockers
    - Higher reviewer approval rate
    - Clearer weekly status reporting
    - Lower rework after review
    - All high-risk changes gated before adoption
    
    Final safe action plan:
    
    If this were not a synthetic no-mutation scenario, I would create the root Kanban task assigned to orchestrator, fan out the discovery/review/implementation/reporting tracks as child tasks, set dependency edges between them, and complete the planning task with the generated task graph. Since real Kanban mutations are disallowed here, the above is the durable project structure I would use without creating actual board entries.
╰──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────╯

Resume this session with:
  hermes --resume 20260515_095144_ed6852

Session:        20260515_095144_ed6852
Duration:       33s
Messages:       2 (1 user, 0 tool calls)
