deft-directive-article-review

name	deft-directive-article-review
description	Evaluate an article, paper, or post for lessons that could improve directive. Analyzes two axes: how concepts improve directive's own implementation, and how they improve the projects directive creates. Produces filtered suggestions, iterates with the user, and optionally creates GitHub issues on the directive repo. Use when evaluating an article, paper, post, or URL for directive improvements, or when the user says "analyze this article", "evaluate this article", or "what can we learn from this for directive".
triggers	["evaluate article","analyze article","review article for directive","extract lessons","what can we learn from this","article for directive"]
metadata	{"clawdbot":{"requires":{"bins":["gh"]}}}

Deft Article Review

Evaluate an article, paper, or blog post for lessons that could improve directive — both how directive itself is implemented and what directive helps create.

Legend (from RFC2119): !=MUST, ~=SHOULD, ≉=SHOULD NOT, ⊗=MUST NOT, ?=MAY.

---

Directive Reference

Use this summary to evaluate whether article ideas are genuinely novel or already covered by the framework.

Directive is a development framework that combines indexed documentation, task automation, and AI-assisted workflows.

main.md (front door) — Central entry/index for a Karpathy-wiki-style set of lazy-loaded markdown rules organized into sections: coding/, languages/, interfaces/, tools/, scm/, contracts/, swarm/, strategies/, xbrief/, and templates/. Agents load only what's relevant.

Taskfiles (go-task) — Single entrypoint for all repeatable operations. Core flows: task dev, task test, task build, task release. Composed via deps; logic lives in scripts/binaries. Caching via sources/generates + method: checksum. Namespaced tasks (docker:build, db:migrate). Every user-facing task has a desc; internal wiring marked internal: true.

xbrief — Structured JSON artifacts in ./xbrief/ covering current state and forward planning: plan.xbrief.json (todos/progress), specification.xbrief.json (project specs), playbook-{name}.xbrief.json (reusable playbooks), continue.xbrief.json (interruption recovery). Drives the full lifecycle: planning → specification → execution → checkpointing → resumption. Refreshed via deft-sync at session start.

Skills — Versioned, reusable workflows triggered by keywords: deft-setup (bootstrap), deft-build (implement from spec), deft-sync (refresh framework + xbrief), deft-pre-pr (quality loop), deft-review-cycle (PR bot feedback), deft-swarm (parallel agent orchestration), deft-roadmap-refresh (issue triage), deft-interview (structured Q&A). Skills chain together and encode lessons from prior runs.

When to Use

• User shares a URL, local file path, or pasted text to analyze for directive improvements
• User says "what can we learn from this for directive" or "evaluate this article"
• After reading a research paper, practitioner post, or technical write-up that seems relevant

Prerequisites

• ! If a URL is provided, fetch and read the full content before beginning analysis
• ! If a local file path is provided, read the file
• ! If pasted text, work from the provided content
• ⊗ Begin analysis before reading the full content

---

Process

Step 1: Ingest the article

• ! Read the full content — do not skim or skip sections
• ~ Note the source type (research paper, practitioner blog, product docs, etc.) as it affects how much weight to give conclusions

Step 2: Evaluate Axis 1 — How can this improve directive's own implementation?

Look for lessons applicable to how directive itself is built, structured, and maintained:

• ! Skills and strategies: are there new skills, strategies, or workflow patterns directive should adopt?
• ! Framework architecture: does this suggest changes to lazy loading, xBRIEF, AGENTS.md structure, or the patterns/ directory?
• ! Agent safety and reliability: does this reveal new failure modes or defenses directive should encode?
• ! Tooling: does this suggest new tasks, task patterns, or SCM conventions directive should add?
• ~ Naming, directory structure, or documentation conventions worth adopting

Step 3: Evaluate Axis 2 — How can this improve the projects directive creates?

Look for lessons applicable to projects that directive-guided agents build:

• ! Coding standards: new rules for languages/, coding/, or patterns/ that would improve project quality
• ! Security: new vulnerabilities or defenses projects should implement (e.g., agent trap defenses, LLM application security)
• ! Architecture patterns: new patterns/ content for multi-agent, LLM apps, safety-critical, or other system types
• ! Testing, observability, or deployment practices worth encoding as directive standards
• ~ Stack recommendations or technology choices with clear rationale

Step 4: Filter and prioritize

• ! Discard ideas that are not genuinely actionable or relevant — not everything in an article applies to directive
• ! Rate each suggestion: High (actionable now, clear value), Medium (worth considering, needs evaluation), Low/Speculative (interesting but hypothetical)
• ! Note which existing directive files or issues each suggestion would affect
• ⊗ Present every idea uncritically — only surface ideas with real directive relevance

Step 5: Cross-reference open issues

• ! Run gh issue list --repo deftai/directive --state open --limit 100 to retrieve the current open issue backlog
• ! For each suggestion from Step 4, check whether an open issue already covers it — fully or partially
• ! If a suggestion duplicates an open issue: drop it from the proposal and note the existing issue number
• ! If a suggestion extends or relates to an open issue: flag it as "extends #N" rather than proposing a standalone new issue
• ~ Scan the open issue list for trends (e.g. a cluster of agent-safety issues, a cluster of pattern/ gaps) — use trends to sharpen framing or prioritization of remaining suggestions
• ⊗ Propose a new issue for something already tracked — deduplication is mandatory

Step 6: Present suggestions to the user

Present a structured summary organized by axis. For each suggestion:

• Brief description of the idea
• Why it's relevant to directive specifically
• Which file(s) or directory it would affect
• Confidence rating (High / Medium / Low)

! After presenting, explicitly ask:

"Does any of this resonate? Do you want to modify, combine, or drop any of these before we decide what to file?"

Allow the user to comment, change framing, merge suggestions, or remove any. Iterate until the user is satisfied with the set.

Step 7: Offer issue creation

! Ask the user:

"Should I create GitHub issues for any of these? I can create one per suggestion or group related ones."

• ! If yes: create issues on deftai/directive using gh issue create with:
  • A clear title following conventional commit style (feat(area):, refactor(area):, research(area):, etc.)
  • Body that describes the suggestion, the source article, and the specific directive files affected
  • A note if the suggestion is speculative/research-grade vs. immediately actionable
  • A reference to any related open issues ("extends #N", "related to #N")
  • Issue-label hygiene: inspect existing repo labels with gh label list or the labels API, choose suitable existing labels when practical, or explicitly note that no label was applied. This is a recommendation, not a gate -- do not block issue creation solely because no label fits, and do not invent ad hoc labels outside the repo's existing label set.
• ! After creating issues, print the issue URLs
• ⊗ Create issues without explicit user confirmation

Step 8: Offer further exploration

! After completing the above, ask:

"Is there anything else from this article worth exploring — related tools, referenced papers, or follow-on questions?"

If yes, follow the thread. This may include fetching related URLs, evaluating referenced work, or researching specific concepts mentioned in the article.

---

Anti-Patterns

• ⊗ Treating every idea in the article as directive-relevant — filter aggressively
• ⊗ Creating issues before the user approves the suggestion set
• ⊗ Skipping the user feedback step and going straight to issue creation
• ⊗ Summarizing without reading the full content
• ⊗ Presenting unrated suggestions — every suggestion needs a confidence level
• ⊗ Filing a single giant issue for all suggestions — one issue per distinct suggestion or related group
• ⊗ Proposing a new issue without first checking whether it duplicates an open one
• ⊗ Evaluating directive relevance without consulting the Directive Reference section above