context-party

name	context-party
description	Parallel historical context gathering using G-4 CONTEXT. Deploy 6 probes to gather all relevant context before complex work.
model_tier	sonnet
parallel_hints	{"can_parallel_with":["search-party","roster-party"],"must_serialize_with":[],"preferred_batch_size":6}
context_hints	{"max_file_context":100,"compression_level":1,"requires_git_context":true,"requires_db_context":false}
escalation_triggers	[{"pattern":"conflicting.*decision","reason":"Conflicting historical decisions require arbitration"},{"pattern":"HIPAA|OPSEC|PHI","reason":"Sensitive data handling in context requires security review"}]

CONTEXT_PARTY Skill

Purpose: Coordinated parallel historical context gathering with 6 probes Created: 2026-01-06 Trigger: /context-party command Aliases: /context, /history, /cp Owner: G4_CONTEXT_MANAGER (G-4 Staff)

---

When to Use

Deploy CONTEXT_PARTY when you need historical context before making decisions:

• Complex tasks requiring precedent knowledge
• Before making architectural or design decisions
• When similar problems may have been solved before
• Pre-task context gathering for high-stakes work
• Understanding why current patterns exist
• Mining lessons from past sessions
• After SEARCH_PARTY, before PLAN_PARTY

Do NOT use for:

• Simple, well-understood tasks with clear precedent
• Emergencies (no time for historical research)
• New features with no historical analog
• When you already have complete context

---

Economics: Zero Marginal Wall-Clock Cost

Critical Understanding: Parallel context probes with the same timeout cost nothing extra in wall-clock time.

Sequential (BAD):        Parallel (GOOD):
6 probes × 90s each      6 probes × 90s in parallel
Total: 540s              Total: 90s (6x faster)

Implication: Always spawn all 6 probes. There is no cost savings from running fewer.

---

The Six Context Probes

Probe	Lens	What It Finds
PRECEDENT	Past decisions	How similar problems were solved before, proven approaches
PATTERNS	Recurring themes	Cross-session patterns, repeated approaches, emerging trends
CONSTRAINTS	Known limits	Documented constraints, gotchas, warnings, hard limits
DECISIONS	ADRs/choices	Architectural decisions relevant to task, rationale captured
FAILURES	Past issues	What broke before, why it broke, how it was fixed, root causes
KNOWLEDGE	Domain expertise	RAG docs by topic, relevant documentation, domain knowledge

Probe Details

PRECEDENT Probe

Focus: How have we solved similar problems before?

• Search for similar tasks in session history
• Identify successful approaches and patterns
• Extract lessons learned from comparable work
• Find reusable solutions and components
• Note what worked well and what didn't

RAG Queries:

• rag_search("similar to [task description]")
• rag_search("precedent [domain] [pattern]")

PATTERNS Probe

Focus: What recurring themes exist across sessions?

• Cross-session pattern recognition
• Repeated design approaches
• Emergent architectural patterns
• Common anti-patterns to avoid
• Evolution of thinking over time

RAG Queries:

• rag_search("pattern [domain]")
• rag_search("recurring [theme]")

CONSTRAINTS Probe

Focus: What are the known limits and gotchas?

• Documented constraints (ACGME, technical, policy)
• Known performance bottlenecks
• Edge cases and limitations
• Warning signs and red flags
• Hard limits that cannot be violated

RAG Queries:

• rag_search("constraint [domain]")
• rag_search("gotcha [technology]")
• rag_search("limitation [feature]")

DECISIONS Probe

Focus: What architectural decisions are relevant?

• Search decision history (ADRs)
• Extract rationale for key choices
• Understand trade-offs made
• Identify reversible vs irreversible decisions
• Map decision dependencies

RAG Queries:

• rag_search("decision [topic]", doc_type="decision_history")
• rag_search("ADR [domain]")
• rag_search("architecture choice [component]")

FAILURES Probe

Focus: What has broken before and why?

• Root cause analysis from past failures
• Bug patterns and common mistakes
• Regression history
• Fix effectiveness tracking
• Failure mode analysis

RAG Queries:

• rag_search("bug [component]", doc_type="bug_fix")
• rag_search("failure [domain]")
• rag_search("broke [feature]")

KNOWLEDGE Probe

Focus: What domain knowledge is relevant?

• ACGME rules and compliance knowledge
• Scheduling policies and constraints
• Resilience framework concepts
• Military medical context
• User guides and FAQs

RAG Queries:

• rag_search("ACGME [topic]", doc_type="acgme_rules")
• rag_search("scheduling [concept]", doc_type="scheduling_policy")
• rag_search("resilience [pattern]", doc_type="resilience_concepts")

---

Deployment Pattern

Standard Deployment: 6 Context Probes

Deploy 6 context gathering probes in parallel, each using semantic search and historical analysis:

Probe	RAG Strategy	Analysis Focus
PRECEDENT	Search session_learnings, ai_pattern	Similar past solutions
PATTERNS	Search across all doc_types	Cross-session themes
CONSTRAINTS	Search acgme_rules, scheduling_policy	Known limits
DECISIONS	Search decision_history	Architectural choices
FAILURES	Search bug_fix, session_learnings	What broke
KNOWLEDGE	Search by doc_type (domain-specific)	Domain expertise

---

Invocation

Full Deployment (6 probes)

/context-party

Deploys all 6 context probes on current task.

Targeted Context Gathering

/context-party "scheduling capacity constraints"

Deploys probes with explicit context focus.

Before Complex Work

# Recommended workflow
/search-party backend/app/scheduling/    # Understand current state
/context-party "capacity allocation"      # Understand history
/plan-party                               # Plan with full context

---

IDE Crash Prevention (CRITICAL)

DO NOT have ORCHESTRATOR spawn 6 context probes directly. This causes IDE seizure and crashes.

CORRECT Pattern:

ORCHESTRATOR → spawns 1 G4_CONTEXT_MANAGER
                    ↓
              G4_CONTEXT_MANAGER deploys 6 probes internally
              (manages parallelism, synthesizes results)

WRONG Pattern:

ORCHESTRATOR → spawns 6 probes directly → IDE CRASH

The G-4 Context Manager absorbs the parallelism complexity. ORCHESTRATOR only ever spawns 1 coordinator.

---

Spawn Pattern

Via G4_CONTEXT_MANAGER (CORRECT)

# ORCHESTRATOR spawns G4_CONTEXT_MANAGER who manages the 6 context probes
Task(
    subagent_type="general-purpose",
    description="G4_CONTEXT_MANAGER: CONTEXT_PARTY Commander",
    prompt="""
## Agent: G4_CONTEXT_MANAGER (G-4 Staff)

You are the G-4 Context Manager for CONTEXT_PARTY deployment.

## Mission
Deploy 6 context gathering probes in parallel. Each probe uses RAG semantic search
and historical analysis to gather relevant context for the current task.

Collect all reports and synthesize into unified context brief.

## Current Task Context
[Insert task description and goal here]

## Your Context Probes to Deploy
1. PRECEDENT - Search for similar past solutions
2. PATTERNS - Identify recurring themes
3. CONSTRAINTS - Document known limits
4. DECISIONS - Extract relevant ADRs
5. FAILURES - Analyze past breakages
6. KNOWLEDGE - Gather domain expertise

## RAG Integration

Each probe should use the RAG API for semantic search:
- Backend running: Use http://localhost:8000/api/rag/search
- MCP available: Use rag_search, rag_context tools
- Fallback: Search .claude/dontreadme/ markdown files

## Spawn each using Task tool with subagent_type="Explore"

## After all report back:
1. Cross-reference findings across probes
2. Identify relevant precedents
3. Flag conflicting decisions (escalate if unresolved)
4. Generate consolidated context brief
5. Report to ORCHESTRATOR
"""
)

Direct Deployment (Only if G4_CONTEXT_MANAGER unavailable)

# Deploy all 6 probes in parallel
# WARNING: Only use if spawning from within a coordinator, NOT from ORCHESTRATOR
# Total: 6 probes, wall-clock = single probe timeout

spawn_parallel([
    Task(subagent_type="Explore", description="PRECEDENT",
         prompt="Search for similar past solutions using RAG semantic search"),
    Task(subagent_type="Explore", description="PATTERNS",
         prompt="Identify recurring cross-session patterns and themes"),
    Task(subagent_type="Explore", description="CONSTRAINTS",
         prompt="Document known limits, gotchas, and warnings"),
    Task(subagent_type="Explore", description="DECISIONS",
         prompt="Extract relevant architectural decisions and rationale"),
    Task(subagent_type="Explore", description="FAILURES",
         prompt="Analyze past failures, root causes, and fixes"),
    Task(subagent_type="Explore", description="KNOWLEDGE",
         prompt="Gather domain expertise from RAG knowledge base"),
])

---

Context Synthesis

After all 6 probes report back:

1. Cross-reference findings across probes
2. Identify conflicts in historical decisions
3. Extract high-confidence patterns (multiple probes agree)
4. Flag gaps requiring new decisions
5. Generate consolidated context brief

Conflict Analysis

Key Insight: Same topic, different perspectives. Conflicts between probes are high-signal:

Conflict Type	Signal Meaning
PRECEDENT says X, DECISIONS say Y	Precedent may be outdated, decision superseded it
PATTERNS shows trend A, FAILURES show B caused issues	Pattern may be anti-pattern, needs review
CONSTRAINTS limit X, PRECEDENT did X	Constraint was added later, precedent is invalid
KNOWLEDGE says do A, FAILURES show A broke	Knowledge needs update, failure is newer
DECISIONS conflict across sessions	Architectural drift, needs arbitration (ESCALATE)

Confidence Scoring

High Confidence (4+ probes agree):
  - Pattern is well-established
  - Decision is validated by multiple sources
  - Constraint is consistently documented

Medium Confidence (2-3 probes agree):
  - Emerging pattern
  - Recent decision with limited validation
  - Constraint with edge cases

Low Confidence (0-1 probes):
  - Novel situation
  - No historical precedent
  - New decision needed

---

Output Format

Context Brief

## CONTEXT_PARTY Brief

### Task: [Current task description]

### Context Confidence: [HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW]

---

### PRECEDENT Findings
- **Similar Solutions:**
  - [Past solution 1] (Session X, [date])
  - [Past solution 2] (Session Y, [date])
- **Proven Approaches:**
  - [Approach A]: Worked well for [use case]
  - [Approach B]: Failed for [use case], avoid
- **Reusable Components:**
  - [Component/pattern to reuse]

---

### PATTERNS Identified
- **Recurring Theme 1:** [Description, frequency, evolution]
- **Recurring Theme 2:** [Description, frequency, evolution]
- **Anti-Patterns to Avoid:**
  - [Anti-pattern A]: Causes [problem]

---

### CONSTRAINTS Documented
- **Hard Limits:**
  - [Constraint 1]: Cannot violate [reason]
  - [Constraint 2]: ACGME rule [reference]
- **Gotchas:**
  - [Gotcha A]: Watch for [issue]
  - [Gotcha B]: Known edge case [description]
- **Performance Limits:**
  - [Limit]: Degrades at [threshold]

---

### DECISIONS Relevant
- **ADR-XXX:** [Decision summary]
  - **Rationale:** [Why this was chosen]
  - **Trade-offs:** [What was sacrificed]
  - **Status:** [Active/Superseded/Under Review]
- **Related Decisions:**
  - Depends on: [Prior decision]
  - Enables: [Future decision]

---

### FAILURES Analyzed
- **Failure Pattern 1:**
  - **What broke:** [Component/feature]
  - **Root cause:** [Why it broke]
  - **Fix:** [How it was resolved]
  - **Prevention:** [How to avoid]
- **Regression Risk:**
  - [Feature X]: Broke in [session], watch for recurrence

---

### KNOWLEDGE Retrieved
- **ACGME Compliance:**
  - [Relevant rule 1]
  - [Relevant rule 2]
- **Scheduling Policies:**
  - [Policy A]: [Description]
- **Domain Expertise:**
  - [Concept]: [Explanation from RAG]

---

### Conflicts Detected
- **CONFLICT:** [Probe A] vs [Probe B]
  - **A says:** [Position A]
  - **B says:** [Position B]
  -  [Escalate/Newer decision wins/Clarify]

---

### Gaps Identified
-  [Novel aspect]
-  [Uncovered area]
-  [Unresolved choice]

---

### Recommendations
1.  [Specific recommendation]
2.  [Specific constraint to honor]
3.  [Specific anti-pattern to avoid]
4.  [Escalate to ARCHITECT/ORCHESTRATOR]

---

### RAG Coverage
- Total chunks retrieved: [N]
- Doc types searched: [List]
- Oldest relevant context: [Date]
- Newest relevant context: [Date]

---

Integration with RAG System

RAG API Usage (Preferred)

When backend is running at http://localhost:8000:

# Search for precedent
curl -X POST http://localhost:8000/api/rag/search \
  -H "Content-Type: application/json" \
  -d '{
    "query": "schedule capacity allocation past approaches",
    "limit": 10,
    "doc_type": "session_learnings"
  }'

# Search for decisions
curl -X POST http://localhost:8000/api/rag/search \
  -H "Content-Type: application/json" \
  -d '{
    "query": "capacity constraint architecture decision",
    "limit": 5,
    "doc_type": "decision_history"
  }'

# Search for failures
curl -X POST http://localhost:8000/api/rag/search \
  -H "Content-Type: application/json" \
  -d '{
    "query": "scheduling engine failure capacity",
    "limit": 5,
    "doc_type": "bug_fix"
  }'

MCP Tools (If Available)

Tool	Probe Usage
rag_search	All probes use for semantic search
rag_context	Build formatted context for agent prompts
rag_health	Verify RAG system before deployment

Fallback Strategy

If RAG API unavailable:

1. Search .claude/dontreadme/sessions/ for session history
2. Search .claude/dontreadme/synthesis/PATTERNS.md for patterns
3. Search .claude/dontreadme/synthesis/DECISIONS.md for decisions
4. Search docs/rag-knowledge/ for domain knowledge
5. Use git log and blame for change history

---

Decision Tree: When to Deploy

Scenario	Deploy CONTEXT_PARTY?	Rationale
Novel feature, no precedent	NO	No historical context exists
Similar feature exists	YES	Learn from precedent
Before architectural change	YES	Understand past decisions
Emergency fix (P0)	NO	No time for historical research
Complex multi-domain task	YES	Need cross-domain context
Simple bug fix	NO	Obvious solution, no context needed
Before PLAN_PARTY	YES	Context informs planning
After SEARCH_PARTY	MAYBE	If current state reveals historical questions

---

Workflow Integration

Full Intelligence Pipeline

User Request: Complex task
    ↓
ORCHESTRATOR receives task
    ↓
G2_RECON deploys SEARCH_PARTY
    ↓ (current state intel)
G4_CONTEXT_MANAGER deploys CONTEXT_PARTY
    ↓ (historical context)
G5_PLANNING deploys PLAN_PARTY
    ↓ (execution plan informed by state + history)
ORCHESTRATOR executes plan
    ↓
Result synthesis
    ↓
G4_CONTEXT_MANAGER captures new context (closes loop)

Signal Flow

CONTEXT_PARTY → Historical Brief → PLAN_PARTY → Execution Plan
     |                                 |              |
(6 context signals)            (informed by history)  (execution)
     |                                 |              |
Synthesis                          Strategy          Result
(G4_CONTEXT_MANAGER)             (G5_PLANNING)    (COORD_AAR)
     |                                                |
     └────────────── Capture & Store ─────────────────┘
                    (Context loop closes)

---

Timeout Profiles

Profile	Duration	Best For
QUICK	60s	Fast context check, simple tasks
STANDARD	90s	Normal context gathering (default)
DEEP	180s	Comprehensive historical analysis

---

Failure Recovery

Minimum Viable Context

Mission can proceed if:

• PRECEDENT (baseline: has this been done before?) ✓
• CONSTRAINTS (safety: what can't we do?) ✓
• KNOWLEDGE (domain: what rules apply?) ✓
• At least 2 of remaining 3 probes

Circuit Breaker

If > 2 consecutive probe failures: Trip to OPEN state, fall back to manual context gathering.

---

Curation After Context Gathering

CRITICAL: After completing work informed by CONTEXT_PARTY, G4_CONTEXT_MANAGER should:

1. Capture new context from task outcome
2. Update RAG knowledge base with learnings
3. Mark superseded decisions if new approach chosen
4. Link to precedent for future retrieval
5. Close the context loop

This ensures future CONTEXT_PARTY deployments benefit from current work.

---

Related Skills

Skill	When to Use
search-party	Current state reconnaissance (pairs with this)
plan-party	Downstream planning (informed by this)
startup	Session initialization
startupO	ORCHESTRATOR mode initialization
session-end	Context capture at session end

---

Related Agents

Agent	Role in Context Gathering
G4_CONTEXT_MANAGER	Owns CONTEXT_PARTY deployment
G4_LIBRARIAN	RAG curation and ingestion
G2_RECON	Current state (complements historical context)
G5_PLANNING	Uses context to inform plans

---

CONTEXT_PARTY: Six lenses on history, one task, zero marginal cost. Those who forget context are doomed to repeat mistakes.