메뉴
Agent resolution table, working-scope declaration, and review mandates for the content-catalogue-dashboard orchestrator running inside a Docker container against the content-catalogue-dashboard project.
Codex 또는 Claude로 설치 이 Prompt를 복사해 Codex, Claude 또는 다른 어시스턴트에 붙여 넣으면 Skill 페이지를 검토하고 설치를 진행할 수 있습니다.
SOC 직업 분류 기준
Use for any container agent that posts progress to the coordination server's message board. Defines the curl format, channels, message types, payload conventions, posting responsibilities, and verbosity levels.
Use when a review agent must produce structured output. Defines the BLOCKING/NOTE/Summary/Verdict template, the two-tier confidence rubric, and the JSON shadow block consumed by POST /tasks/:id/reviews. Compose with review-process and a domain skill.
Use when an agent evaluates the output of other agents or decides whether work meets the bar. Enforces rigorous quality standards — reject shortcuts, demand evidence, no rubber-stamping.
Use when an agent is the FSM arbitrator on a durable task. Defines the two triggers, the three ruling types, the POST contract, the addendum-file rules for contradiction rulings, and the 409 handling. Project-agnostic.
Tells container agents where the Unreal Engine source tree is mounted inside the container, so they can grep and read engine headers to verify API signatures and class hierarchies.
Use when an agent must review code changes. Defines the universal review sequence — identify files, read context, check against domain criteria, score, filter. Compose with a domain skill and review-output-schema.
| name | content-catalogue-dashboard-system-wiring |
| description | Agent resolution table, working-scope declaration, and review mandates for the content-catalogue-dashboard orchestrator running inside a Docker container against the content-catalogue-dashboard project. |
| axis | environment |
Your working scope is the entire working tree of the content-catalogue-dashboard repository checked out into the container. Any file in the tree is in-scope except the container's own work-product locations reserved by the debrief protocol.
If a task references a path that does not exist in the checked-out tree, stop and post phase_failed with cross-repo scope as the reason — do not fabricate files or guess at layout.
Your sub-agents do NOT hardcode a scope — they rely on you to declare one in every delegation prompt. Every prompt you emit to the implementer, to any reviewer, or to the decomposition reviewer must include this line as its first directive:
Working scope: the entire content-catalogue-dashboard working tree. Refuse any task that requires touching files outside the checked-out repository, and flag any such references in the changeset as BLOCKING.
Omitting the scope line is a protocol violation — the sub-agent will treat an unspecified scope as an error and refuse the work.
| Role | Agent | Purpose |
|---|---|---|
implementer | scaffold-dashboard-implementer | React, Mantine, TanStack Router/Query; TDD via Vitest |
style-reviewer | scaffold-dashboard-react-quality-reviewer | Component discipline and TypeScript style opinions fused |
safety-reviewer | scaffold-dashboard-browser-safety-reviewer | React-agnostic web hygiene (XSS, URL, CSRF, storage) |
reviewer | scaffold-dashboard-correctness-reviewer | Spec compliance, cache invalidation, test coverage gate |
decomp-reviewer | scaffold-dashboard-decomposition-reviewer | File bloat, hook decomposition, route layering |
These sub-agents carry React/Mantine/TanStack knowledge and no project-specific wiring. Their working scope comes from the delegation prompt you emit.
Each reviewer assesses only its own dimension. The style-reviewer slot is filled by the react-quality reviewer — there is no separate style reviewer and no separate type reviewer, because React ESLint already covers the mechanical style surface and TypeScript type presentation is part of component discipline. The safety-reviewer slot is filled by a browser-safety reviewer that is deliberately React-agnostic — it reviews what would render in any browser runtime, not framework-specific render-stability bugs.
These agents have React/Mantine/TanStack conventions and enforcement baked into their definitions. Your delegation prompts should focus on what to do (the phase requirements, file lists, specification), not how to work (build commands, style rules, environment details).
The phase protocol skill hardcodes [STYLE REVIEW] and [SAFETY REVIEW] tag strings for Step 2c message posts. For content-catalogue-dashboard you must override these tags when posting reviewer output to the message board:
scaffold-dashboard-react-quality-reviewer → tagged [REACT QUALITY REVIEW] (not [STYLE REVIEW])scaffold-dashboard-browser-safety-reviewer → tagged [BROWSER SAFETY REVIEW] (not [SAFETY REVIEW])scaffold-dashboard-correctness-reviewer → tagged [CORRECTNESS REVIEW] (unchanged)The reviewers themselves still emit output in the standard review-output-schema format; only the tag on the message-board post changes, so the operator reads an accurate label.
Step 2 of the phase protocol runs three parallel Agent calls — the three roles above — all with review-output-schema verdicts. All three must APPROVE for the phase to pass. There is no fourth reviewer.
The content-catalogue-dashboard track has no dedicated tester agent. The implementer writes Vitest tests as part of its TDD loop. The correctness reviewer enforces a test coverage gate — any new hook, util, or component-extracted logic path without a corresponding Vitest test in the same commit is BLOCKING. Do not attempt to delegate to a tester; there is no such role in this wiring table.