factory-spec

name	factory-spec
description	Dark Factory spec workflow (/factory-spec, /fs): create a reviewed spec via the spec_gen pipeline, review an existing spec, or display the pipeline node graphs — spec-review pipelines, factory gates, node types, edge conditions, handler mappings. Create mode runs dark-factory --pipeline slim/spec_gen.dot; review and show modes are in-session only.

/factory-spec — Dark Factory Spec Workflow & Node Graph Reference

Install vs source

Dark Factory runs via the dark-factory binary, not python -m runner from a raw checkout:

~/projects/dark-factory/install.sh
export DARK_FACTORY_HOME=~/projects/dark-factory
export PATH="$HOME/.local/bin:$PATH"

• /fs / /factory-spec — spec creation (via pipeline), review, or graph reference.
• /f / /factory — run feature/implementation pipelines via dark-factory.

Pipelines and prompts resolve from $DARK_FACTORY_HOME; implementation work happens in the caller's cwd (--workdir defaults to cwd).

This block is the canonical install/setup copy — the command files (factory-spec.md, fs.md) point here; do not maintain divergent copies.

Modes — what /fs / /factory-spec execute

Create mode (default: /fs <spec description>)

1. Run Step 0 (below): classify greenfield vs brownfield. Mandatory. The classification output feeds the goal/context string passed to the pipeline.

2. For brownfield tasks, encode rules 1–6 (delete-first, executor node for deletion, net-LOC ≤ 0 guard, dead-code gate, same-call-site replace, post-deletion proof) directly in the goal string.

3. Report the proposed --goal string (classification + description) and ask the user to confirm or modify before running.

4. Run the spec-generation pipeline from the target project's cwd:

   export DARK_FACTORY_HOME=~/projects/dark-factory
   export PATH="$HOME/.local/bin:$PATH"
   dark-factory --pipeline slim/spec_gen.dot --goal "<Step-0 context + description>"
   

   The pipeline (implemented on branch feat/spec-gen-pipeline) runs: explore → plan → cold spec review → fix loop → exit, producing a reviewed spec.md without running any implement node.

   Note: slim/spec_gen.dot is being implemented in a parallel lane. If the pipeline is not yet available, report that and fall back to review mode to inspect a manually-written spec.

Review mode (/fs --review [spec_path])

1. spec_path defaults to spec/feature.md relative to the caller's cwd.
2. Read the spec and check, line-by-line: testable acceptance criteria; greenfield/brownfield classification stated; brownfield rules 1–6 present when applicable; pipeline named; goal stated as an observable output (a PR, a passing named test, a deleted path — not "improve X").
3. Report findings with line references and a verdict: ready or needs-changes with the specific gaps. Do not run a pipeline.

Show mode (/fs --show)

Display the pipeline graphs below. Read-only; no classification, no spec writes, no run.

Pipeline selection (mandatory before /f or /factory)

Full decision table: ~/projects/dark-factory/docs/pipeline-selection.md

Do not default every run to one .dot. If the user did not pass --pipeline, classify the goal (Step 0 below) and pick from this quick guide:

Task	Pipeline
Create a reviewed spec	pipelines/slim/spec_gen.dot ← /fs create mode
Smoke / wiring	pipelines/factory/hello.dot
New feature (full loop)	pipelines/slim/minimal_feature.dot
PR iteration (research + holdout)	pipelines/slim/minimal_pr.dot
Validate diff + holdout	pipelines/factory/gates.dot
PR gates only	pipelines/factory/pr_gates.dot
Spec review slim	benchmarks/attractor-spec-review/pipelines/review_slim.dot
Spec review full	benchmarks/attractor-spec-review/pipelines/review_full.dot
Brownfield replace/delete	custom goal + delete-first rules; often minimal_feature.dot or custom .dot

Short names for --pipeline: spec_gen, gates, hello, pr_gates, minimal_pr, minimal_feature, review_slim, review_full.

Repo-specific pipelines (target-repo subdir convention): graphs that hardcode the target repo's own slash commands or repo-specific review lanes belong at <target_repo>/dark-factory/pipelines/<name>.dot, not in ~/projects/dark-factory/pipelines/. The runner resolves bare filenames against <workdir>/dark-factory/pipelines/ before falling through to $DARK_FACTORY_HOME/pipelines/, so an operator in the target repo can pass --pipeline my_repo_lane.dot and the runner finds it locally.

When --pipeline is omitted (auto-select path), /f and /factory list the contents of <workdir>/dark-factory/pipelines/ before falling back to the built-in decision table, so repo-specific graphs surface in the auto-select output. The convention is therefore discoverable, not just documentable.

Execution command (from target repo cwd):

export PATH="$HOME/.local/bin:$PATH"
dark-factory --pipeline pipelines/slim/minimal_pr.dot --goal "..." --backend claude

Purpose

Show the factory pipeline graph structure at a glance — node types, edges, conditions, and handler mappings — without running a pipeline. Use this when you need to remember what nodes exist, what the wiring looks like, or which pipeline to pick for a given goal.

Step 0 (MANDATORY): classify the task — Brownfield vs Greenfield

Before picking a pipeline or writing the spec/goal, decide which kind of change this is. Getting this wrong is the #1 cause of a factory run that reaches exit/success while certifying the wrong thing. (Real failure 2026-05-30: a replace-the-backend-override task was run with a greenfield additive pipeline → the override was never deleted, a parallel mechanism was bolted on top, net LOC was +2507/−54, and an unwired Pydantic model passed test_e2e as dead code.)

Greenfield — new behavior from scratch (net-additive)

Use the standard pipelines (hello.dot, minimal_feature.dot, review_*.dot): plan → implement → test → review → holdout → gates. Net-positive LOC is expected.

Brownfield — refactor / replace / delete existing behavior

The task removes or replaces a code path that already runs in production. A greenfield pipeline is wrong here. Encode these rules in the spec, the --goal, and the DAG:

1. DELETE-FIRST ordering (not delete-last). The implement node must remove or replace the old path as part of the build, and the behavior/test_llm node then proves the new path works with the old one already gone. Never "add new alongside old → prove → delete later": the deletion gets orphaned (no node executes it) and the proof is confounded (the old path's fallback/passthrough can mask a weak new path, so green proves nothing).
2. Deletion needs an executor node — never a conditional. Do NOT write "(N) only AFTER the proof, delete X" in a goal: nothing in the DAG runs a post-proof deletion, and resume pipelines (test-onward) have no implement node at all. Make the deletion part of implement/fix, or add an explicit node.
3. Net-LOC ≤ 0 guard. For replace/delete milestones, add a gate/acceptance check that FAILS if net production LOC > 0 (the new code must displace at least as much as it adds). See deletion-milestone skill.
4. Dead-code gate. Add a check that FAILS if a newly-added module/symbol is defined but unreferenced in runtime (non-test). Otherwise a passing unit test makes test_e2e green while the code is dead (e.g. a model class only instantiated in its own test).
5. Replace at the same call site. The new mechanism must be wired into the same call site the old one used, and the old one removed in the same change — not added at a new site while the old site still runs.
6. Prove against the post-deletion tree. The real-LLM / behavior test must execute with the old path already deleted, so a green verdict cannot be produced by the old fallback.

Quick test: "If this milestone succeeds, should git diff show deletions of production code?" If yes → brownfield → apply rules 1–6. If the planned diff is all additions for a replace/delete goal, the pipeline is mis-shaped — STOP and re-architect delete-first.

Spec-Review Pipelines (Primary)

These are the Attractor-style spec-validation pipelines under benchmarks/attractor-spec-review/pipelines/. The key innovation: an independent cold reviewer (codex exec --yolo) that numbers every spec line and returns strict JSON line-by-line findings.

1. review_slim.dot — Line-Aware Spec Review (Slim)

start ──▶ plan ──▶ implement ──▶ acceptance ──(success)──▶ review ──(success)──▶ exit
                                    │                       │
                                    └──(fail)──▶ fix ◀──────┘ (max 3 visits)
                                                      │
                                                      └──▶ implement (loop)

Node	Type	Command / Prompt	What it does
start	built-in	—	Entry point
plan	codergen	@benchmarks/attractor-spec-review/prompts/plan.md	Plan from spec
implement	codergen	@benchmarks/attractor-spec-review/prompts/implement.md	Write code
acceptance	tool	python scripts/validate_spec.py --spec spec/feature.md --report spec_review/validation_report.json	Line-numbered spec validation
review	tool	benchmarks/attractor-spec-review/scripts/review_with_codex.sh . spec/feature.md spec_review/independent_reviewer.json	Independent cold reviewer via codex exec --yolo; returns JSON verdict
fix	codergen	@benchmarks/attractor-spec-review/prompts/fix.md, max_visits=3	Fix failures, loops back to implement
exit	built-in	—	Terminal node

Use when: validating a spec implementation against line-numbered acceptance

• independent reviewer, without full-stack smoke.

2. review_full.dot — Line-Aware Spec Review (Full)

start ──▶ plan ──▶ implement ──▶ acceptance ──(success)──▶ stack_smoke ──(success)──▶ review ──(success)──▶ exit
                                    │                       │                       │
                                    └──(fail)──▶ fix ◀──────┘                       └──(fail)──▶ fix
                                                      │
                                                      └──▶ implement (loop)

Same as slim, plus a stack_smoke node between acceptance and review:

Node	Type	Command	What it does
stack_smoke	tool	bash scripts/fullstack_smoke.sh	Full-stack smoke test before reviewer

Use when: you need end-to-end runtime verification before the independent reviewer checks spec conformance.

Key node: Independent Reviewer

The review node runs review_with_codex.sh which:

1. Numbers every spec line (0001: ..., 0002: ...)
2. Shells out to codex exec --yolo — separate process, cold reviewer
3. Returns strict JSON: line-by-line findings + verdict (pass/fail)
4. goal_gate=true + retry_target="fix" — failure routes to fix loop

This is the Attractor guarantee: the reviewer has never seen the implementation prompt, only the spec and the code diff.

Factory Pipelines (Validation Gates)

3. gates.dot — 4-Gate Validation

start ──▶ holdout_eval ──(success)──▶ gate_es ──(success)──▶ gate_er ──(success)──▶ gate_cs ──▶ exit
                 │                      │                      │
                 └──(fail)──▶ exit      └──(fail)──▶ exit     └──(fail)──▶ exit

Node	Type	Handler	What it does
holdout	holdout_eval	Sealed evaluator at $DARK_FACTORY_HOLDOUTS/evaluator/run.py	Runs hidden test scenarios against the diff
gate_es	gate_es	claude --print /es	Evidence standards check
gate_er	gate_er	claude --print /er	Evidence review check
gate_cs	gate_code_standards	claude --print /code_standards	ZFC + leveling + root-cause-first

Use when: already-implemented diff needs Attractor-style 4-gate validation (requires holdout).

3.5 pr_gates.dot — 3-Gate PR Validation (No Holdout)

start ──▶ gate_es ──(success)──▶ gate_er ──(success)──▶ gate_cs ──▶ exit
             │                      │
             └──(fail)──▶ exit      └──(fail)──▶ exit

Node	Type	Handler	What it does
gate_es	gate_es	claude --print /es	Evidence standards check
gate_er	gate_er	claude --print /er	Evidence review check
gate_cs	gate_code_standards	claude --print /code_standards	ZFC + leveling + root-cause-first

Use when: validating an in-flight PR diff (like gates.dot but bypasses holdout features).

4. hello.dot — Plan/Implement/Fix Loop

start ──▶ plan ──▶ implement ──▶ holdout_eval ──(success)──▶ exit
                                      │
                                      └──(fail)──▶ fix ──▶ holdout_eval (loop, max 3 visits)

Use when: adding a new feature from scratch with a holdout scenario.

5. minimal_feature.dot — Full Feature Factory (Slim)

start ──▶ plan ──▶ implement ──▶ test ──(success)──▶ review ──(success)──▶ holdout ──(success)──▶ gate_es ──(success)──▶ gate_er ──(success)──▶ exit
                                    │                  │                  │                  │
                                    └──(fail)──▶ fix ◀─┘                  │                  │
                                                          └──(fail)──▶ fix ┘                  │
                                                                               └──(fail)──▶ fix ┘

fix ──▶ test (loop)

Use when: full production pipeline from scratch: test → review → holdout → evidence gates.

6. minimal_pr.dot — Slim PR Iteration Factory (No Holdout)

start ──▶ explore ──▶ research ──▶ plan ──▶ implement ──▶ test ──(success)──▶ review ──(success)──▶ holdout ──(success)──▶ gate_es ──(success)──▶ gate_er ──(success)──▶ exit
                                                            │                  │                       │                      │                      │
                                                            └──(fail)──▶ fix ◀─┴───────────────────────┴──────────────────────┴──────────────────────┘

fix ──▶ test (loop)

Use when: in-flight PR iteration loop with parameterized test commands (--state slim.test_command="...") and evidence checks. Holdout-always policy: this lane runs the sealed behavioral holdouts (requires $DARK_FACTORY_HOLDOUTS), and a classless research node (coder tier) digests explore findings before plan.

Handler type registry

Node type attr	Handler function	Behavior
codergen	_codergen	Render prompt template, dispatch to backend (claude/codex/ao/agy)
tool	_tool	Shell out to command="..." attribute
holdout_eval	_holdout_eval	Run sealed evaluator from $DARK_FACTORY_HOLDOUTS
gate_es	_gate_es	Shell out to claude --print /es
gate_er	_gate_er	Shell out to claude --print /er
gate_code_standards	_gate_code_standards	Shell out to claude --print /code_standards
human_gate	_human_gate	Block on stdin or use ctx.state["<node>.outcome"]
conditional	_conditional	Hexagon decision node; outcome from ctx.state[decision_key]

Shape-based handler fallback

DOT shape	Handler
Mdiamond	start
Msquare	exit
hexagon	conditional

Edge condition syntax

• condition="key=value" — matches ctx.state[key] == value
• condition="key!=value" — matches ctx.state[key] != value
• No condition — unconditional (fallback)
• Conditional edges tried before unconditional ones

Backend routing

--backend flag	Per-node backend attr	CLI invoked
echo	—	Deterministic mock, no LLM
claude	claude	claude --print --dangerously-skip-permissions
codex	codex	codex exec --yolo
ao	ao	Agent Orchestrator ao spawn
agy	agy	agy --print --dangerously-skip-permissions

Source files

• Spec-review pipelines: benchmarks/attractor-spec-review/pipelines/
• Spec-review scripts: benchmarks/attractor-spec-review/scripts/
• Factory pipelines: pipelines/factory/ and pipelines/slim/
• Handlers: runner/handlers.py
• Engine: runner/engine.py
• Parser: runner/parser.py