com um clique
pony-ensemble
// Ensemble workflow for producing higher-confidence outputs through decorrelated reasoning paths. Load when the human explicitly requests the ensemble approach.
// Ensemble workflow for producing higher-confidence outputs through decorrelated reasoning paths. Load when the human explicitly requests the ensemble approach.
Load the Pony language reference (capabilities, PonyCheck, stdlib pitfalls, mort pattern). Load it before Pony coding sessions.
Ensemble code review with specialized reviewer personas. Has full (8-persona) and lightweight (3-persona) modes. Load when conducting a code review of a PR, branch, or local changes.
Ensemble documentation review with specialized reviewer personas. Has full (8-persona) and lightweight (3-persona) modes. Load when reviewing documentation-only changes where code-focused personas don't apply.
Property-based and generative testing patterns. Load when writing property-based tests, generators, or generative test suites.
Disciplines for software design work. Load when designing APIs, type systems, features, or system boundaries. Counters the tendency to retrieve familiar patterns instead of discovering what the problem actually needs. Has full (8-persona) and lightweight (5-persona) modes.
Two-stage ensemble for planning meaningful tests. Load when writing tests for new features or reviewing test quality. Counters the tendency to write tests that exercise the stdlib instead of your code. Has full (8-persona) and lightweight (5-persona) modes.
| name | pony-ensemble |
| description | Ensemble workflow for producing higher-confidence outputs through decorrelated reasoning paths. Load when the human explicitly requests the ensemble approach. |
| disable-model-invocation | false |
Produce higher-confidence outputs through decorrelated reasoning paths. Multiple agents work the same problem with slightly different attention focuses, then a synthesizer integrates their reviewed outputs. Small differences in focus cascade through the reasoning chain, producing meaningfully different outputs that cover more of the solution space than any single attempt.
pony-synthesizeSpecified per invocation — the human provides them, or the orchestrator selects contextually appropriate ones. They should be small perturbations, not fundamentally different approaches. The diversity comes from how small differences cascade through the reasoning chain.
When reviewing a fix (bug fix, security fix, race condition fix), always include an adversarial agent alongside whatever other focuses are specified. The adversarial agent's job is goal-directed: "The PR claims to fix X. Construct a concrete scenario where X still occurs despite the fix. Work backward from the bug's symptoms, not forward from the fix's mechanism." The other agents will verify the fix was applied correctly (positive check). The adversarial agent tries to break it (negative check). Positive checks are bounded by whatever search terms and code paths the orchestrator thinks to include in the prompt. The adversarial check is bounded by the bug itself, which makes it harder to miss adjacent instances of the same problem class.
Every agent produces: