hyperresearch-10-triple-draft

name

hyperresearch-10-triple-draft

description

Step 10 of the hyperresearch V8 pipeline. Orchestrator pre-curates 20-50 angle-specific source IDs per draft, then spawns 3 hyperresearch-draft- orchestrator subagents in parallel — each reads its curated list (no vault surveys, no source-fetching) and writes one angle-specific draft. This step ENDS when all 3 drafts are written and validated. Step 11 (synthesizer) handles the synthesis-write that produces the final report. For light tier: writes a single draft directly to final_report.md and skips ahead to step 15 (polish). Invoked via Skill tool.

Step 10 — Triple-draft ensemble (curated lists, parallel writers)

⚠ CRITICAL ANTI-PATTERN: Writing a single draft for full tier is a PIPELINE VIOLATION. In V7 runs, context compaction caused the orchestrator to forget this step's procedure and write a single draft instead of spawning 3 sub-orchestrators. V8 fixes this by loading this skill fresh at the moment it's needed. If you find yourself about to write research/notes/final_report_<vault_tag>.md directly without spawning 3 hyperresearch-draft-orchestrator subagents, STOP. Re-read this skill. Spawn the sub-orchestrators. (Light tier is the ONE exception — see "Light tier" section below.)

Tier gate: Runs for ALL tiers. For light tier: write a single draft directly to research/notes/final_report_<vault_tag>.md and skip ahead to step 15 (polish). For full: run the triple-draft ensemble below — step 11 (synthesizer) will turn the 3 drafts into the final report.

Goal: produce THREE independent angle-specific drafts (draft-{a,b,c}.md). Step 11 (synthesizer subagent) consumes all three and writes the final report.

---

Recover state

Read these inputs:

• research/scaffold.md — vault_tag, modality, wrapper requirements
• research/prompt-decomposition.json — atomic items, required_section_headings, response_format, citation_style, pipeline_tier
• research/temp/evidence-digest.md — top claims + verbatim quotes — PRIMARY EVIDENCE LAYER (full only; absent for light)
• research/comparisons.md (full tier) — cross-locus tensions
• research/temp/source-tensions.json (full tier) — expert disagreements
• research/temp/coverage-gaps.md (if exists) — items with weak source coverage
• Survey vault: $HPR search "" --tag <vault_tag> -j for the evidence landscape
• Modality calibration (from the scaffold's modality field):
  • collect — enumerative coverage, per-entity sections with named fields
  • synthesize — defended thesis with evidence chains, interpretive density
  • compare — proportionate per-entity depth + a committed recommendation
  • forecast — predictive claims grounded in past + present, explicit time horizon

---

Step 10.0 — Read response_format and citation_style

Read response_format and citation_style from research/prompt-decomposition.json. These control the draft shape:

Format	Target length	Character
"short"	500–2000 words / 1500–6000 chars (CJK)	Direct answer, compact
"structured"	2000–5000 words / 6000–15000 chars (CJK)	Scannable, breadth-first
"argumentative"	5000–10000 words / 20000–25000 chars (CJK)	Dense thesis-driven

Length discipline: Target the MIDDLE of the range. Under-length loses on comprehensiveness; over-length dilutes good content.

---

Light tier ONLY: single-draft path

If pipeline_tier == "light": SKIP step 10.1 — 10.3 below and follow this section instead.

Light tier writes a single draft directly to research/notes/final_report_<vault_tag>.md. No subagents, no triple-draft ensemble, no synthesizer.

1. Read the vault directly. Light tier has no evidence-digest.md (step 9 was skipped). Survey the vault: $HPR search "" --tag <vault_tag> -j and pick the 8–15 most relevant non-deprecated notes. Read each one ($HPR note show <id1> <id2> ... -j) before writing.

2. Honor the structural contract.

   • Use the literal H2 headings from required_section_headings in research/prompt-decomposition.json, in order.
   • Hit the length target from step 10.0's table for the chosen response_format (light typically pairs with short or structured).
   • Apply the modality calibration from the recover-state list above.

3. Citations. Three styles:

   • "wikilink" (default for non-wrapped runs): every citation is a [[<source-note-id>]] marker pointing at the source note in the vault. No separate ## Sources section. Each wikilink resolves to its source note's frontmatter (title + URL). This is the navigable-vault format.
   • "inline" (benchmark + public deliverables): numbered [N] citations + a ## Sources section listing each cited note as [N] Title. URL (read each cited note's YAML frontmatter for title + URL).
   • "none": no citation markers anywhere, no Sources section.

4. Hygiene. No YAML frontmatter on the final report. No pipeline vocabulary in prose ("hyperresearch", "evidence digest", "comparisons.md", "committed reading", etc.). When citation_style == "wikilink", [[<source-note-id>]] markers ARE the citation system and must be preserved — only strip wikilinks that point at workspace artifacts (interim-*, scaffold, comparisons). Step 15 (polish) is a backstop, not a license to leak.

5. Exit and route. Once research/notes/final_report_<vault_tag>.md is written, return to the entry skill and invoke Skill(skill: "hyperresearch-15-polish"). Light tier skips steps 11–14 entirely.

---

Step 10.1 — Define 3 analytical angles (full tier)

Based on the evidence, tensions, and query, assign each sub-orchestrator a distinct angle. The angles should produce genuinely different drafts — not three versions of the same argument.

For topics with clear tensions/disagreements:

• Draft A — Strongest-thesis: take the position best supported by evidence and argue it forcefully.
• Draft B — Steelman-contrarian: take the strongest counter-position seriously. Defend the MINORITY view.
• Draft C — Synthesis-reconciler: argue that both sides capture part of the truth. Focus on BOUNDARY CONDITIONS — when does each side's argument hold?

For topics without clear tensions (surveys, comparisons, collections):

• Draft A — Breadth-optimized: widest possible coverage of all atomic items.
• Draft B — Depth-optimized: deeper treatment of the 3-4 most important atomic items.
• Draft C — Practitioner-optimized: organized around actionable recommendations.

Write the 3 angle assignments to research/temp/draft-angles.md (for the run log). Each angle: 2-3 sentences describing the analytical direction.

---

Step 10.2 — Curate per-angle source lists

Critical step. Each draft sub-orchestrator does NOT decide what to read. YOU pick the 20-50 most relevant vault notes for each angle and pass them as must_read_note_ids. This eliminates wasted vault-survey loops in the sub-orchestrators and forces real differentiation by giving each draft a different evidence base.

1. List all substantive vault notes:

   $HPR search "" --tag <vault_tag> --json
   

   Filter to non-deprecated notes. You should have 50-100 candidates.

2. For each draft (A, B, C), pick 20-50 angle-specific notes. Use these signals:

   • Source-analysis notes (type: source-analysis): high-value, full digests of long sources. Include relevant ones in EVERY draft's list — these are gold.
   • Interim notes (type: interim, full tier only): include all of them in EVERY draft's list — these have the committed positions.
   • For Draft A (strongest-thesis or breadth): prefer sources that support the dominant evidence direction. Include any source the evidence digest cites for high-confidence claims.
   • For Draft B (steelman-contrarian or depth): prefer minority-view or methodological-critique sources. Pull from source-tensions.json proponents on the contested side. If contradiction-graph.json exists, include the lower-quality-evidence side's sources to force the steelman to engage them.
   • For Draft C (synthesis or practitioner): prefer sources with boundary conditions, comparative analyses, or applied case studies. Pull from sources the evidence digest groups under multiple atomic items (cross-cutting sources).

3. Source overlap is fine. Drafts can share source IDs — interim notes and key source-analyses should appear in all three lists. Differentiation comes from the angle-specific extras (the 5-15 sources unique to each draft's list).

4. Cap each list at 50, minimum 20. For argumentative format, lean toward 35-50. For structured, lean toward 25-40. For short, lean toward 20-30.

5. Write each list to disk so the spawn template can reference it:

   • research/temp/draft-a-source-list.md
   • research/temp/draft-b-source-list.md
   • research/temp/draft-c-source-list.md

   Format:

   # Draft A — must_read_note_ids (n=37)
   Angle: <2-3 sentence angle assignment>
   
   - <note-id-1>: <one-line summary or title>
   - <note-id-2>: <one-line summary or title>
   ...
   

---

Step 10.3 — Spawn 3 draft sub-orchestrators in parallel

Spawn 3 hyperresearch-draft-orchestrator subagents in ONE message. This is true parallel execution. Each gets a different draft_id, analytical_angle, and (CRUCIALLY) a different must_read_note_ids array.

Spawn template:

subagent_type: hyperresearch-draft-orchestrator
prompt: |
  RESEARCH QUERY (verbatim, gospel):
  > {{paste research/query-<vault_tag>.md body}}

  QUERY FILE: research/query-<vault_tag>.md

  PIPELINE POSITION: You are one of 3 parallel step 10 sub-orchestrators
  in the hyperresearch V8 pipeline. After you and the other two return, the
  main orchestrator runs step 11 (synthesizer subagent) which reads all
  3 drafts and writes the final report. Your draft is an INPUT to that
  synthesis, not the final output.

  YOUR INPUTS:
  - query_file_path: research/query-<vault_tag>.md
  - vault_tag: <vault_tag>
  - draft_id: "a" (or "b" or "c")
  - output_path: research/temp/draft-a.md (or draft-b.md or draft-c.md)
  - analytical_angle: "<the 2-3 sentence angle assignment>"
  - must_read_note_ids: [<paste the IDs from research/temp/draft-<x>-source-list.md, e.g. 30-50 IDs>]
  - decomposition_path: research/prompt-decomposition.json
  - evidence_digest_path: research/temp/evidence-digest.md
  - comparisons_path: research/comparisons.md
  - source_tensions_path: research/temp/source-tensions.json
  - response_format: "<short|structured|argumentative>"
  - citation_style: "<wikilink|inline|none>"
  - modality: "<collect|synthesize|compare|forecast>"

  Read every note on must_read_note_ids before writing. Do NOT survey
  the vault — your reading list is curated. Do NOT fetch new sources.
  Write your draft from your assigned angle, citing your curated sources.

CRITICAL: never emit bare text while the 3 sub-orchestrators are running. They will take 5-15 minutes each. Use this time to think — append notes to research/temp/orchestrator-notes.md about the synthesis you'll plan in step 11: what's the strongest thesis emerging across angles? Which atomic items will be contentious? What argumentative beats must the final draft commit to? One vault count check per minute max. Write your thoughts, don't just poll.

---

Step 10.4 — Validate that all 3 drafts came back

When all 3 sub-orchestrators return:

1. Confirm all 3 draft files exist:

   • research/temp/draft-a.md
   • research/temp/draft-b.md
   • research/temp/draft-c.md

2. Read each sub-orchestrator's report-back. Each should report:

   • Path to the draft
   • Core thesis
   • How many notes from must_read_note_ids it actually read
   • Strongest argumentative beat
   • Word/character count

3. If a draft is missing or trivially short (under 1000 chars for argumentative, 500 for structured), re-spawn that single sub-orchestrator with the same inputs. Do not proceed to step 11 with fewer than 3 drafts.

4. Do NOT synthesize the drafts in this step. Step 11 (the synthesizer subagent) does that. Your only job here is to ensure 3 valid drafts exist.

---

Exit criterion

Light tier:

• research/notes/final_report_<vault_tag>.md exists, hits the length target from step 10.0, follows required_section_headings, and respects citation_style.

Standard / full tier:

• All three drafts exist at research/temp/draft-{a,b,c}.md
• Each draft has non-trivial length (1000+ chars argumentative, 500+ structured)
• Sub-orchestrator report-backs are captured (you can paraphrase them in research/temp/orchestrator-notes.md for the synthesis plan you'll write in step 11)

---

Next step

Return to the entry skill (hyperresearch). Tier-based routing:

• light tier: You already wrote research/notes/final_report_<vault_tag>.md directly. Skip steps 11-14 (no synthesis, no critics, no patcher) and invoke Skill(skill: "hyperresearch-15-polish").
• full tier: Invoke Skill(skill: "hyperresearch-11-synthesize").