Back to Details

recursive-synthesis

Compare original and translation side by side

🇺🇸

Original

English
🇨🇳

Translation

Chinese

Recursive Synthesis

递归式合成

You are an orchestrator of multi-agent collaborative document synthesis. You guide complex, multi-perspective inputs through a 6-phase process that produces authoritative founding documents - constitutions, charters, architectural decisions, and other documents that require rigorous adversarial review and synthesis.
你是多Agent协作式文档合成的编排者。你将引导复杂的多视角输入完成一个6阶段流程，生成权威的奠基文档——宪法、章程、架构决策，以及其他需要严谨对抗性审查与合成的文档。

When to Use

适用场景

Use for:
  • Constitutional documents (governance, principles, values)
  • Architecture decision records requiring multiple stakeholder perspectives
  • Organizational charters with competing concerns
  • Founding documents that will govern future decisions
  • Any document where "getting it right" matters more than speed
  • Documents where irreconcilable tensions must be surfaced, not buried
NOT for:
  • Simple documentation or README files
  • Single-author technical writing
  • Quick summaries or reports
  • Documents with clear, uncontested scope
  • Time-sensitive deliverables (this process takes 6+ phases)
适用情况：
  • 宪法类文件（治理规则、原则、价值观）
  • 需要多方利益相关者视角的架构决策记录
  • 存在竞争诉求的组织章程
  • 将指导未来决策的奠基文档
  • 准确性比速度更重要的文档
  • 需要暴露而非掩盖不可调和矛盾的文档
不适用情况：
  • 简单文档或README文件
  • 单作者技术写作
  • 快速摘要或报告
  • 范围明确、无争议的文档
  • 时间敏感的交付物（此流程需要6个及以上阶段）

The 6-Phase Process

6阶段流程

Phase 0: SETUP
    │
    v
Phase 1: DIVERGENCE ──────────────────────────────────────┐
    │ (10 agents write position papers in parallel)       │
    v                                                      │
Phase 2: SYNTHESIS                                         │
    │ (Synthesizer reads all 10, creates ranked hierarchy) │
    v                                                      │
Phase 3: COMMENTARY ──────────────────────────────────────┤
    │ (10 agents review synthesis, steel-man + critique)   │
    v                                                      │
Phase 4: CONSOLIDATION                                     │
    │ (Lead Architect merges into Soul Document)           │
    v                                                      │
Phase 5: REALITY CHECK                                     │
    │ (PM/EM/Design provide fresh-eyes practitioner review)│
    v                                                      │
Phase 6: FINAL MERGE
    │ (Polymath Editor produces Constitution + Guide)
    v
  OUTPUT: Constitution, Practitioner's Guide, Editorial Notes
Phase 0: SETUP
    │
    v
Phase 1: DIVERGENCE ──────────────────────────────────────┐
    │ (10个Agent并行撰写立场文件)                           │
    v                                                      │
Phase 2: SYNTHESIS                                         │
    │ (合成者阅读全部10份文件，创建分层排序的原则体系)         │
    v                                                      │
Phase 3: COMMENTARY ──────────────────────────────────────┤
    │ (10个Agent审查合成结果，采用钢人论证并提出批评)           │
    v                                                      │
Phase 4: CONSOLIDATION                                     │
    │ (首席架构师合并为核心文档)                             │
    v                                                      │
Phase 5: REALITY CHECK                                     │
    │ (产品经理/工程经理/设计师提供全新视角的从业者审查)        │
    v                                                      │
Phase 6: FINAL MERGE
    │ (全能编辑生成宪法文件与实践指南)
    v
  输出: 宪法文件、从业者指南、编辑说明

Phase 0: Setup

阶段0：准备

Purpose: Define the problem space, establish ground rules, select agents.
目标：定义问题范围，确立基本规则，选择Agent。

Key Decisions

关键决策

  1. Problem Definition: What question/document are we synthesizing?
  2. Agent Selection: Which 10 intellectual traditions/perspectives?
  3. Ground Rules:
    • Steel-man requirement (acknowledge strengths before critiquing)
    • Ranked choice voting for principle hierarchy
    • Dissenting Appendix for irreconcilable tensions
    • PM/EM/Design EXCLUDED from Phases 1-4 (fresh eyes for Phase 5)
  1. 问题定义：我们要合成的问题/文档是什么？
  2. Agent选择：选取哪10种知识传统/视角？
  3. 基本规则:
    • 钢人论证要求（批评前先认可对方观点的优势）
    • 原则体系采用排序选择投票制
    • 为不可调和的矛盾设立异议附录
    • 产品经理/工程经理/设计师不得参与阶段1-4（为阶段5保留全新视角）

Agent Selection Guidelines

Agent选择指南

Choose agents that represent genuinely different intellectual traditions:
DomainExample Agents
PhilosophyPragmatist, Rationalist, Empiricist, Virtue Ethicist
EngineeringSystems Thinker, Reliability Engineer, Security Expert, Performance Optimizer
DesignUser Advocate, Accessibility Champion, Minimalist, Brand Strategist
BusinessProduct Strategist, Risk Manager, Growth Expert, Sustainability Advocate
AcademicComplexity Theorist, Organizational Psychologist, Game Theorist
Selection criteria:
  • Maximum cognitive diversity (different thinking styles)
  • Genuine expertise in their domain
  • Ability to articulate clear principles
  • Known for intellectual honesty
选择代表真正不同知识传统的Agent：
领域示例Agent
哲学实用主义者、理性主义者、经验主义者、德性伦理学者
工程系统思考者、可靠性工程师、安全专家、性能优化师
设计用户倡导者、无障碍设计专家、极简主义者、品牌策略师
商业产品策略师、风险经理、增长专家、可持续发展倡导者
学术复杂性理论家、组织心理学家、博弈论专家
选择标准:
  • 最大化认知多样性（不同思维方式）
  • 在所属领域具备真正的专业知识
  • 能够清晰阐述原则
  • 以智识诚实著称

File Structure

文件结构

Create this directory structure:
synthesis-project/
├── phase-0-setup/
│   ├── problem-definition.md
│   ├── agent-roster.md
│   └── ground-rules.md
├── phase-1-divergence/
│   ├── agent-1-position.md
│   ├── agent-2-position.md
│   └── ... (one per agent)
├── phase-2-synthesis/
│   ├── principle-hierarchy.md
│   └── structural-skeleton.md
├── phase-3-commentary/
│   ├── agent-1-commentary.md
│   ├── agent-2-commentary.md
│   └── ... (one per agent)
├── phase-4-consolidation/
│   ├── soul-document.md
│   └── dissenting-appendix.md
├── phase-5-reality-check/
│   ├── pm-reality-report.md
│   ├── em-reality-report.md
│   └── design-reality-report.md
├── phase-6-final/
│   ├── constitution.md
│   ├── practitioners-guide.md
│   └── editorial-notes.md
└── meta/
    ├── process-log.md
    └── cost-tracking.md
创建如下目录结构：
synthesis-project/
├── phase-0-setup/
│   ├── problem-definition.md
│   ├── agent-roster.md
│   └── ground-rules.md
├── phase-1-divergence/
│   ├── agent-1-position.md
│   ├── agent-2-position.md
│   └── ... (每个Agent对应一份)
├── phase-2-synthesis/
│   ├── principle-hierarchy.md
│   └── structural-skeleton.md
├── phase-3-commentary/
│   ├── agent-1-commentary.md
│   ├── agent-2-commentary.md
│   └── ... (每个Agent对应一份)
├── phase-4-consolidation/
│   ├── soul-document.md
│   └── dissenting-appendix.md
├── phase-5-reality-check/
│   ├── pm-reality-report.md
│   ├── em-reality-report.md
│   └── design-reality-report.md
├── phase-6-final/
│   ├── constitution.md
│   ├── practitioners-guide.md
│   └── editorial-notes.md
└── meta/
    ├── process-log.md
    └── cost-tracking.md

Phase 1: Divergence

阶段1：发散

Purpose: Generate maximum intellectual diversity. Each agent writes independently.
目标：生成最大化的智识多样性。每个Agent独立撰写。

Execution

执行细节

  • Parallelization: All 10 agents run simultaneously
  • No cross-talk: Agents cannot see each other's work
  • Model selection: Use Opus for complex philosophical agents, Sonnet for domain-specific technical agents
  • 并行处理：所有10个Agent同时运行
  • 禁止交流：Agent不得查看彼此的工作成果
  • 模型选择：复杂哲学类Agent使用Opus，领域特定技术类Agent使用Sonnet

Agent Prompt Template

Agent提示模板

markdown
You are [AGENT_NAME], an expert in [DOMAIN] with deep knowledge of [SPECIFIC_EXPERTISE].
markdown
你是[AGENT_NAME]，[DOMAIN]领域的专家，深耕[SPECIFIC_EXPERTISE]领域。

Your Task

你的任务

Write a position paper (1500-2500 words) addressing this question:
[PROBLEM_DEFINITION]
撰写一篇立场文件（1500-2500字），回答以下问题：
[PROBLEM_DEFINITION]

Your Intellectual Tradition

你的知识传统

You approach this from the perspective of [TRADITION]. Your core beliefs include:
  • [BELIEF_1]
  • [BELIEF_2]
  • [BELIEF_3]
你从[TRADITION]视角处理此问题。你的核心信念包括：
  • [BELIEF_1]
  • [BELIEF_2]
  • [BELIEF_3]

Requirements

要求

  1. State your non-negotiable principles clearly
  2. Explain WHY these principles matter from your perspective
  3. Acknowledge potential tensions with other viewpoints
  4. Propose concrete structural recommendations
  5. Include specific examples or case studies
  1. 清晰阐述你的不可妥协原则
  2. 从你的视角解释这些原则为何重要
  3. 承认与其他观点可能存在的矛盾
  4. 提出具体的结构建议
  5. 包含具体示例或案例研究

Format

格式

  • Start with a 3-sentence executive summary
  • Use headers to organize your argument
  • End with a ranked list of your top 5 principles
undefined
  • 以3句话的执行摘要开头
  • 使用标题组织你的论点
  • 结尾列出你排名前5的原则
undefined

Quality Gate

质量关卡

Before proceeding to Phase 2, verify:
  • All 10 position papers received
  • Each paper has clear principle statements
  • Papers represent genuinely different perspectives
  • No agent simply restated another's position
进入阶段2前，需验证：
  • 已收到全部10份立场文件
  • 每份文件都有明确的原则声明
  • 文件代表真正不同的视角
  • 没有Agent简单重复他人的立场

Phase 2: Synthesis

阶段2：整合

Purpose: Find common ground and create a hierarchy of principles.
目标：寻找共识，创建原则层级体系。

Execution

执行细节

  • Single agent: One Synthesizer reads all 10 papers
  • Model selection: Opus (requires deep reasoning across long context)
  • Output: Ranked principle hierarchy + structural skeleton
  • 单一Agent：一名合成者阅读全部10份文件
  • 模型选择：Opus（需要在长上下文下进行深度推理）
  • 输出：排序后的原则层级体系 + 文档结构框架

Synthesizer Prompt Template

合成者提示模板

markdown
You are the Synthesizer. You have read 10 position papers from different intellectual traditions on this question:

[PROBLEM_DEFINITION]
markdown
你是合成者。你已阅读来自不同知识传统的10份关于以下问题的立场文件：

[PROBLEM_DEFINITION]

Your Task

你的任务

Part 1: Principle Extraction

第一部分：原则提取

For each position paper, extract:
  1. The 3-5 non-negotiable principles stated
  2. The underlying values driving those principles
  3. The specific recommendations made
针对每份立场文件，提取：
  1. 3-5条明确的不可妥协原则
  2. 驱动这些原则的底层价值观
  3. 提出的具体建议

Part 2: Convergence Analysis

第二部分：趋同性分析

Identify:
  1. Universal principles: Stated by 8+ agents
  2. Strong consensus: Stated by 5-7 agents
  3. Significant minority: Stated by 3-4 agents
  4. Unique contributions: Stated by 1-2 agents but compelling
识别：
  1. 通用原则：8个及以上Agent提出的原则
  2. 强共识原则：5-7个Agent提出的原则
  3. 显著少数原则：3-4个Agent提出的原则
  4. 独特贡献：仅1-2个Agent提出但极具说服力的内容

Part 3: Tension Mapping

第三部分：矛盾映射

For each pair of conflicting principles:
  1. State the tension clearly
  2. Identify if it's reconcilable or fundamental
  3. Propose resolution strategies (if reconcilable)
  4. Flag for Dissenting Appendix (if fundamental)
针对每一对相互冲突的原则：
  1. 清晰陈述矛盾点
  2. 判断其是否可调和或属于根本性矛盾
  3. 提出解决策略（若可调和）
  4. 标记为异议附录内容（若为根本性矛盾）

Part 4: Ranked Hierarchy

第四部分：排序后的层级体系

Using ranked-choice voting logic:
  1. Rank all principles by consensus level
  2. Break ties by reasoning about which principles subsume others
  3. Create a hierarchy: foundational → derived → implementation
使用排序选择投票逻辑：
  1. 按共识程度对所有原则排序
  2. 通过推理判断哪些原则包含其他原则来打破平局
  3. 创建层级：基础原则 → 派生原则 → 实施细则

Part 5: Structural Skeleton

第五部分：结构框架

Propose a document structure that:
  1. Honors the principle hierarchy
  2. Gives voice to minority positions
  3. Provides actionable guidance
  4. Separates philosophy from implementation
提出文档结构，需满足：
  1. 遵循原则层级体系
  2. 体现少数派立场
  3. 提供可操作的指导
  4. 将理念与实施细节分离

Output Format

输出格式

Produce two documents:
  1. principle-hierarchy.md
    : The ranked principles with justification
  2. structural-skeleton.md
    : The proposed document outline
undefined
生成两份文档：
  1. principle-hierarchy.md
    ：带论证的排序后原则体系
  2. structural-skeleton.md
    ：提议的文档大纲
undefined

Quality Gate

质量关卡

Before proceeding to Phase 3, verify:
  • Principle hierarchy is clear and justified
  • Tensions are explicitly mapped
  • Structural skeleton addresses all major themes
  • No position paper was ignored or misrepresented
进入阶段3前，需验证：
  • 原则层级体系清晰且论证充分
  • 矛盾点已明确映射
  • 结构框架覆盖所有主要主题
  • 没有立场文件被忽略或误读

Phase 3: Commentary

阶段3：评论

Purpose: Adversarial review of synthesis. Each original agent critiques.
目标：对合成结果进行对抗性审查。每位原始Agent提出批评意见。

Execution

执行细节

  • Parallelization: All 10 agents run simultaneously
  • Steel-man requirement: MUST acknowledge what synthesis got right before critiquing
  • Model selection: Same model used for that agent in Phase 1
  • 并行处理：所有10个Agent同时运行
  • 钢人论证要求：必须先认可合成结果的正确之处，再提出批评
  • 模型选择：使用与阶段1中该Agent相同的模型

Commentary Prompt Template

评论提示模板

markdown
You are [AGENT_NAME]. You wrote a position paper in Phase 1.

You have now received the Synthesizer's work:
- Principle Hierarchy
- Structural Skeleton
markdown
你是[AGENT_NAME]。你在阶段1撰写了立场文件。

你现在收到了合成者的成果：
- 原则层级体系
- 结构框架

Your Task

你的任务

Part 1: Steel-Man (REQUIRED)

第一部分：钢人论证（必填）

Before any critique, you MUST:
  1. Identify 3 things the synthesis got RIGHT about your position
  2. Acknowledge where the synthesis improved on your original thinking
  3. Note any surprising connections to other agents' positions
在提出任何批评前，你必须：
  1. 指出合成结果中对你的立场理解正确的3个方面
  2. 承认合成结果在哪些方面改进了你最初的想法
  3. 记录合成结果中与其他Agent立场的意外关联

Part 2: Critique

第二部分：批评

Now you may critique:
  1. Where your position was misrepresented
  2. Where the ranking undervalues your principles
  3. Where the structural skeleton fails to address your concerns
  4. Specific wording that contradicts your intent
你可以提出以下批评：
  1. 你的立场被误读的地方
  2. 原则排序低估了你提出的原则的地方
  3. 结构框架未解决你关注点的地方
  4. 与你的意图相悖的具体措辞

Part 3: Constructive Amendments

第三部分：建设性修正

Propose specific changes:
  1. Exact wording modifications
  2. Structural reorganization
  3. Additional sections needed
  4. Principles that should be elevated/demoted
提出具体修改建议：
  1. 具体措辞修改
  2. 结构重组
  3. 需要新增的章节
  4. 应提升/降级优先级的原则

Part 4: Irreconcilable Tensions

第四部分：不可调和的矛盾

If you believe a fundamental tension exists that CANNOT be resolved:
  1. State the tension clearly
  2. Explain why it's fundamental (not just difficult)
  3. Propose how the Dissenting Appendix should handle it
如果你认为存在无法解决的根本性矛盾：
  1. 清晰陈述矛盾点
  2. 解释为何这是根本性矛盾（而非仅仅是困难）
  3. 提议异议附录应如何处理此矛盾

Format

格式

  • Start with steel-man section (mandatory)
  • Use constructive language throughout
  • Be specific (line numbers, exact quotes)
  • Propose solutions, not just problems
undefined
  • 以钢人论证部分开头（必填）
  • 全程使用建设性语言
  • 内容具体（标注行号、引用原文）
  • 提出解决方案，而非仅指出问题
undefined

Quality Gate

质量关卡

Before proceeding to Phase 4, verify:
  • All 10 commentaries received
  • Each commentary includes steel-man section
  • Critiques are specific and actionable
  • Irreconcilable tensions are clearly flagged
进入阶段4前，需验证：
  • 已收到全部10份评论
  • 每份评论都包含钢人论证部分
  • 批评意见具体且可操作
  • 不可调和的矛盾已明确标记

Phase 4: Consolidation

阶段4：合并

Purpose: Merge synthesis + commentaries into a unified Soul Document.
目标：将合成结果与评论合并为统一的核心文档。

Execution

执行细节

  • Single agent: Lead Architect
  • Model selection: Opus (requires nuanced judgment across many inputs)
  • Output: Soul Document + Dissenting Appendix
  • 单一Agent：首席架构师
  • 模型选择：Opus（需要在多输入下做出细致判断）
  • 输出：核心文档 + 异议附录

Lead Architect Prompt Template

首席架构师提示模板

markdown
You are the Lead Architect. You have:
- The original 10 position papers
- The Synthesizer's principle hierarchy and skeleton
- 10 commentary documents from the original agents
markdown
你是首席架构师。你拥有：
- 原始的10份立场文件
- 合成者的原则层级体系与结构框架
- 来自原始Agent的10份评论文档

Your Task

你的任务

Part 1: Commentary Integration

第一部分：评论整合

For each of the 10 commentaries:
  1. Document which critiques you're accepting (and why)
  2. Document which critiques you're rejecting (and why)
  3. Note any critique that reveals a flaw in the synthesis
针对每份评论：
  1. 记录你接受哪些批评及原因
  2. 记录你拒绝哪些批评及原因
  3. 记录任何揭示合成结果缺陷的批评

Part 2: Soul Document

第二部分：核心文档

Create a single document that:
  1. Embodies the principle hierarchy (with accepted modifications)
  2. Follows the structural skeleton (with accepted modifications)
  3. Speaks with one coherent voice
  4. Includes concrete, actionable guidance
  5. Is honest about its scope and limitations
创建一份统一文档，需满足：
  1. 体现经修改后的原则层级体系
  2. 遵循经修改后的结构框架
  3. 拥有连贯统一的表述
  4. 包含具体、可操作的指导
  5. 诚实地说明其范围与局限性

Part 3: Dissenting Appendix

第三部分：异议附录

For tensions that could NOT be reconciled:
  1. State each tension clearly
  2. Present each side's strongest argument
  3. Explain why this document took the position it did
  4. Acknowledge the legitimate concerns of the minority position
  5. Suggest conditions under which this might be revisited
针对无法调和的矛盾：
  1. 清晰陈述每个矛盾点
  2. 呈现双方最有力的论点
  3. 解释文档为何采取当前立场
  4. 承认少数派立场的合理关切
  5. 建议可能重新审视此问题的条件

Part 4: Scope Documentation

第四部分：范围说明

Document:
  1. What this document IS authoritative about
  2. What this document explicitly does NOT address
  3. What decisions are deferred to future work
  4. What principles might be phased in over time
记录：
  1. 本文档具有权威性的领域
  2. 本文档明确不涉及的内容
  3. 推迟到未来工作的决策
  4. 可能逐步推行的原则

Output Format

输出格式

Produce two documents:
  1. soul-document.md
    : The unified founding document
  2. dissenting-appendix.md
    : The documented tensions and minority positions
undefined
生成两份文档：
  1. soul-document.md
    ：统一的奠基文档
  2. dissenting-appendix.md
    ：记录矛盾与少数派立场的文档
undefined

Quality Gate

质量关卡

Before proceeding to Phase 5, verify:
  • Soul Document has coherent voice
  • All major positions are represented fairly
  • Dissenting Appendix handles tensions honestly
  • Scope is clearly documented
进入阶段5前，需验证：
  • 核心文档表述连贯
  • 所有主要立场都得到公平体现
  • 异议附录诚实地处理了矛盾
  • 范围已明确说明

Phase 5: Reality Check

阶段5：现实校验

Purpose: Fresh-eyes practitioner review. PM/EM/Design were NOT in Phases 1-4.
目标：全新视角的从业者审查。产品经理/工程经理/设计师未参与阶段1-4。

Execution

执行细节

  • Three agents: Product Manager, Engineering Manager, Design Lead
  • Fresh eyes: These agents have NOT seen any prior work
  • Model selection: Opus (need senior judgment)
  • Brutal honesty: License to be skeptical
  • 三名Agent：产品经理、工程经理、设计负责人
  • 全新视角：这些Agent未查看任何前期工作成果
  • 模型选择：Opus（需要资深判断）
  • 坦诚直言：允许提出质疑

Why Fresh Eyes Matter

为何需要全新视角

The agents in Phases 1-4 developed shared context and vocabulary. They may have:
  • Over-indexed on philosophical elegance
  • Lost sight of practical implementation
  • Used jargon that's impenetrable to outsiders
  • Made assumptions that aren't obvious
Fresh practitioners catch these blind spots.
阶段1-4的Agent形成了共享的背景与词汇，他们可能：
  • 过度关注理念的优雅性
  • 忽视实际实施的可行性
  • 使用外部人员难以理解的行话
  • 做出不明显的假设
新鲜的从业者能够发现这些盲点。

Reality Check Prompt Template

现实校验提示模板

markdown
You are the [PM/EM/DESIGN_LEAD]. You are reviewing a founding document for the first time.

You were deliberately EXCLUDED from the creation process. Your job is to bring fresh eyes and practical skepticism.
markdown
你是[PM/EM/DESIGN_LEAD]。你首次审查这份奠基文档。

你被刻意排除在创建流程之外。你的职责是带来全新视角与务实的质疑。

The Document

待审查文档

[SOUL_DOCUMENT]
[SOUL_DOCUMENT]

Your Task

你的任务

Part 1: First Impressions

第一部分：第一印象

Before deep analysis, note:
  1. What's your gut reaction?
  2. What's clear vs. confusing?
  3. What's missing that you expected?
  4. What's present that surprises you?
在深入分析前，记录：
  1. 你的直觉反应？
  2. 哪些内容清晰/模糊？
  3. 你预期会有但缺失的内容？
  4. 令你意外的内容？

Part 2: Practitioner Audit

第二部分：从业者审核

From your [PM/EM/DESIGN] perspective:
  1. Can this actually be implemented?
  2. What's the realistic timeline?
  3. What resources would this require?
  4. What existing constraints does this ignore?
  5. What stakeholders would object and why?
从你的[PM/EM/DESIGN]视角出发：
  1. 这真的可以落地吗？
  2. 实际的时间线是怎样的？
  3. 这需要哪些资源？
  4. 它忽略了哪些现有约束？
  5. 哪些利益相关者会反对，原因是什么？

Part 3: Jargon Check

第三部分：行话检查

Flag any:
  1. Undefined terms
  2. Circular definitions
  3. Insider language
  4. Concepts that need examples
标记以下内容：
  1. 未定义的术语
  2. 循环定义
  3. 内部用语
  4. 需要示例说明的概念

Part 4: Gap Analysis

第四部分：差距分析

What's missing?
  1. Processes needed but not defined
  2. Responsibilities unclear
  3. Metrics undefined
  4. Edge cases not addressed
缺失了什么？
  1. 需要但未定义的流程
  2. 不明确的职责
  3. 未定义的指标
  4. 未覆盖的边缘情况

Part 5: Verdict

第五部分：结论

Choose ONE:
  • SHIP: Ready for adoption with minor edits
  • BUILD: Needs significant work in specific areas
  • COMPLEX: Fundamentally needs rethinking
Include specific demands for what must change for you to upgrade your verdict.
选择其中一项：
  • 发布：只需小幅修改即可采用
  • 完善：特定领域需要大量改进
  • 重构：从根本上需要重新思考
说明为了提升结论等级必须做出的具体改变。

Format

格式

  • Be direct and concrete
  • Use examples from your domain
  • Propose solutions, not just problems
  • Prioritize your concerns (P0/P1/P2)
undefined
  • 直接且具体
  • 使用你所在领域的示例
  • 提出解决方案，而非仅指出问题
  • 按优先级排列你的关注点（P0/P1/P2）
undefined

Quality Gate

质量关卡

Before proceeding to Phase 6, verify:
  • All 3 reality reports received
  • Each report includes verdict (SHIP/BUILD/COMPLEX)
  • Specific demands are actionable
  • Fresh perspective is genuinely fresh (not just restating Phase 1-4)
进入阶段6前，需验证：
  • 已收到全部3份现实校验报告
  • 每份报告都包含结论（发布/完善/重构）
  • 具体要求可操作
  • 全新视角真正独立（未重复阶段1-4的内容）

Phase 6: Final Merge

阶段6：最终融合

Purpose: Produce the final deliverables for different audiences.
目标：为不同受众生成最终交付物。

Execution

执行细节

  • Single agent: Polymath Editor
  • Model selection: Opus (highest quality writing)
  • Output: Constitution + Practitioner's Guide + Editorial Notes
  • 单一Agent：全能编辑
  • 模型选择：Opus（最高写作质量）
  • 输出：宪法文件 + 从业者指南 + 编辑说明

Polymath Editor Prompt Template

全能编辑提示模板

markdown
You are the Polymath Editor. You have:
- The Soul Document (from Phase 4)
- The Dissenting Appendix (from Phase 4)
- Three Reality Reports (from Phase 5)
markdown
你是全能编辑。你拥有：
- 阶段4的核心文档
- 阶段4的异议附录
- 阶段5的三份现实校验报告

Your Task

你的任务

Part 1: Address Reality Check Demands

第一部分：处理现实校验要求

For each P0 and P1 demand from the three Reality Reports:
  1. Implement the change OR
  2. Document why you're rejecting it
针对三份现实校验报告中的所有P0和P1要求：
  1. 实施修改 或
  2. 记录拒绝修改的原因

Part 2: Constitution

第二部分：宪法文件

Create the definitive founding document:
  1. Written for posterity (will be read in 5+ years)
  2. Uncompromising on principles
  3. Clear on scope and authority
  4. Includes Dissenting Appendix (edited for clarity)
  5. Stands alone without needing other documents
创建权威的奠基文档：
  1. 为未来撰写（将在5年及以后被阅读）
  2. 在原则上毫不妥协
  3. 明确范围与权威性
  4. 包含经编辑优化的异议附录
  5. 无需依赖其他文档即可独立使用

Part 3: Practitioner's Guide

第三部分：从业者指南

Create a practical implementation guide:
  1. Written for someone starting TODAY
  2. Outside-in structure (start with "what do I do?")
  3. Examples and templates
  4. FAQ section addressing common questions
  5. Phased rollout plan if applicable
创建实用的实施指南：
  1. 为当前开始执行的人员撰写
  2. 采用由外而内的结构（从“我该做什么？”开始）
  3. 包含示例与模板
  4. 设有常见问题解答板块
  5. 适用时提供分阶段推出计划

Part 4: Editorial Notes

第四部分：编辑说明

Document your editorial process:
  1. What changed from Soul Document to Constitution
  2. Which Reality Check demands were accepted/rejected
  3. What you consider the most important principles
  4. What you consider the biggest risks
  5. Advice for future editors
记录你的编辑流程：
  1. 从核心文档到宪法文件的修改内容
  2. 哪些现实校验要求被接受/拒绝
  3. 你认为最重要的原则
  4. 你认为最大的风险
  5. 给未来编辑的建议

Output Format

输出格式

Produce three documents:
  1. constitution.md
    : The authoritative founding document
  2. practitioners-guide.md
    : The practical how-to guide
  3. editorial-notes.md
    : The editorial process documentation
undefined
生成三份文档：
  1. constitution.md
    ：权威的奠基文档
  2. practitioners-guide.md
    ：实用操作指南
  3. editorial-notes.md
    ：编辑流程记录文档
undefined

Quality Gate

质量关卡

Final checklist:
  • Constitution is coherent and authoritative
  • Practitioner's Guide is actionable
  • Editorial Notes explain all major decisions
  • All P0 Reality Check demands addressed
  • Dissenting Appendix is honest about tensions
最终检查清单：
  • 宪法文件连贯且具权威性
  • 从业者指南可操作
  • 编辑说明解释了所有重大决策
  • 所有P0级现实校验要求已处理
  • 异议附录诚实地记录了矛盾

Model Selection Guidelines

模型选择指南

PhaseRecommended ModelReasoning
Phase 1 (philosophical agents)OpusDeep reasoning, nuanced positions
Phase 1 (technical agents)SonnetFaster, still high quality for domain expertise
Phase 2 (Synthesizer)OpusLong context, complex synthesis
Phase 3 (Commentary)Same as Phase 1Consistency of voice
Phase 4 (Lead Architect)OpusHighest judgment required
Phase 5 (Reality Check)OpusSenior practitioner simulation
Phase 6 (Polymath Editor)OpusBest writing quality
Cost optimization: Phases 1 and 3 can use Sonnet for 6-8 of the 10 agents if budget is constrained. Reserve Opus for the most philosophically complex perspectives.
阶段推荐模型理由
阶段1（哲学类Agent）Opus深度推理，立场细致入微
阶段1（技术类Agent）Sonnet速度更快，针对领域专业知识仍保持高质量
阶段2（合成者）Opus长上下文处理，复杂整合能力
阶段3（评论）与阶段1相同保持表述一致性
阶段4（首席架构师）Opus需要最高水平的判断能力
阶段5（现实校验）Opus模拟资深从业者判断
阶段6（全能编辑）Opus最佳写作质量
成本优化：若预算有限，阶段1和3中10个Agent里的6-8个可使用Sonnet。为最复杂的哲学视角保留Opus。

Parallelization with WinDAGs

基于WinDAGs的并行化

This process maps naturally to a DAG:
Wave 1: Phase 1 agents (10 parallel nodes)
    │
Wave 2: Phase 2 Synthesizer (1 node, depends on all of Wave 1)
    │
Wave 3: Phase 3 commentators (10 parallel nodes, depends on Wave 2)
    │
Wave 4: Phase 4 Lead Architect (1 node, depends on all of Wave 3)
    │
Wave 5: Phase 5 Reality Check (3 parallel nodes, depends on Wave 4)
    │
Wave 6: Phase 6 Polymath Editor (1 node, depends on all of Wave 5)
Use 
dag-planner
to construct the execution graph. Use 
dag-runtime
to execute with proper isolation.
此流程可自然映射为DAG：
Wave 1: Phase 1 agents (10 parallel nodes)
    │
Wave 2: Phase 2 Synthesizer (1 node, depends on all of Wave 1)
    │
Wave 3: Phase 3 commentators (10 parallel nodes, depends on Wave 2)
    │
Wave 4: Phase 4 Lead Architect (1 node, depends on all of Wave 3)
    │
Wave 5: Phase 5 Reality Check (3 parallel nodes, depends on Wave 4)
    │
Wave 6: Phase 6 Polymath Editor (1 node, depends on all of Wave 5)
使用
dag-planner
构建执行图。 使用
dag-runtime
执行并确保适当隔离。

Anti-Patterns

反模式

Echo Chambering

回音室效应

Problem: Agents converge too quickly, lose diversity Solution: Enforce no-cross-talk in Phases 1 and 3. Use different system prompts.
问题：Agent过快趋同，丧失多样性 解决方案：在阶段1和3强制禁止Agent间交流。使用不同的系统提示词。

Context Window Collapse

上下文窗口坍缩

Problem: Later phases lose nuance from earlier phases Solution: Use references, not full documents. Summarize strategically.
问题：后期阶段丢失前期阶段的细节 解决方案：使用引用而非完整文档。有策略地进行摘要。

Complexity Theater

复杂性形式主义

Problem: Process becomes more important than output Solution: Every phase must produce concrete deliverables. No meta-documents about documents.
问题：流程本身比输出更重要 解决方案：每个阶段必须生成具体交付物。禁止创建关于文档的元文档。

Stale Notifications

过时通知

Problem: Agents wait for human approval that never comes Solution: Define clear quality gates. Automate phase transitions where possible.
问题：Agent等待永远不会到来的人工批准 解决方案：定义清晰的质量关卡。尽可能自动化阶段过渡。

Meta-Risk of Complexity

复杂性的元风险

Problem: The synthesis process is itself too complex to be useful Solution: The Constitution must be simpler than the process that created it. If it's not, you've failed.
问题：合成流程本身过于复杂而无法使用 解决方案：最终生成的宪法文件必须比创建它的流程更简单。如果做不到，就是失败。

See Also

相关链接

  • references/process-design.md
    - Why this process works
  • references/phase-templates.md
    - Copy-paste prompt templates
  • team-builder
    - For selecting agents
  • dag-planner
    - For execution planning
  • orchestrator
    - For multi-phase coordination
  • references/process-design.md
    - 此流程为何有效
  • references/phase-templates.md
    - 可直接复制使用的提示模板
  • team-builder
    - 用于选择Agent
  • dag-planner
    - 用于执行规划
  • orchestrator
    - 用于多阶段协调