1. Ingest Evidence
I have reviewed the CORE_PRINCIPLES_CHECKLIST.md and the BEFORE_VS_AFTER_PROPOSAL.md. The checklist establishes a clear philosophy centered on user control, configuration-driven behavior, and accelerating an expert user. The proposal contrasts a design that modifies its own configuration file (goal_map.json) with a design that treats the configuration as a read-only source of truth and creates artifacts in their final, intended locations.
2. Model the Impact
-
"Before" Design Impact:
-
User Workflow: The user defines a desired structure in
goal_map.json. When the system runs, it finds a missing component, generates a new file with a genericautogen_name, and then modifies the user'sgoal_map.jsonfile. This is unexpected and invasive. The user now has to manage a configuration file that is being altered by the program, creating a confusing feedback loop. If they want to renameautogen_...to something meaningful, they must also remember to updategoal_map.jsonmanually. This adds cognitive load and friction. - Trust: User trust is eroded. The system is no longer a predictable tool but an active agent that changes its own "brain." The user cannot trust that their configuration file is the single source of truth.
-
Maintenance: This design introduces significant technical debt. The
goal_map.jsonbecomes a mix of human-defined and machine-generated paths, making it hard to read and maintain. It's brittle, as any discrepancy between the file system and the modifiedgoal_map.jsonwill cause errors. -
"After" Design Impact:
- User Workflow: The user defines the desired structure and final filenames in
goal_map.json. When the system runs, it reads the intended path (e.g.,components/prompts/my_new_prompt.txt). If the file doesn't exist, it generates it in that exact location. Thegoal_map.jsonis never touched. The system fulfills the request specified in the configuration. The user can then immediately open, edit, and refine this new file, which is already in its permanent home. - Trust: User trust is maximized. The system behaves as a predictable and respectful assistant. It reads the user's intent from the configuration and executes it, without altering the source of intent. The separation of concerns is clean and clear.
- Maintenance: Maintenance is simple and elegant.
goal_map.jsonremains the static, declarative "blueprint." Thecomponents/directory contains the generated artifacts. The idempotency check ensures that re-running the process is safe and efficient.
3. Evaluate Against Core Principles
| Core Principle / Anti-Pattern | "Before" Design Evaluation | "After" Design Evaluation | Verdict on Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| Configuration Over Code | Fails. The code actively modifies the configuration (goal_map.json), violating the principle of separation. |
Upholds. The configuration is a read-only blueprint. The code executes the plan defined in the config. | Critical Improvement |
| User Has Ultimate Control | Fails. The system seizes control of the configuration file, undermining the user's role as the master of the system. | Upholds. The user's configuration is treated as the immutable source of truth. The system is a subordinate executor. | Critical Improvement |
| Leave Room for the Artisan | Hinders. Creates autogen_ files and modifies config, forcing the artisan to perform cleanup before they can begin refinement. |
Enables. Creates a clean, editable file in its final location, allowing the artisan to immediately start their value-add work. | Critical Improvement |
| Simplicity and Elegance | Poor. Creates a complex, stateful interaction where the program and its configuration modify each other. It's messy. | Excellent. A simple, clean, and stateless (per-run) model. The separation of concerns is elegant and easy to understand. | Critical Improvement |
| Anti-Pattern: Brittle Scaffolding | Exhibits. The link between the auto-generated file and the modified config is fragile and creates more work to solidify. | Avoids. The generated component is the final artifact, not temporary scaffolding. It's robust from the start. | Critical Improvement |
| Anti-Pattern: Hard-Coded Logic | Exhibits. The logic to modify the goal_map.json is a critical design failure that entangles execution with configuration. |
Avoids. The logic is purely about artifact generation based on a declarative, external configuration. | Critical Improvement |
4. Analyze the "Cost of Doing Nothing"
The cost of not implementing the "After" design is catastrophic to the project's integrity. The "Before" design actively harms the project's prime directive and guiding philosophies.
- It violates "Configuration Over Code" and "User Has Ultimate Control," which are foundational values. This isn't a minor infraction; it's a rejection of the project's core identity.
- It works against the "8-Hour-to-1-Hour" transformation. By creating messy, auto-generated files and modifying the user's config, it introduces a new, frustrating "cleanup" phase that adds time and friction, directly opposing the goal of acceleration.
- It creates "Brittle Scaffolding." The user will spend time untangling the program's changes, which is worse than starting from a clean slate. This completely invalidates the project's value proposition.
In short, the "Before" design creates a system that is untrustworthy, hard to maintain, and frustrating to use. Sticking with it would ensure the project fails to meet its most important goals.
5. Deliver Final Verdict & Justification
Verdict: CORE REQUIREMENT
Justification: This change is not "gold-plating"; it is a fundamental correction of a design that violates the project's most critical principles.
The "Before" design is in direct opposition to the stated philosophies of "Configuration Over Code" and "User Has Ultimate Control." By having the program modify its own configuration file (goal_map.json), it creates a brittle, untrustworthy system that actively increases the artisan's workload—the exact opposite of the project's Prime Directive.
The "After" design aligns perfectly with the core principles. It respects the user's configuration as the single source of truth, creates clean and predictable artifacts, and empowers the "Artisan Engineer" by seamlessly accelerating their workflow without adding complexity or cleanup tasks. As demonstrated in the evaluation table, the change represents a "Critical Improvement" across multiple foundational principles and is essential for avoiding fatal anti-patterns. Therefore, implementing the "After" design is a non-negotiable requirement for the project's success.