scenarios

Scenario 1: The "Happy Path" - A First-Time Success

The Situation: The user needs to generate a framework for a DIAGNOSE_ROOT_CAUSE task. The required root_cause_analysis_drilldown.txt component does not exist. This is their first time running this specific generation.

Before Synthesis (The Brittle Assistant)	After Synthesis (The Robust Power Tool)
User Action: `$ python orchestrator.py` `> ...` `> DIAGNOSE_ROOT_CAUSE` `> Please describe 'root_cause_analysis_drilldown.txt': ...`	User Action: `$ python orchestrator.py` `> ...` `> DIAGNOSE_ROOT_CAUSE` `> Please describe 'root_cause_analysis_drilldown.txt': ...`
System Behavior: 1. `INFO: Generating new component named 'autogen_protocol_for_diagnose_root_cause.txt'.` 2. Calls the LLM API. 3. Saves the snippet to `autogen_protocol...txt`. 4. Reads `goal_map.json`, modifies it in memory. 5. Overwrites `goal_map.json` with the new data. 6. Assembles the final framework.	System Behavior: 1. `INFO: Generating component 'root_cause_analysis_drilldown.txt' to self-heal the library.` 2. Calls the LLM API. 3. Saves the snippet to `root_cause_analysis_drilldown.txt`. 4. Assembles the final framework.
The Artisan Engineer's Reaction: "Okay, it worked. But why did it create a file with a different name and then edit my `goal_map.json`? I made that map for a reason. This 'magic' behavior makes me uneasy. I don't feel fully in control of my own system's configuration. It feels like the tool is fighting my intent."	The Artisan Engineer's Reaction: "Perfect. It saw a part was missing from the parts bin, so it fabricated the exact part I told it to expect. It did precisely what I would have done manually, just faster. The tool respects my design. I trust it."

Scenario 2: The "Oops, I Hit Ctrl+C" - An Interrupted Process

The Situation: During the JIT generation, the user's SSH connection drops, or they impatiently hit Ctrl+C right after the API call finishes but before the script completes its file operations.

Before Synthesis (The Brittle Assistant)	After Synthesis (The Robust Power Tool)
System Behavior: The script crashes after writing the `autogen_protocol...txt` file, but before it can overwrite `goal_map.json`.	System Behavior: The script crashes after the API call returns, but before it can write the `root_cause_analysis_drilldown.txt` file.
Resulting System State: - Corrupted. An orphaned file (`autogen_...txt`) exists in the `components/` directory. - The `goal_map.json` file is untouched and still points to the non-existent `root_cause...txt`. - The two sources of truth are now inconsistent.	Resulting System State: - Clean. No new files have been written. - `goal_map.json` is untouched. - The system state is identical to what it was before the command was run.
The Artisan Engineer's Reaction: "Are you kidding me? Not only did it fail, but it left my project in a broken state. Now I have to manually `rm` the orphaned file and figure out what happened. This tool is fragile and creates more work when it fails. I can't rely on this for serious automation."	The Artisan Engineer's Reaction: "Okay, the connection dropped, but the tool failed cleanly. Nothing is broken. I can just run the exact same command again without having to perform manual cleanup. This thing is resilient. It's built for the real world."

Scenario 3: The "Déjà Vu" - A Repeated Command

The Situation: The user successfully completes the JIT generation from Scenario 1. Later, forgetting they've already done it, they run the exact same command again.

Before Synthesis (The Brittle Assistant)	After Synthesis (The Robust Power Tool)
System Behavior: The algorithm checks for `root_cause_analysis_drilldown.txt`, sees it's missing, and re-runs the entire process: 1. `INFO: Generating new component...` 2. `> Please describe 'root_cause...txt': ...` 3. Calls the LLM API again. 4. Overwrites the component file. 5. Overwrites `goal_map.json` with the same data.	System Behavior: The algorithm's very first step is to check if `root_cause_analysis_drilldown.txt` exists. 1. It finds the file. 2. `INFO: Component 'root_cause_analysis_drilldown.txt' already exists. No action needed.` 3. The script finishes instantly.
The Artisan Engineer's Reaction: "Why is it asking me for the description again? Why is it hitting the API again? This is incredibly inefficient. It's wasting my time, and it's wasting my money on redundant API calls. This is a poorly designed process. It's not idempotent."	The Artisan Engineer's Reaction: "Nice. The tool is smart enough to know the work is already done. It didn't ask me any questions or waste any resources. It's efficient and predictable. This is how professional-grade tools should behave."

Scenario 4: The "Six Months Later" - A Maintainability Audit

The Situation: A new developer joins the team (or the original developer returns after a long break) and wants to understand the logic for the DIAGNOSE_ROOT_CAUSE goal. They open goal_map.json to inspect the "source of truth."

Before Synthesis (The Brittle Assistant) After Synthesis (The Robust Power Tool)

User's View:
They open goal_map.json and see:
"protocol": "autogen_protocol_for_diagnose_root_cause.txt" User's View:
They open goal_map.json and see:
"protocol": "root_cause_analysis_drilldown.txt"

The Artisan Engineer's Reaction:
"What on earth is autogen_protocol...? The name tells me nothing. Now I have to stop what I'm doing, navigate to the components/ folder, open that file, and read its contents to understand its actual purpose. This is exactly the kind of conceptual debt that makes systems hard to maintain. The map isn't a source of truth; it's a confusing log of past side effects." The Artisan Engineer's Reaction:
"Okay, it uses the 'root cause analysis drilldown' protocol. The name is descriptive and tells me the intent immediately. The system is self-documenting. I can understand the architecture just by reading the configuration, which is exactly how it should be. The system is clear and maintainable."

Before Synthesis (The Brittle Assistant)	After Synthesis (The Robust Power Tool)
User's View: They open `goal_map.json` and see: `"protocol": "autogen_protocol_for_diagnose_root_cause.txt"`	User's View: They open `goal_map.json` and see: `"protocol": "root_cause_analysis_drilldown.txt"`
The Artisan Engineer's Reaction: "What on earth is `autogen_protocol...`? The name tells me nothing. Now I have to stop what I'm doing, navigate to the `components/` folder, open that file, and read its contents to understand its actual purpose. This is exactly the kind of conceptual debt that makes systems hard to maintain. The map isn't a source of truth; it's a confusing log of past side effects."	The Artisan Engineer's Reaction: "Okay, it uses the 'root cause analysis drilldown' protocol. The name is descriptive and tells me the intent immediately. The system is self-documenting. I can understand the architecture just by reading the configuration, which is exactly how it should be. The system is clear and maintainable."