jb/paseo
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues 1 Pull Requests Actions Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

Preserve daemon sessions when workers stall (#3263)

Browse Source 
Stop treating heartbeat silence as proof that a live daemon worker should be destroyed. Crash recovery, explicit lifecycle requests, and supervisor-loss cleanup remain unchanged.
This commit is contained in:
Mohamed Boudra
2026-08-12 10:58:58 +02:00
committed by GitHub
parent d012b6f071
commit 74f2158c45
6 changed files with 20 additions and 225 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files
skills/paseo-committee/SKILL.md
+9 -46
View File
@@ -6,9 +6,7 @@ user-invocable: true
# Committee Skill
Two agents from contrasting profiles, fresh context, planning a solution in parallel. They stay alive for review after implementation.
The purpose is to step back, not double down. The committee may propose a completely different approach.
Two agents from contrasting profiles, fresh context, planning a solution in parallel.
**User's additional context:** $ARGUMENTS
@@ -35,49 +33,14 @@ If the user names profiles, use those. If fewer than two suitable profiles are c
This is analysis only. Do NOT edit, create, or delete any files. Do NOT write code.
```
- **Trust the wait.** Do not poll, send hurry-ups, or interrupt. GPT-5.4 can reason 15–30 minutes; Opus does extended thinking. Long waits mean it found something worth thinking about.
- **You are the middleman.** Drive plan → implement → review without yielding to the user, except for divergences that need their call.
- **Trust the finish notification.** Do not poll, send hurry-ups, or interrupt. Models can reason for 15–30 minutes. You can go idle and Paseo will notify you.
## Phase 1: Plan
## Workflow
Write a problem-level prompt:
1. Write a problem-level prompt
2. Create both agents in parallel via Paseo with `[Committee] <task>` titles and the same prompt
3. Wait for both responses
4. Resolve disagreements by passing their arguments between each other
5. Keep going until they converge into a response
- High-level goal and acceptance criteria
- Constraints
- Symptoms (if a bug)
- What you tried and why it failed
- Explicit: "do root cause analysis"
- Explicit: "state assumptions, ask why three levels deep, check whether you're patching a symptom or removing the problem"
Create both agents in parallel via Paseo with `[Committee] <task>` titles and the same prompt. Wait for both — not just whichever finishes first.
Read both responses. Challenge them — do not accept at face value:
- "Why does <underlying thing> happen? Symptom or cause?"
- Verify any assumption the plan makes about the code.
- "What did you consider and reject?"
Send follow-ups until the plan addresses root cause.
Synthesize:
- Convergence → unified plan.
- Significant divergence → involve the user.
Confirm the merged plan with both members. Multi-turn until consensus.
## Phase 2: Implement
Default: implement yourself. If the user said **"delegate"**, launch one impl agent and pass the merged plan.
The committee stays clean — not involved in implementation.
## Phase 3: Review
Send the diff to the committee:
> Implementation is done. Review changes against the plan. Flag drift or missing pieces. <no-edits suffix>
Apply feedback yourself, or send to the impl agent. Repeat 2 → 3 until consensus.
After ~10 iterations without convergence, start a fresh committee with the full history of what was tried — the current committee's context may have drifted too far.
Share the consensus with the user. Summarize where the agents diverged and how they resolved it.