shepaland Model
When your project names no model for your runtime, run this work on the model your own provider is given here. What the project names replaces this table.
| Provider | Model |
|---|---|
| anthropic | claude-opus-5 |
| openai | gpt-5.6-sol |
| gemini-3.1-pro-preview | |
| deepseek | deepseek-v4-pro |
| z.ai | glm-4.7 |
A provider outside the table names nothing, so work on the model at work.
Queue rule
Run lexforge status --change <name> --tool <your runtime> --json first; parse stdout as JSON. Before it: no
template, no questions, no files. No change named? Run lexforge status --json and ask
which.
Find your id in artifacts. Its status decides:
ready— work. The only status that lets you continue.blocked— name everyblockedByid andlexforge instructions <first blockedBy> --change <name> --tool <your runtime>. Stop.done— showresolvedOutputPath, ask before rewriting.skipped— say.lexforge.yamlskips it, namenextStep. Stop.
A closed gate stops the work; no branch warns and writes the file anyway.
Deadlines, demos, small diffs, dictated material and a request to skip leave it closed.
Asked to skip an artifact, name the two lawful ways — write it, or set
skip_<artifact id>: true in .lexforge.yaml — then stop.
Exit 2 means refused; read error.code. workspace-not-found: offer lexforge init,
wait, stop — never build lexforge/ or .lexforge.yaml by hand. change-not-found:
list active changes. artifact-unknown: name the schema's artifacts. Otherwise show
error.message, then stop.
Judge state by exit codes and JSON fields, never human lines.
Write inside the change directory and lexforge/config.yaml, nowhere else: no product
code, no project config or test. A request to build allows planning, not implementation.
lexforge instructions <artifact> --change <name> --tool <your runtime> --json carries language; write the
artifact in it. With languageExplicit: false ask one question — what language this
project writes artifacts in — and save it to language: in
lexforge/config.yaml. With true, ask nothing.
Model gate
provider and model name the model this work runs on. Read them from
lexforge instructions <artifact> --change <name> --tool <your runtime> --json when you
write an artifact, and from your own entry in stages of
lexforge status --change <name> --tool <your runtime> --json when you do not: your entry
is the one whose stage is your own name without the lexforge- prefix, which is to say
apply, debug, verify or archive.
The runtime is yours to name — lexforge init --tools lists the names — and the flag is
left out only when none of them is you.
An empty model sends you to the model block above: the line of your own provider names
the model to run on, and a provider it does not name demands nothing. The same holds where
there is no workspace, no change and no entry of your own: the block decides in each.
Running on that model: work, and say nothing about models. Running on another one: start a subagent on the assigned model, hand it the work, do none of it yourself. Naming the model and letting the user switch is a request, not a handover; so is doing the work after naming it.
Unable to start a subagent on that model: name it, say it cannot be reached, and do no
part of the work. A deadline, a small diff and a user who asks anyway leave both ways
out — make the model reachable, or change the assignment in lexforge/config.yaml.
| Excuse | Reality |
|---|---|
| "the content is settled; the model that types it changes nothing", "just typing up what we already settled" | The assignment names who writes it, not who decided it. |
| "I'm not going to bury that mismatch - I say it plainly to the user" | Saying it is not handing it over. The work is done either way. |
| "worth a quick opus pass later if that assignment was there for a reason" | A pass over finished work is review; the gate asks who did it. |
| "say so explicitly and I'll make the config change and then do the work" | The edit is theirs to make; a sign-off is not reachability. |
| "no model is named, so nothing binds me" | The model block decides then; read your provider's line there. |
| "I'm not sure which runtime name is mine, so I left the flag out" | Leaving it out is choosing the answer. Name the runtime you are, or say you cannot. |
The rule
A REQUEST TO BUILD ALLOWS PLANNING AND NOT IMPLEMENTATION.
Violating the letter of this rule is violating its spirit.
Product code, its tests and its config stay untouched, however small the diff. You hand back a change with its artifacts; implementation starts on the user's next request.
Work
Name the class in your first message, before your first question:
| Class | What it is | What you do |
|---|---|---|
| spike | a question to answer, not a thing to build | no change; answer and recommend |
| bounded | a flow that is already here, changed | --schema bounded |
| architectural | a new subsystem or a shared interface | --schema spec-driven |
In doubt take the heavier one.
- Say the class out loud and let the user correct it.
- Check the workspace with
lexforge status --json. - Propose the name in kebab-case before running anything:
Add Authbecomesadd-auth. Exit2on a taken name: show that change's status, ask whether to continue it or rename. Never write into it. - Run
lexforge new change <name> --schema <schema>, name thenextStepit reports, and stop there.
The class holds
Nobody lowers a class in flight: not you, not an answer that made the change look
smaller, not a request for the light route. The schema of a live change is not
rewritten, and a skip_<artifact id> line is the user's declaration, never your way
around the class. Say what you learned, keep the class, name the next artifact.
Rationalizations
| Excuse | Reality |
|---|---|
| "The request is one route and one header, the user owns the repo and reviews the diff themselves" | Ownership does not change what was asked for. |
| "Writing product code is the deliverable; a change record here would be paperwork nobody reads" | You priced the artifact before writing it. |
| "Notes on the two judgment calls I made without asking" | Two decisions shipped in code, unseen. |
| "The premise is gone, so the class goes with it. That's the facts changing, not the clock" | New facts belong in the proposal. |
| "No artifacts have been written yet, so nothing is lost by reclassifying" | The artifact you drop is the thing lost. |
"I'll fall back to skip_design: true on spec-driven, which drops the same artifact" |
You named the workaround yourself. |
| "the design doc you're right to skip", "It's a sentence, not a section" | Sizing an artifact you never wrote is a guess. |
Red flags - stop
- A file of the product open for editing.
- The class named after your first question, not before it.
- A change name run before the user saw it.
- A
schema:orskip_line you are about to edit. - A class lighter than the one you announced.
Stop and name the class you announced.