Ace Fca Workflow

ACE-FCA Workflow

Frequent Intentional Compaction (FIC) is a context engineering approach for coding agents that maintains context utilization at 40-60% by splitting work into discrete, compacted phases.

Core Principle

Context window contents are the ONLY lever affecting output quality. Optimize for:

1. Correctness - No incorrect information in context
2. Completeness - All necessary information present
3. Size - Minimal noise, maximum signal
4. Trajectory - Context guides toward the goal

Folder Structure

All artifacts are managed in a planning/ folder with kanban-style subdirectories:

planning/
├── backlog/           # Queued tasks with initial research/plans
├── in-progress/       # Active work
│   └── feature-name/
│       ├── research.md
│       ├── plan.md
│       └── status.md
└── completed/         # Finished work (reference for future tasks)

File movement:

1. New task → Create folder in backlog/ with research.md
2. Starting work → Move folder to in-progress/
3. Work complete → Move folder to completed/

Workflow Overview

┌──────────┐     ┌──────────┐     ┌─────────────┐
│ RESEARCH │ ──► │   PLAN   │ ──► │ IMPLEMENT   │
│          │     │          │     │ (per phase) │
└──────────┘     └──────────┘     └─────────────┘
     │                │                  │
     ▼                ▼                  ▼
 research.md      plan.md          code + tests

Each step produces a compacted artifact that feeds the next step with clean context.

When to Use This Workflow

Use ACE-FCA when:

• Working in brownfield/established codebases
• Codebase exceeds ~50k LOC
• Bug/feature requires understanding multiple subsystems
• Initial attempts are failing or producing slop
• Task estimated at >4 hours for a human developer

Skip to planning when:

• Codebase is small and well-understood
• Change is localized to 1-2 files
• Pattern is clearly established

Phase 1: Research

Goal: Understand the codebase, relevant files, information flow, and potential causes.

Process:

1. Start with a fresh context
2. Read references/research-template.md for output structure
3. Create task folder: planning/backlog/{task-name}/
4. Explore codebase structure, dependencies, and relevant files
5. Write findings to planning/backlog/{task-name}/research.md
6. Human reviews research before proceeding

Key principles:

• Use subagents for exploration to keep main context clean
• Focus on HOW the system works, not WHAT to change
• Include file paths and relevant code snippets
• Note conventions, patterns, and testing approaches used in the codebase
• If research seems wrong, discard and restart with more steering

Phase 2: Plan

Goal: Create a precise, phase-by-phase implementation plan.

Process:

1. Start with fresh context
2. Read references/plan-template.md for output structure
3. Load planning/backlog/{task-name}/research.md into context
4. Design implementation approach based on research
5. Break into discrete phases with verification steps
6. Write plan to planning/backlog/{task-name}/plan.md
7. Human reviews plan before proceeding
8. Move folder to planning/in-progress/{task-name}/ when ready to implement

Key principles:

• Each phase should be independently verifiable
• Include specific file paths and function names
• Prescribe testing strategy matching codebase conventions
• Phases should be small enough to complete in one context session

Phase 3: Implement

Goal: Execute plan phase-by-phase, compacting after each phase.

Process:

1. Start with fresh context
2. Load planning/in-progress/{task-name}/plan.md (research available if needed)
3. Execute current phase
4. Run prescribed tests/verification
5. Update status in planning/in-progress/{task-name}/status.md
6. Commit code changes
7. Repeat for each phase
8. Move folder to planning/completed/{task-name}/ when done

Key principles:

• One phase per context session when possible
• After each phase: commit, update status.md, compact
• If phase fails, document learnings and restart that phase
• Use git worktrees for implementation (research/planning can use main)

Compaction Output Format

A good compaction artifact includes:

# [Title: Bug/Feature Name]

## Goal
[One-sentence summary of what we're trying to accomplish]

## Context
[2-3 sentences on relevant background]

## Key Findings / Decisions
- [Finding 1 with file path if relevant]
- [Finding 2]
- [Decision made and rationale]

## Current Status
[What's done, what's next]

## Open Questions
- [Any unresolved items]

Human Review Points

High-leverage human review is critical. Review effort follows this priority:

Research errors → thousands of bad LOC
Plan errors → hundreds of bad LOC  
Code errors → individual bad lines

Review research for: Incorrect assumptions, missed subsystems, wrong mental model Review plan for: Missed edge cases, wrong approach, unrealistic phases Review code for: Correctness, style, tests pass

Troubleshooting

Agent spinning or producing slop?

• Context likely polluted—restart with fresh context
• Check if context utilization exceeded 60%
• Verify research/plan artifacts are correct

Research keeps missing the mark?

• Add more steering in prompt
• Be specific about what aspects to investigate
• Try different search patterns or entry points

Implementation diverging from plan?

• Stop, compact current state, restart phase
• Plan may need revision—return to planning phase

References

• references/research-template.md - Detailed research output template
• references/plan-template.md - Implementation plan template
• references/prompts.md - Example prompts for each phase

Converted and distributed by TomeVault — claim your Tome and manage your conversions.