Workspace Hub Mission Contract First Packet

Workspace-Hub Mission Contract — First Packet Pattern

Use this when the user wants to revise repo missions across the workspace ecosystem and approve them one by one.

When to use

• User asks for repo mission analysis across multiple repos
• User wants a repo-by-repo approval sequence
• You need a first approval packet before touching downstream repo missions
• The work touches llm-wiki architecture but must not prematurely decide embedded vs spinout boundaries

Core pattern

1. Start with workspace-hub, not downstream repos.
2. Before creating a new GitHub issue, search for an existing open parent issue covering the control-plane / ecosystem contract.
3. If #1525 (Define canonical repo control-plane contract across workspace ecosystem) is still open, reuse it instead of creating a duplicate mission issue.
4. Draft the local plan under docs/plans/ and add the row to docs/plans/README.md.
5. Run adversarial review before surfacing for approval.
6. Expect the first draft to fail if verification is subjective; tighten it into deterministic checks.

Recommended Wave-1 scope

Lock the first packet to:

• workspace-hub = control plane
• digitalmodel = engineering computation core
• assetutilities = shared utility substrate
• aceengineer-website = GTM / externalization layer

Explicitly defer worldenergydata to Wave 2 unless the plan intentionally expands scope.

Critical review hardening learned in practice

Cross-provider reviewers objected to these weak patterns:

• subjective tests like “docs use consistent terminology”
• llm-wiki neutrality stated only as intent
• mixed in-scope / deferred downstream repo language
• unverified supporting report references

Fix them before trying to get approval:

1. Make verification deterministic

Add a concrete validation artifact, e.g.:

• scripts/validation/check_workspace_hub_mission_contract.py

That validator should check required / forbidden phrases across the reconciled mission docs.

2. Use a literal llm-wiki neutrality guardrail

Require the exact phrase:

• repo-boundary architecture remains under evaluation per #2398

Also forbid wording that declares llm-wiki permanently embedded or spun out.

3. Verify every cited local input artifact

If the plan cites a supporting report like:

• docs/reports/2026-04-21-repo-mission-revision-sequence.md

include it in the embedded evidence block as EXISTS.

4. Keep artifact map unambiguous

If one report contains multiple sections (mission contract, downstream role map, glossary, llm-wiki guardrails), list it as one artifact with named sections, not multiple artifacts pointing to the same file.

First-packet files usually in scope

• README.md
• docs/README.md
• docs/BUSINESS_BRAIN.md
• docs/WORKSPACE_HUB_REPOSITORY_OVERVIEW.md
• new canonical report such as docs/reports/workspace-hub-mission-contract.md
• validator such as scripts/validation/check_workspace_hub_mission_contract.py

Recommended acceptance criteria shape

Include all of these explicitly:

• canonical mission contract file exists
• deterministic validation script exists
• reconciled docs pass the validator
• workspace-hub control-plane role is explicit
• digitalmodel, assetutilities, and aceengineer-website roles are explicit
• worldenergydata is explicitly deferred if not in scope
• literal #2398 neutrality phrase is present
• non-goals are explicit
• docs/plans/README.md row exists
• review artifacts exist

Operational note

If the first review wave returns mixed results like Claude/Codex MAJOR and Gemini APPROVE, do not surface the plan as approval-ready. Patch the plan immediately, update the ## Adversarial Review Summary, and rerun cross-review.