Skill: athola/nm-attune-war-room-checkpoint (version 1.0.2)

--- name: war-room-checkpoint description: | Assess decision reversibility and risk at critical checkpoints to determine whether full War Room escalation is warranted version: 1.9.5 triggers: - checkpoint - embedded - escalation - reversibility - inline metadata: {"openclaw": {"homepage": "https://github.com/athola/claude-night-market/tree/master/plugins/attune", "emoji": "\ud83e\udd9e", "requires": {"config": ["night-market.attune:war-room"]}}} source: claude-night-market source_plugin: attune --- > **Night Market Skill** — ported from [claude-night-market/attune](https://github.com/athola/claude-night-market/tree/master/plugins/attune). For the full experience with agents, hooks, and commands, install the Claude Code plugin. # War Room Checkpoint Skill Lightweight inline assessment for determining whether a decision point within a command warrants War Room escalation. ## Table of Contents 1. [Purpose](#purpose) 2. [When Commands Should Invoke This](#when-commands-should-invoke-this) 3. [Invocation Pattern](#invocation-pattern) 4. [Checkpoint Flow](#checkpoint-flow) 5. [Confidence Calculation](#confidence-calculation) 6. [Profile Thresholds](#profile-thresholds) 7. [Output Format](#output-format) 8. [Examples](#examples) ## Verification Run `make test-checkpoint` to verify checkpoint logic works correctly after changes. ## Purpose This skill is **not invoked directly by users**. It is called by other commands (e.g., `/do-issue`, `/pr-review`) at critical decision points to: 1. Calculate Reversibility Score (RS) for the current context 2. Determine if full War Room deliberation is needed 3. Return either a quick recommendation (express) or escalate to full War Room ## When Commands Should Invoke This | Command | Trigger Conditions | |---------|-------------------| | `/do-issue` | 3+ issues, dependency conflicts, overlapping files | | `/pr-review` | >3 blocking issues, architecture changes, ADR violations | | `/architecture-review` | ADR violations, high coupling, boundary violations | | `/fix-pr` | Major scope, conflicting reviewer feedback | ## Invocation Pattern ```markdown Skill(attune:war-room-checkpoint) with context: - source_command: "{calling_command}" - decision_needed: "{human_readable_question}" - files_affected: [{list_of_files}] - issues_involved: [{issue_numbers}] (if applicable) - blocking_items: [{type, description}] (if applicable) - conflict_description: "{summary}" (if applicable) - profile: "default" | "startup" | "regulated" | "fast" | "cautious" ``` ## Checkpoint Flow ### Step 1: Context Analysis Analyze the provided context to extract: - Scope of change (files, modules, services affected) - Stakeholders impacted - Conflict indicators - Time pressure signals ### Step 2: Reversibility Assessment Calculate RS using the 5-dimension framework: | Dimension | Assessment Question | |-----------|-------------------| | Reversal Cost | How hard to undo this decision? | | Time Lock-In | Does this crystallize immediately? | | Blast Radius | How many components/people affected? | | Information Loss | Does this close off future options? | | Reputation Impact | Is this visible externally? | Score each 1-5, calculate RS = Sum / 25. ### Step 3: Mode Selection Apply profile thresholds to determine mode: ``` if RS <= profile.express_ceiling: mode = "express" elif RS <= profile.lightweight_ceiling: mode = "lightweight" elif RS <= profile.full_council_ceiling: mode = "full_council" else: mode = "delphi" ``` ### Step 4: Response Generation #### Express Mode (RS <= threshold) Return immediately with recommendation: ```yaml response: should_escalate: false selected_mode: "express" reversibility_score: {rs} decision_type: "Type 2" recommendation: "{quick_recommendation}" rationale: "{brief_explanation}" confidence: 0.9 requires_user_confirmation: false ``` #### Escalate Mode (RS > threshold) Invoke full War Room and return results: ```yaml response: should_escalate: true selected_mode: "{lightweight|full_council|delphi}" reversibility_score: {rs} decision_type: "{Type 1B|1A|1A+}" war_room_session_id: "{session_id}" orders: ["{order_1}", "{order_2}"] rationale: "{war_room_rationale}" confidence: {calculated_confidence} requires_user_confirmation: {true_if_confidence_low} ``` ## Confidence Calculation For escalated decisions, calculate confidence for auto-continue: ``` confidence = 1.0 - 0.10 * dissenting_view_count - 0.20 if voting_margin < 0.3 - 0.15 if RS > 0.80 - 0.10 if novel_domain - 0.10 if compound_decision + 0.20 if unanimous (cap at 1.0) requires_user_confirmation = (confidence <= 0.8) ``` ## Profile Thresholds | Profile | Express | Lightweight | Full Council | Use Case | |---------|---------|-------------|--------------|----------| | default | 0.40 | 0.60 | 0.80 | Balanced | | startup | 0.55 | 0.75 | 0.90 | Move fast | | regulated | 0.25 | 0.45 | 0.65 | Compliance | | fast | 0.50 | 0.70 | 0.90 | Speed priority | | cautious | 0.30 | 0.50 | 0.70 | Higher stakes | ### Command-Specific Adjustments | Command | Adjustment | Rationale | |---------|-----------|-----------| | do-issue (3+ issues) | -0.10 | Higher risk with multiple issues | | pr-review (strict mode) | -0.15 | Strict mode = higher scrutiny | | architecture-review | -0.05 | Architecture inherently consequential | ## Output Format ### For Calling Command Return a structured response that the calling command can act on: ```markdown ## Checkpoint Response **Source**: {source_command} **Decision**: {decision_needed} ### Assessment - **RS**: {reversibility_score} ({decision_type}) - **Mode**: {selected_mode} - **Escalated**: {yes|no} ### Recommendation {recommendation_or_orders} ### Control Flow - **Confidence**: {confidence} - **Auto-continue**: {yes|no} {user_prompt_if_needed} ``` ## Integration Notes ### Calling Commands Should 1. Check checkpoint response's `requires_user_confirmation` 2. If true: present confirmation prompt and wait 3. If false: continue with `orders` or `recommendation` 4. Log checkpoint to audit trail ### Failure Handling If checkpoint invocation fails: - Log warning with context - Continue command execution without checkpoint - Do NOT block the user's workflow ## Audit Trail Checkpoints are logged to: ``` ~/.claude/memory-palace/strategeion/checkpoints/{date}/{checkpoint-id}.json ``` Each file contains a `CheckpointEntry` with: `checkpoint_id`, `session_id`, `phase`, `action`, `reversibility_score`, `dimensions`, `confidence`, `files_affected`, and `requires_user_confirmation`. After a war room session completes and `persist_session()` is called, an audit report is written automatically to: ``` ~/.claude/memory-palace/strategeion/war-table/{session-id}/audit-report.json ``` The report consolidates: all checkpoints for the session, the expert panel, voting summary with unanimity score, escalation history, final decision and rationale, and a Merkle-DAG integrity verification block. The verification recomputes every node hash against the stored values so any tampering with deliberation content is detectable. Use `AuditTrailManager` from `scripts.war_room.audit_trail` to query checkpoints or generate reports programmatically: ```python from scripts.war_room.audit_trail import AuditTrailManager manager = AuditTrailManager() checkpoints = manager.get_checkpoints("war-room-20260303-100000") audited = manager.list_audited_sessions() ``` ## Examples ### Example 1: Low RS (Express) **Input**: ```yaml source_command: "do-issue" decision_needed: "Execution order for issues #101, #102" issues_involved: [101, 102] files_affected: ["src/utils/helper.py", "tests/test_helper.py"] ``` **Assessment**: - Reversal Cost: 1 (can revert commits) - Time Lock-In: 1 (no deadline) - Blast Radius: 1 (single utility module) - Information Loss: 1 (all options preserved) - Reputation Impact: 1 (internal) **RS**: 0.20 (Type 2) **Response**: ```yaml should_escalate: false selected_mode: "express" recommendation: "Execute in parallel - no dependencies detected" confidence: 0.95 requires_user_confirmation: false ``` ### Example 2: High RS (Escalate) **Input**: ```yaml source_command: "pr-review" decision_needed: "Review verdict for PR #456" blocking_items: - {type: "architecture", description: "New service without ADR"} - {type: "breaking", description: "API contract change"} - {type: "security", description: "Auth flow modification"} - {type: "scope", description: "Unrelated payment refactor"} files_affected: ["src/auth/", "src/api/", "src/payment/", "src/services/new/"] ``` **Assessment**: - Reversal Cost: 4 (multi-service impact) - Time Lock-In: 3 (PR deadline pressure) - Blast Radius: 4 (cross-team impact) - Information Loss: 3 (some paths closing) - Reputation Impact: 2 (internal review) **RS**: 0.64 (Type 1A) **Response**: ```yaml should_escalate: true selected_mode: "full_council" war_room_session_id: "war-room-20260125-143025" orders: - "Split PR: auth changes separate from payment refactor" - "Require ADR for new service before merge" - "API change: add migration path, not blocking" confidence: 0.75 requires_user_confirmation: true ``` ## Related Skills - `Skill(attune:war-room)` - Full War Room deliberation - `Skill(attune:war-room)/modules/reversibility-assessment.md` - RS framework ## Related Commands - `/attune:war-room` - Standalone War Room invocation - `/do-issue` - Issue implementation (uses this checkpoint) - `/pr-review` - PR review (uses this checkpoint) - `/architecture-review` - Architecture review (uses this checkpoint) - `/fix-pr` - PR fix (uses this checkpoint)


Security scan verdicts — ClawScan: clean | static analysis: clean | VirusTotal: clean | SkillSpector: clean (LOW)