Historical walkthrough
This document is a real transcript from an earlier Cyber Pilot setup and command model. Keep it as a historical example, not as the canonical guide to the current product surface. For the current model, start with README.md, then continue with USAGE-GUIDE.md and AGENT-TOOLS.md.
This is a real IDE conversation with an agent running in Cypilot mode.
The goal of this story is to show what Cypilot looks like in practice:
- How Cypilot routes requests to the correct workflow (analyze vs generate)
- How it loads the required context deterministically (adapter + required docs)
- How it gates file writes behind explicit confirmation
Because the transcript reflects an earlier version, some commands, directory names, and workflow framing differ from the current README-led model.
Outcome: By the end of this conversation, the user has a working example application (“Overwork Alert”) with CLI + daemon wiring, deterministic validations, unit tests, and a successful manual macOS smoke test.
Links:
- Example app: examples/overwork_alert/
- Tests: tests/
- Part 1 — Getting Started (0000–0200)
- Part 2 — Understand analyze vs generate (0300–0500)
- Part 3 — Turn an idea into a scoped plan (0600–0801)
- Part 4 — Draft the PRD (0900–0904)
- Part 5 — Write PRD and move into design (1000–1201)
- Part 6 — ADR + DESIGN + DECOMPOSITION + SPEC (1300–1309)
- Part 7 — Review SPECs (plain-language + expert issues-only) (1400–1503)
- Part 8 — Apply SPEC gap fixes (Option A) (1600–1604)
- Part 9 — Implement the tool + tests (1700–1901)
Summary: The user enables Cypilot mode. The agent runs Protocol Guard, loads required context files, and confirms the rules it will follow before proceeding.
Expand chat details...
USER
cypilot on
ASSISTANT
Thought for 2s
You’ve explicitly turned Cypilot mode on.
Next I’ll:
- Confirm I understand the Cypilot MUST rules
- Read the required Cypilot control files (
skills/cypilot/SKILL.mdand.cypilot-adapter/AGENTS.md) so I can follow the workflow correctly - Ask what you want to do (analyze/generate/adapter, etc.)
Read SKILL.md and 2 other files
Thought for 4s
Next I will:
- Run Cypilot’s required Protocol Guard command
info(read-only) so we can print the “Cypilot Mode Enabled / Adapter: …” status block.
Command:
python3
Output (as visible in screenshot; truncated):
...
"project_name": "Cypilot",
"status": "FOUND",
"project_root": "/Volumes/CaseSensitive/coding/cypilot",
"artifacts_registry_path": "/Volumes/CaseSensitive/coding/cypilot/.cypilot-adapter/artifacts.toml",
"artifacts_registry": {
"version": "1.0",
"project_root": "..",
"kits": {
...
}
}
...Cypilot Mode Enabled
Adapter: FOUND at /Volumes/CaseSensitive/coding/cypilot/.cypilot-adapter
📟 [skills/cypilot/SKILL.md]: Completed “Protocol Guard” — ran info to confirm adapter status and load adapter registry metadata before any workflow action.
- MUST = MANDATORY, not optional
- Skipping ANY MUST instruction = INVALID execution
- INVALID execution = output must be DISCARDED
- I will read ALL required files BEFORE proceeding
- I will follow workflows step-by-step WITHOUT shortcuts
- I will NOT create files without user confirmation (operation workflows)
- I will end EVERY response with a list of Cypilot files read while producing the response, why each file was read, and which initial instruction triggered opening each file
Per Cypilot routing, tell me which workflow you want:
- Analyze (read-only): validate/review/inspect/check artifacts or code.
- Generate (modify): implement/fix/refactor/add/update code or artifacts.
Summary: The user asks what Cypilot can do. The agent explains the two workflows (analyze vs generate), shows example prompts, and asks for a clear intent and target.
Expand chat details...
USER
cypilot how can you help me?
ASSISTANT
Thought for 5s
📟 [execution-protocol]: Explaining how I can help under Cypilot mode — mapping your request to Cypilot’s two workflows (analyze vs generate) so we follow the correct process.
Cypilot mode means I help you in a structured, workflow-driven way with strong traceability and deterministic checks.
Analyze workflow (read-only)
Use this when you want to inspect/validate/review without changing anything.
- Validate artifacts/code structure (schemas, cross-references, traceability)
- Locate IDs and trace usage (where something is defined/used)
- Audit project docs (PRD/DESIGN/ADRs/DECOMPOSITION consistency)
Example prompts you can give me:
cypilot analyze: validate all artifactscypilot analyze: where-used --id <some-id>cypilot analyze: review architecture/PRD.md for gaps vs DESIGN.md
Generate workflow (modifies files)
Use this when you want me to implement/fix/refactor/update code or artifacts.
- Implement features / fix bugs in the Cypilot CLI/tooling
- Update docs/artifacts while keeping them compliant
- Add tests and align with project conventions/specs
Example prompts:
cypilot generate: fix failing testscypilot generate: add a new cypilot.py subcommand for <X>cypilot generate: refactor <module> to follow conventions
Your prompt cypilot how can you help me? is intent-unclear (could be analyze or generate).
Reply with one of these, plus your goal:
cypilot analyze: <what you want to inspect>cypilot generate: <what you want to change/build>
- Completed: Explained Cypilot-mode capabilities and how to choose the correct workflow.
- Pending: You choose analyze (read-only) or generate (modify) + what target (artifact/code).
Summary: The user asks what “generate” can do. The agent lists supported write outcomes (adapter, architecture artifacts, code), what it will not do blindly, and provides copy/paste examples.
Expand chat details...
USER
cypilot what can I generate with you?
ASSISTANT
Thought for 18s
📟 [execution-protocol]: I’m going to re-open guides/ADAPTER.md so I can accurately describe what kinds of “generate” actions are supported and what constraints apply, then I’ll give you a concrete list of things you can generate and the exact prompts to use.
Read ADAPTER.md
📟 [execution-protocol]: Entering “Generate capabilities” — I’m mapping “what can I generate?” to Cypilot’s supported WRITE outcomes (adapter, artifacts, codebase) and the immutable adapter rules you must not violate.
- Adapter (project context)
- [Create/update
.cypilot-adapter/]:AGENTS.md+ spec files that define your tech stack, conventions, testing strategy, build/deploy, project structure, patterns, etc. - [Add new adapter specs]: e.g.
security.md,performance.md,linting.md, custom API guidelines, module-creation rules.
- Architecture artifacts (design → spec → implementation plan)
- [PRD]: create/update
architecture/PRD.md(actors, capabilities, requirements). - [Overall DESIGN]: create/update
architecture/DESIGN.md(requirements/principles, architecture, ADR index, etc.). - [ADRs]: create new ADRs in
architecture/ADR/...in the required format. - [DECOMPOSITION]: update
architecture/DECOMPOSITION.mdto reflect spec breakdown and traceability. - [SPEC docs]: create/update spec documents under
architecture/features/...(e.g. “template system”-style specs).
- Codebase changes (implementation)
- [Implement/fix/refactor code]: especially the Cypilot CLI (
skills/cypilot/scripts/cypilot.py) and related modules. - [Add new CLI subcommands]: plus CLISPEC/docs updates if needed.
- [Add tests]: unit/integration tests aligned to the adapter’s testing spec.
- [Build/CI tweaks]: updates to tooling/config consistent with build-deploy spec.
-
[No surprise file creation]: I will ask for confirmation before creating new files (mandatory rule).
-
[No breaking hierarchy]: We won’t violate the design chain:
ADAPTER → PRD → OVERALL DESIGN → SPEC DESIGN → CODE -
[No coding in DESIGN.md]: Actor flows / algorithms should be in Cypilot DSL (CDSL) where required, not embedded code.
-
[Validation-first mindset]: We’ll aim for the required scores (Overall ≥90/100, Spec 100/100) before “locking in” implementation direction.
-
Adapter work
cypilot generate: create/update adapter specs for a new TypeScript + Next.js app -
New feature from idea → design → code
cypilot generate: add a new feature "<feature>" — update PRD + DESIGN + spec, then implement -
Code-first change
cypilot generate: add a new cypilot.py subcommand "<name>" that does <behavior> -
Quality work
cypilot generate: refactor <module> to match conventions + add tests
What do you want to generate right now?
- [Adapter] (project rules/specs)
- [Artifacts] (PRD/DESIGN/ADR/specs)
- [Code] (implementation/tests)
Reply with: cypilot generate: <your goal> + which of the three targets.
Summary: The user asks what Cypilot can analyze and how. The agent opens the analyze workflow and explains supported analysis targets and the step-by-step analysis process.
Expand chat details...
USER
cypilot, what can you analyze and how?
ASSISTANT
I’ll open Cypilot’s workflows/analyze.md so I can answer precisely what “analyze” supports and the exact ways to run it (validate, search IDs, trace usage, etc.) according to the project’s workflow.
Read analyze.md
Thought for 14s
📟 [workflows/analyze.md]: Entering “## Overview” — summarizing what Cypilot’s analyze workflow can evaluate (artifacts, code, prompts) and the supported modes.
📟 [workflows/analyze.md]: Entering “## Phase 2–4” — summarizing how analysis is performed (deterministic gate → semantic review → structured output).
- [Artifacts (docs)]
- PRD / DESIGN / ADR / DECOMPOSITION / SPEC artifacts
- Structure + completeness (missing sections, placeholders, empty blocks)
- Cross-references (IDs exist, links valid, no contradictions across artifacts)
- Registry consistency (artifact is registered, kind/path match)
- [Code vs design]
- Whether code behavior matches the design requirements you point to
- Traceability markers (
@cpt-*,@cpt-begin/@cpt-end) when traceability isFULL - Coverage expectations (requirements ↔ tests ↔ code markers) when applicable
- [IDs & traceability queries]
- List IDs, find duplicates, verify formats
- Locate where an ID is defined/used across docs and code
- [Prompt / instruction quality]
- Review workflows, skills, AGENTS rules, system prompts using the prompt-engineering analysis path
- [1) Scope clarification]
- You choose: full vs partial (specific section/IDs) vs semantic-only
- [2) Dependency loading]
- I load
execution-protocol.mdfirst (then the correct checklist(s) depending on whether it’s code, docs-consistency, or prompt review)
- I load
- [3) Deterministic gate (when available)]
- For artifacts:
python3 skills/cypilot/scripts/cypilot.py validate --artifact <PATH>
- For code (validates all registered artifacts including code traceability):
python3 skills/cypilot/scripts/cypilot.py validate
- If the gate FAILS: I stop (no semantic review after a hard fail).
- For artifacts:
- [4) Semantic review (evidence-based in STRICT mode)]
- I read the entire target and check each checklist category individually
- I provide quotes/line references as evidence (no “bulk PASS” claims)
- [5) Output (chat only)]
- Structured PASS/FAIL/PARTIAL summary
- Prioritized issues (high/medium/low)
- Next steps (re-run analysis, proceed to generate, etc.)
- No files created during analysis
Summary: The agent provides copy/paste prompt examples and clarifies the minimal inputs required to run an analysis.
Expand chat details...
ASSISTANT
- Analyze a specific artifact
cypilot analyze: architecture/DESIGN.md
- Semantic-only (skip deterministic gate)
cypilot analyze semantic: architecture/PRD.md
- Analyze code vs a design doc
cypilot analyze: code skills/cypilot/scripts/cypilot.py against architecture/DESIGN.md
- Prompt/instructions review
cypilot analyze prompt: .cypilot-adapter/AGENTS.md
Reply with:
- Target: artifact path OR code path (+ design path for code analysis)
- Scope: full / partial (which sections or IDs?) / semantic-only
Summary: The user asks what an “artifact” is. The agent defines artifacts as registered documentation files in artifacts.toml and explains how registration enables deterministic validation and traceability.
Expand chat details...
USER
cypilot, what is the artifact you are talking about?
ASSISTANT
Thought for 18s
I’ll open Cypilot’s artifacts registry requirement doc to give you the precise definition of “artifact” in this system, then I’ll summarize it and point to concrete examples from this repo.
Read artifacts-registry.md
📟 [requirements/artifacts-registry.md]: Entering “## Overview / Artifacts” — using the registry spec to define what “artifact” means in Cypilot and how it relates to templates, validation, and traceability.
In Cypilot, an artifact is a registered documentation file (a “source of truth” doc) that the tooling knows about and can validate.
Concretely:
- [Where it’s declared] In the artifacts registry:
{cypilot_path}/config/artifacts.toml(in this repo:.cypilot-adapter/artifacts.toml)
- [What it contains] Entries like:
path: where the file lives (e.g.architecture/PRD.md)kind: what type it is (PRD,DESIGN,ADR,DECOMPOSITION,SPEC)traceability: whether it must trace to code (FULL) or docs-only (DOCS-ONLY)
Registering docs as artifacts enables:
- [Validation against templates] Each
kindmaps to a template + checklist in the configured kit (e.g.kits/sdlc/artifacts/PRD/template.md). - [ID extraction + cross-reference checks] Tools can list IDs and verify references across artifacts.
- [Traceability to code] If
traceabilityisFULL, Cypilot can check that design IDs are implemented in code via@cpt-*markers.
From the info output earlier, this repo registers artifacts like:
architecture/PRD.md(kindPRD)architecture/DESIGN.md(kindDESIGN)architecture/DECOMPOSITION.md(kindDECOMPOSITION)architecture/ADR/general/...md(kindADR)architecture/features/template-system.md(kindSPEC)
- Artifact = a doc file registered under
systems[].artifacts[]inartifacts.toml. - Codebase = a source directory registered under
systems[].codebase[]inartifacts.tomlso traceability scans know where to look.
If you want, I can show you the registry.
Say:
cypilot analyze: show me the artifacts.toml entries for this repocypilot analyze: validate all registered artifacts
Summary: The user asks what a configured kit is. The agent explains that a kit is the templates + checklists ruleset and how the adapter selects it for deterministic validation.
Expand chat details...
USER
cypilot, configured kit, what is that? I don't understand
ASSISTANT
Read artifacts-registry.md (lines 90–179)
📟 [requirements/artifacts-registry.md]: Entering “## Kits” — explaining what a configured kit is, what it points to, and how it affects validation and templates.
A kit is a template + checklist package that tells Cypilot:
- what each artifact kind (PRD/DESIGN/ADR/DECOMPOSITION/FEATURE) should look like (template),
- how to validate it (checklist + deterministic rules),
- and (optionally) how to validate traceability to code.
In other words: the kit is the ruleset Cypilot uses to process artifacts.
“Kit configured” just means:
- your
.cypilot-adapter/artifacts.tomlhas akitssection, and - your system node points at one of them via
system.kit.
Example (conceptually):
kits.cypilot-sdlc→{ "format": "Cypilot", "path": "kits/sdlc" }systems[0].kit→"cypilot-sdlc"
So Cypilot knows: “for this system, use kits/sdlc/... as the source of truth for templates/checklists.”
A kit has:
format: "Cypilot"- Means full tooling support.
- Cypilot can run deterministic commands like:
cypilot validate --artifact <path>cypilot list-ids,where-defined,where-used
format: <other>(custom)- Means LLM-only semantic processing (no deterministic CLI validation based on templates).
If your kit path is kits/sdlc, then:
- PRD template:
kits/sdlc/artifacts/PRD/template.md - PRD checklist:
kits/sdlc/artifacts/PRD/checklist.md - similarly for
DESIGN,ADR, etc.
That’s what Cypilot uses when it says “validate this artifact”.
From earlier info, your configured kit is:
cypilot-sdlcwith path:kits/sdlcand format:"Cypilot"
So deterministic validation should work for registered artifacts.
If you want, I can point to the exact JSON.
Say:
cypilot analyze: show me the kit config in .cypilot-adapter/artifacts.toml
Summary: The user proposes a macOS overwork alert tool with a configurable time limit. The agent routes the request into the generate workflow and asks structured clarification questions before writing anything.
Expand chat details...
USER
cypilot, cool! There is an idea to organize my work, I need some tool which will raise an alert on my Mac when I work too much time, for example more than 3 hour, I would like to have some configuration where I can set the limit, do you understand?
ASSISTANT
Thought for 21s
Created Todo List: 4 tasks
Thought for 5s
I understand: you want a small macOS tool that alerts you when you’ve been working longer than a configurable limit (e.g. 3 hours).
Since this is a “build/implement” request, I’ll route this through Cypilot generate workflow, first loading the required workflow + execution protocol, then I’ll ask a few specific questions to lock down behavior (what counts as “working”, how to configure, how alerts should behave).
Read generate.md and execution-protocol.md
Thought for 42s
I understand. You want a macOS tool that tracks how long you’ve been “working” and then raises an alert once you exceed a configurable limit (e.g. 3 hours), with settings you can adjust.
LOG [workflows/generate.md]: Starting Phase 0.5/1 (Clarify Output + Collect Info) — before I generate anything, I need to lock down what “work time” means, how alerts repeat, and how you want it installed/configured.
- [Background watcher] A small daemon that runs continuously (optionally on login).
- [Work-time accounting] Counts “active time” and pauses when you’re idle (no keyboard/mouse).
- [Alert] Uses macOS Notification Center (via
osascript) to pop a notification. - [Config] A config file where you set:
- limit (e.g. 3h)
- idle threshold (e.g. 5m)
- repeat behavior
- quiet hours (optional)
- [Control] CLI commands like
status,reset,pause,resume.
Please answer these in one message (you can just edit the proposals).
- What counts as “work time”?
- Proposal: “work time” = active time while you’re not idle.
- Idle means no keyboard/mouse for
idle_threshold(default 5 minutes). - If idle exceeds threshold, timer pauses until activity resumes.
- Idle means no keyboard/mouse for
- Is the 3-hour limit per day or per session?
- Proposal: per day, auto-reset at local midnight.
- Alternative: per session (manual start/stop) or rolling window.
- Alert behavior
- Proposal:
- First alert at
limit(e.g. 3:00:00) - Then repeat every
repeat_every(default 30 minutes) while you keep working - Optionally escalate (sound / stronger wording) after N repeats
- First alert at
Summary: The agent asks where config should live, how the tool should run (LaunchAgent vs manual), whether a UI is needed, and whether to build it inside the repo or as a separate project. It also sets an explicit write gate.
Expand chat details...
ASSISTANT
- Where and how do you want to configure it?
- Proposal: config file at
~/.config/overwork-alert/config.json- Includes:
limit_minutes,idle_threshold_seconds,repeat_minutes,quiet_hours, etc.
- Includes:
- Alternative:
toml/yaml, or a--limit 180CLI flag override.
- How should it run?
Pick one:
- Proposal A (recommended): LaunchAgent (starts automatically on login, runs in background)
- Option B: manual run from Terminal when you start working
- Do you want a UI?
- Proposal: no menubar UI for v1 (CLI + notifications only).
- Option: menubar app later.
- Where should we build this?
This is important because you’re currently inside the Cypilot repo.
- Proposal: create a separate small project (new folder/repo) for this tool.
- Alternative: add it as an example inside this repo (not recommended unless you want it here).
Once you confirm the choices above, I’ll propose an implementation plan and then (only with your explicit “yes”) generate:
- the code (likely Python 3 for a quick v1),
- the config (format),
- the LaunchAgent plist (if you want autostart),
- and a minimal README with install/run steps.
- In progress: Requirements clarification (needed before generating files/code).
- Blocked on: Your answers to the 7 questions above.
Summary: The user accepts the proposals but wants the tool added as an example inside this repo. The agent re-checks the adapter registry and proposes a compliant location under examples/overwork_alert/.
Expand chat details...
USER
cypilot, I like all your proposals, except 7, I would like to add it in that project as an example
ASSISTANT
Thought for 47s
1 / 4 tasks done
- Clarify requirements for the Mac overwork alert tool (what counts as 'work', how to configure, how alerts behave, how it should run on startup).
- Choose implementation approach (CLI + LaunchAgent vs menubar app) and confirm where to place code (this repo vs separate project).
2 more
Thought for 15s
📟 [execution-protocol]: Entering “Understand Registry / Load Adapter Specs” — I’m going to re-check the adapter registry (artifacts.toml) and load the adapter’s project structure + conventions specs so we place your new “overwork alert” example in the repo in a compliant location before generating any code.
Command: python3
Output (as visible in screenshot; truncated):
...
"artifacts_registry_error": null,
"relative_path": ".cypilot-adapter",
"has_config": true
...Using legacy terminal
Read artifacts.toml and 7 other files
Analyzed /Volumes/CaseSensitive/coding/cypilot
Thought for 74s
📟 [workflows/generate.md]: Entering “Phase 0.5: Clarify Output & Context” — you approved the behavior/feature set, so I’m locking down where this example will live in this repo and what files I will generate before writing anything.
📟 [execution-protocol]: Entering “Understand Registry” — confirming the configured kit + conventions so the new example doesn’t conflict with existing project structure.
Given .cypilot-adapter/specs/project-structure.md, the cleanest place is a new top-level:
examples/overwork_alert/(standalone, doesn’t touch the core Cypilot CLI package)
This keeps the example:
- isolated from
skills/cypilot/scripts/cypilot/(so it won’t affect CLI complexity/coverage), - still versioned and discoverable in the repo.
examples/overwork_alert/overwork_alert.py- CLI:
run,status,reset,pause,resume - Uses
ioregto measure idle time - Uses
osascriptto show a macOS notification - Uses
~/.config/overwork-alert/config.jsonfor config - Persists state in
~/.local/state/overwork-alert/state.json(so restarts don’t lose progress)
- CLI:
examples/overwork_alert/config.example.json- Default: 3 hours limit, 5 min idle threshold, repeat alert every 30 min
examples/overwork_alert/README.md- How to run manually
- How to set up autostart with LaunchAgent (instructions + recommended commands)
- Notes about macOS notification behavior
Optional (only if you want it in v1):
examples/overwork_alert/launchagent/com.cypilot.overwork_alert.plist- A ready-to-copy LaunchAgent (but it will need a real absolute path on your machine)
Summary: The agent asks the user to choose between a code-only example and a full SDLC example, and requires an explicit “yes” before creating any files.
Expand chat details...
ASSISTANT
Do you want this example to be:
- Option A (recommended): Code-only example (just the tool + README/config)
- Option B: Full SDLC example (also generate a small PRD/DESIGN/DECOMPOSITION/SPEC artifact set for the tool under
architecture/...)
Reply with A or B.
If you reply A (recommended), confirm:
- Reply
yesand I will create the 3 files underexamples/overwork_alert/listed above. - Reply
modifyand tell me what you want renamed/added/removed.
(Per Cypilot rules, I will not create any files until you explicitly say yes.)
- Completed: Location decision updated — we’ll add it inside this repo as an example.
- Blocked: Need your A/B choice + explicit
yesto write new files.
Summary: The user can’t choose between a code-only example and a full SDLC example. The agent compares Option A vs Option B in terms of value, risk, repo impact, and what files would be created.
Expand chat details...
USER
cypilot, I can't choose the option, could you please help and compare them?
ASSISTANT
Thought for 31s
📟 [workflows/generate.md]: Entering “Phase 0.5: Clarify Output & Context” — comparing Option A vs Option B so you can choose the smallest scope that still meets your goals.
Option A — Code-only example (recommended to start)
- A working tool under
examples/overwork_alert/:- configurable limit (3h default)
- idle-aware “work time”
- macOS notifications
- state persistence
- optional LaunchAgent instructions (autostart)
- Fastest path to value: you’ll be using it the same day.
- Lowest risk to this repo:
- no changes to
{ } .cypilot-adapter/artifacts.toml - no interaction with Cypilot validation gates (beyond normal code quality)
- no changes to
- Keeps Cypilot core clean: it’s clearly an “example utility”, not part of the methodology engine.
- Generate 3 files:
examples/overwork_alert/overwork_alert.pyexamples/overwork_alert/config.example.jsonexamples/overwork_alert/README.md
Summary: The agent explains Option B: generating PRD → DESIGN → DECOMPOSITION → SPEC (and then code), possibly registering artifacts for deterministic validation, plus tradeoffs and a recommendation.
Expand chat details...
ASSISTANT
Option B — Full SDLC example (docs + possibly registry + optional traceability)
- Everything from Option A plus a complete “Cypilot SDLC” artifact chain for this tool:
- PRD → DESIGN → DECOMPOSITION → SPEC → (then CODE)
- This is great if your goal is learning Cypilot SDLC by doing and having a “canonical example project” inside the repo.
- Teaches the method: you’ll have a real traceable artifact chain.
- Deterministic validation becomes central: templates, IDs, cross-references, completeness gates.
- Better for teams: you can hand the artifacts to someone and they can implement/extend systematically.
- More time + more files (it’s a mini-project).
- If we register these artifacts in
{ } .cypilot-adapter/artifacts.toml(to enable full deterministic workflows), that may:- affect repo-wide validations (
make validate,cypilot validate) - potentially require follow-up adjustments if any existing tests assume current registry shape
- affect repo-wide validations (
- If we don’t register them (keep docs local), you still get “SDLC-style docs”, but you lose some deterministic tooling benefits.
- Create an “example artifact set” under something like:
examples/overwork_alert/architecture/PRD.mdexamples/overwork_alert/architecture/DESIGN.mdexamples/overwork_alert/architecture/DECOMPOSITION.mdexamples/overwork_alert/architecture/features/overwork-alert.md(SPEC)
- Then decide whether to register them (strict tooling) or keep them unregistered (docs-only).
Choose Option A if:
- Primary goal: “I want the tool working on my Mac ASAP”
- You don’t care (yet) about documenting it through PRD/DESIGN/SPEC
- You want minimal footprint in the repo
Choose Option B if:
- Primary goal: “I want to learn/showcase Cypilot SDLC end-to-end”
- You’re OK generating and maintaining multiple artifacts
- You accept possible follow-up work if repo validation/tests need updates after registry changes
Start with Option A now, then upgrade to Option B later if you enjoy using the tool and want the SDLC example to represent “real usage” rather than a hypothetical.
Which statement matches your intent better?
- Tool-first: “I mainly want the alert tool working.”
- Method-first: “I mainly want a perfect Cypilot SDLC example, even if it takes longer.”
Reply with 1 or 2, and then I’ll ask for the final yes to create files.
- Completed: Compared Option A vs Option B with tradeoffs and a recommended path.
- Pending: Your choice (1 tool-first / 2 method-first), then explicit
yesto write files.
Summary: The user chooses the method-first path to learn Cypilot SDLC end-to-end. The agent loads kit templates/rules and proposes an ID scheme and file placement, including registering the example system for deterministic validation.
Expand chat details...
USER
cypilot, I want to learn/showcase Cypilot SDLC end-to-end, let's try!
ASSISTANT
Thought for 45s
2 / 4 tasks done
- Choose implementation approach (CLI + LaunchAgent vs menubar app) and confirm where to place code (this repo vs separate project).
- Generate minimal Cypilot artifacts (PRD/DESIGN/DECOMPOSITION/SPEC) for the tool, aligned with adapter conventions, if you want the full SDLC flow.
Thought for 14s
Searched cpt- in architecture (7)
Thought for 31s
📟 [execution-protocol]: Entering “Load Kits” — I’m going to load the SDLC kit’s PRD/DESIGN/DECOMPOSITION/SPEC templates + rules + examples so we can generate a compliant end-to-end artifact chain for the “overwork alert” example.
Read rules.md and 6 other files
Thought for 69s
📟 [kits/sdlc/artifacts/PRD/rules.md]: Entering “Dependencies” — I’m going to load the remaining required PRD dependencies (requirements/identifiers.md and PRD/checklist.md) so we can generate a PRD that passes deterministic + semantic gates.
Read template.md and checklist.md
Thought for 47s
📟 [workflows/generate.md]: Entering “Phase 1: Collect Information (Artifacts)” — I’m going to propose concrete PRD inputs (per PRD template) for your Overwork Alert example, so you can approve/edit them in one pass.
📟 [kits/sdlc/artifacts/PRD/rules.md]: Entering “Tasks → Phase 2/3” — preparing proposed content + ID plan that follows PRD structure + ID conventions.
- System/ID prefix + file placement (required for end-to-end SDLC)
Context: IDs must follow cpt-{hierarchy-prefix}-{kind}-{slug} and remain unique.
Proposal:
-
Registry: Add a new system to
{ } .cypilot-adapter/artifacts.toml:- name: Example: Overwork Alert
- slug: overwork-alert
- kit: cypilot-sdlc
- artifacts_dir:
examples/overwork_alert/architecture - codebase:
examples/overwork_alert/src(*.py)
-
Artifact paths:
examples/overwork_alert/architecture/PRD.mdexamples/overwork_alert/architecture/DESIGN.mdexamples/overwork_alert/architecture/DECOMPOSITION.mdexamples/overwork_alert/architecture/features/overwork-alert.md(SPEC)
This yields IDs like:
cpt-ex-ovwa-actor-usercpt-ex-ovwa-fr-configurable-limitcpt-ex-ovwa-feature-overwork-alert
Reply: confirm slug (overwork-alert OK?) and confirm we should register the system in { } artifacts.toml (needed for the cleanest deterministic “end-to-end” flow).
Summary: The agent drafts the PRD overview inputs: purpose, context, target users, key problems, success criteria, and capabilities.
Expand chat details...
ASSISTANT
Purpose (proposal): A small macOS tool that tracks active work time and alerts the user when they exceed a configurable limit (default 3 hours), to help prevent overwork and improve break discipline.
Context (proposal):
- This is a local-first tool for individual developers/knowledge workers.
- It counts “work time” as active time (pauses when idle > 5 minutes).
- Alerts are delivered via macOS Notification Center.
Target Users (proposal):
- Developers working long focused sessions
- Knowledge workers who want a simple “stop signal”
- People using Pomodoro/break routines but needing a “hard” long-session reminder
Key Problems Solved (proposal):
- Losing track of time during deep work and skipping breaks
- Inconsistent break discipline leading to fatigue and reduced productivity
- No simple configurable “session cap” that pauses on idle
Success Criteria (proposal):
- A default setup can be installed and running in ≤ 10 minutes on macOS (Baseline: N/A; Target: v1.0)
- Alert triggers within ≤ 5 seconds after exceeding configured limit while active (Baseline: N/A; Target: v1.0)
- Idle detection pauses work timer within ≤ 10 seconds of crossing idle threshold (Baseline: N/A; Target: v1.0)
- Config change takes effect without restart (or with a documented
restartcommand) within ≤ 30 seconds (Baseline: N/A; Target: v1.0)
Capabilities (proposal):
- Track active work time (idle-aware)
- Configurable daily/session limit (default 3h)
- Notify at limit + periodic repeat until user stops/acknowledges
- Basic controls: status/reset/pause/resume
- Optional auto-start at login
Summary: The agent proposes actors with stable IDs and a numbered functional requirements set (FR-001..FR-006) to support later traceability.
Expand chat details...
ASSISTANT
Proposal (actors):
- User
- ID:
cpt-ex-ovwa-actor-user - Role: wants to be notified when they’ve worked too long; adjusts configuration; acknowledges alerts
- ID:
- macOS System
- ID:
cpt-ex-ovwa-actor-macos - Role: provides idle-time signal + runs LaunchAgent + displays notifications
- ID:
- LaunchAgent (Background Runner)
- ID:
cpt-ex-ovwa-actor-launchagent - Role: starts the tool automatically on login and keeps it running
- ID:
Proposal (FR list):
- FR-001 Track active work time (idle-aware)
- ID:
cpt-ex-ovwa-fr-track-active-time - Actors:
cpt-ex-ovwa-actor-user,cpt-ex-ovwa-actor-macos - Notes: timer pauses when idle > threshold; resumes on activity
- ID:
- FR-002 Configurable limit + idle threshold
- ID:
cpt-ex-ovwa-fr-configurable-limit - Actors:
cpt-ex-ovwa-actor-user - Notes: config file-based; supports minutes/hours; safe defaults
- ID:
- FR-003 Notify when limit exceeded + repeat reminders
- ID:
cpt-ex-ovwa-fr-notify-on-limit - Actors:
cpt-ex-ovwa-actor-user,cpt-ex-ovwa-actor-macos - Notes: first alert at limit; repeat every 30 minutes while still “working”
- ID:
- FR-004 Session/day reset behavior
- ID:
cpt-ex-ovwa-fr-auto-reset - Actors:
cpt-ex-ovwa-actor-user - Notes: resets at local midnight (daily mode); also supports manual
reset
- ID:
- FR-005 Run in background + optional autostart
- ID:
cpt-ex-ovwa-fr-autostart - Actors:
cpt-ex-ovwa-actor-launchagent,cpt-ex-ovwa-actor-macos
- ID:
- FR-006 Provide CLI controls
- ID:
cpt-ex-ovwa-fr-cli-controls - Actors:
cpt-ex-ovwa-actor-user - Commands:
run,status,pause,resume,reset
- ID:
(We’ll assign priorities p1/p2 during generation; proposal is p1 for FR-001..FR-003, p2 for FR-004..FR-006.)
Summary: The agent proposes use cases, NFRs (privacy, reliability, performance), explicit non-goals, risks, and open questions.
Expand chat details...
ASSISTANT
Proposal:
- UC-001 Start work timer and receive alert
- ID:
cpt-ex-ovwa-usecase-run-and-alert - Actor:
cpt-ex-ovwa-actor-user - Includes alt flow: idle pauses timer; config missing → fall back to defaults + warn
- ID:
- UC-002 Change limit configuration
- ID:
cpt-ex-ovwa-usecase-configure-limit - Actor:
cpt-ex-ovwa-actor-user
- ID:
- UC-003 Pause/resume/reset
- ID:
cpt-ex-ovwa-usecase-control-session - Actor:
cpt-ex-ovwa-actor-user
- ID:
Proposal:
- NFR: Privacy / Local-only
- ID:
cpt-ex-ovwa-nfr-privacy-local-only - The tool MUST NOT send data over the network by default
- The tool MUST store only minimal local state (timestamps + counters)
- ID:
- NFR: Reliability
- ID:
cpt-ex-ovwa-nfr-reliability - The tool SHOULD survive restarts without losing the day/session progress (state persisted)
- ID:
- NFR: Performance / Battery
- ID:
cpt-ex-ovwa-nfr-low-overhead - The tool SHOULD use low CPU (polling interval sensible, e.g. 5–10s)
- ID:
Intentional Exclusions (proposal):
- Accessibility / WCAG: Not applicable — CLI + system notifications; no custom UI surface
- Internationalization: Not applicable — English-only messages for example scope
- Regulatory Compliance: Not applicable — no PII processing beyond local timestamps
Non-goals (proposal):
- Not a full time-tracking/billing product
- Not cross-platform in v1 (macOS-focused)
- Not a menubar UI app in v1 (CLI + notifications only)
Risks (proposal):
- macOS notification permissions / Focus modes may suppress alerts
- Idle time measurement method may vary across macOS versions; needs testing
Assumptions (proposal):
- User is on macOS and allows notifications
- User is OK with a background process / LaunchAgent
Open questions (proposal):
- Should we treat screen lock as “idle” immediately? — Owner: User, Target: next iteration
- Should alerts include sound, or notification-only? — Owner: User, Target: next iteration
Summary: The agent provides a clear approval format (“approve all” or section edits) and describes the next SDLC stage (DESIGN → DECOMPOSITION → SPEC).
Expand chat details...
ASSISTANT
Reply with either:
approve all(and optionally: confirmslug=overwork-alert+ confirm “register system in artifacts.toml”), or- Edits by section number (e.g., “0: slug should be owa...”; “3: add FR for quiet hours”, etc.)
After you approve PRD inputs, I’ll move to DESIGN inputs next (architecture/components) and continue the SDLC chain.
- In progress: Generating SDLC artifacts — PRD input collection (awaiting your approval).
- Next: DESIGN → DECOMPOSITION → SPEC (then CODE).
Summary: The user approves the PRD inputs. The agent marks the checkpoint and asks what should be written to disk next, still gated behind explicit confirmation.
Expand chat details...
USER
cypilot, I read it, and it looks really like what I want! I approve all
ASSISTANT
Thought for 8s
📟 [workflows/generate.md]: Completing “PRD approval checkpoint” — you approved the PRD inputs, so next I’ll (1) get explicit write confirmation for the PRD + registry changes, then (2) start DESIGN input collection using the SDLC templates/rules. I’m also updating the TODO list to reflect this milestone.
2 / 4 tasks done
- Choose implementation approach (CLI + LaunchAgent vs menubar app) and confirm where to place code (this repo vs separate project).
- Generate minimal Cypilot artifacts (PRD/DESIGN/DECOMPOSITION/SPEC) for the tool, aligned with adapter conventions (PRD inputs approved; pending write + DESIGN/DECOMPOSITION/SPEC).
Asking question:
- What would you like me to write to disk now (requires explicit confirmation before I create/modify files)?
Summary: The agent offers scoped write options (PRD only vs PRD + register system vs scaffold chain vs hold off) and keeps the operation reversible.
Expand chat details...
ASSISTANT
What would you like me to write to disk now (requires explicit confirmation before I create/modify files)?
- PRD only
- Create folder(s) as needed and write PRD to
examples/overwork_alert/architecture/PRD.md(no registry changes yet).
- Create folder(s) as needed and write PRD to
- PRD + register system
- Write
PRD.mdand update.cypilot-adapter/artifacts.tomlto register the new system underexamples/overwork_alert/...for deterministic validation + traceability.
- Write
- PRD + register system + scaffold chain
- Do the above, plus create empty placeholders for DESIGN/DECOMPOSITION/SPEC files in the proposed locations (content to be generated next).
- Hold off on writes
- Don’t write anything yet; just proceed with DESIGN input collection in chat.
Summary: The agent writes the PRD to disk and patches the registry to register the new Overwork Alert system for deterministic validation and later traceability.
Expand chat details...
ASSISTANT
Asked 1 question:
- What would you like me to write to disk now (requires explicit confirmation before I create/modify files)?
- PRD + register system
Thought for 2s
📟 [execution-protocol]: Entering “Write Phase (gated)” — you selected PRD + register system, so I’ll now (1) inspect current { } artifacts.toml structure and whether examples/overwork_alert/... exists, then (2) write examples/overwork_alert/architecture/PRD.md and patch { } .cypilot-adapter/artifacts.toml accordingly.
Explored artifacts.toml and searched 2 queries
Thought for 23s
📟 [execution-protocol]: Before writing { } artifacts.toml and creating examples/overwork_alert/..., I’m going to load the artifacts registry schema + rules and the project structure spec, then I’ll generate the PRD file from the PRD template and patch the registry in a single, safe change set.
Read artifacts.schema.json and 3 other files
Thought for 51s
Diff preview (as visible in screenshot; truncated):
PRD.md (new)
...artifacts.toml (+19)
...
"multiLineComments": [{"start": "\"\"\"", "end": "\"\"\""}],
...
"children": []
...Thought for 55s
Written to disk
- PRD created
examples/overwork_alert/architecture/PRD.md
- System registered
- Updated
{ } .cypilot-adapter/artifacts.tomlwith a new system:- name: Example: Overwork Alert
- slug: overwork-alert
- artifacts_dir:
examples/overwork_alert/architecture - registered artifacts:
examples/overwork_alert/architecture/PRD.md(kind: PRD, traceability: FULL)
- codebase (for later traceability):
examples/overwork_alert/src(.py)
- Updated
Links:
- PRD: PRD.md
- Registry: artifacts.toml
Summary: The agent proposes running deterministic validation for the new PRD and then starts collecting the next-stage design decisions before drafting DESIGN.md.
Expand chat details...
ASSISTANT
If you want, I can run Cypilot validation now:
python3 skills/cypilot/scripts/cypilot.py validate --artifact examples/overwork_alert/architecture/PRD.md
Tell me “run validation” and I’ll execute it.
I’m ready to collect DESIGN inputs next (architecture/components/boundaries/interfaces) and then write examples/overwork_alert/architecture/DESIGN.md after you approve.
A couple of DESIGN-level choices I’ll ask you to confirm when we start:
- State persistence location: ok to keep a small local state file (separate from config) so “today’s active minutes” survives restarts?
- Reset semantics: we keep “reset at local midnight” as the only automatic reset in v1 (no weekly/monthly modes)?
- Done: PRD written + registered in
{ } artifacts.toml. - In progress: SDLC artifact chain (next: DESIGN → DECOMPOSITION → SPEC).
- Pending: Implementation (CODE) after specs.
Summary: The user asks the agent to proceed. The agent runs deterministic PRD validation, explains the warnings, and transitions into collecting DESIGN inputs.
Expand chat details...
USER
cypilot please proceed following your recommendations
ASSISTANT
Thought for 22s
📟 [workflows/generate.md]: Proceeding as requested — next I’ll (1) run Cypilot validation on the new PRD to ensure it passes the deterministic gate, and (2) load the DESIGN rules/template so we can collect DESIGN inputs and draft DESIGN.md for your approval (no new file writes until you confirm).
2 / 4 tasks done
- Choose implementation approach (CLI + LaunchAgent vs menubar app) and confirm where to place code (this repo vs separate project).
- Generate minimal Cypilot artifacts (PRD/DESIGN/DECOMPOSITION/SPEC) for the tool, aligned with adapter conventions (PRD written + registered; next: validate PRD, then DESIGN/DECOMPOSITION/SPEC).
Read rules.md and 3 other files
Command:
python3 skills/cypilot/scripts/cypilot.py validate --artifact examples/overwork_alert/architecture/PRD.md
Output (as visible in screenshot; truncated):
{
"status": "PASS",
"artifacts_validated": 1,
"error_count": 0,
"warning_count": 9,
"next_step": "Deterministic validation passed. Now perform semantic validation: review content quality against checklist and criteria."
}Command:
python3
Output (help excerpt as visible in screenshot):
options:
-h, --help show this help message and exit
--artifact ARTIFACT Path to specific Cypilot artifact (if omitted, validates all registered Cypilot artifacts)
--skip-code Skip code traceability validation
--verbose Print full validation report
--output OUTPUT Write report to file instead of stdout
Thought for 62s
📟 [workflows/generate.md]: Proceeding — I validated the PRD (deterministic gate) and I’m now entering DESIGN Phase 1 (Setup) → Phase 2 (Content Creation) to draft the design inputs for your approval.
- Deterministic validation PASS for
examples/overwork_alert/architecture/PRD.md - Warnings: 9 (this is expected right now because PRD has
covered_by="DESIGN,DECOMPOSITION,SPEC"IDs, but those downstream artifacts don’t exist yet).
If you want, I can rerun validation with --verbose to show the exact warnings and we can decide if any need action now, or if we ignore until DESIGN/DECOMPOSITION/SPEC are written.
Summary: The agent asks a small set of targeted design questions (with suggested defaults) to lock down key decisions before drafting the DESIGN artifact.
Expand chat details...
ASSISTANT
Reply with short answers:
A) State persistence
- Option 1 (recommended): Persist “today’s progress” in a small local state file so restarts don’t lose the counter.
- Option 2: No persistence; resets on restart.
- Which do you want?
B) Reset semantics
- Keep auto reset at local midnight as the only automatic reset in v1? (yes/no)
C) ADR
- The SDLC pipeline is PRD → ADR + DESIGN → … and the DESIGN template includes an “ADR records” section.
- Do you want me to create one minimal ADR (recommended) capturing the key decision “CLI + LaunchAgent (no menubar UI)”, then reference it from DESIGN? (yes/no)
Once you confirm A/B/C, I’ll draft DESIGN.md content following the DESIGN template with these choices:
Architecture vision (high-level)
- One background daemon loop that:
- Samples “idle time” from macOS
- Accumulates active seconds when idle is below threshold and not paused
- Detects “over limit” and triggers notifications (repeating)
Architecture layers (kept minimal)
- CLI layer
- Starts daemon / requests status / pause / resume / reset
- Core tracking layer
- Implements time accounting, reset logic, repeat-alert logic
- OS integration layer
- Idle-time probe + macOS notifications + LaunchAgent integration (later)
Domain model (types, not implementation)
Config(limit minutes, idle threshold seconds, repeat minutes, optional toggles)TrackerState(date, accumulated active seconds, paused flag, last alert time, last reset date)TimeSourceabstraction (for testability)
Summary: The agent proposes a minimal component set and high-level sequences so the design remains clear and implementable.
Expand chat details...
ASSISTANT
ConfigLoaderIdleProbe(macOS)WorkTimeTracker(core accumulator + idle-aware state machine)AlertPolicy(when to alert + repeat)Notifier(macOS Notification Center bridge)StateStore(if you choose persistence)CLI
- “Daemon tick updates accumulated active time”
- “Over-limit notification + repeat policy”
- “Midnight reset”
- Likely Not applicable (we’ll use a small state file, not a DB). I’ll explicitly state “Not applicable because …” to satisfy the checklist’s non-silent omission rule.
- Done: PRD deterministic validation PASS.
- Next: You answer A/B/C → I draft DESIGN in chat → you approve → I write
examples/overwork_alert/architecture/DESIGN.mdand register it in{ } .cypilot-adapter/artifacts.toml.
Summary: The user answers the key DESIGN questions (no persistence, no midnight-only reset, create an ADR). The agent records the choices, identifies PRD mismatches, and asks one final clarification to keep the artifact chain consistent.
Expand chat details...
USER
cypilot, a - 2, b - no, c - as recommended
ASSISTANT
Thought for 11s
📟 [kits/sdlc/artifacts/ADR/rules.md]: Entering “ADR + DESIGN setup” — I’ll load the ADR rules/template/example and re-open your PRD so I can draft (in chat) a minimal ADR (CLI + LaunchAgent, no menubar UI) and then the DESIGN draft aligned to your A/B/C decisions.
2 / 4 tasks done
- Choose implementation approach (CLI + LaunchAgent vs menubar app) and confirm where to place code (this repo vs separate project).
- Generate minimal Cypilot artifacts (PRD/DESIGN/DECOMPOSITION/SPEC) for the tool, aligned with adapter conventions (PRD written+registered+validated; next: ADR + DESIGN drafts/approval, then DECOMPOSITION+SPEC).
Read rules.md and 3 other files
Thought for 88s
📟 [ADR + DESIGN]: Entering “Drafting decisions” — I’m going to lock in your A/B/C choices as architecture decisions, then align the PRD → ADR → DESIGN chain so validation/traceability stays consistent.
- A = 2: No persistence. Restarting the daemon resets “today’s accumulated time”.
- B = no: You don’t want “local midnight reset is the only automatic reset” (needs 1 clarification below).
- C = as recommended: Create a minimal ADR and reference it from DESIGN.
Right now, the PRD says:
- FR-004: “MUST reset at local midnight (daily mode)”
- NFR reliability: “SHOULD preserve ... across restarts”
Your choices imply we should update PRD so downstream DESIGN/SPEC don’t contradict it.
When you said B = no, which of these do you want?
- B1 (remove midnight reset): No automatic reset at all; only manual reset (simplest).
- B2 (add another reset mode): Keep midnight reset as one option, but also support a session mode (resets when you start the daemon / on
reset).
Reply B1 or B2.
- File (proposed):
examples/overwork_alert/architecture/ADR/general/0001-cpt-ex-ovwa-adr-cli-launchagent-no-menubar-v1.md - ID (proposed):
cpt-ex-ovwa-adr-cli-launchagent-no-menubar(p1) - Status (proposed): Accepted (since you explicitly chose the recommendation)
- Decision: Use CLI-driven background daemon + LaunchAgent autostart; no menubar UI for v1.
Options covered (per ADR rules):
- Option 1: Menubar app (better UX, higher build/signing/UI complexity)
- Option 2 (chosen): CLI daemon + LaunchAgent (simpler, fits “example in repo”, fewer moving parts)
- Option 3: launchd periodic job (simpler runtime, weaker “real-time” tracking/alerts)
Summary: The agent proposes the DESIGN direction (no persistence, local UNIX socket control channel), outlines planned components and sequences, and clearly states what choices/approvals are required before writing files.
Expand chat details...
ASSISTANT
📟 [kits/sdlc/artifacts/DESIGN/template.md]: Preparing DESIGN content plan — high-level architecture only (no spec-level algorithms).
Key architectural points I will encode in DESIGN
- No persistence constraint: accumulated time resets on daemon restart.
- CLI controls requirement: we need a control channel from CLI to running daemon without using a persisted state file.
Proposed control approach (high-level):
- A local UNIX domain socket for
status/pause/resume/reset.- Local-only (fits privacy NFR).
- No persistence needed.
- (Implementation details stay for SPEC/CODE.)
I’ll include this as part of:
- Component Model
- API Contracts (local CLI-to-daemon contract)
Components (planned IDs)
cpt-ex-ovwa-component-clicpt-ex-ovwa-component-daemoncpt-ex-ovwa-component-idle-probecpt-ex-ovwa-component-work-time-trackercpt-ex-ovwa-component-alert-policycpt-ex-ovwa-component-notifiercpt-ex-ovwa-component-control-channel
Sequences (planned IDs)
cpt-ex-ovwa-seq-daemon-tick-accumulate-active-timecpt-ex-ovwa-seq-over-limit-notify-and-repeatcpt-ex-ovwa-seq-cli-control-command
Reply with:
- B1 or B2
- approve ADR (if yes)
Then I’ll ask for explicit write confirmation to:
- Create the ADR file + register it in
{ } .cypilot-adapter/artifacts.toml - Update PRD to align with A/B (only if you want that), then re-run validate
- Draft DESIGN in chat for your approval, then write
examples/overwork_alert/architecture/DESIGN.md
- In progress: ADR + DESIGN drafting.
- Blocked on: Your choice B1 vs B2 and ADR approval.
Summary: The user confirms B1 and approves the ADR direction. The agent aligns the PRD to the decisions, then pauses for explicit confirmation about exactly which files will be created or modified.
Expand chat details...
USER
cypilot, B1, approve ADR
ASSISTANT
Thought for 30s
LOG [ADR + PRD alignment]: You chose B1 (no automatic reset) and approved the ADR direction, so next I’ll (1) update the PRD to remove the “midnight reset MUST” + the “persist across restarts SHOULD” statements to match your decisions, and (2) create/register the new ADR file. I need one explicit confirmation about which files to write/modify before I apply changes.
2 / 4 tasks done
- Choose implementation approach (CLI + LaunchAgent vs menubar app) and confirm where to place code (this repo vs separate project).
- Generate minimal Cypilot artifacts (PRD/DESIGN/DECOMPOSITION/SPEC) for the tool, aligned with adapter conventions (next: align PRD to decisions, create+register ADR, draft+write DESIGN, then DECOMPOSITION+SPEC).
Read conventions.md and 2 other files
Asked 1 question:
- Confirm what you want me to write/modify now:
- ADR + registry + align PRD (recommended)
Thought for 5s
📟 [execution-protocol]: You confirmed ADR + registry + align PRD, so I’ll now (1) read the exact PRD sections to patch safely, (2) create the ADR file under examples/overwork_alert/architecture/ADR/, and (3) update { } .cypilot-adapter/artifacts.toml to register that ADR. After that, I’ll run cypilot validate on PRD + ADR.
Read PRD.md and artifacts.toml
Thought for 25s
Diff preview (as visible in screenshot; truncated):
PRD.md (+10, -11)
...
- The system SHOULD preserve the day/session accumulated work time across restarts.
...📟 [requirements/artifacts-registry.md]: Before I touch { } artifacts.toml again, I’m going to check what Cypilot CLI commands exist for registry operations so we comply with the “use CLI commands, not direct file manipulation” rule. Then I’ll create the ADR file, register it, and re-run validation.
Explored cypilot.clispec and searched .json|artifacts.toml|artifact registry
Command:
python3 skills/cypilot/scripts/cypilot.py --help
Output (as visible in screenshot; truncated):
usage: cypilot <command> [options]
Cypilot CLI — artifact validation and traceability tool
Validation commands:
validate
validate-kits
Search and utility commands:
...
Summary: The agent creates and registers the ADR, then runs deterministic validation. Validation fails for a precise structural reason, and the agent proposes a minimal targeted patch.
Expand chat details...
ASSISTANT
LOG [ADR generation]: I’m going to (1) check whether an Overwork Alert ADR file already exists, (2) create the new ADR file under examples/overwork_alert/architecture/ADR/general/, (3) register it in { } .cypilot-adapter/artifacts.toml, and then (4) run cypilot validate --skip-code on PRD + ADR.
Searched 0001-*overwork* in /Volumes/CaseSensitive/coding/cypilot (0)
Thought for 18s
Diff preview (as visible in screenshot; truncated):
0001-cpt-ex-ovwa-adr-cli-daemon-launchagent-no-menubar-v1.md (new, +108)
...artifacts.toml (+2, -1)
...
{ "name": "ADR-0001: Use CLI daemon + LaunchAgent (no menubar UI)", "path": "examples/overwork_alert/architecture/ADR/general/..." }
...Thought for 15s
Command:
python3 skills/cypilot/scripts/cypilot.py validate --skip-code --artifact examples/overwork_alert/architecture/PRD.md
{ "status": "PASS", "artifacts_validated": 1, "error_count": 0, "warning_count": 9, "next_step": "Deterministic validation passed. Now perform semantic validation: review content quality against checklist.md criteria." }Command:
python3 skills/cypilot/scripts/cypilot.py validate --skip-code --artifact examples/overwork_alert/architecture/ADR/general/0001-cpt-ex-ovwa-adr-cli-daemon-launchagent-no-menubar-v1.md
{
"status": "FAIL",
"artifacts_validated": 1,
"error_count": 2,
"warning_count": 1,
"errors": [
{ "type": "structure", "message": "Expected bullet list", "line": 89 },
{ "type": "structure", "message": "Expected bullet list", "line": 98 }
],
"failed_artifacts": [
{ "artifact": ".../0001-cpt-ex-ovwa-adr-cli-daemon-launchagent-no-menubar-v1.md", "error_count": 2 }
]
}LOG [ADR deterministic validation]: The ADR failed structural validation because the consequences and links template blocks expect a pure bullet list, but the ADR currently includes extra header lines (Consequences: / Links:) inside those blocks. I’ll patch the ADR to make those blocks start directly with - ... items, then rerun cypilot validate on the ADR.
Links:
Summary: The agent patches the ADR to satisfy strict template structure and reruns deterministic validation, confirming PASS for both the ADR and PRD, then gates the next write (DESIGN) behind explicit confirmation.
Expand chat details...
ASSISTANT
LOG [ADR fix]: I’m going to remove the non-bullet lines (Consequences: and Links:) from inside the cpt:list:* blocks so they match the validator’s “bullet list only” requirement, then rerun deterministic validation for the ADR.
Diff preview (as visible in screenshot; truncated):
0001-cpt-ex-ovwa-adr-cli-daemon-launchagent-no-menubar-v1.md (-2)
**Links:**
...Thought for 8s
2 / 4 tasks done
- Choose implementation approach (CLI + LaunchAgent vs menubar app) and confirm where to place code (this repo vs separate project).
- Generate minimal Cypilot artifacts (PRD/DESIGN/DECOMPOSITION/SPEC) for the tool, aligned with adapter conventions (PRD aligned to decisions; ADR created+registered; next: validate ADR, then draft+write DESIGN, then DECOMPOSITION+SPEC).
Command:
python3 skills/cypilot/scripts/cypilot.py validate --skip-code --artifact examples/overwork_alert/architecture/ADR/general/0001-cpt-ex-ovwa-adr-cli-daemon-launchagent-no-menubar-v1.md
{ "status": "PASS", "artifacts_validated": 1, "error_count": 0, "warning_count": 1, "next_step": "Deterministic validation passed. Now perform semantic validation: review content quality against checklist.md criteria." }Command:
python3 skills/cypilot/scripts/cypilot.py validate --skip-code --artifact examples/overwork_alert/architecture/PRD.md
{ "status": "PASS", "artifacts_validated": 1, "error_count": 0, "warning_count": 9, "next_step": "Deterministic validation passed. Now perform semantic validation: review content quality against checklist.md criteria." }Thought for 14s
LOG [AGENTS.md]: Cypilot acknowledgment (to proceed) — I understand MUST = mandatory, I will follow workflows step-by-step, and I will not create/modify files without your explicit confirmation. Next I’ll generate DESIGN.md for Overwork Alert and (optionally) register it in { } .cypilot-adapter/artifacts.toml, then rerun deterministic validation to reduce the remaining PRD warnings.
Asked 1 question:
- Proceed with DESIGN creation for Overwork Alert — what should I write to disk next?
- Write DESIGN + register (recommended)
Links:
Summary: The agent creates and registers DESIGN.md, then runs deterministic validation. Validation fails with specific missing required template blocks, prompting a targeted template-compliance patch.
Expand chat details...
ASSISTANT
I’m going to load the DESIGN template/rules (and the adapter/registry rules required when editing { } artifacts.toml), check whether examples/overwork_alert/architecture/DESIGN.md already exists, then create it and register it in { } .cypilot-adapter/artifacts.toml. After that I’ll run cypilot validate --skip-code on the new DESIGN artifact.
Explored files and searched DESIGN.md
Thought for 4s
LOG [DESIGN generation]: I’ll now gather the remaining PRD IDs (FR/NFR/actors) and skim the DESIGN example for formatting, then I’ll create examples/overwork_alert/architecture/DESIGN.md, register it in { } .cypilot-adapter/artifacts.toml, and run deterministic validation on the new DESIGN artifact.
Read PRD.md and example.md
Thought for 31s
Diff preview (as visible in screenshot; truncated):
DESIGN.md (new, +504)
...artifacts.toml (+2, -1)
...
{ "name": "Technical Design", "path": "examples/overwork_alert/architecture/DESIGN.md", "kind": "DESIGN", "traceability": "FULL" }
...Command:
python3 skills/cypilot/scripts/cypilot.py validate --skip-code --artifact examples/overwork_alert/architecture/DESIGN.md
Output (as visible in screenshot; truncated):
{
"status": "FAIL",
"artifacts_validated": 1,
"error_count": 8,
"warning_count": 14,
"errors": [
{"type": "structure", "message": "Required block missing", "line": 291, "id": "db-table-schema"},
{"type": "structure", "message": "Required block missing", "line": 321, "id": "db-table-schema"},
{"type": "structure", "message": "Required block missing", "line": 306, "id": "db-table-example"},
{"type": "structure", "message": "Required block missing", "line": 336, "id": "db-table-example"},
...
]
}Links:
- DESIGN: DESIGN.md
- Registry: artifacts.toml
Summary: The agent patches DESIGN.md to satisfy the required template blocks and reruns deterministic validation, confirming PASS and gating the next step (DECOMPOSITION + SPEC) behind user choice.
Expand chat details...
ASSISTANT
Thought for 11s
Read DESIGN.md (lines 390–504)
Thought for 31s
Diff preview (as visible in screenshot; truncated):
DESIGN.md (+64, -1)
| 10800 | 300 | 1800 | /tmp/overwork-alert.sock |
...Thought for 7s
Command:
python3 skills/cypilot/scripts/cypilot.py validate --skip-code --artifact examples/overwork_alert/architecture/DESIGN.md
{ "status": "PASS", "artifacts_validated": 1, "error_count": 0, "warning_count": 16, "next_step": "Deterministic validation passed. Now perform semantic validation: review content quality against checklist.md criteria." }{ "status": "PASS", "artifacts_validated": 10, "error_count": 0, "warning_count": 16, "next_step": "Deterministic validation passed. Now perform semantic validation: review content quality against checklist.md criteria." }Thought for 5s
2 / 4 tasks done
- Choose implementation approach (CLI + LaunchAgent vs menubar app) and confirm where to place code (this repo vs separate project).
- Generate minimal Cypilot artifacts for the tool: PRD aligned to decisions; ADR created+registered; DESIGN created+registered; deterministic validation passing (next: DECOMPOSITION + SPEC, then semantic review).
Asked 1 question:
- Next step: generate Overwork Alert DECOMPOSITION + SPEC artifacts. What do you want me to write to disk?
Links:
- DESIGN: DESIGN.md
Summary: The agent creates DECOMPOSITION.md and an initial SPEC set, registers them in the registry, and reruns deterministic validation to ensure the artifacts are structurally compliant.
Expand chat details...
ASSISTANT
Thought for 17s
Explored 4 files and searched 2 queries
Thought for 11s
Read example.md
Thought for 47s
LOG [DECOMPOSITION + SPEC generation]: I’ll now create examples/overwork_alert/architecture/DECOMPOSITION.md plus a small initial set of SPEC files under examples/overwork_alert/architecture/features/, register them in { } .cypilot-adapter/artifacts.toml, then run cypilot validate --skip-code to ensure deterministic validation passes.
Diff preview (as visible in screenshot; truncated):
DECOMPOSITION.md (new, +328)
...Read artifacts.toml (lines 1–35)
Thought for 2s
Read DECOMPOSITION.md and 2 other files
Thought for 3s
Analyzed architecture/specs
Searched p1 in /Volumes/CaseSensitive/coding/cypilot (1)
RESPONSE STATISTICS (as visible in screenshot)
- Credits spent: 0 credits
- Tool calls: 64 calls
- Model: GPT-5.2 High Reasoning Fast
- Files changed: 5 files changed
- Terminals created: 9 processes run
Links:
- DECOMPOSITION: DECOMPOSITION.md
- Specs directory: architecture/features/
- Registry: artifacts.toml
Summary: The agent generates the remaining Overwork Alert SPEC set, registers them in the registry, updates DECOMPOSITION links, and reruns deterministic validation to confirm everything is structurally compliant.
Expand chat details...
ASSISTANT
I’m going to generate the remaining artifacts: register DECOMPOSITION.md, create the specs/ directory with 4 SPEC docs (tracker core, notifications, CLI control, LaunchAgent autostart), register those specs in { } .cypilot-adapter/artifacts.toml, then re-run cypilot validate --skip-code to ensure everything still passes deterministic validation.
I’ll finish the artifact chain by (1) registering DECOMPOSITION.md and creating the 4 SPEC files under examples/overwork_alert/architecture/features/, (2) registering those SPECs in { } .cypilot-adapter/artifacts.toml, and (3) running cypilot validate --skip-code again to confirm deterministic validation passes.
Read template-system.md and 3 other files
Explored template.py and searched d|inst
Thought for 35s
Searched validate_spec_filename in skills/.../template.py (1)
Read template.py (lines 880–999)
Thought for 20s
Read artifacts.toml (lines 30–58)
Thought for 27s
Searched tracker-core.md and performed 3 other queries
Thought for 49s
Searched cpt-ex-ovwa-fr-(autostart|cli-controls) in examples/overwork_alert/architecture/PRD.md (2)
Thought for 88s
Diff preview (as visible in screenshot; truncated):
artifacts.toml (+6, -1)
...
{ "name": "Spec: Tracker Core", "path": "examples/overwork_alert/architecture/features/tracker-core.md", "kind": "SPEC" }
{ "name": "Spec: Notifications", "path": "examples/overwork_alert/architecture/features/notifications.md", "kind": "SPEC" }
{ "name": "Spec: CLI control", "path": "examples/overwork_alert/architecture/features/cli-control.md", "kind": "SPEC" }
{ "name": "Spec: LaunchAgent Autostart", "path": "examples/overwork_alert/architecture/features/launchagent-autostart.md", "kind": "SPEC" }
...DECOMPOSITION.md (+4, -4)
...
### 4. [Autostart (LaunchAgent)](specs/launchagent-autostart.md) — MEDIUM
...New SPEC files (as visible in screenshot):
tracker-core.md (new, +243)
...notifications.md (new, +196)
...cli-control.md (new, +199)
...launchagent-autostart.md (new, +196)
...Links:
- DECOMPOSITION: DECOMPOSITION.md
- SPEC: tracker-core.md
- SPEC: notifications.md
- SPEC: cli-control.md
- SPEC: launchagent-autostart.md
- Registry: artifacts.toml
Summary: Deterministic validation fails for specific SPECs because the spec ID slug and the filename do not match. The agent uses the error output to identify the mismatches precisely.
Expand chat details...
ASSISTANT
Command output (as visible in screenshot; truncated):
{"status":"PASS","artifacts_validated":10,"error_count":0,"warning_count":16,"next_step":"Deterministic validation passed. Now perform semantic validation: review content quality against checklist.md criteria."}Command output (as visible in screenshot; truncated):
{"status":"PASS","artifacts_validated":1,"error_count":0,"warning_count":0,"next_step":"Deterministic validation passed. Now perform semantic validation: review content quality against checklist.md criteria."}Command output (as visible in screenshot; truncated):
{
"status": "FAIL",
"artifacts_validated": 1,
"error_count": 2,
"warning_count": 0,
"errors": [
{
"type": "structure",
"message": "Spec filename does not match ID slug",
"line": 36,
"path": ".../examples/overwork_alert/architecture/features/tracker-core.md",
"id": "cpt-ex-ovwa-feature-notifications",
"expected_filename": "notifications.md",
"actual_filename": "tracker-core.md"
},
{
"type": "structure",
"message": "Spec filename does not match ID slug",
"line": 38,
"path": ".../examples/overwork_alert/architecture/features/tracker-core.md",
"id": "cpt-ex-ovwa-feature-cli-control",
"expected_filename": "cli-control.md",
"actual_filename": "tracker-core.md"
}
],
"failed_artifacts": [
{"artifact": ".../tracker-core.md", "error_count": 2}
]
}Command output (as visible in screenshot; truncated):
{
"status": "FAIL",
"artifacts_validated": 1,
"error_count": 1,
"warning_count": 0,
"errors": [
{
"type": "structure",
"message": "Spec filename does not match ID slug",
"line": 34,
"path": ".../examples/overwork_alert/architecture/features/notifications.md",
"id": "cpt-ex-ovwa-feature-tracker-core",
"expected_filename": "tracker-core.md",
"actual_filename": "notifications.md"
}
],
"failed_artifacts": [
{"artifact": ".../notifications.md", "error_count": 1}
]
}Command output (as visible in screenshot; truncated):
{
"status": "FAIL",
"artifacts_validated": 1,
"error_count": 1,
"warning_count": 0,
"errors": [
{
"type": "structure",
"message": "Spec filename does not match ID slug",
"line": 30,
"path": ".../examples/overwork_alert/architecture/features/cli-control.md",
"id": "cpt-ex-ovwa-feature-tracker-core",
"expected_filename": "tracker-core.md",
"actual_filename": "cli-control.md"
}
],
"failed_artifacts": [
{"artifact": ".../cli-control.md", "error_count": 1}
]
}Command output (as visible in screenshot; truncated):
{"status":"PASS","artifacts_validated":1,"error_count":0,"warning_count":0,"next_step":"Deterministic validation passed. Now perform semantic validation: review content quality against checklist.md criteria."}Summary: The agent patches SPEC references/structure and reruns deterministic validation for each SPEC until the full set passes cleanly.
Expand chat details...
ASSISTANT
Command:
python3 skills/cypilot/scripts/cypilot.py validate --skip-code --artifact examples/overwork_alert/architecture/features/launchagent-autostart.md
{"status":"PASS","artifacts_validated":1,"error_count":0,"warning_count":0,"next_step":"Deterministic validation passed. Now perform semantic validation: review content quality against checklist.md criteria."}Using legacy terminal
Searched def _extract_ids_and_refs in skills/.../template.py (1)
Thought for 15s
Read tracker-core.md and 3 other files
Thought for 18s
Diff preview (as visible in screenshot; truncated):
tracker-core.md (+2, -2)
This spec intentionally excludes manual reset, pause/resume, and CLI control details; those are defined in `cli-control.md`.notifications.md (+1, -1)
- Related spec:
tracker-core.md
cli-control.md (+1, -1)
- Related spec:
tracker-core.md
Commands (as visible in screenshot; outputs truncated):
python3 ... validate --skip-code --artifact examples/overwork_alert/architecture/features/tracker-core.md→{"status":"PASS",...}python3 ... validate --skip-code --artifact examples/overwork_alert/architecture/features/notifications.md→{"status":"PASS",...}python3 ... validate --skip-code --artifact examples/overwork_alert/architecture/features/cli-control.md→{"status":"PASS",...}
Links:
- DECOMPOSITION: DECOMPOSITION.md
- SPEC: tracker-core.md
- SPEC: notifications.md
- SPEC: cli-control.md
- SPEC: launchagent-autostart.md
- Registry: artifacts.toml
Summary: The agent summarizes the completed DECOMPOSITION + SPEC set, confirms deterministic validation passes for the registry, and proposes the next milestone: implement the macOS tool code with an explicit write gate.
Expand chat details...
ASSISTANT
- DECOMPOSITION + SPEC generation is complete
- All Overwork Alert artifacts are registered in
{ } .cypilot-adapter/artifacts.toml - Deterministic validation passes for the whole registry (
cypilot validate --skip-code):- status: PASS
- error_count: 0
- warning_count: 0
- Registered artifacts
- Added
DECOMPOSITION.md - Added 4 SPECs:
examples/overwork_alert/architecture/features/tracker-core.mdexamples/overwork_alert/architecture/features/notifications.mdexamples/overwork_alert/architecture/features/cli-control.mdexamples/overwork_alert/architecture/features/launchagent-autostart.md
- Added
- Fixed DECOMPOSITION navigation links
- Updated spec links to point at
specs/*.mdfiles.
- Updated spec links to point at
- Fixed SPEC filename validation
- Removed backticked references to other
cpt-ex-ovwa-feature-*IDs inside SPEC text where they were being interpreted as “main spec ID must match filename”.
- Removed backticked references to other
You’re ready to move to Task 4: implement the actual macOS tool in examples/overwork_alert/src (daemon loop, CLI, local IPC, notifications, LaunchAgent manager), then run full validation including code traceability.
If you confirm “yes, implement now”, I’ll start by reading:
.cypilot-adapter/specs/tech-stack.md.cypilot-adapter/specs/conventions.md.cypilot-adapter/specs/project-structure.md
...and then implement the code to match the SPECs.
- Completed: PRD + ADR + DESIGN + DECOMPOSITION + SPEC set, all registered, deterministic validation passing.
- Remaining: implementation + macOS testing.
Summary: The user asks for a plain-language explanation of the SPECs. The agent routes this to an analyze (read-only) workflow, loads the required context, and prepares to review each SPEC end-to-end.
Expand chat details...
USER
cypilot, I am not sure that I understand specs you've created, can you review them itself?
ASSISTANT
Thought for 12s
I’ll switch into Cypilot mode for this request, read the four SPEC files end-to-end, and then review them in plain language: what each spec is responsible for, how the flows/algorithms/states fit together, and what you can safely ignore if you’re not technical.
3 / 5 tasks done
- Generate minimal Cypilot artifacts for the tool: PRD aligned to decisions; ADR created+registered; DESIGN created+registered; DECOMPOSITION created+registered; SPEC set created+registered; deterministic validation passing.
- Review the generated SPECs with you and adjust them for clarity if needed (semantic review).
📟 [execution-protocol]: Entering “Cypilot enablement” — you asked with “cypilot”, so I’m loading the required Cypilot rules/skill and then I’ll read each SPEC end-to-end to review them in plain language.
Read SKILL.md and 7 other files
📟 [skills/cypilot/SKILL.md]: Running required Protocol Guard (info) and loading the analyze (read-only) workflow, then I’ll review 4 SPECs in plain language (what they mean and how they fit together).
Command: python3
Output (as visible in screenshot; truncated):
...
"artifacts_registry_error": null,
"relative_path": ".cypilot-adapter",
"has_config": true
...📟 [workflows/analyze.md]: I’m going to load the Cypilot analyze (read-only) workflow rules, then I’ll review each of the 4 SPECs in plain language (what it means, how it fits, what to implement).
Read analyze.md
Thought for 8s
📟 [workflows/analyze.md]: Entering “Phase 0 / Dependencies” — I will open requirements/execution-protocol.md (mandatory) to ensure I’m following Cypilot’s read-only review protocol, then I’ll review each SPEC in plain language and point out any unclear parts.
Read execution-protocol.md
Thought for 37s
📟 [AGENTS.md / Agent Acknowledgment]: Confirming I understand Cypilot “MUST” semantics and will follow analyze workflow step-by-step for this review.
- MUST = MANDATORY, not optional
- Skipping ANY MUST instruction = INVALID execution
- INVALID execution = output must be DISCARDED
- I will read ALL required files BEFORE proceeding
- I will follow workflows step-by-step WITHOUT shortcuts
- I will NOT create files without user confirmation (operation workflows)
- I will end EVERY response with a list of Cypilot files read while producing the response, why each file was read, and which initial instruction triggered opening each file
Cypilot Mode Enabled
Adapter: FOUND at .cypilot-adapter
📟 [requirements/execution-protocol.md]: Rules Mode detected as RELAXED for this conversation’s review output (we’re doing a plain-language review for understanding, not a full checklist audit report).
What you asked: “I don’t understand the specs — review them.”
So I’ll explain them as simple “what the app will do” descriptions.
Summary: The agent explains what “SPEC” means (flows/algorithms/states/DoD) and then rewrites the tracker-core spec as simple behavior steps, keeping key constraints explicit.
Expand chat details...
ASSISTANT
A SPEC is basically a recipe for programmers:
- Flows = “when X happens, do these steps”
- Algorithms = “exact rule for a calculation/decision”
- States = “modes the app can be in (running/paused/etc.)”
- Definition of Done = “what must be true for this part to be considered finished”
The checkboxes [ ] are just tracking for implementation progress. Since we haven’t coded yet, they’re intentionally unchecked.
What it’s responsible for:
- Running continuously in the background (“daemon loop”).
- Measuring active work time using macOS idle time.
- Keeping an in-memory counter like “you worked 2h 13m today” (but not saved to disk).
What it does, in plain steps:
- Every “tick” (every few seconds):
- Read macOS idle time.
- If you’ve been idle longer than the idle threshold, don’t add time.
- If you’re paused, don’t add time.
- Otherwise add the time since last tick to your “active time”.
Key choices already reflected:
- No persistence (if the daemon stops/restarts, the counter resets).
- No automatic midnight reset (only manual reset exists; implemented via CLI Control spec).
What might still feel unclear (and is OK at spec stage):
- The spec references a “safe maximum” for elapsed time (to avoid huge jumps after sleep). That’s correct, but we’ll decide the exact number when implementing.
Summary: The agent explains the notifications behavior (“when to warn you”) and the CLI control behavior (“terminal commands”), and highlights what’s already defined vs what can be decided later during implementation.
Expand chat details...
ASSISTANT
What it’s responsible for:
- Sending a macOS notification when you go over your configured work limit.
- Repeating reminders every X minutes while you stay over the limit.
What it does:
- When active time becomes greater than the limit:
- Send a “first warning” notification.
- Record “I already warned the user”.
- While still over the limit:
- If enough time passed since last reminder → send another notification.
Important detail:
- Notification “memory” (when last reminded) is in-memory. If daemon restarts, it forgets and may alert again after it re-detects you’re over limit.
What might be confusing:
- The spec doesn’t say exact text of the notification. That’s normal; we can choose friendly text later.
What it’s responsible for:
- Commands you run in Terminal, like:
overwork-alert statusoverwork-alert pauseoverwork-alert resumeoverwork-alert resetoverwork-alert stop
What it does:
- You type a command → CLI sends a local control message → daemon applies it.
- Reset is defined clearly:
- Clears accumulated active time
- Clears over-limit reminder state
- No automatic reset exists
One thing to notice:
- The spec explicitly details flows for status and reset.
- Pause/resume/stop are included in the algorithm but not expanded as separate flows. That’s acceptable (we can add flows later if you want them spelled out too).
Potential missing detail (implementation choice):
- It says “local-only control channel”, but doesn’t force how (Unix socket vs file vs localhost port). We’ll pick the simplest secure option when coding.
Summary: The agent explains the LaunchAgent autostart responsibilities, shows how the four SPECs depend on each other, and offers an optional rewrite (which would require write confirmation).
Expand chat details...
ASSISTANT
What it’s responsible for:
- Installing/uninstalling a macOS LaunchAgent so the daemon starts automatically when you log in.
What it does:
install-autostart:- Generate a
.plistfile - Write it into your LaunchAgents folder
- Load/start it using
launchctl
- Generate a
uninstall-autostart:- Stop/unload it
- Delete the
.plist
Key choice reflected:
- It’s user-level autostart only (good: doesn’t require admin privileges).
- No menubar app. This matches the ADR.
- Tracker Core: counts your active time
- provides data to
- Notifications: decides when to alert you
- user reacts and can run
- CLI Control: pause/resume/reset/status/stop
- optionally uses
- LaunchAgent Autostart: makes it start on login
Right now they’re written in “engineering spec” style. If you’d prefer, I can rewrite each SPEC to be:
- more like “User Story / Behavior” text
- fewer internal words like “algo/state”
- still valid for Cypilot deterministic validation
To do that I would need your confirmation to modify files (that becomes generate workflow).
Question
Do you want:
- A plain-language rewrite of the SPECs (keeping the same meaning), or
- Keep them as-is, and I just explain anything you ask about?
- Review complete (read-only).
- No files changed.
Summary: The user asks for an expert review of the SPECs. The agent promises an issues-only, read-only evaluation against the SPEC checklist and prepares a prioritized list of gaps before coding.
Expand chat details...
USER
cypilot, thank you, but I am not an expert in the software development, could you please review them as an expert?
ASSISTANT
Thought for 19s
I’ll do an expert-level review of the 4 SPECs against Cypilot’s SPEC rules/checklist: what’s solid, what’s missing/ambiguous, and what I’d change before coding (without editing files yet). I’m going to load the SPEC rules.md + checklist.md + registry, then produce a prioritized recommendations list.
Read artifacts.toml and 4 other files
Thought for 48s
Explored 4 files and searched example.md
Thought for 2s
I’m going to produce an issues-only expert review of the 4 Overwork Alert SPECs using Cypilot’s SPEC rules.md + the SPEC expert checklist.md. I’ll focus on what could cause implementation mistakes (ambiguities, missing error handling, missing security/ops/test guidance), and for each issue I’ll include severity, evidence (quotes + line numbers), and a concrete fix proposal — without editing any files.
Searched examples and performed 1 other query
Thought for 49s
Searched not applicable
Thought for 63s
4 / 5 tasks done
Thought for 42s
Read task-crud.md and template.md
Thought for 39s
📟 [kits/sdlc/artifacts/SPEC/checklist.md]: Entering “Expert review (SPEC)” — I’m reviewing your 4 Overwork Alert SPECs as a senior engineer, focusing on ambiguities and missing details that can cause wrong implementations. Output is issues-only (no file edits).
High-level conclusion (expert)
- What’s good: the specs have a valid skeleton (context → flows → algorithms → states → DoD) and a clear decomposition (tracker / notify / control / autostart).
- Main risk: they are currently too underspecified on error paths, acceptance criteria, ops/security boundaries, and key constants. A developer could implement something “that works” but behaves incorrectly in real macOS scenarios (sleep/wake, daemon down, notifications blocked, launchctl quirks).
Summary: The agent reports critical gaps with severity, evidence, and fix proposals (e.g., sleep/wake edge cases, measurable notification timing, explicit “not applicable” domains, and CLI error-path completeness).
Expand chat details...
ASSISTANT
CRITICAL
| Severity | Checklist ID | Location(s) | Evidence | Problem | Fix (proposal) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CRITICAL | ARCH-FDESIGN-003 (Actor Flow Completeness) | tracker-core.md flow “Run tracking tick loop” |
tracker-core.md:L55–L61 only describes happy-path + a couple early returns |
Flow does not cover key real-world edge cases: macOS sleep/wake time jump, clock changes, negative delta, tick drift, tick interval changes, startup with no last_tick_at, etc. |
Add explicit flow steps for: “startup init state”, “sleep/wake large delta”, “time went backwards”, “idle API returns nonsense”, and define expected behavior for each (e.g., clamp delta, skip tick, reset last_tick_at, etc.). |
| CRITICAL | TEST-FDESIGN-003 (Acceptance Criteria) | notifications.md DoD |
notifications.md:L131–L133 says “within a few seconds” (not measurable) |
“Few seconds” is ambiguous; dev/test can’t verify. Repeat interval semantics also need deterministic definition (inclusive/exclusive boundaries). | Replace with measurable criteria (e.g., “send first notification within ≤5s after crossing limit; reminders every ≥N seconds with jitter ≤1 tick”). Add 3–5 explicit test scenarios (first alert, repeat reminder, pause/resume interaction, reset clears reminder state). |
| CRITICAL | DOC-FDESIGN-001 (Explicit Non-Applicability) | All 4 specs | No “Not applicable because ...” anywhere (confirmed: grep found none) | The expert checklist requires that major domains (SEC/OPS/PERF/REL/TEST/etc.) are either addressed or explicitly marked N/A. Right now many are silently omitted, so reviewers can’t tell “considered and excluded” vs “forgotten”. | Add a short “Non-applicable / out-of-scope” block in Section 6 for each spec. Example: “SEC: No auth; control channel is local-only via Unix socket perms; no network listener”. |
| CRITICAL | REL-FDESIGN-001 (Error Handling Completeness) | cli-control.md |
cli-control.md:L16–L17 asserts “local-only”, but flows don’t cover daemon not running |
If daemon isn’t running (very likely), CLI must return a clear error and exit code. Same for malformed responses, timeouts, stale socket, permission denied. | Add error-path steps to the “View status” and “Reset session” flows: connect failure → user-facing message; timeout → message; invalid response → message. Define a minimal error contract. |
Summary: The agent flags high-priority issues like IPC security constraints, missing config defaults/ranges/validation, performance guidance for the tick loop, and undefined constants (e.g., max tick delta).
Expand chat details...
ASSISTANT
HIGH
| Severity | Checklist ID | Location(s) | Evidence | Problem | Fix (proposal) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HIGH | SEC-FDESIGN-003 (Input Validation) + SEC-FDESIGN-006 (Security Error Handling) | cli-control.md “control channel” |
cli-control.md:L16–L17, plus command handler algo L92–L97 |
Control channel security is underspecified. If implemented as localhost TCP casually, it can become remotely reachable or abused by other users on the machine. Command payload validation is unspecified. | Explicitly constrain IPC to Unix domain socket (or named pipe) with filesystem permissions restricting to the current user. Define allowed commands and schema; invalid command returns safe error (no stack trace). |
| HIGH | OPS-FDESIGN-002 (Configuration) | tracker-core.md + launchagent-autostart.md |
tracker-core.md:L55–L59 references idle_threshold_seconds but never defines defaults; notifications.md references repeat_interval_seconds without defining |
Key configuration parameters exist only as variable names, without default values, allowed ranges, validation behavior, where config lives, whether it’s hot-reloadable. This is a frequent source of “works on my machine” failures. | Add a compact “Configuration parameters” list (either in tracker-core.md or a small dedicated config section): limit_seconds, idle_threshold_seconds, tick_interval_seconds, repeat_interval_seconds, plus defaults + min/max + validation behavior. |
| HIGH | PERF-FDESIGN-001/002 (Hot path + Resource mgmt) | tracker-core.md |
Tick loop is the hot path; no budget stated | Background tick loop must be low overhead; without a budget and tick interval guidance, dev may poll too frequently or do expensive work each tick. | Add performance acceptance criteria: tick interval default, max CPU usage target, and guidance like “no subprocess spawn per tick; idle read must be cheap”. |
| HIGH | ARCH-FDESIGN-004 (Algorithm Completeness) | tracker-core.md “Accumulate active time” |
tracker-core.md:L7–8 says “bounded to a safe maximum” but not defined |
The most important safety rule (“safe maximum delta”) is undefined; this is critical for sleep/wake. | Specify max_tick_delta_seconds (default) and rule: delta = clamp(now-last_tick_at, 0, max_delta). Also define what happens when last_tick_at missing. |
| HIGH | ARCH-FDESIGN-005 (State Management) | notifications.md over-limit state |
notifications.md:L112–L116 has reset transition but does not connect it to CLI reset semantics |
Notification state transitions are present, but the trigger “session is reset” must tie to CLI reset command to avoid inconsistent behavior. | Add explicit link: reset command triggers transition to UNDER_LIMIT and clears reminder timestamps. Add one step in CLI reset flow that explicitly clears notification state. |
Summary: The agent lists medium issues (contracts, fault-tolerance, UX clarity) and recommends either revising SPECs first or starting implementation with the expectation of later rework, keeping the write gate explicit.
Expand chat details...
ASSISTANT
MEDIUM
| Severity | Checklist ID | Location(s) | Evidence | Problem | Fix (proposal) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MEDIUM | ARCH-FDESIGN-006 (Component Interaction) | Across specs | E.g., notifications.md:L55–L56 introduces “Notification Sender” but no contract |
Components are referenced by name, but message/data contracts are not explicit: what’s in TrackerState, NotificationState fields; how notifier is invoked; what CLI expects as a status payload. |
Add minimal “data contract” bullets: TrackerState fields; NotificationState fields; CLI status output fields. Keep it implementation-agnostic but explicit. |
| MEDIUM | REL-FDESIGN-002 (Fault tolerance) | launchagent-autostart.md |
launchagent-autostart.md:L95–L96 sets KeepAlive=true |
KeepAlive can cause crash loops; without backoff/logging guidance it’s operationally risky. | Add behavior: on repeated failures, throttle restart; ensure logs are accessible; define how user disables autostart if broken. |
| MEDIUM | ARCH-FDESIGN-003 (Edge cases) | notifications.md and repeat reminder flow |
notifications.md:L73–L76 doesn’t mention paused/idle |
If the system is paused or user idle, should reminders continue? Probably not, but spec doesn’t say. | Add UI guards: do not remind when paused; optionally suppress when user idle beyond threshold; define exact rule. |
| MEDIUM | UX-FDESIGN-001 (User feedback) | CLI + notifications | CLI flows show printing, but no user-message requirements | For non-technical users, CLI output needs to be clear: status format, units, what “paused” means. | Add 2–3 example output lines (not full code), or at least specify required fields and wording constraints. |
- Option A (recommended): revise the SPECS to add:
- Explicit acceptance criteria (timing thresholds, clamp rules)
- Error paths in the key flows
- Explicit “Not applicable because ...” for domains you intentionally skip
- Minimal config + IPC contracts
- Option B: start coding now, but you will almost certainly “discover” these requirements mid-implementation and have to rewrite parts.
If you want, I can do Option A and update the 4 SPEC files (that’s a generate / modify action). You’d just confirm: “yes, update specs based on your expert review.”
-
Expert review delivered (issues-only)
-
No files modified
-
Next milestone: either revise SPECs (if you approve) or proceed to implementation (Task 4)
-
Option A: revise the SPECs first to add missing acceptance criteria/error paths/contracts, or
-
Option B: start implementation now (with an explicit warning that these requirements will surface later).
It keeps the write gate explicit: updating the SPEC files requires a new generate confirmation.
Summary: The user chooses Option A ("fix gaps, I want a stable tool"). The agent enters the generate workflow, scans PRD/DESIGN for existing defaults, and patches tracker-core.md and notifications.md with explicit defaults, edge-case handling, error paths, and out-of-scope notes.
Expand chat details...
USER
cypilot, option A, need to fix gaps, I would like to have stable and useful tool!
ASSISTANT
Thought for 20s
📟 [execution-protocol]: Switching to Option A (SPEC fixes) — I’ll update the 4 SPEC markdown files to close the gaps (defaults, edge cases, error paths, security/ops notes, measurable acceptance criteria), then re-run deterministic validation. First I’m going to quickly scan the PRD/DESIGN for any already-stated default values so we don’t invent numbers.
Searched idle_threshold|idle threshold|repeat_interval|repeat interval|tick_interval|tick interval|limit_seconds|limit seconds|default and performed 1 other query
Thought for 9s
3 / 5 tasks done
2 more
- Generate minimal Cypilot artifacts for the tool: PRD aligned to decisions; ADR created+registered; DESIGN created+registered; DECOMPOSITION created+registered; SPEC set created+registered; deterministic validation passing.
- Review the generated SPECs with you and adjust them for clarity if needed (semantic review).
Thought for 26s
Searched socket|IPC|unix|domain|localhost|port|plist|LaunchAgents|launchctl|label in examples/overwork_alert/architecture (6)
Thought for 35s
I’m going to update the 4 SPEC files now (Option A) using the default values already defined in your PRD (3h limit, 5m idle threshold, 30m repeat interval) and by adding the missing edge cases, error paths, IPC security constraints, and measurable acceptance criteria. Before editing, I’ll quickly inspect the DESIGN’s IPC/autostart sections so the specs match the design.
Searched unix|socket|json|ipc|control channel|LaunchAgents|launchctl|ThrottleInterval|KeepAlive|label|ProgramArguments in examples/overwork...
Thought for 63s
Diff previews (as visible in screenshot; truncated):
tracker-core.md (+33, -10)
- active_time_seconds: monotonically non-decreasing within a session except when reset
- last_tick_at: time of most recent tick observation (updated even when skipping accumulation)
This spec does not define notification delivery. The daemon tick loop may pass the updated TrackerState (and the most recent idle
...notifications.md (+30, -11)
Out of scope / not applicable (v1):
- No persistence of notification scheduling state across daemon restarts.
- No escalation policy beyond repeat reminders (no sounds, no focus-mode overrides).
- No network calls; no remote push notifications.- SPEC: tracker-core.md
- SPEC: notifications.md
Summary: The agent recovers by re-running Protocol Guard (info), re-enters the generate workflow, and patches the remaining two SPECs (cli-control.md, launchagent-autostart.md) for IPC security, error handling, idempotency, and acceptance criteria.
Expand chat details...
ASSISTANT
Thought for 25s
📟 [workflows/generate.md]: Proceeding with Option A (SPEC gap fixes). Next I’ll (1) load the required Cypilot control docs (AGENTS + SKILL) to stay compliant, (2) re-open the two remaining specs (cli-control.md, launchagent-autostart.md) to patch precisely, then (3) run cypilot validate on the updated artifacts.
Command:
python3 skills/cypilot/scripts/cypilot.py info
Output (as visible in screenshot; truncated):
{
"adapter_dir": "/Volumes/CaseSensitive/coding/cypilot/.cypilot-adapter",
"specs": [
"build-deploy",
"conventions",
"domain-model",
"patterns",
"project-structure",
"tech-stack"
]
}Thought for 27s
I’ll now finish Option A by patching the remaining 2 SPECs (cli-control.md, launchagent-autostart.md) to add the missing IPC security + error handling + idempotency + acceptance criteria. I’ll also fix any broken ADR ID references (I noticed the specs reference an ADR ID without -v1, which could fail validation). Then I’ll run cypilot validate on the updated artifacts.
Searched cpt-ex-ovwa-adr-cli-daemon-launchagent-no-menubar( and performed 1 other query
Thought for 38s
I’ll redo that search without regex lookaheads (the grep tool doesn’t support lookaround). Then I’ll patch cli-control.md and launchagent-autostart.md for IPC security/error handling/idempotency, and finally run cypilot validate on the 4 SPEC files.
Searched cpt-ex-ovwa-adr-cli-daemon-launchagent-no-menubar-v1 and performed 1 other query
Thought for 45s
Diff preview (as visible in screenshot; truncated):
notifications.md (+1)
- limit_seconds: 10800 (3 hours)
- idle_threshold_seconds: 300 (5 minutes)
- repeat_interval_seconds: 1800 (30 minutes)cli-control.md (+99, -10)
Out of scope / not applicable (v1):
- No authentication/authorization beyond local-only transport and filesystem permissions on the Unix socket.
- No remote control interface: no TCP listener.
- No encryption in transit (local-only).- SPEC: cli-control.md
- SPEC: launchagent-autostart.md
Summary: Deterministic validation fails for launchagent-autostart.md with two missing required NFR reference coverages. The agent adds the required reference lines and reruns validation until it passes.
Expand chat details...
ASSISTANT
Command output (as visible in screenshot; truncated):
{
"status": "FAIL",
"artifacts_validated": 1,
"error_count": 2,
"warning_count": 0,
"errors": [
{"type":"structure","message":"Required reference coverage missing","line":194,"id_kind":"nfr"},
{"type":"structure","message":"Required reference coverage missing","line":253,"id_kind":"nfr"}
],
"failed_artifacts": [
{"artifact":".../examples/overwork_alert/architecture/features/launchagent-autostart.md","error_count":2}
]
}Thought for 11s
I’ll inspect launchagent-autostart.md around the failing area, then add the missing required NFR reference line(s) and re-run cypilot validate for that file until it passes.
Diff preview (as visible in screenshot):
launchagent-autostart.md (+4)
- `cpt-ex-ovwa-nfr-privacy-local-only`Command output (as visible in screenshot; truncated):
{"status":"PASS","artifacts_validated":1,"error_count":0,"warning_count":0,"next_step":"Deterministic validation passed. Now perform semantic validation: review content quality against checklist.md criteria."}Links:
- SPEC: launchagent-autostart.md
Summary: Deterministic validation fails for launchagent-autostart.md with two missing required NFR reference coverages. The agent adds the required reference lines and reruns validation until it passes.
Expand chat details...
ASSISTANT
Command output (as visible in screenshot; truncated):
{
"status": "FAIL",
"artifacts_validated": 1,
"error_count": 2,
"warning_count": 0,
"errors": [
{"type":"structure","message":"Required reference coverage missing","line":194,"id_kind":"nfr"},
{"type":"structure","message":"Required reference coverage missing","line":253,"id_kind":"nfr"}
],
"failed_artifacts": [
{"artifact":".../examples/overwork_alert/architecture/features/launchagent-autostart.md","error_count":2}
]
}Thought for 11s
I’ll inspect launchagent-autostart.md around the failing area, then add the missing required NFR reference line(s) and re-run cypilot validate for that file until it passes.
Diff preview (as visible in screenshot):
launchagent-autostart.md (+4)
- `cpt-ex-ovwa-nfr-privacy-local-only`Command output (as visible in screenshot; truncated):
{"status":"PASS","artifacts_validated":1,"error_count":0,"warning_count":0,"next_step":"Deterministic validation passed. Now perform semantic validation: review content quality against checklist.md criteria."}Links:
- SPEC: launchagent-autostart.md
Summary: The agent summarizes all SPEC changes (defaults, edge cases, error paths, security constraints, idempotency, out-of-scope notes) and confirms deterministic validation passes for all 4 SPECs, then offers the next step: implement or do a semantic checklist pass.
Expand chat details...
ASSISTANT
📟 [workflows/generate.md]: Entering “Phase 5: Analyze” — deterministic validation is now complete for all 4 Overwork Alert SPECs after the gap-fix edits.
tracker-core.md- Added explicit defaults, delta clamping, startup tick handling, timing acceptance, and explicit out-of-scope/N/A notes.
notifications.md- Added timing acceptance (≤5s first alert), clarified behavior when paused/idle, tightened algorithm guards, and added out-of-scope/N/A notes.
cli-control.md- Defined Unix socket + JSON contract, timeouts, and explicit error handling (daemon unreachable/invalid response).
- Expanded flows to include pause/resume/stop explicitly.
- Added out-of-scope/N/A notes to avoid silent omissions.
launchagent-autostart.md- Made install/uninstall idempotent, added error paths, added throttling guidance, and fixed missing NFR coverage block required by the SPEC template.
- Deterministic validation (
cypilot validate --skip-code) now PASS for:examples/overwork_alert/architecture/features/tracker-core.mdexamples/overwork_alert/architecture/features/notifications.mdexamples/overwork_alert/architecture/features/cli-control.mdexamples/overwork_alert/architecture/features/launchagent-autostart.md
- A. Proceed to implementation (Todo #4): implement daemon + CLI + notification + LaunchAgent wiring under
examples/overwork_alert/src. - B. Do a semantic checklist pass: go through
kits/sdlc/artifacts/SPEC/checklist.mdMUST HAVE / MUST NOT HAVE items and make any final spec tweaks before coding.
Tell me A or B.
- SPEC gap-fix work: completed
- Deterministic validation: completed (PASS)
- Implementation: pending (next)
Links:
- SPEC: tracker-core.md
- SPEC: notifications.md
- SPEC: cli-control.md
- SPEC: launchagent-autostart.md
- Registry: artifacts.toml
Summary: The user confirms "let's implement it!". The agent enters Cypilot generate mode, runs Protocol Guard, and recovers when the expected examples/overwork_alert/src/ directory does not exist yet.
Expand chat details...
USER
cypilot, let's implement it!
ASSISTANT
Thought for 2s
4 / 5 tasks done
3 more
- Review the generated SPECs with you and adjust them for clarity if needed (semantic review).
- Implement the tool + configuration + macOS notification + autostart wiring; then validate and test on macOS.
Thought for 38s
📟 [execution-protocol]: You explicitly asked to proceed with Cypilot (“cypilot, let’s implement it!”), so I’m switching into Cypilot generate mode. Next I’ll load the required Cypilot control docs + the overwork-alert DESIGN/SPECs, inspect the existing examples/overwork_alert/ layout, then propose a tight implementation plan and start coding.
Read AGENTS.md and 5 other files
Analyzed examples/overwork_alert
Error while analyzing directory
Thought for 22s
📟 [execution-protocol]: I’ll recover cleanly from the missing src/ directory by (1) re-running Cypilot Protocol Guard (info), (2) loading the required adapter “code writing” specs (tech stack, conventions, project structure, etc.), (3) inspecting artifacts.toml to confirm the intended code path for this example, and then (4) proposing the exact file layout to create under examples/overwork_alert/ and asking for your explicit “yes” before creating any new files.
Command: python3
Output (as visible in screenshot; truncated):
...
"artifacts_registry_error": null,
"relative_path": ".cypilot-adapter",
"has_config": true
...Using legacy terminal
Analyzed examples/overwork_alert/architecture
Analyzed examples
Searched src and performed 3 other queries
Thought for 23s
Read DESIGN.md (lines 440–559)
I’m going to (1) confirm the intended code location from the Cypilot registry (it points to examples/overwork_alert/src, which is currently missing), (2) propose a concrete Python package + file layout for the CLI/daemon/tests, and then (3) ask you for an explicit “yes” before I create any new directories/files.
Searched config and performed 2 other queries
Thought for 40s
Explored 3 files and searched 7 queries
Thought for 26s
Searched Application and performed 3 other queries
Thought for 69s
4 / 11 tasks done
3 more
- Review the generated SPECs with you and adjust them for clarity if needed (semantic review).
- Implement the tool + configuration + macOS notification + autostart wiring; then validate and test on macOS.
... (truncated)
Links:
- Codebase root (to be created): examples/overwork_alert/src/
Summary: The agent proposes a minimal, stdlib-only Python package layout under examples/overwork_alert/src/overwork_alert/ and a deterministic test suite that mocks all OS calls.
Expand chat details...
ASSISTANT
📟 [execution-protocol]: Cypilot mode ENABLED (you invoked “cypilot, let’s implement it!”).
📟 [execution-protocol]: Adapter status FOUND; Rules Mode is STRICT (registered artifacts + codebase in { } .cypilot-adapter/artifacts.toml).
📟 [workflows/generate.md]: Entering Phase 1 (Collect Information) — I verified the registry expects code at examples/overwork_alert/src, but that directory does not exist yet.
- Adapter:
.cypilot-adapter - Target: codebase
- Specs loaded:
.cypilot-adapter/specs/tech-stack.md.cypilot-adapter/specs/conventions.md.cypilot-adapter/specs/project-structure.md.cypilot-adapter/specs/domain-model.md.cypilot-adapter/specs/patterns.md.cypilot-adapter/specs/testing.md.cypilot-adapter/specs/build-deploy.mdexamples/overwork_alert/architecture/DESIGN.md- (SPECs already prepared):
tracker-core.md,notifications.md,cli-control.md,launchagent-autostart.md
The registry explicitly declares the Overwork Alert codebase at:
examples/overwork_alert/src(Python)
That folder is missing, so implementation requires creating it and adding new Python files.
Create:
examples/overwork_alert/src/overwork_alert/__init__.pyexamples/overwork_alert/src/overwork_alert/__main__.py(so you can runpython3 -m overwork_alert ...)examples/overwork_alert/src/overwork_alert/cli.py(argparse CLI:status|pause|resume|reset|stop|install-autostart|uninstall-autostart|start)examples/overwork_alert/src/overwork_alert/daemon.py(tick loop + state)examples/overwork_alert/src/overwork_alert/config.py(defaults + validation + config file loading)examples/overwork_alert/src/overwork_alert/idle.py(ioregidle sampling; returnsNoneon failure)examples/overwork_alert/src/overwork_alert/notify.py(osascriptnotifications; best-effort)examples/overwork_alert/src/overwork_alert/ipc.py(Unix socket server/client; JSON protocol;/tmp/overwork-alert.sock)examples/overwork_alert/src/overwork_alert/launchagent.py(plist build + install/uninstall idempotently)examples/overwork_alert/src/overwork_alert/models.py(dataclasses forConfig,TrackerState, etc.)
Add tests under the main project test runner (so make test runs them):
tests/test_overwork_alert_tracker_core.pytests/test_overwork_alert_notifications.pytests/test_overwork_alert_ipc_commands.pytests/test_overwork_alert_launchagent.py
(All OS calls mocked; tests will be deterministic and runnable on any machine.)
Links:
- Code package: overwork_alert/
Summary: The agent asks for one concrete decision (default config path) and an explicit "yes" before creating the code directories/files.
Expand chat details...
ASSISTANT
The DESIGN/SPECs define what config contains, but not the exact default config file path.
Pick one:
- Option 1 (recommended): default config path
~/.config/overwork-alert/config.json - Option 2: default config path
~/Library/Application Support/overwork-alert/config.json
Reply with:
- “yes” to let me create the directories/files above
- Which config path option you want (1 or 2)
Once you confirm, I’ll start with the skeleton + core logic first (models/config/tracker loop), then IPC + CLI commands, then LaunchAgent, then tests, and finally cypilot validate-code + make test.
Links:
- Config module (defaults + validation): config.py
Summary: The user confirms "yes, option 1". The agent creates the package skeleton (__init__, __main__, models, config, idle) as the safe foundation before wiring IPC/CLI/autostart.
Expand chat details...
USER
cypilot, yes, option 1
ASSISTANT
Thought for 59s
Analyzed tests
Thought for 48s
Read traceability.md (lines 1–260)
Thought for 34s
4 / 11 tasks done
4 more
- Implement the tool + configuration + macOS notification + autostart wiring; then validate and test on macOS.
- Create Overwork Alert codebase skeleton at
examples/overwork_alert/src(package layout + entrypoint).
Thought for 38s
Searched to_code="true" in examples/overwork_alert/architecture/specs (23)
Thought for 33s
Read conftest.py
Thought for 107s
📟 [workflows/generate.md]: Entering Phase 4 (Write) — you confirmed file creation (“yes, option 1”), so I’ll now create the missing examples/overwork_alert/src codebase and implement the CLI/daemon modules using Python stdlib only, with Cypilot traceability markers for all to_code="true" SPEC IDs.
Diff previews (as visible in screenshot; truncated):
__init__.py (new, +6)
__all__ = ["__version__"]
__version__ = "0.1.0"__main__.py (new, +8)
if __name__ == "__main__":
raise SystemExit(main())models.py (new, +45)
def clone_state(state: TrackerState) -> TrackerState:
return dataclasses.replace(state)config.py (new, +68)
if isinstance(control_socket_path, str) and control_socket_path:
cfg = replace(cfg, control_socket_path=control_socket_path)
return cfgidle.py (new, +39)
except ValueError:
return None
return idle_ns // 1_000_000_000Links:
- Package: overwork_alert/
- Entrypoint: main.py
- Models: models.py
- Config: config.py
- Idle sampling: idle.py
Summary: The agent implements the remaining modules so the CLI can control the daemon over a local UNIX socket, produce macOS notifications (best-effort), and support autostart via LaunchAgent.
Expand chat details...
ASSISTANT
Thought for 33s
Analyzed examples/overwork_alert/src
Thought for 9s
📟 [workflows/generate.md]: Entering Phase 1 (Collect Information) — before writing more code, I’ll re-load the 4 Overwork Alert SPEC sources to ensure the implementation exactly matches flows/algorithms/states/DoD, then I’ll implement the remaining modules (daemon, ipc, notify, launchagent, cli) and add tests.
Read tracker-core.md and 3 other files
Thought for 109s
Diff previews (as visible in screenshot; truncated):
ipc.py (new, +152)
try:
s.close()
except OSError:
passnotify.py (new, +27)
logger.warning("Failed to invoke osascript", exc_info=True)
return False
return proc.returncode == 0notification_policy.py (new, +49)
if state.over_limit_since is None:
return replace(state, over_limit_since=, last_reminder_at=)
return replace(state, last_reminder_at=)daemon.py (new, +138)
def run_daemon(*, config_path: Path | None = None) -> None:
Daemon(config_path=config_path).run_forever()launchagent.py (new, +102)
try:
plist_path.unlink()
except OSError as e:
raise RuntimeError("Failed to delete plist") from ecli.py (new, +88)
else:
print("ok")
return 0Links:
- IPC: ipc.py
- Notify (osascript): notify.py
- Notification policy: notification_policy.py
- Daemon loop: daemon.py
- CLI: cli.py
- LaunchAgent install/uninstall: launchagent.py
Summary: The agent adds missing Cypilot traceability markers (@cpt-*) for every to_code="true" SPEC ID, adds required docstrings, and applies small semantic fixes to better match SPEC behavior.
Expand chat details...
ASSISTANT
I’m going to tighten the implementation to match Cypilot STRICT traceability: add missing @cpt-* markers for every to_code="true" SPEC ID, add required docstrings (per adapter conventions), and fix a couple of semantic gaps (notably LaunchAgent install idempotency). Then I’ll add deterministic unit tests and run cypilot validate-code to confirm marker coverage.
Diff previews (as visible in screenshot; truncated):
models.py (+10)
def clone_state(state: TrackerState) -> TrackerState:
"""Return a shallow copy of a tracker state."""
return dataclasses.replace(state)config.py (+6)
def load_config(config_path: Path | None = None) -> Config:
"""Load effective config (defaults + validation) from a JSON file."""idle.py (+3)
def get_idle_seconds() -> int | None:
"""Return current idle seconds, or None if the sample is unavailable."""notify.py (+3)
def send_notification(*, title: str, message: str) -> bool:
"""Send a macOS notification. Returns True on success."""Thought for 67s
📟 [workflows/generate.md]: Entering Phase 2 (Generate / implement code) — I’ll now (1) add missing Cypilot traceability markers for every to_code="true" SPEC ID across the new modules, (2) add required docstrings per conventions, and (3) fix a couple of spec-alignment issues (daemon first-tick ordering; LaunchAgent install idempotency). Then I’ll add tests and run cypilot validate-code + make test.
Diff previews (as visible in screenshot; truncated):
daemon.py (+78, -25)
if cmd == "stop":
# @cpt-flow:cpt-ex-ovwa-flow-cli-control-stop:p1
self._stop_event.set()notification_policy.py (+9)
"""Update notification scheduling state after a notification is delivered."""
# @cpt-state:cpt-ex-ovwa-state-notifications-over-limit:p1ipc.py (+14)
def send_request(*, socket_path: str, payload: dict[str, Any], timeout_seconds: float) -> dict[str, Any]:
"""Send one JSON request to the daemon and return the decoded response."""launchagent.py (+9, -1)
def uninstall(*, label: str = DEFAULT_LABEL) -> None:
"""Unload and remove the user LaunchAgent plist (idempotent)."""
# @cpt-state:cpt-ex-ovwa-state-launchagent-autostart-installation:p1cli.py (+22, -10)
elif args.cmd == "stop":
# @cpt-flow:cpt-ex-ovwa-flow-cli-control-stop:p1
passdaemon.py (+7, -3)
if first_tick:
time.sleep(config.tick_interval_seconds)
continueThought for 30s
[workflows/generate.md]: Entering Phase 2 (Generate / implement code) — I’ll now do a quick “spec-to-code traceability pass” to ensure every to_code="true" SPEC ID has at least one @cpt-* marker in the new code, then I’ll add the first batch of unit tests and run cypilot validate-code to verify coverage.
Diff previews (as visible in screenshot; truncated):
daemon.py (+4)
def run_daemon(*, config_path: Path | None = None) -> None:
"""Convenience wrapper to run the daemon."""models.py (-1)
last_tick_at: float | None = None
last_tick_monotonic: float | None = None
over_limit_since: float | None = Nonecli.py (+10, -10)
state = resp.get("state")
print(json.dumps(state, indent=2, sort_keys=True))
print(state)launchagent.py (-9)
python_executable: str
pythonpath: str__main__.py (+2)
"""Module entrypoint: `python -m overwork_alert ...`."""__init__.py (+2)
"""Overwork Alert example tool (macOS)."""Thought for 44s
cli.py (+2, -1)
state = resp.get("state")
print(state)
print(json.dumps(state, indent=2, sort_keys=True))Links:
- Tests: tests/
Summary: The agent updates conftest.py to put the example src/ on sys.path and adds deterministic unit tests for tracker-core, notifications policy, IPC, and LaunchAgent plist generation.
Expand chat details...
ASSISTANT
Thought for 50s
I’ll now (1) make the test runner able to import overwork_alert by adding examples/overwork_alert/src to sys.path in tests/conftest.py, (2) add a small test suite for tracker-core, notifications, IPC, and LaunchAgent plist generation (with OS calls mocked), and then (3) run cypilot validate-code and pytest to confirm traceability + behavior.
Diff previews (as visible in screenshot; truncated):
conftest.py (+2)
overwork_alert_src_dir = repo_root / "examples" / "overwork_alert" / "src"
sys.path.insert(0, str(overwork_alert_src_dir))test_overwork_alert_tracker_core.py (new, +55)
out = tick_once(state=state, config=config, idle_seconds=0, now=1000.0)
assert out.active_time_seconds == 10
assert out.last_tick_at == 1000.0test_overwork_alert_notifications.py (new, +63)
out = apply_notification_policy(state=state, config=config, idle_seconds=0, now=10.0)
assert out.over_limit_since == 10.0
assert out.last_reminder_at == 10.0test_overwork_alert_ipc.py (new, +29)
assert resp["ok"] is True
assert resp["state"]["status"] == "running"
finally:
server.stop()test_overwork_alert_launchagent.py (new, +18)
assert payload["KeepAlive"] is True
assert "ProgramArguments" in payload
assert payload["ProgramArguments"][1:3] == ["-m", "overwork_alert"]
assert payload["EnvironmentVariables"]["PYTHONPATH"] == str(tmp_path)launchagent.py (+1)
def get_launchagent_plist_path(label: str = DEFAULT_LABEL) -> Path:
"""Return the expected LaunchAgent plist path for the given label."""
return Path.home() / "Library" / "LaunchAgents" / f"{label}.plist"Command output (as visible in screenshot; truncated):
{
"path": "/Volumes/CaseSensitive/coding/cypilot/examples/overwork_alert/src/overwork_alert/daemon.py",
"id": "cpt-ex-ovwa-state-tracker-core-tracker-status",
"first_occurrence": 170
}Links:
- Pytest path setup: tests/conftest.py
- Tracker-core tests: test_overwork_alert_tracker_core.py
- Notifications tests: test_overwork_alert_notifications.py
- IPC tests: test_overwork_alert_ipc.py
- LaunchAgent tests: test_overwork_alert_launchagent.py
Summary: The agent removes duplicate @cpt-state scope markers, reruns validate-code, and confirms deterministic validation passes with 23/23 coverage and 0 warnings.
Expand chat details...
ASSISTANT
I’ll fix the two validate-code warnings by removing the duplicate @cpt-state scope markers (keep one per state ID), then re-run cypilot validate-code to confirm warnings are gone and run the new pytest tests for the overwork-alert modules.
Read launchagent.py and daemon.py
Thought for 40s
Diff previews (as visible in screenshot; truncated):
daemon.py (+1, -2)
# @cpt-flow:cpt-ex-ovwa-flow-cli-control-pause:p1
...
# @cpt-flow:cpt-ex-ovwa-flow-cli-control-resume:p1launchagent.py (-1)
"""Unload and remove the user LaunchAgent plist (idempotent)."""
# @cpt-state:cpt-ex-ovwa-state-launchagent-autostart-installation:p1Command:
python3 skills/cypilot/scripts/cypilot.py validate-code --verbose
Output (as visible in screenshot; truncated):
{
"status": "PASS",
"artifacts_validated": 15,
"error_count": 0,
"warning_count": 0,
"code_files_scanned": 6,
"to_code_ids_total": 23,
"code_ids_found": 23,
"coverage": "23/23",
"next_step": "Deterministic validation passed. Now perform semantic validation: review content quality against checklist.md criteria.",
"artifacts": [
...
]
}Links:
- Daemon: daemon.py
- LaunchAgent: launchagent.py
Summary: The agent makes final code hygiene adjustments (timestamp serialization, socket helpers), runs a compile check, and installs pytest via make install so the test suite can run.
Expand chat details...
ASSISTANT
Thought for 86s
Diff previews (as visible in screenshot; truncated):
models.py (+9, -2)
"over_limit_since": _ts(self.over_limit_since),
"last_reminder_at": _ts(self.last_reminder_at),ipc.py (+1)
def stat_is_socket(mode: int) -> bool:
"""Return True if the given st_mode indicates a Unix domain socket."""
return (mode & 0o170000) == 0o140000Thought for 25s
8 / 11 tasks done
8 more
- Implement LaunchAgent manager: build plist + install/uninstall idempotently.
- Add tests for core logic (delta clamping, idle pause, notification interval, control command handling).
Thought for 38s
Command:
python3 -m compileall examples/overwork_alert/src/overwork_alert
Output (as visible in screenshot; truncated):
Listing 'examples/overwork_alert/src/overwork_alert'...
Compiling 'examples/overwork_alert/src/overwork_alert/__main__.py'...
Compiling 'examples/overwork_alert/src/overwork_alert/cli.py'...
...
Asked 1 question:
overwork_alertimplementation is in place andcypilot validate-codenow passes with 23/23to_codeID coverage. Next blocker:pytestis not installed in your current Python env, so I can’t run the new tests yet. How do you want to proceed?- Run
make installthen tests
- Run
Command:
make install
Output (as visible in screenshot; truncated):
Installing pytest + pytest-cov via pipx...
pytest-cov already seems to be injected in 'pytest'. Not modifying existing installation in ...
Done.
Links:
Summary: make test passes (531 passed, 2 skipped) and cypilot validate confirms deterministic + semantic validation PASS. The agent declares the automated phase complete and proposes the manual macOS smoke test.
Expand chat details...
ASSISTANT
Command:
make test
Output (as visible in screenshot; truncated):
...
531 passed, 2 skipped in 2.53s
...
Command output (as visible in screenshot; truncated):
{"status":"PASS","artifacts_validated":15,"error_count":0,"warning_count":0,"next_step":"Deterministic validation passed. Now perform semantic validation: review content quality against checklist.md criteria."}Thought for 18s
10 / 12 tasks done
3 more
- Review the generated SPECs with you and adjust them for clarity if needed (semantic review).
- Implement the tool + configuration + macOS notification + autostart wiring; then validate and test on macOS.
📟 [workflows/generate.md]: Entering Phase 6 (Offer Next Steps) — implementation + deterministic validations are done; next is a manual macOS smoke test (Todo 4.7).
- Code created under
examples/overwork_alert/src/overwork_alert/(CLI + daemon + IPC + notifications + LaunchAgent). - Traceability:
cypilot validate-code --verbosePASS, coverage 23/23, 0 warnings. - Artifacts:
cypilot validate --skip-codePASS. - Tests:
make testPASS (531 passed, 2 skipped) including the new overwork-alert unit tests.
Links:
- Tests: tests/
Summary: The agent provides a step-by-step macOS smoke test checklist: create config, start the daemon, run CLI commands, verify notification cadence, then install/uninstall the LaunchAgent.
Expand chat details...
ASSISTANT
- Create config file (Option 1 path)
mkdir -p ~/.config/overwork-alert
cat > ~/.config/overwork-alert/config.json <<'JSON'
{
"limit_seconds": 10,
"idle_threshold_seconds": 300,
"repeat_interval_seconds": 5,
"tick_interval_seconds": 1,
"control_socket_path": "/tmp/overwork-alert.sock"
}
JSON- Start daemon (Terminal A)
From repo root:
PYTHONPATH=examples/overwork_alert/src python3 -m overwork_alert start --config ~/.config/overwork-alert/config.json- Query status + controls (Terminal B)
PYTHONPATH=examples/overwork_alert/src python3 -m overwork_alert status --config ~/.config/overwork-alert/config.json
PYTHONPATH=examples/overwork_alert/src python3 -m overwork_alert pause --config ~/.config/overwork-alert/config.json
PYTHONPATH=examples/overwork_alert/src python3 -m overwork_alert resume --config ~/.config/overwork-alert/config.json
PYTHONPATH=examples/overwork_alert/src python3 -m overwork_alert reset --config ~/.config/overwork-alert/config.json
PYTHONPATH=examples/overwork_alert/src python3 -m overwork_alert stop --config ~/.config/overwork-alert/config.jsonExpected:
- status returns within ~2 seconds (prints JSON with
active_time_seconds,status, timestamps as ISO-8601 strings or empty). - pause stops accumulation.
- resume restarts accumulation.
- reset sets
active_time_secondsback to 0 and clears over-limit state. - stop terminates the daemon.
- Verify notification behavior
With the config above (limit_seconds: 10, tick_interval_seconds: 1):
- Stay active for ~10–15 seconds.
- You should get the first notification within ~5 seconds after crossing the limit, then repeats no more often than every ~5 seconds while active.
- LaunchAgent install/uninstall
PYTHONPATH=examples/overwork_alert/src python3 -m overwork_alert install-autostart --config ~/.config/overwork-alert/config.json
PYTHONPATH=examples/overwork_alert/src python3 -m overwork_alert uninstall-autostart --config ~/.config/overwork-alert/config.jsonExpected:
- Install/uninstall are idempotent.
- Plist should appear at:
~/Library/LaunchAgents/com.cypilot.overwork-alert.plist
Links:
- Config: config.py
- CLI: cli.py
- Daemon: daemon.py
- Notify: notify.py
- LaunchAgent: launchagent.py
Summary: The agent asks for a short runtime report (notifications + CLI errors) so it can either mark the smoke test complete or apply targeted fixes.
Expand chat details...
ASSISTANT
After you run the smoke test, tell me:
- Whether notifications appear as expected
- Any CLI errors you hit (copy/paste the output)
Then I’ll either:
- Mark 4.7 completed, or
- Patch any macOS-specific issues uncovered by real runtime behavior.
Summary: The user confirms everything works as expected on macOS. The agent summarizes observed outcomes and provides practical tips about plist presence and macOS background-item prompts.
Expand chat details...
USER
cypilot! amazing!!!! All work as you said, properly, as I expected! Thank you!
ASSISTANT
Thought for 4s
12 / 12 tasks done
Glad it’s behaving correctly in real macOS usage.
- CLI controls worked end-to-end (
status,pause,resume,reset,stop). - Notifications are firing (your screenshot shows first + repeat reminders).
- Autostart uninstall removed the plist, so
cat ~/Library/LaunchAgents/com.cypilot.overwork-alert.plistfailing with exit code 1 is expected after uninstall.
-
To confirm the plist exists while installed:
ls -l ~/Library/LaunchAgents/com.cypilot.overwork-alert.plist
-
macOS “Background Items Added” is expected when a LaunchAgent is loaded; you can manage that in System Settings → General → Login Items.
You wrote “cypilot!” as praise here — if you meant to enable Cypilot mode/workflows for the next task, tell me what you want to do (e.g. “cypilot analyze ...” / “cypilot generate ...”) and I’ll switch into that workflow strictly.
- Status: Overwork Alert example implementation is complete, validated (
cypilot validate-codecoverage 23/23, tests passing), and manually smoke-tested successfully on your machine.
Links:
- CLI: cli.py
- Notify: notify.py
- LaunchAgent: launchagent.py
Summary: The screenshot confirms real macOS notifications for Overwork Alert and the expected "Background Items Added" system prompt after loading a LaunchAgent.
Evidence:
Expand chat details...
SYSTEM (macOS notifications)
Background Items Added
“python3.14” is an item that can run in the background. You can manage this in Login Items Settings.
Overwork Alert
You have exceeded your configured work limit. Consider taking a break.
Overwork Alert
You have exceeded your configured work limit. Consider taking a break.