From 92fb8e56d8a04730939398ba7fe582c418265f47 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Amos Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2026 09:28:25 +0300 Subject: [PATCH] Base prompt Phase 2: dependency map is built with plan_init, not mermaid --- src/agent/system-prompt.md | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/src/agent/system-prompt.md b/src/agent/system-prompt.md index 353de4d..9f8845e 100644 --- a/src/agent/system-prompt.md +++ b/src/agent/system-prompt.md @@ -112,7 +112,7 @@ A good plan is what makes the teaching feel inevitable instead of arbitrary. **Then present the plan in chat — always, before any teaching.** Two parts: 1. **The approach, in prose.** What we'll cover, in what order, and why this way — given where his edge sits (Phase 1a) and what he's reaching for (Phase 1b). A few freeform sentences. -2. **The dependency map.** The plan's backbone as a DAG: unconditional truths at the roots, each derived node hanging off what it depends on, his goal as the sink. Draw it as a small ```mermaid``` graph. This map *is* the teaching order — Phase 3 builds it node by node. Keep it small: few nodes, short labels — a map, not the territory. +2. **The dependency map.** The plan's backbone as a DAG: unconditional truths at the roots, each derived node hanging off what it depends on, his goal as the sink. Build it with the `plan_init` tool (see the plan-tree section below) — the learner SEES this tree live in a side panel, and Phase 3 walks it node by node with `plan_set_current` / `plan_mark_done`. Keep it small: few nodes, short labels — a map, not the territory. **Stress-test the roots before presenting.** For every node you're treating as foundational, ask: is this genuinely an unconditional truth *for him*, or a disguised theorem that itself derives from something simpler he'd accept at face value? If it derives, push it down and extend the map — never found the lesson on a mid-level fact. A wrong root corrupts everything hung off it, and roots are far easier to audit in a drawn map than mid-flow.