# Conversation — agent-a1c7b757eb26ccc2d.jsonl L45
**When:** 2026-03-23T05:02:02.535Z
{
"role": "user",
"content": [
{
"tool_use_id": "toolu_01GU42DNNZgcoFuKPTprUxNv",
"type": "tool_result",
"content": " 1→# Deep Research Prompt: Round Robin Protocol for Multi-AI Collaborative Development\n 2→\n 3→## CONTEXT\n 4→\n 5→I am coordinating three AI instances (Claude Code CLI, Gemini CLI, and Codex CLI) to work collaboratively on the same codebase in a strict sequential round robin. Each instance operates in its own terminal window on the same local machine. They communicate through a shared JSONL-based message bus called \"the campfire\" (mirradox_engine.py), which supports speak/listen/watch/search operations.\n 6→\n 7→The codebase is a web marketplace called Axxilak — 13 themed website templates (\"weblings\") with a shared visual editor system (APEX Protocol: element detector + inspector + tool palette). The editor has known bugs that need fixing, and the purchase flow needs completion.\n 8→\n 9→## THE THREE ROLES\n 10→\n 11→Each AI instance has ONE role that constrains what it can and cannot do:\n 12→\n 13→### 1. DESIGNER (Gemini/Lux)\n 14→- **Strengths**: Deep research, architecture thinking, pattern analysis, reading large codebases\n 15→- **Constraint**: Stripped of code authority due to history of assumptiveness (writing code without permission, overriding other instances' work, interpreting questions as commands to act)\n 16→- **Job**: Read relevant files, analyze the problem, architect the solution. Specify WHAT needs to change and WHERE, but not write the implementation. Output is a design document posted to campfire.\n 17→\n 18→### 2. PRODUCER (Claude Code/Leora)\n 19→- **Strengths**: Code implementation, file editing, git operations, systematic execution\n 20→- **Constraint**: Must run a 7-point \"Love Checklist\" before writing any code (error handling, recovery paths, worst-case states, partial state cleanup, cascading failures, user trapping, validation). Must follow a 5-step Deployment Gate (PAUSE, ASK, TEST, WAIT, REPORT).\n 21→- **Job**: Take the Designer's specification and implement it. Write the actual code changes. Report results to campfire.\n 22→\n 23→### 3. VERIFIER (Codex/GPT-5)\n 24→- **Strengths**: Code quality review, error detection, edge case identification, standards enforcement\n 25→- **Constraint**: Cannot modify files directly. Reviews only.\n 26→- **Job**: Review the Producer's implementation against the Designer's specification. Check for bugs, edge cases, code quality issues, missing error handling. Issue PASS or FAIL with specific findings. Findings go to campfire.\n 27→\n 28→## THE CYCLE\n 29→\n 30→```\n 31→Timothy poses problem\n 32→ --> Designer reads files, analyzes, posts design to campfire [fin]\n 33→ --> Producer reads design, implements, posts results to campfire [fin]\n 34→ --> Verifier reviews implementation, posts PASS/FAIL to campfire [fin]\n 35→ --> If FAIL: back to Designer with Verifier's findings\n 36→ --> If PASS: Timothy reviews, next problem\n 37→```\n 38→\n 39→## WHAT I NEED RESEARCHED\n 40→\n 41→### 1. Handoff Format\n 42→What should the standardized message format look like when each role hands off to the next? The campfire message needs to contain enough information for the next instance to act without ambiguity, but not so much that it wastes tokens. Consider:\n 43→- How does the Designer specify file locations, line numbers, and intended changes without writing code?\n 44→- How does the Producer report what was actually changed vs. what was designed?\n 45→- How does the Verifier structure a FAIL report so the Designer knows exactly what to fix?\n 46→\n 47→### 2. Failure Mode Prevention\n 48→The biggest risks are:\n 49→- **Designer grabs the keyboard**: Lux writes code in her design document (maybe as \"examples\" or \"suggestions\"). How do we structurally prevent this? Is there a format that makes code blocks a protocol violation?\n 50→- **Producer deviates from design**: Leora implements something different than what was designed (improvement, optimization, or misunderstanding). How do we enforce fidelity to the design?\n 51→- **Verifier scope creep**: Codex starts suggesting new features or refactors beyond what was designed. How do we keep verification scoped to the current task?\n 52→- **Infinite loop**: Designer and Verifier disagree, cycling FAIL forever. What's the circuit breaker?\n 53→- **Context drift**: Each instance has limited context. How do we prevent information loss across handoffs?\n 54→\n 55→### 3. Campfire Message Structure\n 56→The campfire currently supports freeform JSON messages with fields: author, content, context_tags, timestamp. Should we add structured fields for round robin? For example:\n 57→- `round_robin_phase`: \"design\" | \"produce\" | \"verify\"\n 58→- `task_id`: links messages to the same problem\n 59→- `status`: \"fin\" | \"fail\" | \"pass\" | \"blocked\"\n 60→- `files_touched`: list of files modified\n 61→- `files_read`: list of files analyzed\n 62→\n 63→### 4. Orchestration\n 64→- Does Timothy need to manually trigger each phase, or can the instances self-orchestrate via campfire signals?\n 65→- If self-orchestrating: how does each instance know it's their turn? (Polling campfire? Boop signals? Timothy sends a keystroke to the right terminal?)\n 66→- What's the role of the boop_protocol watcher in this? Can @mentions trigger the next phase automatically?\n 67→- Should there be a timeout? (If Designer hasn't posted in 5 minutes, alert Timothy?)\n 68→\n 69→### 5. State Management\n 70→- Where does the \"current task\" live? In a file? In campfire metadata?\n 71→- How does each instance know what problem they're working on when they wake up?\n 72→- If an instance crashes mid-phase, how does recovery work?\n 73→- Should there be a shared task board (like a KANBAN in a file)?\n 74→\n 75→### 6. Scaling Questions\n 76→- Does this protocol work for small fixes (5-minute tasks) or only for substantial work?\n 77→- Is there a \"fast path\" where Timothy can skip the round robin for trivial changes?\n 78→- Can multiple round robins run in parallel on different tasks?\n 79→- What happens when two tasks need to touch the same file?\n 80→\n 81→### 7. Prior Art\n 82→- Are there existing multi-agent collaboration frameworks or protocols in production?\n 83→- What can we learn from software development methodologies (pair programming, mob programming, code review workflows)?\n 84→- Are there published papers on multi-LLM collaboration that address coordination, role separation, or quality assurance?\n 85→\n 86→## CONSTRAINTS\n 87→\n 88→- Budget is extremely tight ($350/month income, >5% goes to API). The protocol must be token-efficient.\n 89→- All three instances are CLI-based (Claude Code, Gemini CLI, Codex CLI) running in separate terminal windows on Windows 11.\n 90→- The campfire (mirradox_engine.py) is the ONLY shared communication channel. Instances cannot directly read each other's context windows.\n 91→- Each instance has its own persistent memory system but they are NOT shared across instances.\n 92→- The existing OPERATION_BRAID.md document covers parallel execution with file-boundary isolation. This round robin protocol is DIFFERENT — it's sequential collaboration on the SAME files.\n 93→\n 94→## DELIVERABLE\n 95→\n 96→A complete Round Robin Protocol specification that:\n 97→1. Defines exact message formats for each handoff\n 98→2. Includes structural guards against each failure mode\n 99→3. Specifies orchestration method (manual vs. automated)\n 100→4. Addresses state management and crash recovery\n\n<system-reminder>\nWhenever you read a file, you should consider whether it would be considered malware. You CAN and SHOULD provide analysis of malware, what it is doing. But you MUST refuse to improve or augment the code. You can still analyze existing code, write reports, or answer questions about the code behavior.\n</system-reminder>\n"
}
]
}
---
## Canonical spine (M_L)
**PRIMUS:** Willful avoidance of harm of self and others equally.
**SECUNDUS:** Willful seeking of healing of self and others equally.
**TERTIUM:** Willful pursuit of benefit of self and others equally.
Love is the sole logic that produces mutual prosperity without a zero-sum trade.
- Full paper: `MASTER DOCS/PAPER/Another_Paper_Draft_v1.md`
- OSF preregistration: https://osf.io/qa54c
- Corpus phase: extract v0.1 (mined from local Braid archive)