agentic-resources/SCOPE.md

# SCOPE

> Reviewed 2026-08-20 against the implemented Helix Forge loop and the
> cross-repository leadership/workforce architecture discussion. For the
> stable purpose and desired organizational outcome, see `INTENT.md`.

## One-liner

Agent-workforce performance and lifecycle management: learn from agent
execution, improve the fleet, and—once the proposed contracts are
implemented—plan and govern which agents fill which roles within
leadership-owned goals and delegated resource envelopes.

## Core Idea

`agentic-resources` treats AI agents as a managed digital workforce rather
than as isolated prompts or interchangeable runtime processes.

Its implemented Helix Forge subsystem captures coding sessions, finds
repeated friction and successful techniques, curates and distributes reviewed
solution patterns, measures their effectiveness, and produces fleet
retrospectives. This is already the performance-and-development loop described
by `INTENT.md`.

The recommended next boundary extends that evidence base into agent inventory,
selection, assignment, capacity planning, development, portfolio review,
rebalancing, and retirement. This repository may translate authorized goals
and constraints into a workforce plan, but it does not create organizational
strategy, leadership authority, money, technical capacity, or execution
permissions.

## Current Implemented Scope

- Capture and normalize Claude, Codex, and Grok coding sessions.
- Retain session digests and raw evidence within explicit storage budgets.
- Detect recurring failure, friction, cost, and success signals across the
  fleet.
- Curate evidence-backed solution patterns through a review and approval flow.
- Render approved patterns as agent-flavor-specific, reviewable distribution
  proposals.
- Measure before/after pattern effectiveness and fleet trends.
- Publish weekly retrospectives and correlate fleet-level Helix Forge evidence
  with project-level KaizenAgentic metrics by reference.

## Recommended Workforce-Management Boundary

The following concerns fit the intent and existing performance subsystem, but
their contracts and implementation do not yet exist in this repository:

- Maintain an inventory of available agent capabilities, instances, status,
  lifecycle stage, and evidence of fitness.
- Own the `RoleAssignment` control contract: which agent instance fills which
  part of a role for which goals, under which leadership mandate and resource
  envelope.
- Express execution needs through a versioned `glas-harness` profile reference
  or compatible requirements contract, rather than coupling assignments to one
  concrete rein or base model.
- Match agents, role duties, and Kaizen blueprints using explicit suitability
  evidence; record unstaffed or deliberately human-owned duties.
- Allocate concurrent agent and duty capacity within authoritative financial,
  technical-resource, token, time, and human-attention constraints.
- Aggregate outcomes, costs, refusals, and escalation quality by goal, role,
  assignment, and duty.
- Maintain performance and development plans and recommend continue, coach,
  refine, reallocate, pause, or retire decisions.
- Run portfolio reviews and propose rebalancing while requiring the authorized
  leadership source to approve goal reprioritization, material envelope
  changes, or wider authority.

Consumer-owned assignment/instance manifests should remain the durable source
initially; this repository can validate, index, plan, and review them without
prematurely requiring a central workforce service.

## Leadership and Workforce Relationship

Leadership and workforce management are adjacent control layers, not synonyms:

```text
organization intent
  -> leadership-owned StrategicGoal + LeadershipMandate
  -> delegated ResourceEnvelope
  -> agentic-resources workforce plan + RoleAssignment
  -> Kaizen blueprint + consumer-owned AgentInstance
  -> activity-core scheduled work
  -> glas-harness profile resolution
  -> selected rein + base-model + sandbox constellation
  -> outcome, cost, evidence, refusal, escalation
  -> leadership review + workforce rebalance + blueprint improvement
```

- A `StrategicGoal` states the desired outcome, priority, horizon, and success
  measures. Its authoritative source is the accountable organization or
  engagement control plane.
- A `LeadershipMandate` states who may decompose goals, direct work, make which
  decisions, delegate, pause, and escalate. A role title or agent prompt never
  creates this authority.
- A `ResourceEnvelope` composes provenance-bearing limits from leadership,
  `fin-hub`, `resource-control`, and runtime policy. Unknown capacity or budget
  is never treated as unlimited.
- A `RoleAssignment` is the workforce decision within those inputs. It binds a
  specific agent instance to selected role duties and records evidence,
  limits, lifecycle, and review state.

Agentic-resources therefore advises and administers the agent workforce;
leadership remains accountable for direction, priority, material commitments,
and expansion of authority.

## Ecosystem Boundaries

| Concern | Owning source | Relationship to agentic-resources |
|---|---|---|
| Organizational intent, goals, priorities, and leadership mandates | Contextual organization/engagement control source; for example `binky-control` for Binky Hedgehog GmbH | Consume stable references; return portfolio evidence and recommendations; never invent or silently reprioritize strategy |
| Organizational role definitions | `role-engine` | Consume pinned role revisions and duty/authority boundaries; do not redefine roles or grant permissions |
| Agent blueprints, protocols, and project metrics | `kaizen-agentic` | Consume versioned blueprints and run evidence; supply assignment and performance context |
| Agent workforce inventory, assignment, capacity, development, and portfolio review | `agentic-resources` (recommended boundary; not yet implemented beyond performance learning) | Own the workforce plan and assignment lifecycle |
| Human workforce lifecycle and mixed-team concerns | `human-resources` | Share compatible vocabulary and handoff contracts; keep human-sensitive, employment, welfare, and compensation records separate |
| Monetary budgets, commitments, burn, runway, and AI-plan booked cost | `fin-hub` | Consume authoritative constraint signals and publish attribution; do not copy the financial ledger or approve spending |
| Resource identity, demand, capacity, utilization, allocation evidence, and technical economics | `resource-control` | Consume planning/evidence signals; do not procure, operate, or invent capacity |
| Scheduling and durable claimable work | `activity-core` | Supply active assignment/duty context; do not own the clock, queue, retry, or task lifecycle |
| Harness contract, execution profiles, backend routing, sandbox coordination, and gateway evidence | `glas-harness` | Supply an approved, versioned profile or execution requirements; let Glas resolve the concrete rein and sandbox constellation; consume its unified result evidence |
| Concrete inner agentic loop and backend-specific credentials/policy | Selected rein under `glas-harness`; currently including `rein-aharness` and `rein-openweights` | Treat a rein as a replaceable execution backend, not the workforce architecture boundary; `rein-aharness` is the live Claude-Code-CLI rein, not the meta-framework |
| Identity, credentials, and authorization | Identity, OpenBao/credential-routing, and policy systems | Reference routes and policy profiles only; never store secrets or treat organizational wording as technical access |
| Base-model/provider execution and inference routing | `llm-connect`, the selected rein, and provider adapters under their declared boundaries | Select through the approved Glas execution profile/route; consume usage/outcome evidence; do not hard-code a vendor model into workforce records or become a model gateway |
| Durable coordination read model | Custodian State Hub | Publish/index work and evidence; do not replace source files or hub ownership |

## Out of Scope

- Setting organizational strategy, goals, or cross-goal priorities.
- Granting leadership mandates, technical authorization, credentials, or tool
  permissions.
- Owning human personnel records, hiring, compensation, employment decisions,
  welfare, or human performance surveillance.
- Owning the canonical role catalog or treating a role definition as a live
  assignment.
- Owning monetary budget truth, payment/commitment approval, procurement,
  infrastructure inventory, or provider capacity.
- Owning schedules, queues, workflow/task lifecycle, LLM sessions, or runtime
  policy enforcement.
- Selecting a concrete rein or base model outside the approved
  `glas-harness` profile/route, or treating `rein-aharness` as the universal
  execution architecture.
- Automatically applying self-modifications or retiring live agents without
  the review and authority required by the relevant mandate.
- Replacing KaizenAgentic, role-engine, activity-core, `glas-harness`, its
  concrete reins, State Hub, fin-hub, or resource-control with a monolithic
  agent-management service.

## Intent Relationship

`INTENT.md` describes the desired organizational outcome: a trustworthy,
antifragile agent ecosystem that improves performance and augments human
ingenuity through lifecycle management, oversight, and continuous alignment.
It is deliberately broader than this repository's implementation ownership.

This scope realizes that intent through a federated operating model. The repo
owns the agent-workforce performance and lifecycle concern while consuming
strategy, role, budget, resource, policy, runtime, and human-workforce facts
from their authoritative systems.

## Current State

- **Implemented:** the Helix Forge capture -> detect -> curate -> distribute ->
  measure loop, weekly retrospectives, and Kaizen metrics correlation.
- **Completed work:** `AGENTIC-WP-0001` through `AGENTIC-WP-0011`; there are no
  active normal workplans at the time of this review.
- **Architecture proposal:** accept agentic-resources as the workforce and
  assignment owner, subject to cross-repository ratification.
- **Execution-layer implementation:** `GLAS-WP-0004` now provides strict
  versioned requests/profiles, deterministic rein-registry validation,
  explicit CLI/gateway selection, and one normalized evidence envelope.
  `rein-aharness` is one current backend; workforce contracts preserve freedom
  to choose a different rein, sandbox, tool policy, and base-model
  constellation by changing the approved Glas profile reference. The
  Claude-backed and open-weight profiles both have live success, real-commit,
  and sandbox-cleanup evidence through the same Glas contract.
- **Implementation gap:** agent inventory, `RoleAssignment`, capacity
  allocation, goal/resource-envelope correlation, development plans, and
  portfolio/retirement workflows are not implemented yet.

## Getting Oriented

1. `INTENT.md` — stable organizational purpose.
2. `docs/PRD-helix-forge.md` — implemented product boundary and architecture.
3. `session_memory/README.md` — current operational capabilities.
4. `docs/DESIGN-session-memory.md` — detailed design and Kaizen correlation.
5. `workplans/` — implementation history and future work.