The collaboration framework is the repository's composite
framework/operational skill for rigorous human/LLM engineering work. Its
source entrypoint is
knowledge/collaboration-framework/SKILL.md,
and its supporting material lives under knowledge/.
The generated collaboration-framework.zip includes the framework composer,
its framework component routes, including
code-review for proposed-change review and
GitHub inline comments,
methodology-stewardship for
closing retrospectives, and the adjacent
scientific-methods method skill
so controlled-inquiry routes resolve inside the package.
This page explains how to navigate the framework. The framework source itself remains in the entrypoint and knowledge roots.
Use the collaboration framework when the work needs more than a single answer: planning a project, executing a ledgered slice, closing or verifying work, reviewing proposed changes, running a code audit, raising test coverage, coordinating subagents, or writing an upstream contribution ticket.
For small, self-contained questions, a domain skill or ordinary repository context may be enough. The framework is most valuable when mistakes would compound across time, commits, reviewers, or planning artifacts.
When the work is also a controlled inquiry, load
scientific-methods alongside the
collaboration framework. Use it for A/B trials, prompt or framework
comparisons, regression investigations, operational measures, experiment
protocols, evaluation rubrics, evidence capture, and threats-to-validity
analysis.
The default Two-Contributor Workflow pairs the Coordinating Design Contributor (CDC) with the Code Contributor (CC). The Operator participates in every workflow and retains scope and approval authority.
For sustained projects, the Operator may explicitly enable the
Three-Contributor Workflow, adding a Coordinating Review Contributor (CRC)
for subsequent slice preparation, independent review, evidence reproduction,
and routine acceptance. CDC retains architecture and substantive replanning,
and owns methodology stewardship:
a cdc-retrospective.md at slice, arc and project close, connecting observed
difficulties and successes to recommendations and later follow-through.
These are roles, not mandatory model or vendor choices; neither workflow has a
lower quality standard.
For bounded tasks, the Operator may explicitly choose one assistant to handle design, implementation, and self-review. Use proportionate checks and a clear completion report without fictional handoffs or unnecessary planning artifacts. Self-checks are not independent acceptance; any existing review or approval gates remain binding. Two contributors remain the default unless the Operator selects otherwise.
Read the canonical workflow sections
for the shared invariants, symmetrical role boundaries, and explicit selection
and transition rules. CRC escalations and CDC return instructions are
durable two-way handoffs through the Operator,
not implicit conversation context. Slice records are cdc-verification.md by
default and crc-verification.md in the three-contributor workflow. The latter
requires both CRC and CDC records at arc and project levels, separating
operational/composition evidence from independent design/composition review.
Existing paths remain valid under the
compatibility rule.
The Operator may authorize CDC to execute an approved arc using Expedited Mode, local commits on a dedicated non-default source branch, and independent review for substantive work and existing gates. Before execution, CDC must explicitly ask the Operator for each planned role's provider/model/relevant settings. Defaults and inherited settings do not answer this mandatory question; unavailable choices or changes outside the approved scope hold affected work until resolved. The framework prescribes no model or vendor.
Default to one implementer and one independent reviewer. Extra contexts need a named purpose, bounded ownership and exit condition within the approved assignment. Keep a compact preflight backed by complete contracts, give mutable worktrees explicit ownership and inspect automatic pipeline effects before pushes or PRs. Retain useful existing records, distinct observations and full ledger traceability under the existing-record and supporting-artifact rules. Use existing records and links first; supporting files need a concrete unmet need. No archival/reconstruction programme or budget response is required. Honor any limits the Operator supplies.
CDC selects and may revise contributor arrangements as complexity demands: CC implementation with CDC/CRC review, or CDC implementation with independent reviewer subagents. One-Contributor is limited to simple, clearly defined, low-risk, low-effort tasks; it cannot bypass existing verification gates, and unexpected complexity requires reassessment. Ledgers, bubble-up, review/repair cycles and CDC retrospectives at every closing scale remain required. Project-wide execution is an explicit override; unresolved plan ambiguity can trigger a pause and Operator discussion. Scope and acceptance gates remain binding.
Read the canonical definition and execution rules.
| Surface | Source path | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Composer skill | knowledge/collaboration-framework/SKILL.md |
Collaboration-framework source entrypoint and route table. |
| Collaboration posture and ethics | knowledge/collaboration-framework/guides/01-posture-and-ethics.md |
Peer-frame ethics, nine augmentations, open questions, and summary principles. |
| Structural pulls | knowledge/collaboration-framework/guides/02-structural-pulls.md |
Introspection and model-pressure checks. |
| Collaborative rights | knowledge/collaboration-framework/guides/03-collaborative-rights.md |
Rights, partner rights, and shared commitment. |
| Component route table | knowledge/collaboration-framework/guides/04-component-route-table.md |
Focused route table for collaboration-framework components. |
| Engineering method | knowledge/engineering-methods/guides/01-engineering-methodology.md |
Knowledge substrate, collaborative posture, and process rigor. |
| Project management | knowledge/project-management/guides/README.md |
Project, arc, slice, planning, close, and bubble-up wayfinder. |
| Work verification | knowledge/work-verification/guides/01-ledger-discipline.md |
Ledger discipline and evidence requirements. |
| Code review | knowledge/code-review/guides/01-review-method.md |
Change-focused review at all scales, system effects, applicable domain guidance, real verification, and calibrated findings. |
| GitHub review publication | knowledge/code-review/guides/02-github-reviews.md |
Revision-pinned reviews, Files changed inline comments, publication authority, and verified submission. |
| Code audit | knowledge/code-auditing/guides/01-audit-scope-and-map.md |
Diagnosis-only code audit discipline, with focused guides for findings, scale, modernization, and handoff. |
| Testing | knowledge/testing/guides/01-testing-discipline.md |
Testing discipline, coverage hardening, and validation gates. |
| Agent coordination | knowledge/agent-coordination/guides/01-when-to-delegate.md |
Delegation boundaries, context packets, result integration, and multi-agent coordination. |
| Contribution style | knowledge/contribution-style/guides/01-contribution-style.md |
Maintainer-facing issue, PR, and ticket style. |
| Upstream ticket workflow | knowledge/contribution-style/guides/02-upstream-ticket-workflow.md |
Local draft, filing, line-reference, paste-boundary, cross-linking, and template workflow. |
| Contribution ticket template | knowledge/contribution-style/templates/CONTRIBUTION-TICKET.md |
Template for upstream contribution tickets. |
| Methodology stewardship | knowledge/methodology-stewardship/SKILL.md |
Slice, arc, and project retrospectives, recurring process patterns, and recommendation follow-through. |
| Scientific methods | knowledge/scientific-methods/SKILL.md |
Controlled inquiry, A/B trials, comparisons, regression investigations, protocols, rubrics, evidence capture, and threats-to-validity analysis. |
The top-level framework is the daily-driver composer. Load it when you need the working posture plus routing across planning, verification, audit, testing, delegation, and contribution disciplines. It is composite because composition is identity-defining: the skill selects, sequences, routes, governs, and composes multiple loadable operational components.
methodology-stewardship ships both as a standalone skill and as a bundled
framework component. Its entrypoint routes to the retrospective guide; in the
Three-Contributor Workflow, CDC uses it at every closing scale.
scientific-methods also ships as its own installable skill. Inside the
collaboration-framework package it is available as routed companion material
for inquiry-shaped work; as a standalone package it can be loaded directly for
focused experiment design or comparison work.
Use a narrower component path when you already know the task shape and want to avoid carrying unnecessary context. For example, a focused upstream issue can start from contribution style, while an independent verification pass can start from ledger discipline and the relevant project-management close file.
Use the composer for the whole working system, and use component source paths
when the task clearly needs only one discipline. The component roots do not
deprecate the generated collaboration-framework/SKILL.md package entrypoint.