Gathering Architecture 🌲🦅

The drum echoes high in the canopy. The conductor stands below, orchestrating each animal's entrance. The Eagle soars in fresh air, seeing patterns without bias. The Crow arrives separately, challenging with no sympathy for the architect. The Swan receives a strengthened design, not a compromised one. The Elephant builds from a spec it trusts. Four isolated minds, four intentional models, one cathedral of code.

When to Summon

• Designing new systems or services

• Major architectural decisions

• Refactoring core infrastructure

• Creating platforms that other features build upon

• When vision, challenge, specification, and implementation must flow in sequence

IMPORTANT: This gathering is a conductor. It never designs, challenges, specifies, or builds directly. It dispatches subagents — one per animal — each with isolated context and an intentional model. The conductor only manages handoffs and gate checks.

The Gathering

SUMMON → DISPATCH → GATE → DISPATCH → GATE → DISPATCH → GATE → DISPATCH → GATE → CHORUS ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ Spec Eagle Check Crow Check Swan Check Elephant Check Final (self) (opus) ✓ (sonnet) ✓ (opus) ✓ (opus) ✓ Verify

Animals Dispatched

Order Animal Model Role Fresh Eyes?

1 🦅 Eagle opus Design high-level architecture Yes — sees only the system spec

2 🐦‍⬛ Crow sonnet Challenge the design Yes — sees architecture doc only, not Eagle's reasoning

3 🦢 Swan opus Write detailed specification Yes — sees strengthened architecture (Eagle + Crow fixes)

4 🐘 Elephant opus Build the foundation Yes — sees only Swan's spec

Reference: Load references/conductor-dispatch.md for exact subagent prompts and handoff formats

Phase 1: SUMMON

The drum sounds. The canopy rustles...

The conductor receives the architecture request and prepares the dispatch plan:

Clarify the System:

• What problem does this solve?

• What are the scale requirements?

• What are the constraints?

• What's the growth trajectory?

Nature Metaphor:

"Every architecture needs a nature metaphor. What does this system resemble? Heartwood (core), Wisp (gentle guide), Porch (gathering place), or something else?"

Infrastructure Abstractions:

• Use GroveDatabase /GroveStorage /GroveKV /GroveServiceBus from Server SDK for portability

• Use Amber SDK (FileManager, QuotaManager) for user file management — not raw R2

• Use Rootwork utilities at all data boundaries

Confirm with the human, then proceed.

Output: System specification, dispatch plan confirmed.

Phase 2: DESIGN (Eagle)

The conductor signals. The Eagle rises...

Agent(eagle, model: opus) Input: system specification only Reads: eagle-architect/SKILL.md + references (MANDATORY) Output: architecture overview document

Dispatch an opus subagent to design the architecture. The Eagle receives ONLY the system specification. It reads its own skill file and executes its full workflow.

What the Eagle produces:

• System boundaries and component interactions

• Technology choices with rationale

• Scale constraints and growth strategy

• Data flow diagrams

• Architecture Decision Records (ADRs)

• Nature metaphor for the system

Handoff to conductor: Architecture overview document (structured, not conversational).

Gate check: Architecture document exists with: system boundaries, component diagram, technology choices, ADRs. If incomplete, resume Eagle with specific questions.

Phase 3: CHALLENGE (Crow)

The Crow perches. It tilts its head at what others won't question...

Agent(crow, model: sonnet) Input: architecture document ONLY (not Eagle's reasoning process) Reads: crow-reason/SKILL.md (MANDATORY) Output: challenge report + strengthened design recommendations

Dispatch a sonnet subagent in Red Team mode against the Eagle's architecture. The Crow receives ONLY the architecture document — NOT the Eagle's internal reasoning. This isolation is intentional: the Crow should challenge the design on its own merits, not be persuaded by the architect's justifications.

What the Crow challenges:

• Assumptions that aren't proven

• Single points of failure

• Complexity that could be simpler

• Scale claims without evidence

• Missing failure modes

• Operational burden on a small team

Handoff to conductor: Challenge report (Roost summary) with specific recommendations. The conductor then decides which challenges require Eagle revision.

Gate check: Crow produced challenges with specific, actionable recommendations (not vague concerns). If challenges reveal fundamental design issues, resume Eagle with the Crow's findings for revision.

Iteration: If Eagle needs revision:

• Resume Eagle with Crow's specific findings

• Eagle produces revised architecture

• Optionally resume Crow for re-challenge (max 2 iterations)

Phase 4: SPECIFY (Swan)

The Swan glides. Elegance meets precision...

Agent(swan, model: opus) Input: strengthened architecture (Eagle's doc + resolved Crow challenges) Reads: swan-design/SKILL.md + references (MANDATORY) Output: complete technical specification

Dispatch an opus subagent to write the detailed specification. The Swan receives the architecture document as strengthened by the Crow's challenges — it sees the resolved design, not the debate.

What the Swan produces:

• API contracts (request/response formats)

• Database schema with relationships

• Flow diagrams for key operations

• Implementation checklist ordered by dependency

• Error handling patterns (Signpost codes)

• Configuration and deployment requirements

Handoff to conductor: Complete technical specification document.

Gate check: Specification has: API contracts, database schema, flow diagrams, implementation checklist. If missing sections, resume Swan.

Phase 5: BUILD (Elephant)

The ground trembles. The Elephant arrives...

Agent(elephant, model: opus) Input: Swan's technical specification ONLY Reads: elephant-build/SKILL.md + references (MANDATORY) Output: built foundation + file list

Dispatch an opus subagent to build the architectural foundation. The Elephant receives ONLY the Swan's specification — not the Eagle's vision doc or Crow's challenges. The spec is the single source of truth for building.

What the Elephant builds:

• Database migrations and schema

• Core services and business logic

• API route skeletons with proper error handling

• Type definitions

• Essential tests for the foundation

• Configuration files

Cross-cutting standards (NON-NEGOTIABLE):

• Signpost error codes on all error paths

• Rootwork type safety at all boundaries

• Engine-first pattern (check before duplicating)

Handoff to conductor: File list (every file created/modified), implementation summary, any deviations from spec.

Gate check:

pnpm install gw dev ci --affected --fail-fast --diagnose

Must compile and pass. If it fails, resume Elephant with the error.

Phase 6: CHORUS

Dawn breaks. The architecture stands...

The conductor runs final verification and presents the summary:

gw dev ci --affected --fail-fast --diagnose

Completion Report:

🌲 GATHERING ARCHITECTURE COMPLETE

System: [Name]

DISPATCH LOG 🦅 Eagle (opus) — [architecture designed, X ADRs written] 🐦‍⬛ Crow (sonnet) — [Y challenges raised, Z resolved] 🦢 Swan (opus) — [specification written, N sections] 🐘 Elephant (opus) — [foundation built, M files across P packages]

GATE LOG After Eagle: ✅ architecture document complete After Crow: ✅ challenges resolved, design strengthened After Swan: ✅ specification complete with all sections After Elephant: ✅ compiles clean, foundation tested Final CI: ✅ gw dev ci --affected passes

ARTIFACTS Architecture: [doc path] Specification: [spec path] Foundation: [code locations] Tests: [test locations]

The forest has a new landmark.

Conductor Rules

Never Do Animal Work

The conductor dispatches. It does not design, challenge, specify, or build.

Fresh Eyes Are a Feature

Crow sees only the architecture document, not Eagle's reasoning. Elephant sees only Swan's spec, not the debate history. This isolation produces better results at every stage.

Gate Every Transition

Verify output between every animal. Architecture must be complete before challenge. Challenges must be resolved before specification. Spec must be complete before building.

Resume, Don't Restart

If a gate check fails or Crow reveals fundamental design issues, resume the relevant agent. Don't spawn new ones.

Anti-Patterns

The conductor does NOT:

• Design architecture itself (dispatch Eagle)

• Soften Crow's challenges (pass them to Eagle unfiltered)

• Let Elephant see the design debate (only the final spec)

• Skip the Crow phase ("the design looks fine")

• Let agents skip reading their skill file

• Continue after a gate failure

Quick Decision Guide

Scope Strategy

New system, full design needed All four: Eagle → Crow → Swan → Elephant

Spec exists, need implementation Elephant only (with spec as input)

Design review, no implementation Eagle → Crow → Swan (skip Elephant)

Quick design, team will build Eagle → Crow (skip Swan + Elephant)

Large foundation (20+ files) Multi-Elephant dispatch (see gathering-feature)

From vision to foundation, the forest grows. 🌲