DRAFT chain · DOC_DRAFT/v1 intent · drafting · §3 bridge intent · blank-next-sentence · continuations intent · accepting · continuation B intent · drafting · §3 bridge

01Bootstrap

02Plan

03Draft

04Review

05Publish

06Reader

architect: idle

architect · detected: blank-next-sentence → opening continuation candidates

single-author draft loop · stall handling only · review decisions happen in scenario 04 →

01Plan

02Draft

03Review

04Publish

Document — draft 1 · 2,840 words · autosaved 2s ago

Meta-harnesses

A series, target: AI engineers and builders.

3. Building meta-harnesses

The draft starts from the locked plan: the harness claim, the grammar constraint, and one concrete trace that shows the interface changing because the task changed.

This is deliberately rough. The writer is trying to bridge from the abstract claim into a visible mechanism: atoms, manifests, and a renderer that can prove the harness changed without pretending the prose is finished.

Draft a continuation that turns the mechanism into a concrete writing moment… The useful example is small: the writer stalls after a claim, the harness switches from a clean editor into a continuation surface, and the output is not a chatbot answer but three typed deltas against the draft. Accepting one does not end the loop; it records why that route won, collapses the temporary rail, and returns the page to writing mode. +claim +claim +4 fidelity →akhil

continuation-variant · 3 candidates · expires in 20s

the architect didn't review the section. it picked "drafting → stuck sentence → continuation surface → return."

continuation A · concrete trace

A useful trace is boring on purpose: cursor stops, intent flips, the right rail becomes a temporary continuation picker, and the accepted paragraph writes back as a typed delta. You can audit every part of it.

continuation B · thesis bridge

The useful example is small: the writer stalls after a claim, the harness switches from a clean editor into a continuation surface, and the output is not a chatbot answer but three typed deltas against the draft. Accepting one does not end the loop; it records why that route won, collapses the temporary rail, and returns the page to writing mode.

continuation C · compressed

The harness proves itself when a stall becomes structure: detect the blocked sentence, propose typed continuations, accept one, and return to the draft with a replayable reason.

Drafting tools

Continuation context · last 3 signals

plan graph · just now "must show the surface changing because the writer stalled, not because a sidebar opened."

source note · 2 min ago "typed deltas are the audit trail; raw generated markup is the failure case."

constraint · 5 min ago "keep this as drafting help, not reviewer preference or publish gating."

discarded route · 8 min ago "do not detour into multiplayer here; save that for the canonical two-up scenario."

brainstorm-scratchpad ephemeral · expires on accept

technical lens the continuation should make the renderer visible without becoming a systems diagram.

product lens explain why this is better than a chatbot: it writes back typed deltas, not advice.

philosophical lens preserve the draft's momentum; the rail should vanish once a route is accepted.

density meter · this section target 3 / para

currently 2.4 claims/para · trending up

revision fit live

85%

claim bridge mechanism linked to example

85%

source support plan evidence referenced

Variant decision

accepted · continuation B
best bridge from mechanism to visible writing moment.

rejected · continuation A
too much audit language for the middle of a paragraph.

decision trace
B wins because it keeps the drafting surface local: stall, candidates, accept, return.

approve dismiss

2 authors live phase: draft chain: DOC_DRAFT/v1 architect: idle yjs · 412 ops merged stall-detector armed · 30s