P3 · Workflow control

Workflow Mode Branching

Choose one named workflow mode before executing its steps.

Editorially reviewed

These examples and illustrative results are independently authored teaching materials, not measured model results.

Use case

A dependency review can inspect manifest/lockfile only or include callers/migration tests. The teaching request selects mode=quick to identify resolved-version changes; caller compatibility is outside current evidence. A mode must affect work and claims, not just its name.

Mechanism

Define objectives, reads and exits for each mode with an applicable default. Honor the user’s explicit selection before branching. Use an agreed default only when unspecified. Report reasons for deeper checks without presenting quick evidence as complete migration confidence. The source separates exploration/organization; quick/deep are teaching modes.

Bad example

Under quick, read arbitrary callers and claim complete compatibility; or inspect only the lockfile and declare deep review complete.

Good example

Teaching contract: quick checks manifest/lockfile and reports version changes plus unexamined caller compatibility; deep adds relevant callers/migration tests. The user selected quick, so fulfill that scope and identify consequential compatibility gaps needing depth without claiming coverage. When unspecified use the agreed quick default; explicit user scope wins.

Why the change matters

Modes connect effort to evidence boundaries, making both completed and missing checks visible. They reduce tone-based guessing and prevent a stronger label from inflating limited evidence.

Observable expectation

An illustrative quick report lists version changes and callers/migration tests not checked; deep needs the added evidence. Inspect actual reads and adherence to user selection.

Surface important gaps rather than hiding them behind quick. Mode labels do not establish executed checks.

Limits

Defaults are task-specific; not every dependency issue warrants quick-first handling. Modes cannot waive safety/correctness or explicit scope. Explain necessary changes instead of silently expanding or shrinking delivery.

Sources and evidence

Read the editorial criteria