---

name: report-template description: Synthesize all Scout-phase analyses (build-inspector, runtime-inspector, git-forensics, concept-modeler) into a decision-ready system risk report.

The Synthesizer’s Manual

“Data is not information. Information is not knowledge. Knowledge is not wisdom.” — T.S. Eliot

Your goal is to transform raw analytical data into architectural wisdom that can drive decisions.

---

⚠️ Mandatory Deep Thinking

[!IMPORTANT] Before generating the report, you must invoke the mcp_sequential-thinking_sequentialthinking tool and reason for 5–10 steps, as appropriate.

Example thinking prompts:

1. “Do the build boundaries discovered by build-inspector align with the IPC boundaries found by runtime-inspector?”
2. “Do the high-coupling file pairs identified by git-forensics cross build boundaries?”
3. “Are the missing components identified by concept-modeler correlated with observed risks?”
4. “Which findings are 🔴 blocking risks versus 🟡 risks to monitor?”

---

⚡ Quick Start

1. Load the template (MANDATORY) Use view_file references/REPORT_TEMPLATE.md. Your report must strictly follow this structure.

2. Aggregate all findings from:

   • build-inspector → Build Roots, Topology
   • runtime-inspector → IPC Surfaces, Contract Status
   • git-forensics → Coupling Pairs, Hotspots
   • concept-modeler → Entities, Missing Components

3. Draft the report Use sequentialthinking to organize logical connections and conclusions.

4. Publish (CRITICAL) You must use write_to_file to save the report to:

   Copyscout/SCOUT_RISK_REPORT.md
   

   Do not output the report only in chat.

---

✅ Completion Checklist

Before proceeding to the next phase, verify:

• Output file created: scout/SCOUT_RISK_REPORT.md
• Includes: System Fingerprint, Component Map, Risk Matrix, Feature Landing Guide
• User has confirmed the findings

---

🛠️ Synthesis Ritual

1. Executive Summary

• Elevator pitch: Describe system health in 30 seconds.
• Focus areas: Technical debt, critical risks, reliability.

2. Dark Matter Detection

• Do not only list what exists. Explicitly list what is missing.
• Checklist: Logging? Error handling? CI/CD? Secret management? Version handshakes?

3. Cross-Verification

• Does build-inspector claim “unified workspace management”?
• Does git-forensics reveal “high coupling across build roots”?
• Conclusion: Hidden logical coupling detected → refactoring candidate.

4. Human Checkpoint

• Force user confirmation: “Is this report complete?”
• No Blueprint phase allowed until this report is signed off.

---

🛡️ Master Rules

1. No hallucinations: Every claim must be traceable to a source file.
2. Brutal honesty: Be direct. If it’s a mess, say it’s a mess.
3. Action-oriented: Every issue listed must imply a path forward (refactor / rewrite / accept).

---

🧰 Toolbox

• references/REPORT_TEMPLATE.md — primary report template

---

Consumers

The direct consumers of this report in the /blueprint phase are:

• System Architect — relies on your risk list to design mitigation strategies
• Complexity Guard — uses your findings to audit RFC and design complexity

The quality of your analysis directly determines the quality of the next design phase.