Closes the architectural-pin part of #19931. Most of what that issue asked for is already implemented (logs under kanban root, env-pinned workspace, dispatcher routing of unknown assignees, lifecycle ownership, structured handoff conventions). What was missing: 1. A written contract integrators can point at when adding a new worker lane shape, and 2. The "code-changing workers should not auto-promote success to done" convention. This commit ships both as docs+convention layered on existing primitives. No kernel changes — the kanban_complete / kanban_block / kanban_comment surfaces already support the review-required pattern; we just hadn't written it down or made it visible to workers. Changes: - `agent/prompt_builder.py::KANBAN_GUIDANCE`: append the review-required exception to step 5 of the lifecycle. Workers get the cue auto-injected into their system prompt — drop structured metadata into a kanban_comment first, then end with kanban_block(reason="review-required: <summary>") instead of kanban_complete when the work needs review. Total prompt size went from ~3000 to ~3275 chars; well under the 4096 budget enforced by test_kanban_guidance_size. - `skills/devops/kanban-worker/SKILL.md`: add a worked example to the existing "Good summary + metadata shapes" section between the Coding-task and Research-task examples. Same shape as the others (kanban_comment with structured handoff JSON, then kanban_block with the human-readable reason). Plus a one-line guide on when to use kanban_complete vs the review-required pattern. - `website/docs/user-guide/features/kanban-worker-lanes.md` (new): the integrator-facing contract. Covers the hierarchy, the three things every lane must provide (assignee, spawn mechanism, lifecycle terminator), the env vars the dispatcher injects, the review-required convention, the failure modes the kernel handles for free, and an explicit "external CLI worker lane" deferred- pending-concrete-asker section that links to #19931 and #19924. - `website/sidebars.ts`: link the new page under user-guide/features. The "specialist worker lanes for external CLI tools (Codex / Claude Code / OpenCode)" runner is NOT shipped here. The dispatcher's spawn_fn parameter already supports plugin-shaped extension; the per-CLI integration work (auth, sandbox policy, exit-code mapping) needs a concrete asker. The new docs page tells would-be integrators the contract any such lane must satisfy. Refs #19931
9.8 KiB
| name | description | version | platforms | metadata | |||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| kanban-worker | Pitfalls, examples, and edge cases for Hermes Kanban workers. The lifecycle itself is auto-injected into every worker's system prompt as KANBAN_GUIDANCE (from agent/prompt_builder.py); this skill is what you load when you want deeper detail on specific scenarios. | 2.0.0 |
|
|
Kanban Worker — Pitfalls and Examples
You're seeing this skill because the Hermes Kanban dispatcher spawned you as a worker with
--skills kanban-worker— it's loaded automatically for every dispatched worker. The lifecycle (6 steps: orient → work → heartbeat → block/complete) also lives in theKANBAN_GUIDANCEblock that's auto-injected into your system prompt. This skill is the deeper detail: good handoff shapes, retry diagnostics, edge cases.
Workspace handling
Your workspace kind determines how you should behave inside $HERMES_KANBAN_WORKSPACE:
| Kind | What it is | How to work |
|---|---|---|
scratch |
Fresh tmp dir, yours alone | Read/write freely; it gets GC'd when the task is archived. |
dir:<path> |
Shared persistent directory | Other runs will read what you write. Treat it like long-lived state. Path is guaranteed absolute (the kernel rejects relative paths). |
worktree |
Git worktree at the resolved path | If .git doesn't exist, run git worktree add <path> <branch> from the main repo first, then cd and work normally. Commit work here. |
Tenant isolation
If $HERMES_TENANT is set, the task belongs to a tenant namespace. When reading or writing persistent memory, prefix memory entries with the tenant so context doesn't leak across tenants:
- Good:
business-a: Acme is our biggest customer - Bad (leaks):
Acme is our biggest customer
Good summary + metadata shapes
The kanban_complete(summary=..., metadata=...) handoff is how downstream workers read what you did. Patterns that work:
Coding task:
kanban_complete(
summary="shipped rate limiter — token bucket, keys on user_id with IP fallback, 14 tests pass",
metadata={
"changed_files": ["rate_limiter.py", "tests/test_rate_limiter.py"],
"tests_run": 14,
"tests_passed": 14,
"decisions": ["user_id primary, IP fallback for unauthenticated requests"],
},
)
Coding task that needs human review (review-required):
For most code-changing tasks, the work isn't truly done until a human reviewer has eyes on it. Block instead of complete, with reason prefixed review-required: so the dashboard surfaces the row as needing review. Drop the structured metadata (changed files, test counts, diff/PR url) into a comment first, since kanban_block only carries the human-readable reason — comments are the durable annotation channel. Reviewer either approves and runs hermes kanban unblock <id> (which re-spawns you with the comment thread for any follow-ups) or asks for changes via another comment.
import json
kanban_comment(
body="review-required handoff:\n" + json.dumps({
"changed_files": ["rate_limiter.py", "tests/test_rate_limiter.py"],
"tests_run": 14,
"tests_passed": 14,
"diff_path": "/path/to/worktree", # or PR url if pushed
"decisions": ["user_id primary, IP fallback for unauthenticated requests"],
}, indent=2),
)
kanban_block(
reason="review-required: rate limiter shipped, 14/14 tests pass — needs eyes on the user_id/IP fallback choice before merging",
)
Use kanban_complete only when the task is genuinely terminal — e.g. a one-line typo fix, a docs change with no functional consequences, or a research task where the artifact IS the writeup itself.
Research task:
kanban_complete(
summary="3 competing libraries reviewed; vLLM wins on throughput, SGLang on latency, Tensorrt-LLM on memory efficiency",
metadata={
"sources_read": 12,
"recommendation": "vLLM",
"benchmarks": {"vllm": 1.0, "sglang": 0.87, "trtllm": 0.72},
},
)
Review task:
kanban_complete(
summary="reviewed PR #123; 2 blocking issues found (SQL injection in /search, missing CSRF on /settings)",
metadata={
"pr_number": 123,
"findings": [
{"severity": "critical", "file": "api/search.py", "line": 42, "issue": "raw SQL concat"},
{"severity": "high", "file": "api/settings.py", "issue": "missing CSRF middleware"},
],
"approved": False,
},
)
Shape metadata so downstream parsers (reviewers, aggregators, schedulers) can use it without re-reading your prose.
Claiming cards you actually created
If your run produced new kanban tasks (via kanban_create), pass the ids in created_cards on kanban_complete. The kernel verifies each id exists and was created by your profile; any phantom id blocks the completion with an error listing what went wrong, and the rejected attempt is permanently recorded on the task's event log. Only list ids you captured from a successful kanban_create return value — never invent ids from prose, never paste ids from earlier runs, never claim cards another worker created.
# GOOD — capture return values, then claim them.
c1 = kanban_create(title="remediate SQL injection", assignee="security-worker")
c2 = kanban_create(title="fix CSRF middleware", assignee="web-worker")
kanban_complete(
summary="Review done; spawned remediations for both findings.",
metadata={"pr_number": 123, "approved": False},
created_cards=[c1["task_id"], c2["task_id"]],
)
# BAD — claiming ids you don't have captured return values for.
kanban_complete(
summary="Created remediation cards t_a1b2c3d4, t_deadbeef", # hallucinated
created_cards=["t_a1b2c3d4", "t_deadbeef"], # → gate rejects
)
If a kanban_create call fails (exception, tool_error), the card was NOT created — do not include a phantom id for it. Retry the create, or omit the id and mention the failure in your summary. The prose-scan pass also catches t_<hex> references in your free-form summary that don't resolve; these don't block the completion but show up as advisory warnings on the task in the dashboard.
Block reasons that get answered fast
Bad: "stuck" — the human has no context.
Good: one sentence naming the specific decision you need. Leave longer context as a comment instead.
kanban_comment(
task_id=os.environ["HERMES_KANBAN_TASK"],
body="Full context: I have user IPs from Cloudflare headers but some users are behind NATs with thousands of peers. Keying on IP alone causes false positives.",
)
kanban_block(reason="Rate limit key choice: IP (simple, NAT-unsafe) or user_id (requires auth, skips anonymous endpoints)?")
The block message is what appears in the dashboard / gateway notifier. The comment is the deeper context a human reads when they open the task.
Heartbeats worth sending
Good heartbeats name progress: "epoch 12/50, loss 0.31", "scanned 1.2M/2.4M rows", "uploaded 47/120 videos".
Bad heartbeats: "still working", empty notes, sub-second intervals. Every few minutes max; skip entirely for tasks under ~2 minutes.
Retry scenarios
If you open the task and kanban_show returns runs: [...] with one or more closed runs, you're a retry. The prior runs' outcome / summary / error tell you what didn't work. Don't repeat that path. Typical retry diagnostics:
outcome: "timed_out"— the previous attempt hitmax_runtime_seconds. You may need to chunk the work or shorten it.outcome: "crashed"— OOM or segfault. Reduce memory footprint.outcome: "spawn_failed"+error: "..."— usually a profile config issue (missing credential, bad PATH). Ask the human viakanban_blockinstead of retrying blindly.outcome: "reclaimed"+summary: "task archived..."— operator archived the task out from under the previous run; you probably shouldn't be running at all, check status carefully.outcome: "blocked"— a previous attempt blocked; the unblock comment should be in the thread by now.
Do NOT
- Call
delegate_taskas a substitute forkanban_create.delegate_taskis for short reasoning subtasks inside YOUR run;kanban_createis for cross-agent handoffs that outlive one API loop. - Modify files outside
$HERMES_KANBAN_WORKSPACEunless the task body says to. - Create follow-up tasks assigned to yourself — assign to the right specialist.
- Complete a task you didn't actually finish. Block it instead.
Pitfalls
Task state can change between dispatch and your startup. Between when the dispatcher claimed and when your process actually booted, the task may have been blocked, reassigned, or archived. Always kanban_show first. If it reports blocked or archived, stop — you shouldn't be running.
Workspace may have stale artifacts. Especially dir: and worktree workspaces can have files from previous runs. Read the comment thread — it usually explains why you're running again and what state the workspace is in.
Don't rely on the CLI when the guidance is available. The kanban_* tools work across all terminal backends (Docker, Modal, SSH). hermes kanban <verb> from your terminal tool will fail in containerized backends because the CLI isn't installed there. When in doubt, use the tool.
CLI fallback (for scripting)
Every tool has a CLI equivalent for human operators and scripts:
kanban_show↔hermes kanban show <id> --jsonkanban_complete↔hermes kanban complete <id> --summary "..." --metadata '{...}'kanban_block↔hermes kanban block <id> "reason"kanban_create↔hermes kanban create "title" --assignee <profile> [--parent <id>]- etc.
Use the tools from inside an agent; the CLI exists for the human at the terminal.