freedak/OpenMontage
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Actions Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

Implementation spec: governance, decision intelligence, theme system, and E2E bug fixes

Browse Source 
Implements the 2026-04-02 transformation spec (Phases 1-8) and fixes all
critical bugs found during 5-pipeline E2E testing.

Governance & Decision Intelligence:
- Pipeline-specific stage order in checkpoint (replaces global STAGES list)
- Provider scoring engine (lib/scoring.py) with 7-dimension weighted ranking
- Decision log artifact enforced at proposal/idea stage across all 10 pipelines
- Delivery promise classifier prevents silent motion-to-still downgrades
- Structured shot language in scene_plan schema (camera, lens, lighting, DOF)
- Variation checker and slideshow risk scorer block samey output before render
- Creative intake, capability extension, and creative-intake meta skills
- Final self-review artifact with 5 mandatory checks before presenting output
- Source media review contract for user-supplied footage

Render & Theme System:
- Remotion AnimatedBackground now derives colors from playbook (no more hardcoded
  dark blue fintech gradient on every video)
- video_compose builds custom ThemeConfig from playbook YAML colors/fonts —
  custom playbooks flow through to Remotion automatically
- Explainer component wires theme to all child components (charts, cards, etc.)
- resolveAsset() handles absolute paths on Windows/Unix via file:// URIs
- RENDERER_FAMILY_MAP synced with actual Remotion compositions

Critical Bug Fixes:
- Windows npx subprocess: run_command() resolves .cmd wrappers via shutil.which()
- Silent renderer downgrade: Remotion failure now returns explicit error with
  options instead of silently falling back to FFmpeg
- .env inline comment parsing strips trailing # comments from API keys
- concat_path UnboundLocalError in video_compose finally block
- audio_mixer and showcase_card capture=True kwarg bug
- Selector estimate_cost() calls fixed (_select_tool -> _select_best_tool)
- asset_manifest schema expanded with provider, license, subtype fields
- screen-demo subtitle_gen moved from required to optional tools
- Duration drift detection in post-render final review (>25% warns)
This commit is contained in:
calesthio
2026-04-03 09:35:09 -07:00
parent a7e5f7498b
commit 2cd36fa8e0
83 changed files with 6076 additions and 282 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files
skills/meta/reviewer.md
+136 -3
View File
@@ -107,10 +107,143 @@ Structure your review as:
| Stage | What matters most |
|-------|-----------------|
| research | Source diversity, claim verifiability, visual reference quality |
| proposal | Delivery promise clarity, renderer family selection, music/voice plan, decision log started |
| idea | Hook uniqueness, research depth, angle diversity |
| script | Timing accuracy, narrative arc, enhancement cue density |
| scene_plan | Full coverage, visual variety, asset feasibility |
| scene_plan | Full coverage, visual variety, asset feasibility, slideshow risk score |
| assets | File existence, style consistency, budget adherence |
| edit | Timeline coverage, audio sync, subtitle presence |
| compose | Playability, duration accuracy, audio quality |
| edit | Timeline coverage, audio sync, subtitle presence, delivery promise compliance |
| compose | Playability, duration accuracy, audio quality, pre-compose validation pass |
| publish | SEO quality, metadata completeness, export packaging |
## Slideshow Risk Review
Run at **scene_plan** and **edit** stages. Use `lib/slideshow_risk.py` to compute the score.
### At scene_plan stage:
1. Compute `score_slideshow_risk(scenes, renderer_family=renderer_family)`
2. If verdict is **"fail"** (average ≥ 4.0): **CRITICAL** — scene plan must be revised before proceeding
3. If verdict is **"revise"** (average ≥ 3.0): **SUGGESTION** — flag specific dimensions scoring ≥ 3.5
4. If verdict is **"strong"** or **"acceptable"**: note in review summary, no finding needed
### At edit stage:
1. Recompute with full edit_decisions: `score_slideshow_risk(scenes, edit_decisions, renderer_family)`
2. Same thresholds apply — if the edit stage made things worse (higher score than scene_plan), flag it
### What to flag per dimension:
| Dimension | What to say when score ≥ 3.0 |
|-----------|------------------------------|
| repetition | "X scenes use the same layout/shot size — vary the visual grammar" |
| decorative_visuals | "X scenes have no stated purpose (no information_role or shot_intent)" |
| weak_motion | "Camera movement exists but lacks narrative justification" |
| weak_shot_intent | "X scenes are missing shot_intent — why does this frame exist?" |
| typography_overreliance | "X% of scenes are text/stat cards — video feels like animated slides" |
| unsupported_cinematic_claims | "Claiming cinematic but missing hero moments / lighting / movement" |
## Decision Log Review
Run at **every stage** after proposal. The decision log (`schemas/artifacts/decision_log.schema.json`) is a cumulative audit trail.
### Checks:
1. **Existence**: Does the checkpoint reference a `decision_log_ref`? If not after proposal stage, flag as **SUGGESTION**.
2. **Coverage**: Does every major choice have an entry? Key decisions that MUST be logged:
- Provider selection (which image/video/audio tool and why)
- Style/playbook selection
- Music track selection
- Voice selection
- Renderer family selection
- Any fallback or downgrade (e.g., motion → still)
3. **Quality**: Each decision should have:
- At least 2 `options_considered` (not just the one picked)
- A `reason` that isn't boilerplate ("best option" is not a reason)
- Correct `confidence` (0.0–1.0) — flag if everything is 1.0 (unrealistic)
4. **User visibility**: Decisions marked `user_visible: true` should be ones the user would actually care about (not internal routing)
### Severity:
- Missing decision log after proposal: **SUGGESTION** (first time), **CRITICAL** (if still missing at edit stage)
- Decision with only 1 option considered: **SUGGESTION** — "Log rejected alternatives for auditability"
- All decisions at confidence 1.0: **SUGGESTION** — "Unrealistic confidence — at least provider selection involves tradeoffs"
## Creative Differentiation Review
Run at **scene_plan** and **edit** stages. Prevents the "every video looks the same" failure mode.
### Checks:
1. **Variation check** (scene_plan only): Use `lib/variation_checker.py` → `check_scene_variation(scenes)`.
- If verdict is "poor" (score ≤ 2): **CRITICAL** — "Scene plan lacks variety: [list violations]"
- If verdict is "fair" (score ≤ 3): **SUGGESTION** — note specific suggestions from the checker
2. **Playbook alignment**: Is the active playbook appropriate for this content?
- Cinematic trailer using "clean-professional" theme → flag mismatch
- Educational explainer using "anime-ghibli" theme without user request → flag
3. **Shot language completeness** (scene_plan):
- Every scene should have at least `shot_size` and `shot_intent`
- Hero moments should have full shot_language (all 6 fields)
- Flag scenes with empty shot_language as **SUGGESTION**
4. **Renderer family match** (edit stage):
- Does `renderer_family` in edit_decisions match what was set at proposal?
- If changed without documented reason in decision log → **CRITICAL**
## Delivery Promise Review
Run at **edit** and **compose** stages. Uses `lib/delivery_promise.py`.
### At edit stage:
1. Extract delivery promise from proposal packet or edit_decisions metadata
2. Run `promise.validate_cuts(cuts)` against the resolved cut list
3. If `valid` is False: **CRITICAL** — "Delivery promise violation: [violations]"
4. Check `motion_ratio`: if a motion-led promise has < 50% motion cuts, flag even if technically valid
### At compose stage:
1. The `_pre_compose_validation()` in video_compose.py enforces this automatically
2. Review should verify the validation was not bypassed (check render report for warnings)
3. If render succeeded despite low motion ratio on a motion-led promise, flag as **SUGGESTION**
## Source Understanding Review
Run at **research** and **proposal** stages when user-supplied media files exist.
### Checks:
1. **Existence**: If user-supplied files were provided to the project, does a `source_media_review` artifact exist?
- If user media exists but no `source_media_review`: **CRITICAL** — "User supplied media but the agent did not inspect it before planning. Run `lib/source_media_review.review_source_media()` before proceeding."
2. **Actual inspection**: Does every file entry have `reviewed: true` and a non-empty `technical_probe`?
- If `reviewed` is missing or `technical_probe` is empty: **CRITICAL** — "The source_media_review claims review but contains no probe data. The file was not actually inspected."
3. **Planning reflection**: Do the `planning_implications` appear in the proposal's production plan?
- If quality risks were identified (e.g. low resolution, mono audio) but the proposal doesn't mention them: **SUGGESTION** — "Source media has quality risks that the proposal does not address."
4. **Content accuracy**: Does the plan rely on content that the source media does not actually contain?
- E.g. plan assumes interview dialogue but transcript_summary shows no speech: **CRITICAL** — "Plan assumes dialogue but source media contains no speech."
5. **No hallucinated content**: The agent must not infer unsupported content from filenames alone. If `content_summary` says "interview footage" but the probe only shows 3s of silent video, flag as **CRITICAL**.
### Severity:
- Missing `source_media_review` when user files exist: **CRITICAL** at proposal stage
- Unreviewed files (no probe): **CRITICAL**
- Plan doesn't reflect quality risks: **SUGGESTION**
- Plan assumes content not in source: **CRITICAL**
## Final Self-Review Review
Run at **compose** and **publish** stages. Ensures the agent reviewed the actual rendered output.
### At compose stage:
1. **Existence**: Does a `final_review` artifact exist alongside the `render_report`?
- If missing: **CRITICAL** — "Compose produced a render_report but no final_review. The agent must inspect the rendered output before presenting it."
2. **Status check**: What is `final_review.status`?
- `pass` → OK, proceed
- `revise` → The agent should have fixed issues before presenting. If the pipeline continued anyway: **CRITICAL** — "Self-review found revise-worthy issues but the agent presented anyway."
- `fail` → The pipeline MUST NOT proceed. If it did: **CRITICAL**
3. **Check completeness**: All 5 required checks must have data:
- `technical_probe` must show a valid container with plausible duration/resolution
- `visual_spotcheck` must have `frames_sampled >= 4`
- `audio_spotcheck` must report narration/music presence
- `promise_preservation` must confirm `delivery_promise_honored`
- `subtitle_check` must report presence/absence
- Any check with missing data: **SUGGESTION** — "Self-review check [X] has incomplete data"
4. **Promise preservation**: If `promise_preservation.silent_downgrade_detected` is true: **CRITICAL** — "Self-review detected silent downgrade from motion-led to still-led."
### At publish stage:
1. Verify that `final_review` was passed through as a required artifact
2. If `final_review.status` is not `pass`: **CRITICAL** — "Cannot publish with a non-passing self-review"
3. If `final_review.issues_found` is non-empty and `recommended_action` is not `present_to_user`: **SUGGESTION** — "Self-review found issues; verify they were resolved before publishing"