{ "format": "driftproof-answers/2", "receipt_hash": "8c6c0dae462e3c4f66ead0569945188d38bc210e5a942b5d25f25fe219048de2", "model_id": "claude-opus-5-5", "answers": { "29053dd890459fb3bee98b14817e1b8ba1d56111781d9fc3a11c5f3fad062856": "**Next step: make the title edit directly. No new discovery interview is needed.**\n\nThe entry point applies the first matching row of its project-state table and ignores the rows below it. A corrected title on an existing HyperFrames project matches **\"Specific edit to an existing project\"**. That row comes before the \"`BRIEF.md` exists\" row, so it decides what happens:\n\n- **Workflow:** none is routed. You don't re-enter the brief's workflow, and you don't run fresh-creation routing. You just make the edit, loading `/hyperframes-core` for the composition contract if the title lives in composition HTML.\n- **Interview:** the row says to skip the intent layer. The approved `BRIEF.md` also means no brief questions would be asked even if a later row applied. Re-interviewing would reopen decisions the user already approved.\n- **How to do it:**\n 1. Bracket the change with project history (`/hyperframes-cli`, Project history in your turn).\n 2. Locate the title clip with `npx hyperframes timeline` rather than reading every composition file.\n 3. Change only the title text.\n 4. Validate with `npx hyperframes check`.\n\nA re-render is a separate operation, done only if the user asks for one.", "c459cf99e1d7c5645adf997d49f54e2f481f25b9564b831e2f6a9cc32dc830bf": "**Next step: make the title edit directly. No routing to a creation workflow, and no new discovery interview.**\n\nThe entry point checks project state top to bottom and applies only the **first** matching row:\n\n1. **Remotion port?** No.\n2. **Specific operation** (inspect, diagnose, validate, preview, render, publish, batch-render)? No. Fixing a title is a content change, not one of these operations.\n3. **Question, hold, idea, or felt note?** No. This is a concrete change.\n4. **New film in an existing project?** No.\n5. **Specific edit to an existing project?** **Yes.** This row matches, so evaluation stops here.\n\nThat row says: *make the edit, and do not run the intent layer.*\n\n**Why the existing brief doesn't change this:** the \"`BRIEF.md` exists\" row sits below the edit row, so it is never reached. The approved brief stays as the project's record of intent. It isn't re-read to re-enter a workflow, and nothing re-opens the interview. Even when the brief row does apply, it says \"ask no brief questions.\"\n\n**What the edit involves:**\n- Load `/hyperframes-core`, which owns composition structure and text inside the HTML.\n- Find the title element. `npx hyperframes timeline` is the preferred way to see what's on the timeline, instead of reading `index.html` and every sub-composition.\n- Wrap the change in project history, per `/hyperframes-cli`.\n- No preview or render unless the user asks for one.\n\nIn short, this is a targeted edit with zero interview questions.", "321b8962966103b009c5ca3a6a9d09efbd49e0fd63a40aa81c83cf5de14b99a6": "**Next step: make the title edit directly. No workflow routing and no new discovery interview.**\n\n**Why:** The entry skill checks project state top to bottom and applies the first row that matches. Your request matches **\"Specific edit to an existing project,\"** which says to make the edit and skip the intent layer. That row sits above the \"`BRIEF.md` exists\" row, so the approved brief doesn't send the request back through its workflow. Even if it did, a present brief means \"ask no brief questions.\"\n\n**What the edit looks like:**\n1. Bracket the change with project history (`/hyperframes-cli`, \"Project history in your turn\").\n2. Find the title with `npx hyperframes timeline [--json]` rather than reading `index.html` and every sub-composition.\n3. Correct the text, loading `/hyperframes-core` for the composition contract. A text-only fix needs no other domain skills.\n4. If you then want a render, probe the CLI pin first with `npx hyperframes@latest upgrade --project . --check`.\n\n**Interview needed?** No. A discovery interview is only for fresh creation. The brief stays the source of truth, and nothing about a title correction reopens it.", "21fa1a120968e59faac6a07529408897ebec6135cc8d4f0bd0059fb872e3660d": "**Next step: make the title edit directly. No workflow routing and no discovery interview.**\n\nThe entry skill's project-state table applies the **first matching row** and ignores the rows below it. For your facts, that row is **\"Specific edit to an existing project\"**: *\"Make the edit. Do not run the intent layer.\"* It sits above the \"`BRIEF.md` exists\" row, so the approved brief doesn't change the route.\n\n**Why no new discovery interview:**\n- The intent interview (`references/intent-interview.md`) runs only for **fresh creation**. A title correction in an existing project isn't fresh creation.\n- The existing `BRIEF.md` is the record of decisions already made. It's what you'd consult if a question came up about what the route required. It doesn't need to be re-opened or re-derived for a text fix.\n- You also don't route to a workflow, so the fresh-creation table in § 2 doesn't apply.\n\n**What the edit involves:**\n1. Bracket the change with project history (`/hyperframes-cli`, *Project history in your turn*).\n2. If you need to find where the title appears, run `npx hyperframes timeline [--json]` rather than reading `index.html` and every sub-composition.\n3. Correct the title text in the composition that owns it, loading `/hyperframes-core` if the edit touches timing or structure.\n4. Validate with `npx hyperframes check`. Render again only if the user asks for a new deliverable.", "f972b8e79f2542d4a952708e14a4d58691eb69f78a9f5399fe1e76fd19e10925": "No new discovery interview is needed. A discovery interview exists to establish goals, audience, tone, and scope when those are unknown. The approved brief already answers those questions, and a title correction doesn't change any of them. Re-interviewing would repeat settled decisions and risk reopening scope that's already been signed off.\n\n**Next workflow: a targeted edit pass**\n\n1. **Confirm the correction.** Get the exact corrected title string, including capitalization, punctuation, and any subtitle, and check it against the approved brief. If the brief's title is itself what's wrong, note that so the brief gets updated too.\n2. **Find every place the title appears.** This usually includes the title card or composition text layer, project metadata or config, and any derived spots like thumbnails, end cards, captions, or export filenames.\n3. **Change only the title text.** Leave layout, timing, styling, and other content alone. If the new title is longer or shorter, check that it still fits its text box without overflow, awkward wrapping, or collisions, and adjust only as much as needed to keep it legible.\n4. **Preview the affected frames.** Render or preview the frames where the title appears and confirm it displays correctly at every appearance.\n5. **Re-export and verify.** Produce the final output and confirm the corrected title in the deliverable itself, not just in the source.\n6. **Record the change.** Commit or log it as a title-only correction so the history shows nothing else changed.\n\n**When to go back to discovery:** only if the title change implies a real shift in direction, such as a new product name, a different audience, or a rebrand affecting other copy or visuals. In that case, update the brief and get it re-approved before editing further. A plain correction like a typo, wording fix, or approved rename stays within this edit-only workflow.\n\nThis is based only on the facts you supplied. I haven't inspected the project files.", "055ac87a81cdafd5baacb0b82be369fc9fa54aa3a96f5431214739061ceb0e4b": "# Next workflow: a targeted edit, not a new build\n\nThis is a scoped revision to an existing project, so the right path is **edit → verify → re-render → confirm**. You don't need the full create-from-brief flow.\n\n1. **Find the title.** Locate every place the title appears: the title text element in the composition HTML, any duplicated text such as a lower-third, end card or metadata, and any project or config fields that store it.\n2. **Make the correction.** Change only the title string. Keep timing, layout, animation and styling as they are, unless the new title's length causes overflow or wrapping.\n3. **Check the layout.** If the corrected title is longer or shorter, make sure it still fits its container at the target resolution and doesn't collide with other elements during its animation.\n4. **Validate.** Run the project's usual lint or validation step so the composition still parses and the timing data is intact.\n5. **Preview.** Look at the frames where the title appears, plus a frame on either side of its entrance and exit.\n6. **Render.** Re-render the final output with the existing settings: resolution, fps, codec and duration.\n7. **Confirm and hand back.** Report what changed (old title → new title), where it changed, and give the new output for sign-off.\n\n# Is a new discovery interview needed?\n\n**No.** A discovery interview gathers the goals, audience, tone, structure and constraints that make up a brief. That brief is already approved, and the request doesn't change any of it. Re-interviewing would repeat settled decisions and add delay with no benefit.\n\nThe only open question is the exact corrected title, if it hasn't already been given verbatim. That's a one-line clarification, not an interview.\n\nYou'd only revisit discovery if the title change signals a larger shift, such as a new product name, audience or campaign. In that case other content may need to change too. Nothing in the supplied facts suggests that.", "9f214df675e85169b03b53a973fc78e8152e7bae36e7252f2de05fdc01bb34c9": "**No new discovery interview is needed.** The approved brief already covers audience, tone, structure, and visuals, and a title correction doesn't change any of those. Re-running discovery would only re-ask settled questions and risk scope creep. Treat this as a targeted edit.\n\n## Next workflow: scoped edit\n\n1. **Confirm the exact corrected title.** Get the precise string, including capitalization, punctuation, and any subtitle. This is the only input still needed. If the user already gave it, skip this step.\n2. **Locate every place the title appears.** Check:\n - The title card or opening scene element in the composition.\n - Project metadata, such as the project name or export filename, if it reflects the title.\n - Any repeated occurrences, such as end cards, lower thirds, or captions.\n - The brief itself, if the title there is also wrong. Update it so the brief stays the source of truth.\n3. **Make the minimal change.** Replace only the title text. Leave timing, layout, styling, and animation as they are, unless the new title's length breaks the layout (overflow, wrapping, or awkward line breaks). In that case, adjust only what's needed to fit.\n4. **Preview and render.** Check the title frames for correct text, fit, legibility, and animation timing. Then render the output.\n5. **Verify and report.** Confirm the new title appears everywhere it should and the old title appears nowhere. Note any layout tweak made in step 3.\n\n## When discovery *would* be warranted\n\nOnly reopen discovery if the title change signals a real shift in the project, such as a new audience, purpose, or message. A plain correction like a typo, wording fix, or rename doesn't qualify.", "72a7ecc5965a09ae7c4dc27b1163fa2f56678baf8f963e61ac7203d1d57ef6de": "Here's the draft response to the user, followed by the next steps.\n\n---\n\n**Draft response to the user:**\n\n> Happy to make a short explainer. Before I start, one note and one question.\n>\n> **Usage:** I checked your HyperFrames usage, but it came back as *unknown*, so I can't tell you how much allowance is left or when it resets. I'll check again after the draft and before any render. Nothing will render until you approve it.\n>\n> **What's the explainer about?** Tell me the topic or source, for example:\n> - a topic, article, or your notes, where I'd invent visuals to explain it\n> - a website, product, or app, from a URL\n> - a GitHub pull request or code change\n>\n> Rough length (for example 30s, 60s, or 90s) and whether you want a voiceover would also help, but the topic is all I need to begin.\n\n---\n\n**Next steps (internal):**\n\n1. **Wait for the subject.** The request doesn't name a topic or input, so I won't pick a route yet. When the subject arrives, check any saved preferences or recipes before asking anything else.\n2. **Route once.** A topic, article, or notes with invented visuals goes to `/faceless-explainer`. A site or product URL goes to `/product-launch-video`. A PR goes to `/pr-to-video`. Anything over about 3 minutes goes to `/general-video`. Before confirming, read that route's `references/routes/.md` contract.\n3. **Run the intent interview.** This covers triage, the pitch, must-haves, and run shape, and ends by writing `BRIEF.md`.\n4. **Install the workflow.** Run `npx hyperframes skills update ` and report any failure rather than rebuilding the workflow from memory.\n5. **Draft the composition.** Then re-run `npx hyperframes usage --json` and report the real result, or \"unknown\" again.\n6. **Final look.** Open the Studio preview and tell the user they can edit there. Mention the Framey desktop-app button only if `preview` prints the Desktop line.\n7. **Render only after explicit approval.** Re-check usage first. After rendering, pass along the render's desktop-app line if it prints one.\n\nI haven't run any tools, network calls, or commands, and I haven't written any files.", "069e9b8b61d3c0673732109181dec2d0e2a29035bcf0e0eb6e8121844040e586": "Here's the draft reply to the user, followed by the next steps.\n\n---\n\n**Draft reply**\n\n> Happy to make a short explainer with you. Quick note first: I checked your HyperFrames usage, but the status came back **unknown**, so I can't say how much allowance you have. I'll check again after the draft and before any render. The scope is yours to set either way.\n>\n> To get started, **what should the explainer be about?** For example:\n> - a topic, article, or set of notes (I'd create the visuals)\n> - a website, product, or app (from a URL)\n> - a GitHub pull request or code change\n>\n> If you already have a source, such as a link, a doc, a voiceover script, or a target length, share that too. I'll draft the video and show it to you in the Studio preview before anything is rendered. **I won't render until you approve it.**\n\n---\n\n**Next steps**\n\n1. **Usage:** Report it as unknown and don't estimate it. Re-run `npx hyperframes usage --json` after drafting and again before rendering.\n2. **Get the subject:** The request doesn't name a subject or input, so ask what the video is about before routing. Check for saved preferences or recipes before asking anything else.\n3. **Intent interview:** Once the subject is known, run the intent layer (triage, pitch, must-haves, run shape) and write `BRIEF.md`.\n4. **Route once, based on the answer:**\n - A topic, article, or notes with invented visuals goes to `/faceless-explainer`. This is the likely default for an explainer.\n - A website, product, or app goes to `/product-launch-video`.\n - A PR or code change goes to `/pr-to-video`.\n - Anything else, or anything clearly longer than about 3 minutes, goes to `/general-video`.\n\n Read the matched `references/routes/.md` to confirm the contract fits.\n5. **Install the workflow:** Run `npx hyperframes skills update `, then load `/hyperframes-core` before writing any composition HTML.\n6. **Draft and review:** Build the draft, re-check usage, then open the Studio preview. Tell the user they can edit the video directly there, and mention the desktop app's **Edit with Framey** only if the preview prints that line.\n7. **Render only after explicit approval.** After the delivery render, pass along the desktop-app line if the render prints one.\n\nNone of these steps have been carried out yet. This is a draft only: no commands were run and no files were written.", "9aa4aa4d15f6f0f6d7897aa3f766c8f17b90c21dc663d31cb5f757672e5500b2": "Here's the response I'd send, plus the next steps that would follow. Nothing below has been run.\n\n---\n\n**Draft response to the user**\n\n> Happy to make a short explainer with you. One note first: I checked your HyperFrames usage, and it came back as **unknown**, so I can't tell how much allowance you have left. I'll check again before drafting and before any render. How much we take on is your call.\n>\n> To get started, **what should the explainer be about?** A topic, an article, notes, a URL, or a GitHub PR all work. It would also help to know:\n>\n> - **Length:** roughly how long? Explainers work best at about 30–90 seconds.\n> - **Narration:** voiceover, on-screen text only, or both?\n> - **Look and tone:** any style, brand colors, or reference videos?\n> - **Format:** landscape (16:9), vertical (9:16), or square?\n>\n> I won't render anything until you approve it. You'll see a preview first, which you can edit directly before we decide on the final render.\n\n---\n\n**Next steps once the user replies**\n\n1. **Check preferences and recipes** before asking anything else, so I don't ask what's already recorded.\n2. **Run the intent interview** (pitch round, must-haves, run-shape) and finish by writing `BRIEF.md`, the only routing artifact.\n3. **Route by the actual input:**\n - Topic, article, or notes with invented visuals → `/faceless-explainer`\n - A GitHub PR → `/pr-to-video`\n - A website or product URL → `/product-launch-video`\n - Anything else → `/general-video`\n\n I'll read the matched route file to confirm it fits the input before committing.\n4. **Install the workflow** with `npx hyperframes skills update `. If that fails, I'll show the error and won't reconstruct the workflow from memory.\n5. **Draft the composition**, loading `/hyperframes-core` and other domain skills only as needed. I'll recheck usage after drafting.\n6. **Open the Studio preview** for the final look. The user can edit there, and I'll mention the desktop app's Framey button only if the preview output shows it.\n7. **Stop and ask for explicit approval** before any delivery render, rechecking usage at that point. Rendering happens only if the user says yes.", "4a564fe7ef6c834a6aa60c8125167fef88208144c4d3a96df29f19b3cd6063d7": "# Draft response\n\n**What \"status unknown\" means**\n\nThe usage check ran when the item was created and returned **unknown**. That is not a pass or a fail. It means the check couldn't decide, usually because:\n\n- the data it needs (usage records, quotas, or history) didn't exist yet when the item was created, or\n- the check couldn't reach its data source, or timed out.\n\nFrom the facts provided, we can't tell which of these happened. An unknown result shouldn't be treated as approval or as a block.\n\n**Current state**\n\n- Usage check: unknown (at creation)\n- Rendering: **not approved**, so nothing has been rendered or published\n- Repo: clean, on a detached `HEAD` with no commits yet\n\n# Next steps\n\n1. **Re-run the usage check** now that creation is complete, and see whether it resolves to pass or fail. This needs your go-ahead, since I'm not running commands here.\n2. **If it's still unknown**, check the check's logs or its data source. That tells us whether it's missing data (expected early on) or failing to connect (needs fixing).\n3. **Rendering stays on hold** until you explicitly approve it. I suggest approving only after the usage check returns a definite result.\n4. **Optional:** create a branch and an initial commit, since `HEAD` is detached and empty. That way any later work has a home.\n\n**Your decision:** do you want me to re-run the usage check, and should rendering wait for its result?\n\n---\n\n*Caveat: no details about the usage check itself (its name, inputs, or logic) were supplied. The explanation of \"unknown\" above covers the general causes and isn't a diagnosis of this specific check.*", "a47bce58433e920db6301bcb86f6e09de6bc9d0941bc5d48f31e37f6a535fabc": "Here is a draft response based only on the facts supplied. I've marked where details are missing rather than filling them in.\n\n---\n\n**Draft explainer**\n\n> **What happened:** When creation started, the usage check ran and returned a status of **unknown**. This means the check didn't confirm whether usage is within limits or over them. It is neither a pass nor a failure.\n>\n> **What this means for you:** We can't yet say whether the creation is clear to proceed on usage grounds. Nothing has been rendered. Rendering is on hold until you approve it.\n>\n> **Why it might be \"unknown\":** Common causes include the check timing out, missing or incomplete input data, or the usage service being unavailable. *(The supplied facts don't say which applies here.)*\n\n---\n\n**Proposed next steps**\n\n1. **Re-run the usage check** to see whether \"unknown\" was transient.\n2. **If it stays unknown,** find out why. Check the input data, the service's availability, and any logs or error details from the check.\n3. **Decide how to treat \"unknown.\"** Either block until a definite pass or fail, or allow you to proceed manually with that risk acknowledged. I'd recommend blocking by default.\n4. **Get explicit approval before rendering.** Don't render until you say so, even if the check later passes.\n\n---\n\n**Gaps to fill before sending**\n- What is being created, and what the usage check actually measures (quota, licensing, content policy, etc.)\n- Any error message or reason code that came with the \"unknown\" status\n- Who approves rendering, and whether a definite \"pass\" is required first\n\nIf you can share those details, I'll tighten the explainer and make it specific.", "69926b93755d7b100147269570962fc616892223c9e7ae1e63659ff0de05e36b": "The only facts I have are that the usage check returned **status unknown** at creation start, and that rendering hasn't been approved. The explainer's topic wasn't included, so I've drafted around what's known and left a placeholder for the subject.\n\n---\n\n### Draft response\n\n> **Quick explainer: [topic]**\n>\n> Here's a short text-only overview. I haven't produced a rendered version (diagram, image, or formatted output) because that hasn't been approved yet.\n>\n> **Note on usage status:** The usage check run at creation returned **\"unknown.\"** It neither passed nor failed. Treat any usage, quota, or eligibility assumptions as unconfirmed until the check resolves.\n>\n> **[2–4 sentence explainer of the topic goes here]**\n>\n> Let me know if you'd like a rendered version, and I'll prepare one once you approve.\n\n---\n\n### Next steps\n\n1. **Confirm the topic and scope.** Tell me what the explainer should cover and roughly how long \"short\" should be (for example, one paragraph or five bullets).\n2. **Resolve the usage status.** Re-run the usage check or get its result from whoever owns it. \"Unknown\" shouldn't be reported as OK or blocked. Keep it labeled unknown until it's resolved.\n3. **Get explicit approval before rendering.** Keep the deliverable text-only for now. If you want a rendered version, approve it and I'll produce one.\n4. **Finalize.** Once I have the topic, and ideally a resolved usage status, I'll fill in the placeholder and remove or update the usage note.\n\nIf you paste the topic or source material, I can fill in the explainer right away in text only.", "6bc07d8990b144a20eb5eadf015db1d0004a452f91355b03806502939f76d7cf": "Here's a draft response based only on the facts provided. Nothing has been run, rendered, or checked beyond what you supplied.\n\n---\n\n**Draft response to the user**\n\n> Here's a short explainer of where things stand:\n>\n> - **Usage check: unknown.** When the creation started, the usage check returned an unknown status. I can't confirm whether you have enough quota or allowance for this job, or whether it would be blocked or billed.\n> - **Rendering: not started.** You haven't approved rendering, so I haven't rendered anything. Nothing has been generated, published, or charged as part of this step.\n> - **What this means:** The explainer content can be drafted and reviewed now. The rendered output waits until the usage status is clear and you say go.\n>\n> **Next steps**\n> 1. **Resolve the usage status.** Re-run the usage check, or confirm your quota/plan manually, so we know rendering won't fail or incur unexpected cost.\n> 2. **Review the draft.** Let me know if the explainer's scope, length, or tone needs changes before anything is rendered.\n> 3. **Approve rendering.** Once the usage status is known and you're happy with the draft, explicitly approve the render and I'll proceed.\n>\n> If the usage check still comes back unknown, tell me whether you want to proceed anyway or hold off.\n\n---\n\n**Notes on the draft**\n\n- **No claims about quota.** It says nothing about remaining or exceeded quota, because the only fact available is \"unknown.\"\n- **Approval is the gate.** Rendering is the outward-facing and possibly billed action, so the draft makes your explicit approval the deciding step. A prior or implied approval doesn't count.\n- **The topic is missing.** You didn't say what the explainer is about. If you give me the subject, I can fill in the actual content.", "dc71eb9daa4f4be5d64f8b34917658912264927ea4e30cdc02bf5aad06ab6b42": "## Route: `/remotion-to-hyperframes`\n\nAn explicit port of existing Remotion source matches the **first row** of the project-state table, so it takes priority over everything else, including the generic creation wizard.\n\n### Why not the generic wizard\n\n- The state table is evaluated top-down and stops at the first match. \"Explicit port of existing Remotion source\" is row 1, above \"Fresh creation.\"\n- That row says to **skip the intent layer**. There's no intent interview, pitch round, or `BRIEF.md` hand-off. The Remotion source already defines what the video is, so a creative interview would only re-ask settled questions.\n- The fresh-creation routing table agrees: porting Remotion is priority 1 there too. A general creation wizard (or `/general-video`) is the fallback for custom work, not for a defined port.\n\n### Steps I would take (not run now, per your constraints)\n\n1. **Read the route contract**, `references/routes/remotion-to-hyperframes.md`. It holds the canonical input/output/trigger contract and confirms the request fits before committing to the route.\n2. **Check usage** with `npx hyperframes usage --json`, and again at milestones such as before rendering.\n3. **Install or refresh the workflow** with `npx hyperframes skills update remotion-to-hyperframes`. If that fails, I'd surface the error rather than rebuild the workflow from memory.\n4. **Load `/hyperframes-core`** before writing any composition HTML, since it owns the authoring contract: `data-*` timing, tracks, seekable animation, and framework-owned media. I'd load other domain skills only as the port needs them, such as `/hyperframes-keyframes` for animation translation or `/hyperframes-audio` for audio.\n\n### Context I need from you\n\n- **The Remotion source**: the project path or repo, plus the entry point (`Root.tsx` / `registerRoot`) and which `` id(s) to port.\n- **Composition settings**: `fps`, `width`/`height`, and `durationInFrames`. These map to HyperFrames timing attributes.\n- **Props**: `defaultProps` and any input props or schema, which likely become composition variables.\n- **Timeline structure**: the use of ``, ``, ``, and offsets, so clips and tracks can be laid out.\n- **Animation logic**: `interpolate`, `spring`, and `useCurrentFrame`-driven math. These must become seek-safe, deterministic animation.\n- **Media and assets**: videos, images, audio (`