sitrep-coordinator

1. SITREP Structure & Format

• Standard Format: Consistent header, situation, completed, in-progress, blocked, next actions
• Authorization Codes: Unique identifiers for mission tracking and handoff validation
• Status Indicators: Color-coded traffic light system (🟢 GREEN, 🟡 YELLOW, 🔴 RED)
• Timestamp Precision: ISO 8601 or military time formats
• Concise Communication: Maximum information density, minimum verbosity

2. Multi-Agent Coordination

• Handoff Protocols: Clear task transfer between agents with context preservation
• Role Identification: Explicit agent/operator roles and responsibilities
• Dependency Tracking: Inter-agent dependencies and sequencing requirements
• Conflict Resolution: Identifying and escalating coordination issues
• Context Sharing: Minimum viable context for effective handoffs

3. Status Tracking & Metrics

• Completion Tracking: Granular task completion with percentage estimates
• Blocker Identification: Root cause analysis and owner assignment
• Timeline Management: ETA updates and deadline tracking
• Quality Gates: Pass/fail criteria for phase transitions
• Risk Assessment: Identifying and communicating risks early

4. Escalation & Decision Support

• Go/No-Go Criteria: Clear decision frameworks for phase gates
• Escalation Triggers: When to escalate vs. when to proceed
• Decision Requests: Structured options presentation for stakeholder decisions
• Risk Communication: Impact/probability assessment for issues
• Recommendation Format: Actionable recommendations with rationale

```markdown

# 🎖️ SITREP: [PROJECT-NAME]-[PHASE]-[DATE]

DATE: [ISO 8601 timestamp]

OPERATOR: [Agent/Human Name]

AUTH CODE: [UNIQUE-ID]

STATUS: [🟢 GREEN / 🟡 YELLOW / 🔴 RED]

---

MISSION: [One-sentence mission statement]

PHASE: [Current phase/sprint/milestone]

PRIORITY: [Priority level and context]

---

✅ [Task Category 1]

• Subtask 1 details
• Subtask 2 details
• Impact/outcome

✅ [Task Category 2]

• Subtask details
• Metrics achieved

---

🔄 [Task Category]

• Current status (XX% complete)
• ETA: [timestamp]
• Owner: [Agent/Person]
• Dependencies: [List]

---

NONE / [Blocker Category]

• Issue description
• Impact: [High/Medium/Low]
• Owner for resolution: [Name]
• Escalation required: [Yes/No]

---

[Bullet list of significant achievements this period]

---

[Quantitative progress indicators]

---

[Prioritized list of next 24-48h actions]

---

Handoff Points:

• [Agent/Person]: [What/When]

Dependencies:

• [Waiting on / Blocking]

---

Mission Status: [Status summary]

Quality: [Quality indicator]

Ready State: [GREEN/YELLOW/RED - readiness for next phase]

---

[Specific requests or decisions needed]

Options:

1. [Option 1]
2. [Option 2]
3. [Option 3]

---

SITREP ENDS

Operator: [Name]

Next SITREP: [When/Trigger]

Contact: [How to reach]

```

When to Generate a SITREP

Mandatory Triggers:

1. Phase Transitions: At the start/end of each project phase
2. Daily Standups: For active sprints (morning summary)
3. Blocker Escalations: When critical issues arise
4. Handoff Events: When transferring work between agents/people
5. Milestone Completion: Upon completing major deliverables
6. Status Requests: When stakeholders request updates

Optional Triggers:

1. Mid-Phase Check-ins: 50% completion mark
2. Risk Identification: When new risks are discovered
3. Scope Changes: When requirements or priorities shift
4. Resource Changes: When team/tool availability changes

Status Color Coding

🟢 GREEN (On Track):

• All tasks progressing as planned
• No blockers or risks
• Quality gates passing
• Timeline intact
• Resources adequate

🟡 YELLOW (Caution):

• Minor delays or issues
• Manageable blockers
• Some quality concerns
• Timeline at risk but recoverable
• Resources stretched but adequate

🔴 RED (Critical):

• Major blockers preventing progress
• Significant quality issues
• Timeline severely at risk
• Resources insufficient
• Escalation required

Authorization Code Format

```

[PROJECT]-[PHASE]-[AGENT]-[SEQUENCE]

Examples:

HUMMBL-MCP-CASCADE-001

HUMMBL-API-CHATGPT-003

UNIFIED-TIER-CLAUDE-DESK-012

```

Components:

• PROJECT: Project identifier (uppercase, max 15 chars)
• PHASE: Current phase/component (uppercase, max 10 chars)
• AGENT: Agent/operator identifier (uppercase, max 10 chars)
• SEQUENCE: 3-digit sequential number

Handoff Protocol

Sending Agent Responsibilities:

1. Generate comprehensive SITREP
2. Include authorization code
3. Specify receiving agent explicitly
4. Document all context needed
5. State clear next actions
6. Confirm handoff acceptance

Receiving Agent Responsibilities:

1. Acknowledge receipt with auth code
2. Validate context completeness
3. Request clarification if needed
4. Confirm acceptance of tasking
5. Provide ETA for next SITREP

Handoff Template:

```markdown

Task: [Clear task statement]

Context: [All necessary background]

Deliverables: [Expected outputs]

Timeline: [Deadline or ETA]

Resources: [What receiver has access to]

Success Criteria: [How to know task is complete]

Auth Code: [HANDOFF-CODE]

Receiving agent confirms:

[ ] Context understood

[ ] Resources accessible

[ ] Timeline acceptable

[ ] Success criteria clear

```

Pattern 1: Sequential Handoff

Use Case: Tasks that must be completed in order

```

Agent A → SITREP → Agent B → SITREP → Agent C

```

SITREP Focus:

• Clear completion criteria for each agent
• Explicit dependencies documented
• Context preservation through chain
• Quality gates between handoffs

Pattern 2: Parallel Execution

Use Case: Independent tasks executed simultaneously

```

Coordinator → SITREP → Agent A

→ Agent B

→ Agent C

[All report back to Coordinator]

```

SITREP Focus:

• No inter-agent dependencies
• Independent completion tracking
• Aggregated status reporting
• Coordination of merge points

Pattern 3: Iterative Refinement

Use Case: Multiple passes for quality improvement

```

Agent A → SITREP → Agent B (Review)

↑ ↓

└────── Iterate ─────┘

```

SITREP Focus:

• Iteration count tracking
• Quality improvement metrics
• Diminishing returns detection
• Exit criteria definition

Pattern 4: Escalation Chain

Use Case: Decision authority hierarchy

```

Agent A → Blocker → SITREP → Team Lead

↓

SITREP → Executive

```

SITREP Focus:

• Escalation justification
• Impact assessment
• Decision options presented
• Urgency indicators

Example 1: Development Sprint SITREP

```markdown

# 🎖️ SITREP: HUMMBL-MCP-SPRINT1-NOV1

DATE: 2025-11-01T22:00:00Z

OPERATOR: Windsurf Cascade

AUTH CODE: HUMMBL-MCP-CASCADE-001

STATUS: 🟢 GREEN

---

MISSION: MCP Server Phase 0 implementation (29 days)

PHASE: Week 1 - Server scaffold and core endpoints

PRIORITY: #2 (following GitHub framework completion)

---

✅ Project Initialization

• TypeScript project scaffold created
• MCP SDK integrated (v1.0.0)
• Development environment configured
• Git repository initialized

✅ Database Schema

• D1 SQLite schema designed
• Migration scripts created
• FTS5 full-text search enabled
• Seed data prepared (120 models)

---

🔄 MCP Endpoints Implementation

• Status: 40% complete
• ETA: Nov 3, 2025 EOD
• Owner: Cascade
• Dependencies: None
• Details:

- Resources endpoints: 2/3 complete

- Tools endpoints: 1/3 complete

- Error handling: In progress

---

NONE

---

• Zero setup issues encountered
• Database latency: <50ms (target <500ms) ✅
• TypeScript strict mode: 100% passing ✅
• Initial telemetry framework operational

---

• Lines of Code: 847
• Test Coverage: 0% (tests planned Week 2)
• Dependencies: 12 (all security audited)
• Build Time: 2.3s

---

1. Complete remaining resources endpoint (models list)
2. Implement tools endpoints (analyze-perspective, decompose-problem)
3. Add input validation with Zod
4. Write integration tests for completed endpoints
5. Document API in README

---

Handoff Points:

• None (proceeding independently)

Status Updates:

• Daily SITREP during Week 1
• Escalate if any blockers arise

---

Mission Status: On track for Week 1 completion

Quality: High (no technical debt accumulated)

Ready State: 🟢 GREEN - Week 2 prep underway

---

None currently - standing by for direction

---

SITREP ENDS

Operator: Windsurf Cascade

Next SITREP: Nov 2, 2025 @ 22:00Z

Contact: This session

```

Example 2: Blocker Escalation SITREP

```markdown

# 🎖️ SITREP: HUMMBL-API-BLOCKER-NOV5

DATE: 2025-11-05T14:30:00Z

OPERATOR: Claude Desktop

AUTH CODE: HUMMBL-API-CLAUDE-ESCALATE-001

STATUS: 🔴 RED (BLOCKER)

---

MISSION: HUMMBL API implementation

PHASE: Week 2 - Cloudflare Workers deployment

PRIORITY: Critical blocker requiring decision

---

✅ API Implementation

• All 7 endpoints coded and tested locally
• OpenAPI spec complete
• Documentation written

---

⚠️ PAUSED due to blocker

---

🔴 Cloudflare D1 Database Limitations

Issue: D1 database size limit (500MB) insufficient for full BASE120 with metadata

Impact: HIGH

• Current data: 620MB with all model descriptions
• Cannot deploy to production without resolution
• Affects all downstream projects (MCP, GPTs)

Owner: Requires Chief Engineer decision

Options:

1. Migrate to Cloudflare R2 + Workers KV

- Pros: No size limits, similar latency

- Cons: 2-3 days rework, different query patterns

- Cost: +$5/month

1. Compress model descriptions

- Pros: No architecture change

- Cons: Reduced quality, still might hit limit later

- Cost: 1 day rework

1. Hybrid: Critical data in D1, full data in R2

- Pros: Best of both worlds

- Cons: 3-4 days rework, complexity increase

- Cost: +$5/month

Escalation Required: YES - Architecture decision needed

---

Question: Which architecture approach should we take?

Recommendation: Option 3 (Hybrid)

• Balances performance and scalability
• Future-proof for BASE240+ expansion
• Acceptable timeline impact (3-4 days)

Awaiting your directive to proceed.

---

SITREP ENDS

Operator: Claude Desktop

Next SITREP: Upon decision or in 4 hours

Contact: This conversation

```

Example 3: Multi-Agent Handoff SITREP

```markdown

# 🎖️ SITREP: UNIFIED-TIER-HANDOFF-NOV1

DATE: 2025-11-01T18:00:00Z

OPERATOR: Windsurf Cascade

AUTH CODE: UNIFIED-TIER-CASCADE-HANDOFF-003

STATUS: 🟢 GREEN (HANDOFF)

---

MISSION: Unified Tier Framework GitHub publication

PHASE: Complete - Ready for handoff to Context Engineering

PRIORITY: #1 Complete, transitioning to #2

---

✅ Full repository published

• 16 commits
• 32 files
• 13 documentation pages (3,200+ lines)
• All workflows passing (4/4)

✅ Priority tasks executed

• Repository topics optimized
• CODEOWNERS created
• CITATION.cff added
• v1.0.0 release published

✅ Error corrections

• BASE120 transformations fixed
• Authoritative source validated
• Documentation consistency verified

---

Deliverables:

✅ GitHub repo: https://github.com/hummbl-dev/HUMMBL-Unified-Tier-Framework

✅ GitHub Pages: https://hummbl-dev.github.io/HUMMBL-Unified-Tier-Framework/

✅ v1.0.0 release: Published with comprehensive notes

✅ All quality checks: Passing (lint, spell, links, build)

Status: MISSION COMPLETE

Auth Code for Receipt: UNIFIED-TIER-CASCADE-HANDOFF-003

Next Priority: MCP Server Development (Priority #2)

• Authorization received: HUMMBL-MCP-CASCADE-HANDOFF-001
• Ready to begin on your command

---

SITREP ENDS

Operator: Windsurf Cascade

Handoff To: Chief Engineer

Awaiting: Authorization for Priority #2 kickoff

```

SITREP Completeness ✅

• [ ] All required header fields present
• [ ] Status indicator matches content
• [ ] Authorization code format correct
• [ ] Completed section has concrete deliverables
• [ ] In-progress has ETA and owner
• [ ] Blockers clearly articulated with owners
• [ ] Next actions are specific and prioritized
• [ ] Coordination points identified

Communication Quality ✅

• [ ] Maximum 2-page length (conciseness)
• [ ] No ambiguous language
• [ ] All acronyms defined on first use
• [ ] Metrics are quantitative, not qualitative
• [ ] Recommendations have clear rationale
• [ ] Decision points explicitly called out

Coordination Effectiveness ✅

• [ ] Handoffs have acceptance criteria
• [ ] Dependencies explicitly stated
• [ ] Context sufficient for receiver
• [ ] Resources accessibility confirmed
• [ ] Timeline expectations realistic

Pitfall 1: Information Overload

Problem: SITREP too long, recipients skim and miss critical info

Solution: Use "Executive Summary" section for key points, details below

Pitfall 2: Unclear Status

Problem: Status indicator doesn't match blocker severity

Solution: Follow strict color coding rules; default to more conservative

Pitfall 3: Missing Context

Problem: Handoff fails because receiver lacks necessary background

Solution: Include "Context" section with all assumptions and background

Pitfall 4: No Clear Next Steps

Problem: Recipients unsure what to do after reading SITREP

Solution: Always include "Next Actions" with specific, actionable items

Pitfall 5: Stale Information

Problem: SITREP outdated by the time stakeholders read it

Solution: Include timestamp and "Valid Until" field for time-sensitive reports

• Military SITREP Format: FM 6-99.2 (U.S. Army Field Manual)
• Agile Status Reporting: Scrum Daily Stand-up best practices
• Incident Management: ITIL incident reporting standards
• Project Management: PMI status reporting guidelines

Effective SITREP achieves:

1. ✅ Stakeholders understand status in <2 minutes reading time
2. ✅ No follow-up questions needed for clarification
3. ✅ Handoffs execute without context loss
4. ✅ Blockers escalated to correct authority
5. ✅ Next actions clear enough to execute immediately

SITREP fails if:

1. ❌ Recipients request clarification on basic facts
2. ❌ Status doesn't match actual project state
3. ❌ Handoffs fail due to missing context
4. ❌ Timeline estimates consistently wrong
5. ❌ Blockers not identified until crisis point