HI Predict

Five-expert-persona pre-analysis that debates proposed changes using MCP-assisted code context before any code is written.

When To Use / When NOT

Use: before major features, refactors, competing approaches, assumption stress-tests, implementation gates. Skip: trivial changes, already-approved work, pure dep upgrades, docs-only.

Required: change proposal, optional --files <glob> and concern areas, depth (quick|deep).

The 5 Personas

Persona	Focus	Core Question
Architect	System design, scalability, coupling	Does this fit the architecture and scale without new coupling?
Security	Attack surface, data protection, auth	What can be abused and where is data exposed?
Performance	Latency, memory, queries, resources	What is the latency / N+1 / memory / contention impact?
UX	User experience, accessibility, error states	Is it intuitive, accessible, with clear error states?
Devil's Advocate	Hidden assumptions, simpler alternatives	Why not do nothing, and which assumption could be wrong?

Input Validation

proposal: non-empty, 10-5000 chars, natural language (no code-only). depth: quick (default) or deep.

Performance

Timeouts: phase 0=180s, phase 1=300s, phase 2=180s, phase 3=60s; total=720s (12min). Progress events: phase_start, persona_progress, conflict_resolving, final_summary.

---

Verdict Levels

Verdict	Meaning
GO	All personas aligned, no critical risks, proceed with confidence
CAUTION	Concerns exist but manageable — mitigations identified, proceed carefully
STOP	Critical unresolved issue found — redesign or more information needed

STOP Triggers (any one is sufficient)

• Security persona identifies auth bypass or data exposure with no viable mitigation
• Architect identifies fundamental design incompatibility requiring significant rework
• Performance persona identifies unacceptable latency or query explosion with no workaround
• Devil's Advocate exposes a false assumption that invalidates the entire approach

---

Orchestration Workflow

Phase 0 — Code Context (3min): Parse proposal, query mind_mcp.hybrid_search (architecture docs) and graph_mcp.semantic_search + trace_flow (affected code/runtime path), build context package.

Phase 1 — Independent Analysis (5min): Each persona analyzes in isolation (no cross-reading), using MCP context + code reading. Record findings per the persona_output_format below.

Phase 2 — Consensus Debate (3min): Compare outputs side-by-side. Agreements = 4+ personas align. Conflicts = meaningful disagreement → weigh tradeoffs, document resolution with rationale per conflict_resolution_rules.

Phase 3 — Verdict & Report (1min): Synthesize findings, generate risk summary, produce recommendations, format report. GO: 0 Critical, <3 High, clear mitigations. CAUTION: 1-2 mitigatable Critical OR 3+ High. STOP: any unmitigatable Critical or false assumption detected.

persona_output_format:
  architect:
    concerns: ["concern 1", "concern 2"]
    recommendations: ["action 1", "action 2"]
    confidence: "high|medium|low"

  security:
    threats: ["threat 1", "threat 2"]
    severity: "critical|high|medium|low"
    mitigations: ["mitigation 1"]

  performance:
    bottlenecks: ["bottleneck 1"]
    metrics_impact: "latency +Xms, queries +N"
    alternatives: ["alternative 1"]

  ux:
    issues: ["issue 1"]
    edge_cases: ["edge case 1"]
    a11y_concerns: ["a11y concern 1"]

  devils_advocate:
    assumptions_challenged: ["assumption 1"]
    simpler_alternatives: ["alternative 1"]
    worst_case: "description of worst case"

conflict_resolution_rules:
  - "Security vs Performance → Security wins unless performance makes system unusable"
  - "Architect vs UX → Defer to UX for user-facing features, Architect for backend"
  - "Devil's Advocate vs Everyone → If assumption is unvalidated, CAUTION"
  - "Any persona at Critical severity → cannot be GO"

---

Output Contract

Minimum report fields: title + date + depth + verdict; executive summary (2-3 sentences); agreements list; conflicts table (topic × 5 personas + resolution); risk summary table (risk/severity/persona/mitigation); per-persona detail block (concerns, threats, bottlenecks, issues, challenged assumptions + recommendations/mitigations/impact/alternatives); numbered recommendations with rationale; next steps tied to verdict (GO → hi-plan, CAUTION → address mitigations, STOP → redesign).

---

Non-Negotiable Rules

• Personas MUST analyze independently — no cross-contamination during analysis phase
• Security persona findings always weighted higher for auth/data concerns
• Devil's Advocate must challenge at least one core assumption
• STOP verdict requires explicit documentation of what must change
• Every risk must have a concrete mitigation, not just identification
• Conflict resolutions must include rationale, not just the winner

Error Handling & Fallback

Preflight: validate proposal, abort on failure. MCP-unavailable: skip code context, analyze proposal text only, mark code-derived findings lower confidence, note "MCP unavailable". Persona timeout: mark incomplete and continue. Unresolvable conflict: document as unresolved in report.

Known Limitations

• Static analysis only — cannot predict runtime behavior; quality depends on proposal detail; MCP-unavailable mode is less confident.
• Personas cannot ask clarifying questions (one-pass); business nuances may be missed without domain expert input.

Deliverables

• prediction_report_{timestamp}.md — Full prediction report with all persona analyses, conflicts, verdict, and recommendations

References

• references/persona-playbook.md — Detailed analysis framework per persona with example prompts