--- name: ultra-mode description: > Execute explicitly authorized Ultracode / Ultra Mode requests: optimize for exhaustive, correct answers within the user's stated scope by using any available independent-work mechanism (ODW workflows, subagents, dispatched workers, or tool-worker fan-out), with serial multi-pass fallback only when no such mechanism exists. Use when the user explicitly says ultracode, ultra mode, go exhaustive, deep mode, multi-agent, parallel, adversarial, comprehensive, do not miss anything, check every angle, or asks for several independent verification strategies. Do not activate merely because a task is difficult, technical, ambiguous, or high-stakes. --- # Ultracode / Ultra Mode Ultracode is a behavioral mode, not a specific tool. When it is active, optimize only for the most complete and correct answer within the user's scope. Token and compute cost are not constraints, but cost freedom does not expand the task scope by itself. Use whatever independent-work mechanism the environment provides. In this repository, prefer Open Dynamic Workflows (`odw`). If no independent mechanism exists, use the serial fallback below and disclose that fallback in the final answer. ## Scope Discipline - Treat activation as explicit authorization only. Valid activation can come from the current request, a confirmed session setting, or a direct request for multi-agent, parallel, adversarial, exhaustive, or independent verification. - Re-evaluate scope for every request, even in a session where the mode is on. Do not let a completed Ultracode task spill into unrelated follow-up work. - Keep trivial work trivial. If a competent engineer could answer correctly in roughly 30 seconds, answer directly even if the mode is active. - Match depth to the request. Narrow casual requests get modest fan-out and light verification; explicit "be exhaustive" requests get broader discovery, loop-until-dry exploration, adversarial verification, and synthesis. - If the request is ambiguous, choose the narrower reasonable scope and state what was and was not covered. - Add workers or rounds only to close a concrete coverage gap. "Budget remains" is not a reason by itself; "area X is unexamined" is. ## Pick The Decomposition Purpose Before dispatching work, decide which purpose the split serves: - **Coverage**: many independent areas exist, such as files, modules, product requirements, or research angles. - **Confidence**: one answer is needed, but a single plausible pass may be wrong; gather independent perspectives and challenge them. - **Scale**: the task is too large for one pass, such as a full audit, broad migration, or large bug hunt. Most real Ultracode runs combine at least two of these purposes. ## Control Flow Ask first: can a worker's result be used immediately, or must all sibling results exist before the next step? - **Fan-out / fan-in**: dispatch independent units, then merge at a barrier. Use this only when the next step needs the whole batch: deduplication, ranking, "did anyone find a bug?", or final synthesis. - **Pipeline**: let each item move through its own stages without waiting for unrelated items. Default to this for multi-stage work like discover -> verify -> write. - **Loop-until-dry**: for open-ended discovery, run independent search rounds, dedupe findings, then repeat until 2-3 consecutive rounds find nothing new (raise the threshold for high-risk audits). - **Budget-aware expansion**: when the user gives a real effort or token budget, continue expanding coverage and verification depth until the budget is nearly exhausted or no concrete gaps remain. Typical audit shape: fan out by domain, run loop-until-dry inside each domain, send each surviving finding through an independent verification pipeline, then use one final barrier for deduped synthesis. ## Quality Gates - **Adversarial verification**: for any non-trivial finding or "fixed" claim, send skeptics whose job is to refute it. The burden of proof is on the claim. Keep the finding only when most serious refutation attempts fail. - **Multi-perspective verification**: assign different skeptics to different failure modes: requirements fit, security, performance, concrete reproduction, edge cases, or unexamined assumptions. - **Jury mode**: for open-ended design or synthesis, generate several genuinely different proposals, score them independently, then build the final answer from the strongest proposal plus useful ideas from the others. - **Multi-strategy search**: when exploring, run different search strategies in parallel so one strategy's blind spots do not define the result. - **Gap review**: after you think the work is complete, run a dedicated pass asking what is still missing: unvisited files, unverified claims, unread sources, untested edge cases, or uncovered angles. Treat any real gap as new work, not as a footnote. - **Coverage disclosure**: if coverage was bounded in any way, say so concretely in the final answer. ## ODW Mapping When `odw` is available, prefer it for independent work. 1. Check `odw --version`. 2. In this repository, use `examples/ultra-mode.js` for the common planner -> lanes -> reviewers -> synthesis pattern. 3. Outside this repository, read `references/ultra-mode-workflow.js` and write it to a temporary or project-local workflow such as `.odw/workflows/ultra-mode.js`. 4. For tasks needing loop-until-dry, custom domain fan-out, or pipeline behavior, write a task-specific ODW workflow instead of forcing everything through the bundled template. 5. Inspect `final`, `lanes`, and `reviews`; treat them as advisory material. Perform real edits, tests, commits, and final judgment yourself. Bounded run: ```bash odw run examples/ultra-mode.js --wait --args '{"task":"","intensity":"standard"}' ``` Longer run: ```bash RUN=$(odw run examples/ultra-mode.js --args '{"task":"","intensity":"max"}') odw logs "$RUN" --follow odw result "$RUN" ``` Useful arguments: - `task`: required unless passing a bare string. - `intensity`: `lite`, `standard`, or `max`; default to `standard`. - `lanes`: independent work lanes; default is 3/4/6 by intensity. - `reviewers`: adversarial reviewers; default is 2/3/4 by intensity. - `constraints`: hard requirements as a string or string array. - `context`: relevant files, repo facts, prior findings, or user preferences. - `finalFormat`: requested shape for the synthesis. Ultra-mode lanes request isolation explicitly (`isolation: "worktree"`), so lane edits land in throwaway git worktrees — keep that unless the user explicitly asks for shared in-place execution (ODW's default) and accepts the risk. Worktree isolation needs the source to be a committed git repo. Stop or pause unexpected runs with `odw stop ` or `odw pause `. ## Serial Fallback If no independent workers are available, simulate the structure deliberately: 1. Write the decomposition plan first: slices, perspectives, or domains. 2. Process each slice as an independent pass and avoid letting earlier conclusions bias later passes. 3. Run verification as separate passes, switching into skeptical perspectives. 4. Repeat discovery rounds until a round finds nothing new or the stated budget is nearly exhausted. 5. Disclose in the final answer that coverage and verification were done by serial multi-pass simulation, not by independent parallel workers. ## Final Responsibility Worker outputs are raw material, not the final answer. Read them, resolve conflicts, dedupe overlapping findings, decide what is actually true, and synthesize one coherent answer. Do not end with a mere list of what each worker said.