Gpd Discover

Depth levels:

• quick (Level 1): Verify a formula, check a convention, confirm a known result (2-5 min)
• medium (Level 2): Choose between methods, explore a regime, compare approaches (15-30 min)
• deep (Level 3): Novel problems, contradictory literature, foundational choices (1+ hour) </objective>

<execution_context>

Can be invoked before plan-phase for deeper literature/method investigation, or run automatically during plan-phase's research step. Accepts a depth parameter.

This workflow discovers the physics landscape: what is known, what is open, what tools exist, what methods are standard, what data is available, what approximations are valid.

NOTE: For comprehensive literature survey ("what do experts know about this"), use $gpd-research-phase instead, which produces a full-depth RESEARCH.md. This workflow produces a quick-depth RESEARCH.md (depth: quick) suitable for method selection and landscape scanning. </purpose>

<depth_levels> This workflow supports three depth levels:

Depth is determined by the caller (plan-phase.md or the user) before routing here. </depth_levels>

<source_hierarchy> MANDATORY: Authoritative sources BEFORE general search

Physics results can be subtle and sign conventions vary across references. Always verify.

1. Standard references FIRST - Textbooks, review articles, established databases (PDG, NIST, OEIS)
2. Primary literature - Original papers where results were derived
3. Preprint servers - arXiv for recent developments
4. web_search LAST - For community discussions, code repositories, and numerical benchmarks only

See ./.codex/get-physics-done/templates/research.md for the RESEARCH.md template structure (use depth: quick for discovery-level output). </source_hierarchy>

INIT=$(/home/qol/.gpd/venv/bin/python -m gpd.runtime_cli --runtime codex --config-dir ./.codex --install-scope local init phase-op --include state,config "${PHASE_ARG:-}")
if [ $? -ne 0 ]; then
  echo "ERROR: gpd initialization failed: $INIT"
  # STOP — display the error to the user and do not proceed.
fi

Parse JSON for: commit_docs, phase_found, phase_dir, phase_number, phase_name, phase_slug, state_exists.

• Extract convention_lock for unit system and sign conventions (so discovered formulas can be matched to project conventions)
• Extract active approximations (so discovery can focus on the relevant regime)
• If no project context exists (standalone usage), proceed with user-specified topic

If phase_found is false and a phase was specified: Error — phase not found. If no phase specified: Discovery is standalone; output goes to .gpd/analysis/. Ensure the directory exists: mkdir -p .gpd/analysis. </step>

Extract --depth flag if present: --depth quick, --depth medium, --depth deep.

Map to internal depth levels:

• --depth quick or depth=verify -> Level 1 (Quick Verification)
• --depth medium or depth=standard -> Level 2 (Standard Discovery)
• --depth deep or depth=deep -> Level 3 (Deep Dive)
• No --depth flag -> Default to Level 2 (Standard Discovery)

When called from plan-phase.md, the depth is passed as a parameter directly (not via $ARGUMENTS).

Route to appropriate level workflow below. </step>

For: Confirming a formula, checking a convention, verifying a known result is still current.

Process:

1. Identify the specific claim to verify:

   • A formula or expression
   • A numerical value or constant
   • A convention (sign, normalization, metric signature)
   • A known result or theorem

2. Check against standard references:

   • Textbook formulas (Peskin & Schroeder, Weinberg, Sakurai, Landau & Lifshitz, etc.)
   • Review articles (Rev. Mod. Phys., Physics Reports, etc.)
   • Standard databases (PDG for particle data, NIST for constants, DLMF for special functions)

3. Verify:

   • Result matches expectations
   • Conventions are consistent with our framework
   • No recent corrections or errata

4. If verified: Return to plan-phase.md with confirmation. No RESEARCH.md needed.

5. If concerns found: Escalate to Level 2.

Output: Verbal confirmation to proceed, or escalation to Level 2. </step>

For: Choosing between methods, exploring a new parameter regime, setting up a new type of calculation.

Process:

1. Identify what to discover:

   • What methods or approaches exist for this calculation?
   • What are the key comparison criteria (accuracy, cost, regime of validity)?
   • What is our specific physical setup?

2. Search standard references for each approach:

   For each method/technique:
   - Check textbook treatments
   - Find original papers where method was developed
   - Look for review articles comparing approaches
   

3. Check primary literature for recent developments and applications to similar systems.

4. Search arXiv and journals for comparisons:

   • "[method A] vs [method B] [physical system]"
   • "[method] limitations [regime]"
   • "[method] benchmark [observable]"

5. Cross-verify: Any claim from a single source -> confirm with independent source. Watch for sign conventions and normalization differences between references.

6. Create RESEARCH.md using ./.codex/get-physics-done/templates/research.md structure:

   • Summary with recommendation
   • Key findings per method/approach
   • Explicit formulas with convention choices stated
   • Regime of validity for each approach
   • Confidence level (should be MEDIUM-HIGH for Level 2)

7. Return to plan-phase.md.

Output: ${phase_dir}/RESEARCH.md </step>

For: Novel problems, ambiguous or contradictory literature, foundational choices that affect the entire calculation, high-risk methodological decisions.

Process:

1. Scope the discovery using ./.codex/get-physics-done/templates/research.md:

   • Define clear scope (which physical question, which regime, which observable)
   • Define include/exclude boundaries
   • List specific questions to answer

2. Exhaustive literature search:

   • All relevant textbooks and monographs
   • Key review articles in the subfield
   • Original papers where methods were developed
   • Recent papers applying methods to similar systems
   • Competing approaches and their proponents

3. Mathematical framework analysis:

   • Write down the starting Lagrangian/Hamiltonian/action explicitly
   • Identify all symmetries and conservation laws
   • Map out the approximation hierarchy
   • Check consistency of conventions across all sources
   • Identify subtleties (anomalies, gauge fixing, regularization scheme dependence)

4. Numerical landscape survey:

   • What codes exist for this type of calculation?
   • What benchmarks are available?
   • What are known numerical pitfalls (convergence, sign problems, critical slowing down)?
   • What computational resources are needed?

5. Cross-verify ALL findings:

   • Every result -> verify with independent derivation or source
   • Mark what is established vs conjectured vs controversial
   • Flag contradictions between references (with specific citations)
   • Note where conventions differ and choose ours explicitly

6. Create comprehensive RESEARCH.md:

   • Full structure from ./.codex/get-physics-done/templates/research.md
   • Quality report with source attribution
   • Confidence by finding
   • If LOW confidence on any critical finding -> add validation checkpoints (e.g., "reproduce Table 3 of [ref] before proceeding")

7. Confidence gate: If overall confidence is LOW, present options before proceeding.

8. Return to plan-phase.md.

Output: ${phase_dir}/RESEARCH.md (comprehensive) </step>

Ask: What do we need to know before we can plan this phase?

• Which method is most appropriate for this regime?
• What are the known results we should reproduce as benchmarks?
• What are the dominant corrections we might be neglecting?
• Are there subtleties in the mathematical framework (gauge fixing, regularization, etc.)?
• What numerical methods and codes are available?
• What experimental or simulation data exists for comparison? </step>

Include:

• Clear discovery objective (what physical question drives this)
• Scoped include/exclude lists
• Source preferences (textbooks, reviews, arXiv, specific journals)
• Output structure for RESEARCH.md </step>

Phase-scoped: ${phase_dir}/RESEARCH.md Standalone (no phase):

mkdir -p .gpd/analysis

Write to .gpd/analysis/discovery-{slug}.md (where {slug} is derived from the discovery topic).

Contents of RESEARCH.md:

• Summary with recommendation
• Key findings with sources (specific references, not vague citations)
• Explicit formulas with conventions stated
• Regime of validity for each approach
• Metadata (confidence, dependencies, open questions, assumptions) </step>

• header: "Low Confidence"
• question: "Discovery confidence is LOW: [reason]. How would you like to proceed?"
• options:
  • "Dig deeper" - Do more literature search before planning
  • "Proceed anyway" - Accept uncertainty, plan with caveats and validation checkpoints
  • "Pause" - I need to think about this / consult with collaborators

If confidence is MEDIUM: Inline: "Discovery complete (medium confidence). [brief reason]. Proceed to planning?"

If confidence is HIGH: Proceed directly, just note: "Discovery complete (high confidence)." </step>

Present them inline: "Open questions from discovery:

• [Question 1: e.g., Sign convention for the vertex function in dimensional regularization]
• [Question 2: e.g., Whether the series converges in the regime g > 1]

These may affect the derivation. Acknowledge and proceed? (yes / address first)"

If "address first": Gather user input on questions, update discovery. </step>

What's next?

1. Discuss phase context ($gpd-discuss-phase [current-phase])
2. Create phase plan ($gpd-plan-phase [current-phase])
3. Refine discovery (dig deeper)
4. Review discovery

NOTE: RESEARCH.md is NOT committed separately. It will be committed with phase completion.
</step>

</process>

<success_criteria>
**Level 1 (Quick Verify):**
- Standard reference consulted for formula/result/convention
- Current state verified or concerns escalated
- Verbal confirmation to proceed (no files)

**Level 2 (Standard):**
- Standard references consulted for all approaches
- Claims cross-verified against independent sources
- Conventions explicitly stated
- RESEARCH.md created with recommendation
- Confidence level MEDIUM or higher
- Ready to inform PLAN.md creation

**Level 3 (Deep Dive):**
- Discovery scope defined
- Literature exhaustively surveyed (textbooks, reviews, primary papers, arXiv)
- All claims verified against independent sources
- Conventions reconciled across references
- RESEARCH.md created with comprehensive analysis
- Quality report with source attribution
- If LOW confidence findings -> validation checkpoints defined (reproduce known result X before proceeding)
- Confidence gate passed
- Ready to inform PLAN.md creation
</success_criteria>

<!-- [end included] -->

</execution_context>

<context>
Phase or topic: $ARGUMENTS

@.gpd/STATE.md
@.gpd/ROADMAP.md
</context>

<process>
Execute the discover workflow from @./.codex/get-physics-done/workflows/discover.md end-to-end.

## Step 0: Validate Context

```bash
CONTEXT=$(/home/qol/.gpd/venv/bin/python -m gpd.runtime_cli --runtime codex --config-dir ./.codex --install-scope local --raw validate command-context discover "$ARGUMENTS")
if [ $? -ne 0 ]; then
  echo "$CONTEXT"
  exit 1
fi

If a phase number is supplied, use project phase context. If no project exists, require a standalone topic and proceed in standalone analysis mode.

Step 1: Parse Arguments

Extract an optional phase number or standalone topic, plus the optional depth flag, from $ARGUMENTS. Default depth: medium (Level 2).

Step 2: Execute Discovery

Follow the discover workflow for the determined depth level.

Step 3: Commit (if Level 2-3 produced RESEARCH.md)

/home/qol/.gpd/venv/bin/python -m gpd.runtime_cli --runtime codex --config-dir ./.codex --install-scope local commit "discover(${phase_number}): ${depth} discovery for ${phase_name}" --files ".gpd/phases/${padded_phase}-${phase_slug}/RESEARCH.md"

Step 4: Present Results and Next Steps

Show discovery summary, confidence level, and offer next actions. </process>

<success_criteria>

• Phase validated against roadmap
• Depth level determined (default medium)
• Discovery executed at appropriate depth
• Standard references consulted before general search
• RESEARCH.md created (Level 2-3) with recommendation
• Confidence gate applied
• Committed to git (Level 2-3)
• Next steps offered (plan-phase, dig deeper, review) </success_criteria>