predict — Pre-Implementation Multi-Persona Analysis

Structured pre-implementation review. Five expert personas assess the proposal independently, then debate, then converge on a verdict with a confidence score. Surfacing architectural, security, performance, and UX flaws before the first commit is the cheapest place to catch them.

When to invoke

Use before implementing any of:

• A new transport strategy (sapisidhash, cdp_attach, official_veo)
• Auth flow changes (new strategy, G12 bypass technique, cookie extraction)
• Selector cascade redesigns affecting ONBOARDING_SELECTORS, NEW_PROJECT_SELECTORS, FRAME_SLOTS_STRUCT
• Schema migrations in gflow_cli/data/
• New CLI surface or exit-code changes
• Any backlog item with an "investigation gate" in PLAN.md before coding

Skip for: trivial bug fixes (< 10 lines, isolated, no boundary cross), already-approved PLAN.md tasks entering EXECUTE, pure doc changes.

Invocation

/gflow:predict <proposal>

<proposal> is a short description of what you intend to build or change — one paragraph is enough. Examples:

• "Wire SAPISIDHASH auth header into _post_json for all aisandbox-pa routes (Issue #15)"
• "Add CDP-attach transport as opt-in --transport cdp_attach alongside ui_automation"
• "Redesign gflow video batch to use a local manifest ledger for skip-already-done"
• "Add AuthBrowserBlockedError to internal_chromium.py when Google rejects bundled Chromium"

Protocol

Phase 1 — Persona briefings (parallel)

Dispatch five personas simultaneously. Each reads AGENTS.md, PLAN.md, KNOWN_ISSUES.md, and the relevant source files for the proposal. Each assesses independently — no persona sees another's output during Phase 1.

Persona 1 — Architect

Scope: hexagonal target, modular-monolith current shape, dependency direction, module boundary rules.

Asks:

• Does this proposal respect the dependency rule (interfaces → application → domain ← infrastructure)?
• Which module does this live in? Does it fit cleanly or does it need a new module, and if so, is that justified?
• Will this make the eventual DDD graduation harder or easier?
• Are there hidden coupling risks (e.g., a transport leaking into cli.py, a domain model importing from infrastructure)?
• Does the proposed shape match the existing pattern (Protocol-based ports, frozen dataclasses for value objects, structlog for all logging)?

Output: structured analysis, confidence 0–10, architectural risks.

Persona 2 — Security / reCAPTCHA

Scope: Google's anti-bot stack, SAPISIDHASH, G12 block, WAF scoring, profile isolation, secret storage.

Asks:

• Does this touch auth headers, cookie extraction, or token minting? If yes, what's the trust boundary?
• Could this trigger WAF score inflation on a per-profile basis?
• Does the Chrome profile isolation guarantee (SecurityError if profile_dir outside GFLOW_CLI_HOME) remain intact?
• Are any auth secrets (SAPISID, bearer tokens, reCAPTCHA tokens) at risk of leaking to logs? (show_locals=False is mandatory on exception renderers.)
• Could this bypass the G12 stealth flag mechanism or reintroduce navigator.webdriver=true?
• What's the attack surface against a third party who controls the Flow UI (XSS / selector injection)?

Output: structured analysis, confidence 0–10, security risks with severity.

Persona 3 — Performance / Playwright

Scope: Page pool, asyncio.gather, reCAPTCHA mint latency, headless detection, BrowserContext lifecycle.

Asks:

• Does this add latency to the hot path (per-generation or per-poll)?
• Does it interact with the Page pool (_checkout_page / _checkin_page)? Is there a QueueFull risk?
• Does it require additional page.evaluate calls? What's the latency budget vs the 200 ms/page threshold?
• Does it affect GFLOW_CLI_CONCURRENCY? Could it reduce or increase the safe ceiling?
• Could running this in a headless context trigger reCAPTCHA detection or WAF scoring?
• Does it add any persistent state that's not cleaned up when FlowApiClient.__aexit__ runs?

Output: structured analysis, confidence 0–10, performance bottlenecks.

Persona 4 — CLI and MCP UX / Cross-platform

Scope: exit codes (RFC 9457), structlog events, Windows/macOS/Linux path handling, --help text, error recovery UX, and the MCP tool surface that mirrors all of it.

Asks:

• Does this change land on the MCP surface too, and what breaks if it does not? gflow ships every capability twice — as a CLI command and an MCP tool — and the automated parity gate is command-level only, so an unmirrored option or a docstring that still describes removed behaviour passes every check. Name the affected MCP tool, the payload keys on the queued worker/codec.py path, and any docstring claim that becomes false. If the proposal genuinely has no MCP surface, say so explicitly — silence here is what let #626 ship a CLI unlock with mcp/tools.py still telling agents the combination was rejected.
• What exit code does failure produce? Is it in EXIT_CODE_MAP? Is it distinct from existing codes?
• What structlog events does this introduce? Are error_raised / error_unhandled paths handled?
• Are new env vars or flags introduced? Do they follow GFLOW_CLI_* convention and have a .env.template entry?
• Does the UX degrade gracefully if the new feature fails (remediation hint in error message)?
• On Windows: are path separators, platformdirs paths, and PYTHONUTF8=1 requirements respected?
• If this is a new subcommand or flag: is the --help text self-contained and accurate?
• Does this change touch DOM selectors? If yes, are selectors strictly locale-invariant (Tier 1 structural/ARIA/icon/href anchors + Tier 2 multi-locale text cascades across EN, PT, ES, DE, FR, IT, JA, ZH, KO), rejecting single-language English-only selectors?

Output: structured analysis, confidence 0–10, UX friction points.

Persona 5 — Devil's Advocate

Scope: YAGNI, simpler paths, interaction with KNOWN_ISSUES, backlog sequencing.

Asks:

• Is there a simpler way to achieve the same user outcome (fewer files, less Playwright surface, existing code reuse)?
• Does PLAN.md already have an ADR that contradicts or defers this work?
• Is there a known issue in KNOWN_ISSUES.md that makes this approach risky or likely to fail?
• If this fails in production (WAF score spike, reCAPTCHA regression, selector drift), what's the rollback story?
• Is the timing right? Does something else need to land first (e.g., Issue #14 before Issue #15)?
• What's the simplest experiment (smoke test, scripts/ script, isolated spike) that could prove/disprove the core assumption before committing to a full implementation?

Output: structured analysis, confidence 0–10, alternative paths, blocking concerns.

Phase 2 — Conflict resolution

After all five personas return:

1. Tally signals. Identify any dimension where 2+ personas flag the same concern — those surface as high-confidence risks.
2. Resolve conflicts. If Architect says "fits cleanly" but Devil's Advocate says "ADR #13 defers this" — surface the conflict explicitly. Do NOT silently suppress one view.
3. Score overall confidence as the average of the five persona confidence scores, then apply modifiers:
   • Any STOP condition from any persona → overall STOP regardless of average.
   • Devil's Advocate identifies a simpler approach the others missed → downgrade confidence by 2.
   • All five personas agree on the approach → upgrade confidence by 1.

Phase 3 — Verdict

GO (confidence ≥ 7, no STOP conditions): all personas aligned or concerns are mitigated within the proposal. Safe to proceed to PLAN mode.

CAUTION (confidence 4–6, or one unresolved STOP candidate): proceed but explicitly address the flagged concerns in the PLAN before EXECUTE. Surface the specific mitigations needed.

STOP (confidence < 4, or any hard STOP): one or more of:

• A security bypass that cannot be fixed within the proposal scope
• A fundamental architectural incompatibility with the hexagonal target
• A performance regression that violates the 200 ms/page threshold at N=16
• A PLAN.md ADR that explicitly defers this work
• An existing KNOWN_ISSUES entry that makes the approach likely to fail
• Devil's Advocate found a simpler approach that makes this one wasteful

On STOP, output the specific blocking concern and the minimum change required to convert to CAUTION.

Output format

# Predict: <proposal short title>

## Verdict: <GO | CAUTION | STOP>
**Confidence:** <N>/10

## Summary
<2-3 sentences. What the five personas collectively found.>

## Persona findings

### Architect — <signal> (<confidence>/10)
<findings>

### Security / reCAPTCHA — <signal> (<confidence>/10)
<findings>

### Performance / Playwright — <signal> (<confidence>/10)
<findings>

### CLI UX / Cross-platform — <signal> (<confidence>/10)
<findings>

### Devil's Advocate — <signal> (<confidence>/10)
<findings>

## High-confidence risks (flagged by 2+ personas)
1. …

## Conflicts resolved
- <Persona A vs Persona B — resolution>

## Required mitigations before EXECUTE (CAUTION only)
1. …

## Recommended next step
<One sentence. E.g.: "Open a PLAN.md task for Issue #15 gated on SAPISIDHASH investigation steps 1–3." or "Run the smoke script in scripts/smoke_video_editor.py against the live API before committing to the full design.">

Integration & Pipeline Continuation (Next Step Handoff)

• After GO: Proactively announce: "Predict GO. Next step: Phase 3 BDD Scaffolding (/gflow:scenario <feature>) or Phase 4 Implementation Plan (/gflow:plan <feature>)."
• After CAUTION: Address required mitigations in the PLAN spec, then announce: "Predict CAUTION. Next step: Address mitigations in Phase 4 Implementation Plan (/gflow:plan <feature>)."
• After STOP: Address blocking concern or file an investigation gate task before moving to Phase 4.

Provenance

Adapted from vc-predict in vibecode-pro-max-kit (assessment 2026-05-28). Personas re-scoped to gflow-cli surfaces: Google anti-bot stack, Playwright Page pool, RFC 9457 exit codes, hexagonal architecture target.