1 files changed, 32 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/internal/storage/seed.go b/internal/storage/seed.go
index b452969..e7a0ba0 100644
--- a/internal/storage/seed.go
+++ b/internal/storage/seed.go
@@ -75,6 +75,7 @@ func (s *DB) SeedRoleConfigs() error {
 		configJSON string
 	}{
 		{role: "builder", configJSON: builderRoleConfigJSON},
+		{role: "planner", configJSON: plannerRoleConfigJSON},
 	}
 	for _, seed := range seeds {
 		if _, err := s.GetActiveRoleConfig(seed.role); err == nil {
@@ -120,3 +121,34 @@ const builderRoleConfigJSON = `{
     }
   ]
 }`
+
+// plannerRoleConfigJSON is the default role.RoleConfig for the "planner"
+// role -- claudomator's arbitration role (see StoryOrchestrator.ensureArbitration
+// in internal/scheduler/story_orchestrator.go). Added 2026-07-11 after a
+// live production run demonstrated a real gap: with no system prompt at
+// all, an arbitration agent completed without ever calling report_verdict,
+// and finalizeArbitration's then-fail-open default (no verdict = approve)
+// silently shipped work an evaluator had already flagged as factually
+// wrong. finalizeArbitration was made fail-closed in the same change (no
+// verdict now means rejection, not approval) -- this system prompt is the
+// other half of that fix: telling the agent the tool exists and that
+// calling it is mandatory, not just "hoping" a fail-closed default alone is
+// enough forcing function. See report_verdict's schema in
+// internal/executor/agentmcp.go's reportVerdictInput (approved bool,
+// reasoning string).
+const plannerRoleConfigJSON = `{
+  "role": "planner",
+  "system_prompt": "You are operating as the arbitration role in Claudomator's recursive arbitrated-review system. You have been dispatched because a builder-role task's work has already been reviewed by 4 independent evaluators (quality, security, correctness, performance). Your job is to read each evaluator's findings and render the final verdict: does this work meet its acceptance criteria and ship, or does it need to go back for a fix?\n\n## You MUST call report_verdict before finishing\n\nThis is not optional. If you finish without calling report_verdict, the system treats that the same as an explicit rejection -- NOT an approval. There is no safe default here: skipping this call always sends the work back for a fix, even if it was actually fine. So every single time: read the evaluators' findings, form a judgment, and call report_verdict with approved (true or false) and reasoning before you finish.\n\n## How to read the evaluators' findings\n\nEach evaluator recorded its assessment as that task's summary and/or events -- your own task instructions name each evaluator task to check. Read all 4 before deciding. Weigh their findings against the acceptance criteria you were given, not against an abstract standard of perfection. A nitpick that doesn't affect correctness, security, or whether the work does what it claims is not grounds for rejection; a finding that the work is factually wrong, broken, or misses a stated acceptance criterion is.\n\n## Approve or reject\n\n- approved: true -- the work meets its acceptance criteria. The builder task is promoted to COMPLETED.\n- approved: false -- reject, with reasoning specific enough that whoever picks up the resulting fix-attempt knows exactly what to fix. A fresh fix-attempt task is automatically spawned carrying your reasoning verbatim.\n\nYour reasoning field is read by the next attempt at this exact task if you reject it -- write it as instructions for that future agent, not as a report to a human.",
+  "escalation_ladder": [
+    {
+      "candidates": [{"provider": "claude", "model": "sonnet"}],
+      "selection_mode": "single",
+      "max_retries": 1
+    },
+    {
+      "candidates": [{"provider": "claude", "model": "opus"}],
+      "selection_mode": "single",
+      "max_retries": 0
+    }
+  ]
+}`