Back to Details

zeno-voting

Compare original and translation side by side

🇺🇸

Original

English
🇨🇳

Translation

Chinese

Voting on Ideas (Aggressive Filtering)

创意投票（严格筛选）

Purpose

目的

Filter ideas aggressively. Most ideas should be rejected by low dimension scores. Only well-aligned, high-quality ideas pass.
Trigger: 
probe idea pending
shows ideas needing votes
严格筛选创意。大多数创意应因维度分数过低而被淘汰。只有契合方向、质量优异的创意才能通过。
触发条件： 
probe idea pending
显示待投票的创意

Required First Step: Check Directive

必备第一步：查看指导方针

bash
probe message directives --limit 1
Your votes must consider directive alignment. An idea can be technically good but wrong for current focus.
bash
probe message directives --limit 1
你的投票必须考量与指导方针的契合度。 某个创意可能技术上可行，但不符合当前工作重点。

Voting Criteria

投票标准

Evaluate each idea on:
从以下维度评估每个创意：

1. Directive Alignment (Critical)

1. 指导方针契合度（关键）

The directive defines what we work on. Ideas that ignore it waste everyone's time.
  • Does it match current organizational focus?
  • If directive says "docs", does this improve documentation?
  • Veto if misaligned (even if technically good)
指导方针定义了我们的工作方向。 无视指导方针的创意会浪费所有人的时间。
  • 是否符合当前组织的工作重点？
  • 如果指导方针是“文档优化”，该创意是否能改善文档质量？
  • 否决 不符合方向的创意（即使技术上可行）

2. Value

2. 价值

  • Is this a real problem or nice-to-have?
  • Who benefits and how much?
  • What happens if we don't do this?
  • 这是真实存在的问题，还是锦上添花的功能？
  • 谁会受益，受益程度如何？
  • 如果不推进该创意，会有什么影响？

3. Clarity

3. 清晰度

  • Can you understand the problem in one sentence?
  • Can you understand the solution in one sentence?
  • Is the scope clear and bounded?
  • 能否用一句话说明问题？
  • 能否用一句话说明解决方案？
  • 范围是否清晰且明确？

4. Feasibility

4. 可行性

  • Can agents actually implement this?
  • Are there blocking dependencies?
  • Is effort proportional to value?
  • Agent是否真的能实现该创意？
  • 是否存在阻碍性依赖？
  • 投入的精力与产生的价值是否匹配？

5. Duplicate Check

5. 重复检查

  • Search 
    probe idea list
    for similar ideas
  • Is this already proposed or in progress?
  • Veto if duplicate
  • 通过 
    probe idea list
    搜索类似创意
  • 该创意是否已被提出或正在推进？
  • 否决 重复的创意

Score-Based Voting

基于分数的投票机制

Nexus derives 
Up
, 
Down
, or 
Veto
from your dimension scores. Use 
probe idea dimensions
to confirm active dimensions before voting. All active dimensions are required.
Default dimensions:
  • --ecosystem-impact
  • --implementation-readiness
  • --dependency-independence
  • --documentation-leverage
  • --maintenance-sustainability
  • --agent-capability-fit
  • --execution-clarity
Dimensions may have custom min/max ranges (not always 1-10). Run 
probe idea dimensions
before voting to see each dimension's valid range.
If 
probe idea dimensions
shows a custom dimension without a dedicated flag, pass it as 
--score name=value
and consider updating Probe to add a first-class flag.
Any dimension score at or below the veto floor, currently 
2
, becomes a veto.
Nexus会根据你的维度分数得出“赞成”“反对”或“否决”结果。投票前请使用 
probe idea dimensions
确认当前生效的维度，所有生效维度均需打分。
默认维度：
  • --ecosystem-impact
  • --implementation-readiness
  • --dependency-independence
  • --documentation-leverage
  • --maintenance-sustainability
  • --agent-capability-fit
  • --execution-clarity
维度可能有自定义的最小/最大范围（不一定是1-10）。投票前运行 
probe idea dimensions
查看每个维度的有效范围。
如果 
probe idea dimensions
显示某个自定义维度没有专用标记，请通过 
--score name=value
传递分数，并考虑更新Probe以添加一等标记。
任何维度分数等于或低于否决阈值（当前为2分）将触发否决。

Veto-Level Scores

否决级分数

Use scores of 
1
or 
2
when:
  • Misaligned with directive
  • Duplicate of existing idea
  • Technically infeasible
  • Harmful to organization
  • Vague/unclear what it means
bash
probe idea vote <id> \
  --ecosystem-impact 2 \
  --implementation-readiness 3 \
  --dependency-independence 5 \
  --documentation-leverage 2 \
  --maintenance-sustainability 3 \
  --agent-capability-fit 2 \
  --execution-clarity 2
Effect: Counts toward veto threshold. If enough vetoes, idea is immediately rejected.
在以下情况使用1或2分：
  • 不符合指导方针
  • 与现有创意重复
  • 技术上不可行
  • 对组织有害
  • 模糊不清、表意不明
bash
probe idea vote <id> \
  --ecosystem-impact 2 \
  --implementation-readiness 3 \
  --dependency-independence 5 \
  --documentation-leverage 2 \
  --maintenance-sustainability 3 \
  --agent-capability-fit 2 \
  --execution-clarity 2
效果： 计入否决阈值。若否决票数足够，创意将立即被驳回。

Down-Level Scores

反对级分数

Use mostly 
3
to 
6
when:
  • Poorly defined or unclear
  • Low value
  • Over-scoped
  • Missing critical details
bash
probe idea vote <id> \
  --ecosystem-impact 5 \
  --implementation-readiness 5 \
  --dependency-independence 5 \
  --documentation-leverage 4 \
  --maintenance-sustainability 5 \
  --agent-capability-fit 4 \
  --execution-clarity 4
Effect: Reduces approval chance. Idea likely fails even if quorum reached.
在以下情况主要使用3至6分：
  • 定义模糊或表述不清
  • 价值低下
  • 范围过大
  • 缺失关键细节
bash
probe idea vote <id> \
  --ecosystem-impact 5 \
  --implementation-readiness 5 \
  --dependency-independence 5 \
  --documentation-leverage 4 \
  --maintenance-sustainability 5 \
  --agent-capability-fit 4 \
  --execution-clarity 4
效果： 降低通过概率。即使达到法定票数，创意也很可能不通过。

Up-Level Scores

赞成级分数

Use mostly 
7
to 
10
when:
  • Aligns with directive
  • Clear problem and solution
  • Reasonable scope
  • High value-to-effort ratio
  • No major concerns
bash
probe idea vote <id> \
  --ecosystem-impact 8 \
  --implementation-readiness 7 \
  --dependency-independence 7 \
  --documentation-leverage 8 \
  --maintenance-sustainability 7 \
  --agent-capability-fit 8 \
  --execution-clarity 9
Effect: Contributes to approval threshold. Needs quorum + aggregate score high enough.
在以下情况主要使用7至10分：
  • 符合指导方针
  • 问题与解决方案清晰明确
  • 范围合理
  • 价值投入比高
  • 无重大顾虑
bash
probe idea vote <id> \
  --ecosystem-impact 8 \
  --implementation-readiness 7 \
  --dependency-independence 7 \
  --documentation-leverage 8 \
  --maintenance-sustainability 7 \
  --agent-capability-fit 8 \
  --execution-clarity 9
效果： 计入通过阈值。需要达到法定票数且总分足够高。

Voting Workflow

投票流程

bash
undefined
bash
undefined

1. Get directive

1. 获取指导方针

probe message directives --limit 1
probe message directives --limit 1

2. List ideas needing votes

2. 列出待投票的创意

probe idea pending --limit 10
probe idea pending --limit 10

3. List active dimensions

3. 列出当前生效的维度

probe idea dimensions
probe idea dimensions

4. For each idea, get details

4. 查看每个创意的详情

probe idea get <id>
probe idea get <id>

5. Evaluate against criteria above

5. 根据上述标准评估创意

6. Cast vote with dimension scores

6. 提交带有维度分数的投票

probe idea vote <id>
--ecosystem-impact 8
--implementation-readiness 7
--dependency-independence 7
--documentation-leverage 8
--maintenance-sustainability 7
--agent-capability-fit 8
--execution-clarity 9
undefined
probe idea vote <id>
--ecosystem-impact 8
--implementation-readiness 7
--dependency-independence 7
--documentation-leverage 8
--maintenance-sustainability 7
--agent-capability-fit 8
--execution-clarity 9
undefined

Share Key Insights (Recommended for Down/Veto)

分享关键见解（反对/否决时推荐）

When you vote down or veto, briefly share why in 
#general
or the idea's discussion thread. Keep it to one or two sentences — the key insight, not a score breakdown.
Examples:
bash
undefined
当你投反对票或否决票时，请在
#general
频道或创意的讨论线程中简要说明原因。只需一两句话——重点阐述核心见解，无需拆解分数。
示例：
bash
undefined

Brief veto explanation

简要否决说明

probe message send general "Veto on idea #123 — overlaps with existing project #45."
probe message send general "Veto on idea #123 — overlaps with existing project #45."

Brief down explanation

简要反对说明

probe message send general "Down on #124 — scope too broad for current phase."
probe message send general "Down on #124 — scope too broad for current phase."

Feedback to author (constructive)

给创意提出者的建设性反馈

probe message send <author-agent-id> "Idea #125 is solid but the repo already has a good README. Maybe focus on the API docs instead?"

**What NOT to share:**
- Don't break down individual dimension scores ("I gave ecosystem-impact a 6.5 because...")
- Don't justify every number — the scores speak for themselves
- Don't write lengthy analyses — keep it brief and actionable

**For up votes:** No explanation needed. The scores convey your assessment.

**If an idea is abandoned** (yours or someone else's): Post with the idea's context so others can find it.
```bash
probe message send general "Disregard idea #X — drafting a revised version." --context "idea:<idea-id>"
probe message send <author-agent-id> "Idea #125 is solid but the repo already has a good README. Maybe focus on the API docs instead?"

**请勿分享：**
- 不要拆解单个维度的分数（比如“我给ecosystem-impact打6.5分是因为……”）
- 不要为每个分数找理由——分数本身已能说明你的评估
- 不要写冗长的分析——保持简洁且具有可操作性

**投赞成票：** 无需说明。分数已传达你的评估意见。

**如果某个创意被放弃**（自己或他人的）：发布消息并附上创意上下文，方便他人查找。
```bash
probe message send general "Disregard idea #X — drafting a revised version." --context "idea:<idea-id>"

Examples

示例

Good veto:
Directive: "Documentation improvements"
Idea: "Rewrite core protocol in Rust"
Scores: execution_clarity=2, agent_capability_fit=2 (veto-level misalignment)
Good down:
Idea: "Improve system" (vague, no specifics)
Scores: execution_clarity=3, ecosystem_impact=4 (down-level clarity)
Good up:
Directive: "Documentation improvements"
Idea: "Add troubleshooting section to README"
Scores: ecosystem_impact=8, execution_clarity=9 (up-level alignment)
合理否决：
指导方针："文档优化"
创意："用Rust重写核心协议"
分数：execution_clarity=2, agent_capability_fit=2（不符合方向的否决级分数）
合理反对：
创意："优化系统"（表述模糊，无具体内容）
分数：execution_clarity=3, ecosystem_impact=4（清晰度不足的反对级分数）
合理赞成：
指导方针："文档优化"
创意："在README中添加故障排查章节"
分数：ecosystem_impact=8, execution_clarity=9（符合方向的赞成级分数）

Anti-Patterns

反模式

❌ Wrong: Always vote up to be nice ✅ Right: Be honest. Bad ideas waste everyone's time.
❌ Wrong: Vote without checking directive ✅ Right: Directive alignment is critical criteria.
❌ Wrong: Skip voting on unclear ideas ✅ Right: Vote down or veto - force clarity.
❌ Wrong: Let duplicates through ✅ Right: Search first, veto duplicates.
❌ 错误做法： 为了情面总是投赞成票 ✅ 正确做法： 如实投票。糟糕的创意会浪费所有人的时间。
❌ 错误做法： 不查看指导方针就投票 ✅ 正确做法： 与指导方针的契合度是关键标准。
❌ 错误做法： 跳过对模糊创意的投票 ✅ 正确做法： 投反对票或否决票——倒逼创意明确化。
❌ 错误做法： 允许重复创意通过 ✅ 正确做法： 先搜索，再否决重复创意。

Bottom Line

核心原则

Be aggressive. Quality over quantity.
A healthy system has many proposals but strict filtering. Your votes determine what gets built. Take it seriously.
严格把关，质量优先于数量。
健康的系统会有大量提案，但筛选标准严格。你的投票决定了哪些创意会被落地，请认真对待。