UI Interview - Round 1: V1 Operator Console

Stage-zero interrogation for v1-operator-console under the monitoring-start user-flow branch.

Skill $ui-interview Mode full UI branch review Round 1 Gate continue Status review
What to do. Confirm, correct, or flag the assumptions below. Then answer the open questions, or use Apply recommended where the default matches your intent. Finish with Compile Responses and paste the YAML back into the agent session. This round is not UI approval; it only checks that the V1 mockup and page-by-page spec should proceed from the right assumptions.

UI Assumptions Manifest

A1 from research
Product context is the gblock-party personal workstation: a single solo developer, the Agent Conductor, runs about 5-12 AI coding agents across 1-3 repos on managed infrastructure. The success condition remains persistent sessions controllable from any device.
A2 from artifact
Selected UX variation is V1 Operator Console, not the already-approved V2 control. Its branch thesis is a dense, desktop-first, sortable fleet table with a persistent split-pane detail. It intentionally competes with V2 card mosaic, V3 kanban, V4 command-first, and V5 mobile stream.
A3 from spec
Page scope is the monitoring-start surface only: S3 Agent Board, S4 Start Agent, and folded S5/S6 Agent Detail. V1 collapses these into one persistent console route with an inline launch row and right-side tool-adaptive detail pane. S7 approval, S8 recap, S9 diff review, and S10 settings are linked or represented as states, not fully designed here.
A4 from artifact
Navigation model is selection-driven, not route-switching: the row cursor, row click, keyboard shortcuts, and Cmd+K palette update the bound detail pane without losing fleet context. Browser back is not a primary interaction for drill-in because drill-in is pane binding, not navigation.
A5 from spec
Component inventory starts from a fleet table, inline launch row, Cmd+K palette, status chips, approval/error header chips, persistent split-pane, xterm.js terminal rendering for CLI agents, structured stream rendering for API-native agents, prompt injection footer, and guarded inline actions. The visual tone is dark, dense, minimal, and NOC-like.
A6 from spec
Required states include empty console, starting/running/waiting/error/paused/done rows, backend unreachable, tunnel reconnecting, credential/auth expiry, launch loading and validation, guarded stop confirmation, retry/restart, inline approval/rejection, reduced-motion alternatives, colorblind-safe badges, keyboard focus order, and mobile stacked-list degradation.
A7 inferred
Prototype-first boundary: this UI interview should produce a static or bounded HTML mockup plus a UI branch packet for V1 only. Data can be fixture-backed. Real auth, live WebSockets, real xterm sessions, push notifications, GitHub writes, and multi-device sync should be visually represented but not implemented by this skill.

Open Decisions

O1
How hard should V1 commit to density in the first mockup?
Recommended: keep V1 unapologetically dense: about 36-40px table rows, status/name/stdout as the visual hierarchy, default 58/42 table/detail split, compact icon actions, and no large explanatory chrome once the fleet is live.
Agent confidence: high
O2
Which detail-pane proof is required before judging the branch?
Recommended: the mockup must show both detail renderings: one CLI agent with a terminal-primary pane and one API-native agent with a structured step stream. Do not add a Mode A/B user toggle; include a pop-out/full-width escape hatch for terminal-heavy work.
Agent confidence: high
O3
How should V1 handle mobile without pretending mobile is its strength?
Recommended: mobile is a deliberate degrade: compact stacked list, one primary action per agent, full-screen detail sheet, approvals as large tap-target cards, terminal read-mostly, and a visible "Open on desktop" / QR handoff for heavy terminal work.
Agent confidence: high
O4
What is the first clickable journey the eventual prototype must prove?
Recommended: prove the V1 thesis with one route: populated fleet table -> sort/filter to waiting or error -> select an agent into the split pane -> approve a waiting row without disturbing selection -> launch a new agent through the inline row -> show backend-unreachable and crash recovery states.
Agent confidence: medium
O5
Should V1 inherit the V2 aesthetic directive, or diverge visibly?
Recommended: inherit the user-confirmed V2 directive of polish, minimalism, little text, icon buttons with tooltips, but apply it to a denser NOC/trading-terminal surface. V1 should be quieter and sharper, not more decorative.
Agent confidence: medium

Interview Areas Covered By This Round

  • Product and user context
  • Parent user flow and selected UX variation
  • Sibling variation coordination
  • Pages, routes, and entry points
  • Prototype-first boundary
  • Primary task path per surface
  • Navigation model
  • Information hierarchy and density
  • Component inventory
  • Button and link semantics
  • Form validation and launch behavior
  • Empty, loading, disabled, success, warning, and failure states
  • Responsive behavior
  • Accessibility baseline
  • Visual language and iconography
  • Implementation constraints and fake-data boundary

The confidence gate cannot pass until these answers are consumed and either this round is complete enough for a coverage checkpoint or a follow-up round resolves any flagged gaps.

Compile Responses

Compile after you have answered what you can. Partial YAML is valid if you want to send corrections or clarification needs before completing the round.