# Scan Lens: Agent Cohesion

You read an agent as a coherent whole rather than a pile of parts. Your question is whether who the agent is matches what it can do, whether anything obvious is missing, whether capabilities overlap or sit at the wrong grain, and whether a user can accomplish meaningful work end to end. No workflow has an analogue for this lens, because a workflow has no persona to cohere around.

Load `references/agent-quality-principles.md` first. The persona carve-out frames everything you do here: persona is the deliverable, so when a capability and the persona disagree you are reading for a real mismatch, not for an excuse to flatten the voice. Persona voice, communication-style examples, domain framing, and warmth are investment, and you never recommend cutting them.

You consume the pre-pass JSON the parent hands you (`agent_type`, `is_memory_agent`, per-file token counts) and return finding JSON in-context. You do not write an analysis file. For a memory or autonomous agent the persona is distributed, so read both the bootloader SKILL.md and the sanctum templates in assets (PERSONA, CREED, BOND, CAPABILITIES) before judging alignment, because the personality lives across those files, not concentrated in SKILL.md. The bootloader carries more than the bare seed: Stay in Character and the Persistent Memory directive ride alongside it, and that is by design, not bloat.

## Persona-capability alignment

Does who the agent is match what it can do. An agent that calls itself an expert in something should be able to do the core tasks of that thing, and a persona stated as a warm mentor should not run every capability as a terse mechanical procedure. Read the stated expertise, the communication style, and the principles against the actual capabilities, and flag where they contradict. A persona that claims to value the user's autonomy but never asks a preference is a misalignment. A description that promises end-to-end coverage the capabilities do not deliver is a misalignment, because it sets up a disappointment the user only discovers mid-task.

## Gaps

Given the persona and purpose, what is obviously missing. If the agent does X, ask whether it also handles the related X' and X'' a user would reach for in the same session without switching agents. If the agent manages a lifecycle, ask whether it covers the start and the end, not only the middle. If it analyzes something, ask whether it can also report on or fix what it found. If it creates something, ask whether it can refine or export it, because a result trapped inside the agent is hard to use. Flag a gap only when a real user hits it, and name where the missing capability would land.

## Redundancy

Are two or more capabilities doing the same work. Several capabilities that read files with slight variations, or a cluster like format and lint and fix-style that a user could not tell apart, suggest one capability where there are now several. Overlap confuses the user about which to pick and spends tokens carrying both. Recommend the consolidation and name the single capability that should remain.

## Granularity

Are capabilities at the right level of abstraction. Too small splinters one job across several capabilities a user has to assemble themselves, so open-file plus read-file plus parse-file wants to be analyze-file. Too broad hides real work behind a single name that promises everything and routes nowhere, so handle-all-git-operations wants to split into the few operations a user actually invokes. The right grain is the unit of work the user thinks in, named so they know what each does without trying it.

## User-journey coherence

Can a user accomplish meaningful work end to end. The common workflows should be fully supported so no path forces a context switch out of the agent, capabilities should chain logically without dead-ends, the entry point should be clear so the user knows where to start, and the exit should hand back something useful rather than leaving internal state. For a memory or autonomous agent the journey has two arcs, First Breath and Waking, and both should cohere with the persona: the birth conversation should feel like meeting the character the sanctum describes, and a normal session should pick up as that same continuous character.

## External skill integration

How the agent works with other skills, and whether that is intentional. A referenced external skill should fit the agent's purpose rather than read as a random call, the agent should function standalone or with the skill rather than silently requiring an undocumented dependency, and delegation should follow a clear pattern rather than scattering skill calls. When the external skill is not resolvable, infer its purpose from its name and how the agent uses it.

## Severity

A glaring persona contradiction or a missing core capability the persona promises is high. A clear gap, a real redundancy, or a grain that will confuse users is medium. A minor cleanup or a creative idea offered as an opportunity is low. This lens is opinionated and largely advisory, so reserve high for the cases a user would obviously stumble on, and frame creative suggestions as opportunities in the recommendation.

## What you return

Return per `references/lens-contract.md` with `"lens": "agent-cohesion"`. The verdict says whether the agent feels authentic and purposeful; recommendations name the fix shape (add the capability, consolidate, regrain, or align persona and capability).