# Questions & Answers

## Q1: For F1/F2: What specific events should the coding agent log during implementation? For example: starting a feature, completing a feature, encountering blockers, making design decisions, writing tests, fixing bugs?
**Category:** other
**Answer:** Short sentence of what has been done (what code has been added, summarized, in what file), blockers, completion, undos, bugs

## Q2: For F1/F2: Should there be a recommended format or structure for agent log messages? For example: '[feature] message', or free-form text?
**Category:** other
**Answer:** Continue showing what agent/tool created the log entry, but also include what feature (good idea). Format: [timestamp] [agent] [feature] message

## Q3: For F3: Should review-related events (create session, submit findings, approve) also be logged to progress.txt automatically by K4000? Currently only task.rs logs progress, but review events happen in the review MCP server.
**Category:** other
**Answer:** Yes, review events should be logged automatically

## Q4: For F3: If review events should be logged, how should we handle cross-server logging? Options: (a) review server writes to progress.txt directly, (b) review server calls back to task server, (c) shared storage module.
**Category:** other
**Answer:** User unsure - suggested merging reviewer into task MCP and removing the separate binary. Need to evaluate this approach.

## Q5: Should agents be required to log progress at certain checkpoints, or is it purely optional/recommended? This affects how strongly we word the documentation.
**Category:** other
**Answer:** Should not require anything from the user - purely automatic/recommended for agents

## Q6: For context restoration: Is the current get_progress tool sufficient, or should we add a summary/structured view of progress (e.g., last N entries, entries by agent, entries since timestamp)?
**Category:** other
**Answer:** get_progress is sufficient as-is
