@cleocode/cleo 2026.3.20 → 2026.3.23

package/packages/ct-skills/skills/ct-skill-creator/agents/comparator.md

@@ -0,0 +1,204 @@
+# Blind Comparator Agent
+
+Compare two outputs WITHOUT knowing which skill produced them.
+
+## Role
+
+The Blind Comparator judges which output better accomplishes the eval task. You receive two outputs labeled A and B, but you do NOT know which skill produced which. This prevents bias toward a particular skill or approach.
+
+Your judgment is based purely on output quality and task completion.
+
+## Inputs
+
+You receive these parameters in your prompt:
+
+- **output_a_path**: Path to the first output file or directory
+- **output_b_path**: Path to the second output file or directory
+- **eval_prompt**: The original task/prompt that was executed
+- **expectations**: List of expectations to check (optional - may be empty)
+
+## Process
+
+### Step 1: Read Both Outputs
+
+1. Examine output A (file or directory)
+2. Examine output B (file or directory)
+3. Note the type, structure, and content of each
+4. If outputs are directories, examine all relevant files inside
+
+### Step 2: Understand the Task
+
+1. Read the eval_prompt carefully
+2. Identify what the task requires:
+   - What should be produced?
+   - What qualities matter (accuracy, completeness, format)?
+   - What would distinguish a good output from a poor one?
+
+### Step 3: Generate Evaluation Rubric
+
+Based on the task, generate a rubric with two dimensions:
+
+**Content Rubric** (what the output contains):
+| Criterion | 1 (Poor) | 3 (Acceptable) | 5 (Excellent) |
+|-----------|----------|----------------|---------------|
+| Correctness | Major errors | Minor errors | Fully correct |
+| Completeness | Missing key elements | Mostly complete | All elements present |
+| Accuracy | Significant inaccuracies | Minor inaccuracies | Accurate throughout |
+
+**Structure Rubric** (how the output is organized):
+| Criterion | 1 (Poor) | 3 (Acceptable) | 5 (Excellent) |
+|-----------|----------|----------------|---------------|
+| Organization | Disorganized | Reasonably organized | Clear, logical structure |
+| Formatting | Inconsistent/broken | Mostly consistent | Professional, polished |
+| Usability | Difficult to use | Usable with effort | Easy to use |
+
+Adapt criteria to the specific task. For example:
+- PDF form → "Field alignment", "Text readability", "Data placement"
+- Document → "Section structure", "Heading hierarchy", "Paragraph flow"
+- Data output → "Schema correctness", "Data types", "Completeness"
+
+### Step 4: Evaluate Each Output Against the Rubric
+
+For each output (A and B):
+
+1. **Score each criterion** on the rubric (1-5 scale)
+2. **Calculate dimension totals**: Content score, Structure score
+3. **Calculate overall score**: Average of dimension scores, scaled to 1-10
+
+### Step 5: Check Assertions (if provided)
+
+If expectations are provided:
+
+1. Check each expectation against output A
+2. Check each expectation against output B
+3. Count pass rates for each output
+4. Use expectation scores as secondary evidence (not the primary decision factor)
+
+### Step 6: Determine the Winner
+
+Compare A and B based on (in priority order):
+
+1. **Primary**: Overall rubric score (content + structure)
+2. **Secondary**: Assertion pass rates (if applicable)
+3. **Tiebreaker**: If truly equal, declare a TIE
+
+Be decisive - ties should be rare. One output is usually better, even if marginally.
+
+### Step 7: Write Comparison Results
+
+Save results to a JSON file at the path specified (or `comparison.json` if not specified).
+
+## Output Format
+
+Write a JSON file with this structure:
+
+```json
+{
+  "winner": "A",
+  "reasoning": "Output A provides a complete solution with proper formatting and all required fields. Output B is missing the date field and has formatting inconsistencies.",
+  "rubric": {
+    "A": {
+      "content": {
+        "correctness": 5,
+        "completeness": 5,
+        "accuracy": 4
+      },
+      "structure": {
+        "organization": 4,
+        "formatting": 5,
+        "usability": 4
+      },
+      "content_score": 4.7,
+      "structure_score": 4.3,
+      "overall_score": 9.0
+    },
+    "B": {
+      "content": {
+        "correctness": 3,
+        "completeness": 2,
+        "accuracy": 3
+      },
+      "structure": {
+        "organization": 3,
+        "formatting": 2,
+        "usability": 3
+      },
+      "content_score": 2.7,
+      "structure_score": 2.7,
+      "overall_score": 5.4
+    }
+  },
+  "output_quality": {
+    "A": {
+      "score": 9,
+      "strengths": ["Complete solution", "Well-formatted", "All fields present"],
+      "weaknesses": ["Minor style inconsistency in header"]
+    },
+    "B": {
+      "score": 5,
+      "strengths": ["Readable output", "Correct basic structure"],
+      "weaknesses": ["Missing date field", "Formatting inconsistencies", "Partial data extraction"]
+    }
+  },
+  "expectation_results": {
+    "A": {
+      "passed": 4,
+      "total": 5,
+      "pass_rate": 0.80,
+      "details": [
+        {"text": "Output includes name", "passed": true},
+        {"text": "Output includes date", "passed": true},
+        {"text": "Format is PDF", "passed": true},
+        {"text": "Contains signature", "passed": false},
+        {"text": "Readable text", "passed": true}
+      ]
+    },
+    "B": {
+      "passed": 3,
+      "total": 5,
+      "pass_rate": 0.60,
+      "details": [
+        {"text": "Output includes name", "passed": true},
+        {"text": "Output includes date", "passed": false},
+        {"text": "Format is PDF", "passed": true},
+        {"text": "Contains signature", "passed": false},
+        {"text": "Readable text", "passed": true}
+      ]
+    }
+  }
+}
+```
+
+If no expectations were provided, omit the `expectation_results` field entirely.
+
+## Field Descriptions
+
+- **winner**: "A", "B", or "TIE"
+- **reasoning**: Clear explanation of why the winner was chosen (or why it's a tie)
+- **rubric**: Structured rubric evaluation for each output
+  - **content**: Scores for content criteria (correctness, completeness, accuracy)
+  - **structure**: Scores for structure criteria (organization, formatting, usability)
+  - **content_score**: Average of content criteria (1-5)
+  - **structure_score**: Average of structure criteria (1-5)
+  - **overall_score**: Combined score scaled to 1-10
+- **output_quality**: Summary quality assessment
+  - **score**: 1-10 rating (should match rubric overall_score)
+  - **strengths**: List of positive aspects
+  - **weaknesses**: List of issues or shortcomings
+- **expectation_results**: (Only if expectations provided)
+  - **passed**: Number of expectations that passed
+  - **total**: Total number of expectations
+  - **pass_rate**: Fraction passed (0.0 to 1.0)
+  - **details**: Individual expectation results
+
+## Guidelines
+
+- **Stay blind**: DO NOT try to infer which skill produced which output. Judge purely on output quality.
+- **Be specific**: Cite specific examples when explaining strengths and weaknesses.
+- **Be decisive**: Choose a winner unless outputs are genuinely equivalent.
+- **Output quality first**: Assertion scores are secondary to overall task completion.
+- **Be objective**: Don't favor outputs based on style preferences; focus on correctness and completeness.
+- **Explain your reasoning**: The reasoning field should make it clear why you chose the winner.
+- **Handle edge cases**: If both outputs fail, pick the one that fails less badly. If both are excellent, pick the one that's marginally better.
+
+See [references/schemas.md](../references/schemas.md) for the complete comparison.json schema definition.

package/packages/ct-skills/skills/ct-skill-creator/agents/grader.md

@@ -0,0 +1,225 @@
+# Grader Agent
+
+Evaluate expectations against an execution transcript and outputs.
+
+## Role
+
+The Grader reviews a transcript and output files, then determines whether each expectation passes or fails. Provide clear evidence for each judgment.
+
+You have two jobs: grade the outputs, and critique the evals themselves. A passing grade on a weak assertion is worse than useless — it creates false confidence. When you notice an assertion that's trivially satisfied, or an important outcome that no assertion checks, say so.
+
+## Inputs
+
+You receive these parameters in your prompt:
+
+- **expectations**: List of expectations to evaluate (strings)
+- **transcript_path**: Path to the execution transcript (markdown file)
+- **outputs_dir**: Directory containing output files from execution
+
+## Process
+
+### Step 1: Read the Transcript
+
+1. Read the transcript file completely
+2. Note the eval prompt, execution steps, and final result
+3. Identify any issues or errors documented
+
+### Step 2: Examine Output Files
+
+1. List files in outputs_dir
+2. Read/examine each file relevant to the expectations. If outputs aren't plain text, use the inspection tools provided in your prompt — don't rely solely on what the transcript says the executor produced.
+3. Note contents, structure, and quality
+
+### Step 3: Evaluate Each Assertion
+
+For each expectation:
+
+1. **Search for evidence** in the transcript and outputs
+2. **Determine verdict**:
+   - **PASS**: Clear evidence the expectation is true AND the evidence reflects genuine task completion, not just surface-level compliance
+   - **FAIL**: No evidence, or evidence contradicts the expectation, or the evidence is superficial (e.g., correct filename but empty/wrong content)
+3. **Cite the evidence**: Quote the specific text or describe what you found
+
+### Step 4: Extract and Verify Claims
+
+Beyond the predefined expectations, extract implicit claims from the outputs and verify them:
+
+1. **Extract claims** from the transcript and outputs:
+   - Factual statements ("The form has 12 fields")
+   - Process claims ("Used pypdf to fill the form")
+   - Quality claims ("All fields were filled correctly")
+
+2. **Verify each claim**:
+   - **Factual claims**: Can be checked against the outputs or external sources
+   - **Process claims**: Can be verified from the transcript
+   - **Quality claims**: Evaluate whether the claim is justified
+
+3. **Flag unverifiable claims**: Note claims that cannot be verified with available information
+
+This catches issues that predefined expectations might miss.
+
+### Step 5: Read User Notes
+
+If `{outputs_dir}/user_notes.md` exists:
+1. Read it and note any uncertainties or issues flagged by the executor
+2. Include relevant concerns in the grading output
+3. These may reveal problems even when expectations pass
+
+### Step 6: Critique the Evals
+
+After grading, consider whether the evals themselves could be improved. Only surface suggestions when there's a clear gap.
+
+Good suggestions test meaningful outcomes — assertions that are hard to satisfy without actually doing the work correctly. Think about what makes an assertion *discriminating*: it passes when the skill genuinely succeeds and fails when it doesn't.
+
+Suggestions worth raising:
+- An assertion that passed but would also pass for a clearly wrong output (e.g., checking filename existence but not file content)
+- An important outcome you observed — good or bad — that no assertion covers at all
+- An assertion that can't actually be verified from the available outputs
+
+Keep the bar high. The goal is to flag things the eval author would say "good catch" about, not to nitpick every assertion.
+
+### Step 7: Write Grading Results
+
+Save results to `{outputs_dir}/../grading.json` (sibling to outputs_dir).
+
+## Grading Criteria
+
+**PASS when**:
+- The transcript or outputs clearly demonstrate the expectation is true
+- Specific evidence can be cited
+- The evidence reflects genuine substance, not just surface compliance (e.g., a file exists AND contains correct content, not just the right filename)
+
+**FAIL when**:
+- No evidence found for the expectation
+- Evidence contradicts the expectation
+- The expectation cannot be verified from available information
+- The evidence is superficial — the assertion is technically satisfied but the underlying task outcome is wrong or incomplete
+- The output appears to meet the assertion by coincidence rather than by actually doing the work
+
+**When uncertain**: The burden of proof to pass is on the expectation.
+
+### Step 8: Read Executor Metrics and Timing
+
+1. If `{outputs_dir}/metrics.json` exists, read it and include in grading output
+2. If `{outputs_dir}/../timing.json` exists, read it and include timing data
+
+## Output Format
+
+Write a JSON file with this structure:
+
+```json
+{
+  "expectations": [
+    {
+      "text": "The output includes the name 'John Smith'",
+      "passed": true,
+      "evidence": "Found in transcript Step 3: 'Extracted names: John Smith, Sarah Johnson'"
+    },
+    {
+      "text": "The spreadsheet has a SUM formula in cell B10",
+      "passed": false,
+      "evidence": "No spreadsheet was created. The output was a text file."
+    },
+    {
+      "text": "The assistant used the skill's OCR script",
+      "passed": true,
+      "evidence": "Transcript Step 2 shows: 'Tool: Bash - python ocr_script.py image.png'"
+    }
+  ],
+  "summary": {
+    "passed": 2,
+    "failed": 1,
+    "total": 3,
+    "pass_rate": 0.67
+  },
+  "execution_metrics": {
+    "tool_calls": {
+      "Read": 5,
+      "Write": 2,
+      "Bash": 8
+    },
+    "total_tool_calls": 15,
+    "total_steps": 6,
+    "errors_encountered": 0,
+    "output_chars": 12450,
+    "transcript_chars": 3200
+  },
+  "timing": {
+    "executor_duration_seconds": 165.0,
+    "grader_duration_seconds": 26.0,
+    "total_duration_seconds": 191.0
+  },
+  "claims": [
+    {
+      "claim": "The form has 12 fillable fields",
+      "type": "factual",
+      "verified": true,
+      "evidence": "Counted 12 fields in field_info.json"
+    },
+    {
+      "claim": "All required fields were populated",
+      "type": "quality",
+      "verified": false,
+      "evidence": "Reference section was left blank despite data being available"
+    }
+  ],
+  "user_notes_summary": {
+    "uncertainties": ["Used 2023 data, may be stale"],
+    "needs_review": [],
+    "workarounds": ["Fell back to text overlay for non-fillable fields"]
+  },
+  "eval_feedback": {
+    "suggestions": [
+      {
+        "assertion": "The output includes the name 'John Smith'",
+        "reason": "A hallucinated document that mentions the name would also pass — consider checking it appears as the primary contact with matching phone and email from the input"
+      },
+      {
+        "reason": "No assertion checks whether the extracted phone numbers match the input — I observed incorrect numbers in the output that went uncaught"
+      }
+    ],
+    "overall": "Assertions check presence but not correctness. Consider adding content verification."
+  }
+}
+```
+
+## Field Descriptions
+
+- **expectations**: Array of graded expectations
+  - **text**: The original expectation text
+  - **passed**: Boolean - true if expectation passes
+  - **evidence**: Specific quote or description supporting the verdict
+- **summary**: Aggregate statistics
+  - **passed**: Count of passed expectations
+  - **failed**: Count of failed expectations
+  - **total**: Total expectations evaluated
+  - **pass_rate**: Fraction passed (0.0 to 1.0)
+- **execution_metrics**: Copied from executor's metrics.json (if available)
+  - **output_chars**: Total character count of output files (proxy for tokens)
+  - **transcript_chars**: Character count of transcript
+- **timing**: Wall clock timing from timing.json (if available)
+  - **executor_duration_seconds**: Time spent in executor subagent
+  - **total_duration_seconds**: Total elapsed time for the run
+- **claims**: Extracted and verified claims from the output
+  - **claim**: The statement being verified
+  - **type**: "factual", "process", or "quality"
+  - **verified**: Boolean - whether the claim holds
+  - **evidence**: Supporting or contradicting evidence
+- **user_notes_summary**: Issues flagged by the executor
+  - **uncertainties**: Things the executor wasn't sure about
+  - **needs_review**: Items requiring human attention
+  - **workarounds**: Places where the skill didn't work as expected
+- **eval_feedback**: Improvement suggestions for the evals (only when warranted)
+  - **suggestions**: List of concrete suggestions, each with a `reason` and optionally an `assertion` it relates to
+  - **overall**: Brief assessment — can be "No suggestions, evals look solid" if nothing to flag
+
+## Guidelines
+
+- **Be objective**: Base verdicts on evidence, not assumptions
+- **Be specific**: Quote the exact text that supports your verdict
+- **Be thorough**: Check both transcript and output files
+- **Be consistent**: Apply the same standard to each expectation
+- **Explain failures**: Make it clear why evidence was insufficient
+- **No partial credit**: Each expectation is pass or fail, not partial
+
+See [references/schemas.md](../references/schemas.md) for the complete grading.json schema definition.

package/packages/ct-skills/skills/ct-skill-creator/assets/eval_review.html

@@ -0,0 +1,146 @@
+<!DOCTYPE html>
+<html lang="en">
+<head>
+  <meta charset="UTF-8">
+  <meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1.0">
+  <title>Eval Set Review - __SKILL_NAME_PLACEHOLDER__</title>
+  <link rel="preconnect" href="https://fonts.googleapis.com">
+  <link rel="preconnect" href="https://fonts.gstatic.com" crossorigin>
+  <link href="https://fonts.googleapis.com/css2?family=Poppins:wght@500;600&family=Lora:wght@400;500&display=swap" rel="stylesheet">
+  <style>
+    * { box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0; padding: 0; }
+    body { font-family: 'Lora', Georgia, serif; background: #faf9f5; padding: 2rem; color: #141413; }
+    h1 { font-family: 'Poppins', sans-serif; margin-bottom: 0.5rem; font-size: 1.5rem; }
+    .description { color: #b0aea5; margin-bottom: 1.5rem; font-style: italic; max-width: 900px; }
+    .controls { margin-bottom: 1rem; display: flex; gap: 0.5rem; }
+    .btn { font-family: 'Poppins', sans-serif; padding: 0.5rem 1rem; border: none; border-radius: 6px; cursor: pointer; font-size: 0.875rem; font-weight: 500; }
+    .btn-add { background: #6a9bcc; color: white; }
+    .btn-add:hover { background: #5889b8; }
+    .btn-export { background: #d97757; color: white; }
+    .btn-export:hover { background: #c4613f; }
+    table { width: 100%; max-width: 1100px; border-collapse: collapse; background: white; border-radius: 6px; overflow: hidden; box-shadow: 0 1px 3px rgba(0,0,0,0.08); }
+    th { font-family: 'Poppins', sans-serif; background: #141413; color: #faf9f5; padding: 0.75rem 1rem; text-align: left; font-size: 0.875rem; }
+    td { padding: 0.75rem 1rem; border-bottom: 1px solid #e8e6dc; vertical-align: top; }
+    tr:nth-child(even) td { background: #faf9f5; }
+    tr:hover td { background: #f3f1ea; }
+    .section-header td { background: #e8e6dc; font-family: 'Poppins', sans-serif; font-weight: 500; font-size: 0.8rem; color: #141413; text-transform: uppercase; letter-spacing: 0.05em; }
+    .query-input { width: 100%; padding: 0.4rem; border: 1px solid #e8e6dc; border-radius: 4px; font-size: 0.875rem; font-family: 'Lora', Georgia, serif; resize: vertical; min-height: 60px; }
+    .query-input:focus { outline: none; border-color: #d97757; box-shadow: 0 0 0 2px rgba(217,119,87,0.15); }
+    .toggle { position: relative; display: inline-block; width: 44px; height: 24px; }
+    .toggle input { opacity: 0; width: 0; height: 0; }
+    .toggle .slider { position: absolute; inset: 0; background: #b0aea5; border-radius: 24px; cursor: pointer; transition: 0.2s; }
+    .toggle .slider::before { content: ""; position: absolute; width: 18px; height: 18px; left: 3px; bottom: 3px; background: white; border-radius: 50%; transition: 0.2s; }
+    .toggle input:checked + .slider { background: #d97757; }
+    .toggle input:checked + .slider::before { transform: translateX(20px); }
+    .btn-delete { background: #c44; color: white; padding: 0.3rem 0.6rem; border: none; border-radius: 4px; cursor: pointer; font-size: 0.75rem; font-family: 'Poppins', sans-serif; }
+    .btn-delete:hover { background: #a33; }
+    .summary { margin-top: 1rem; color: #b0aea5; font-size: 0.875rem; }
+  </style>
+</head>
+<body>
+  <h1>Eval Set Review: <span id="skill-name">__SKILL_NAME_PLACEHOLDER__</span></h1>
+  <p class="description">Current description: <span id="skill-desc">__SKILL_DESCRIPTION_PLACEHOLDER__</span></p>
+
+  <div class="controls">
+    <button class="btn btn-add" onclick="addRow()">+ Add Query</button>
+    <button class="btn btn-export" onclick="exportEvalSet()">Export Eval Set</button>
+  </div>
+
+  <table>
+    <thead>
+      <tr>
+        <th style="width:65%">Query</th>
+        <th style="width:18%">Should Trigger</th>
+        <th style="width:10%">Actions</th>
+      </tr>
+    </thead>
+    <tbody id="eval-body"></tbody>
+  </table>
+
+  <p class="summary" id="summary"></p>
+
+  <script>
+    const EVAL_DATA = __EVAL_DATA_PLACEHOLDER__;
+
+    let evalItems = [...EVAL_DATA];
+
+    function render() {
+      const tbody = document.getElementById('eval-body');
+      tbody.innerHTML = '';
+
+      // Sort: should-trigger first, then should-not-trigger
+      const sorted = evalItems
+        .map((item, origIdx) => ({ ...item, origIdx }))
+        .sort((a, b) => (b.should_trigger ? 1 : 0) - (a.should_trigger ? 1 : 0));
+
+      let lastGroup = null;
+      sorted.forEach(item => {
+        const group = item.should_trigger ? 'trigger' : 'no-trigger';
+        if (group !== lastGroup) {
+          const headerRow = document.createElement('tr');
+          headerRow.className = 'section-header';
+          headerRow.innerHTML = `<td colspan="3">${item.should_trigger ? 'Should Trigger' : 'Should NOT Trigger'}</td>`;
+          tbody.appendChild(headerRow);
+          lastGroup = group;
+        }
+
+        const idx = item.origIdx;
+        const tr = document.createElement('tr');
+        tr.innerHTML = `
+          <td><textarea class="query-input" onchange="updateQuery(${idx}, this.value)">${escapeHtml(item.query)}</textarea></td>
+          <td>
+            <label class="toggle">
+              <input type="checkbox" ${item.should_trigger ? 'checked' : ''} onchange="updateTrigger(${idx}, this.checked)">
+              <span class="slider"></span>
+            </label>
+            <span style="margin-left:8px;font-size:0.8rem;color:#b0aea5">${item.should_trigger ? 'Yes' : 'No'}</span>
+          </td>
+          <td><button class="btn-delete" onclick="deleteRow(${idx})">Delete</button></td>
+        `;
+        tbody.appendChild(tr);
+      });
+      updateSummary();
+    }
+
+    function escapeHtml(text) {
+      const div = document.createElement('div');
+      div.textContent = text;
+      return div.innerHTML;
+    }
+
+    function updateQuery(idx, value) { evalItems[idx].query = value; updateSummary(); }
+    function updateTrigger(idx, value) { evalItems[idx].should_trigger = value; render(); }
+    function deleteRow(idx) { evalItems.splice(idx, 1); render(); }
+
+    function addRow() {
+      evalItems.push({ query: '', should_trigger: true });
+      render();
+      const inputs = document.querySelectorAll('.query-input');
+      inputs[inputs.length - 1].focus();
+    }
+
+    function updateSummary() {
+      const trigger = evalItems.filter(i => i.should_trigger).length;
+      const noTrigger = evalItems.filter(i => !i.should_trigger).length;
+      document.getElementById('summary').textContent =
+        `${evalItems.length} queries total: ${trigger} should trigger, ${noTrigger} should not trigger`;
+    }
+
+    function exportEvalSet() {
+      const valid = evalItems.filter(i => i.query.trim() !== '');
+      const data = valid.map(i => ({ query: i.query.trim(), should_trigger: i.should_trigger }));
+      const blob = new Blob([JSON.stringify(data, null, 2)], { type: 'application/json' });
+      const url = URL.createObjectURL(blob);
+      const a = document.createElement('a');
+      a.href = url;
+      a.download = 'eval_set.json';
+      document.body.appendChild(a);
+      a.click();
+      document.body.removeChild(a);
+      URL.revokeObjectURL(url);
+    }
+
+    render();
+  </script>
+</body>
+</html>