@heyai-rules/pilo-masterkit 2.1.0 → 3.1.0

package/.agent/skills/gan-style-harness/SKILL.md

@@ -1,278 +1,278 @@
----
-name: gan-style-harness
-description: "GAN-inspired Generator-Evaluator agent harness for building high-quality applications autonomously. Based on Anthropic's March 2026 harness design paper."
-origin: ECC-community
-tools: Read, Write, Edit, Bash, Grep, Glob, Task
----
-
-# GAN-Style Harness Skill
-
-> Inspired by [Anthropic's Harness Design for Long-Running Application Development](https://www.anthropic.com/engineering/harness-design-long-running-apps) (March 24, 2026)
-
-A multi-agent harness that separates **generation** from **evaluation**, creating an adversarial feedback loop that drives quality far beyond what a single agent can achieve.
-
-## Core Insight
-
-> When asked to evaluate their own work, agents are pathological optimists — they praise mediocre output and talk themselves out of legitimate issues. But engineering a **separate evaluator** to be ruthlessly strict is far more tractable than teaching a generator to self-critique.
-
-This is the same dynamic as GANs (Generative Adversarial Networks): the Generator produces, the Evaluator critiques, and that feedback drives the next iteration.
-
-## When to Use
-
-- Building complete applications from a one-line prompt
-- Frontend design tasks requiring high visual quality
-- Full-stack projects that need working features, not just code
-- Any task where "AI slop" aesthetics are unacceptable
-- Projects where you want to invest $50-200 for production-quality output
-
-## When NOT to Use
-
-- Quick single-file fixes (use standard `claude -p`)
-- Tasks with tight budget constraints (<$10)
-- Simple refactoring (use de-sloppify pattern instead)
-- Tasks that are already well-specified with tests (use TDD workflow)
-
-## Architecture
-
-```
-                    ┌─────────────┐
-                    │   PLANNER   │
-                    │  (Opus 4.6) │
-                    └──────┬──────┘
-                           │ Product Spec
-                           │ (features, sprints, design direction)
-                           ▼
-              ┌────────────────────────┐
-              │                        │
-              │   GENERATOR-EVALUATOR  │
-              │      FEEDBACK LOOP     │
-              │                        │
-              │  ┌──────────┐          │
-              │  │GENERATOR │--build-->│──┐
-              │  │(Opus 4.6)│          │  │
-              │  └────▲─────┘          │  │
-              │       │                │  │ live app
-              │    feedback             │  │
-              │       │                │  │
-              │  ┌────┴─────┐          │  │
-              │  │EVALUATOR │<-test----│──┘
-              │  │(Opus 4.6)│          │
-              │  │+Playwright│         │
-              │  └──────────┘          │
-              │                        │
-              │   5-15 iterations      │
-              └────────────────────────┘
-```
-
-## The Three Agents
-
-### 1. Planner Agent
-
-**Role:** Product manager — expands a brief prompt into a full product specification.
-
-**Key behaviors:**
-- Takes a one-line prompt and produces a 16-feature, multi-sprint specification
-- Defines user stories, technical requirements, and visual design direction
-- Is deliberately **ambitious** — conservative planning leads to underwhelming results
-- Produces evaluation criteria that the Evaluator will use later
-
-**Model:** Opus 4.6 (needs deep reasoning for spec expansion)
-
-### 2. Generator Agent
-
-**Role:** Developer — implements features according to the spec.
-
-**Key behaviors:**
-- Works in structured sprints (or continuous mode with newer models)
-- Negotiates a "sprint contract" with the Evaluator before writing code
-- Uses full-stack tooling: React, FastAPI/Express, databases, CSS
-- Manages git for version control between iterations
-- Reads Evaluator feedback and incorporates it in next iteration
-
-**Model:** Opus 4.6 (needs strong coding capability)
-
-### 3. Evaluator Agent
-
-**Role:** QA engineer — tests the live running application, not just code.
-
-**Key behaviors:**
-- Uses **Playwright MCP** to interact with the live application
-- Clicks through features, fills forms, tests API endpoints
-- Scores against four criteria (configurable):
-  1. **Design Quality** — Does it feel like a coherent whole?
-  2. **Originality** — Custom decisions vs. template/AI patterns?
-  3. **Craft** — Typography, spacing, animations, micro-interactions?
-  4. **Functionality** — Do all features actually work?
-- Returns structured feedback with scores and specific issues
-- Is engineered to be **ruthlessly strict** — never praises mediocre work
-
-**Model:** Opus 4.6 (needs strong judgment + tool use)
-
-## Evaluation Criteria
-
-The default four criteria, each scored 1-10:
-
-```markdown
-## Evaluation Rubric
-
-### Design Quality (weight: 0.3)
-- 1-3: Generic, template-like, "AI slop" aesthetics
-- 4-6: Competent but unremarkable, follows conventions
-- 7-8: Distinctive, cohesive visual identity
-- 9-10: Could pass for a professional designer's work
-
-### Originality (weight: 0.2)
-- 1-3: Default colors, stock layouts, no personality
-- 4-6: Some custom choices, mostly standard patterns
-- 7-8: Clear creative vision, unique approach
-- 9-10: Surprising, delightful, genuinely novel
-
-### Craft (weight: 0.3)
-- 1-3: Broken layouts, missing states, no animations
-- 4-6: Works but feels rough, inconsistent spacing
-- 7-8: Polished, smooth transitions, responsive
-- 9-10: Pixel-perfect, delightful micro-interactions
-
-### Functionality (weight: 0.2)
-- 1-3: Core features broken or missing
-- 4-6: Happy path works, edge cases fail
-- 7-8: All features work, good error handling
-- 9-10: Bulletproof, handles every edge case
-```
-
-### Scoring
-
-- **Weighted score** = sum of (criterion_score * weight)
-- **Pass threshold** = 7.0 (configurable)
-- **Max iterations** = 15 (configurable, typically 5-15 sufficient)
-
-## Usage
-
-### Via Command
-
-```bash
-# Full three-agent harness
-/project:gan-build "Build a project management app with Kanban boards, team collaboration, and dark mode"
-
-# With custom config
-/project:gan-build "Build a recipe sharing platform" --max-iterations 10 --pass-threshold 7.5
-
-# Frontend design mode (generator + evaluator only, no planner)
-/project:gan-design "Create a landing page for a crypto portfolio tracker"
-```
-
-### Via Shell Script
-
-```bash
-# Basic usage
-./scripts/gan-harness.sh "Build a music streaming dashboard"
-
-# With options
-GAN_MAX_ITERATIONS=10 \
-GAN_PASS_THRESHOLD=7.5 \
-GAN_EVAL_CRITERIA="functionality,performance,security" \
-./scripts/gan-harness.sh "Build a REST API for task management"
-```
-
-### Via Claude Code (Manual)
-
-```bash
-# Step 1: Plan
-claude -p --model opus "You are a Product Planner. Read PLANNER_PROMPT.md. Expand this brief into a full product spec: 'Build a Kanban board app'. Write spec to spec.md"
-
-# Step 2: Generate (iteration 1)
-claude -p --model opus "You are a Generator. Read spec.md. Implement Sprint 1. Start the dev server on port 3000."
-
-# Step 3: Evaluate (iteration 1)
-claude -p --model opus --allowedTools "Read,Bash,mcp__playwright__*" "You are an Evaluator. Read EVALUATOR_PROMPT.md. Test the live app at http://localhost:3000. Score against the rubric. Write feedback to feedback-001.md"
-
-# Step 4: Generate (iteration 2 — reads feedback)
-claude -p --model opus "You are a Generator. Read spec.md and feedback-001.md. Address all issues. Improve the scores."
-
-# Repeat steps 3-4 until pass threshold met
-```
-
-## Evolution Across Model Capabilities
-
-The harness should simplify as models improve. Following Anthropic's evolution:
-
-### Stage 1 — Weaker Models (Sonnet-class)
-- Full sprint decomposition required
-- Context resets between sprints (avoid context anxiety)
-- 2-agent minimum: Initializer + Coding Agent
-- Heavy scaffolding compensates for model limitations
-
-### Stage 2 — Capable Models (Opus 4.5-class)
-- Full 3-agent harness: Planner + Generator + Evaluator
-- Sprint contracts before each implementation phase
-- 10-sprint decomposition for complex apps
-- Context resets still useful but less critical
-
-### Stage 3 — Frontier Models (Opus 4.6-class)
-- Simplified harness: single planning pass, continuous generation
-- Evaluation reduced to single end-pass (model is smarter)
-- No sprint structure needed
-- Automatic compaction handles context growth
-
-> **Key principle:** Every harness component encodes an assumption about what the model can't do alone. When models improve, re-test those assumptions. Strip away what's no longer needed.
-
-## Configuration
-
-### Environment Variables
-
-| Variable | Default | Description |
-|----------|---------|-------------|
-| `GAN_MAX_ITERATIONS` | `15` | Maximum generator-evaluator cycles |
-| `GAN_PASS_THRESHOLD` | `7.0` | Weighted score to pass (1-10) |
-| `GAN_PLANNER_MODEL` | `opus` | Model for planning agent |
-| `GAN_GENERATOR_MODEL` | `opus` | Model for generator agent |
-| `GAN_EVALUATOR_MODEL` | `opus` | Model for evaluator agent |
-| `GAN_EVAL_CRITERIA` | `design,originality,craft,functionality` | Comma-separated criteria |
-| `GAN_DEV_SERVER_PORT` | `3000` | Port for the live app |
-| `GAN_DEV_SERVER_CMD` | `npm run dev` | Command to start dev server |
-| `GAN_PROJECT_DIR` | `.` | Project working directory |
-| `GAN_SKIP_PLANNER` | `false` | Skip planner, use spec directly |
-| `GAN_EVAL_MODE` | `playwright` | `playwright`, `screenshot`, or `code-only` |
-
-### Evaluation Modes
-
-| Mode | Tools | Best For |
-|------|-------|----------|
-| `playwright` | Browser MCP + live interaction | Full-stack apps with UI |
-| `screenshot` | Screenshot + visual analysis | Static sites, design-only |
-| `code-only` | Tests + linting + build | APIs, libraries, CLI tools |
-
-## Anti-Patterns
-
-1. **Evaluator too lenient** — If the evaluator passes everything on iteration 1, your rubric is too generous. Tighten scoring criteria and add explicit penalties for common AI patterns.
-
-2. **Generator ignoring feedback** — Ensure feedback is passed as a file, not inline. The generator should read `feedback-NNN.md` at the start of each iteration.
-
-3. **Infinite loops** — Always set `GAN_MAX_ITERATIONS`. If the generator can't improve past a score plateau after 3 iterations, stop and flag for human review.
-
-4. **Evaluator testing superficially** — The evaluator must use Playwright to **interact** with the live app, not just screenshot it. Click buttons, fill forms, test error states.
-
-5. **Evaluator praising its own fixes** — Never let the evaluator suggest fixes and then evaluate those fixes. The evaluator only critiques; the generator fixes.
-
-6. **Context exhaustion** — For long sessions, use Claude Agent SDK's automatic compaction or reset context between major phases.
-
-## Results: What to Expect
-
-Based on Anthropic's published results:
-
-| Metric | Solo Agent | GAN Harness | Improvement |
-|--------|-----------|-------------|-------------|
-| Time | 20 min | 4-6 hours | 12-18x longer |
-| Cost | $9 | $125-200 | 14-22x more |
-| Quality | Barely functional | Production-ready | Phase change |
-| Core features | Broken | All working | N/A |
-| Design | Generic AI slop | Distinctive, polished | N/A |
-
-**The tradeoff is clear:** ~20x more time and cost for a qualitative leap in output quality. This is for projects where quality matters.
-
-## References
-
-- [Anthropic: Harness Design for Long-Running Apps](https://www.anthropic.com/engineering/harness-design-long-running-apps) — Original paper by Prithvi Rajasekaran
-- [Epsilla: The GAN-Style Agent Loop](https://www.epsilla.com/blogs/anthropic-harness-engineering-multi-agent-gan-architecture) — Architecture deconstruction
-- [Martin Fowler: Harness Engineering](https://martinfowler.com/articles/exploring-gen-ai/harness-engineering.html) — Broader industry context
-- [OpenAI: Harness Engineering](https://openai.com/index/harness-engineering/) — OpenAI's parallel work
+---
+name: gan-style-harness
+description: "GAN-inspired Generator-Evaluator agent harness for building high-quality applications autonomously. Based on Anthropic's March 2026 harness design paper."
+origin: ECC-community
+tools: Read, Write, Edit, Bash, Grep, Glob, Task
+---
+
+# GAN-Style Harness Skill
+
+> Inspired by [Anthropic's Harness Design for Long-Running Application Development](https://www.anthropic.com/engineering/harness-design-long-running-apps) (March 24, 2026)
+
+A multi-agent harness that separates **generation** from **evaluation**, creating an adversarial feedback loop that drives quality far beyond what a single agent can achieve.
+
+## Core Insight
+
+> When asked to evaluate their own work, agents are pathological optimists — they praise mediocre output and talk themselves out of legitimate issues. But engineering a **separate evaluator** to be ruthlessly strict is far more tractable than teaching a generator to self-critique.
+
+This is the same dynamic as GANs (Generative Adversarial Networks): the Generator produces, the Evaluator critiques, and that feedback drives the next iteration.
+
+## When to Use
+
+- Building complete applications from a one-line prompt
+- Frontend design tasks requiring high visual quality
+- Full-stack projects that need working features, not just code
+- Any task where "AI slop" aesthetics are unacceptable
+- Projects where you want to invest $50-200 for production-quality output
+
+## When NOT to Use
+
+- Quick single-file fixes (use standard `claude -p`)
+- Tasks with tight budget constraints (<$10)
+- Simple refactoring (use de-sloppify pattern instead)
+- Tasks that are already well-specified with tests (use TDD workflow)
+
+## Architecture
+
+```
+                    ┌─────────────┐
+                    │   PLANNER   │
+                    │  (Opus 4.6) │
+                    └──────┬──────┘
+                           │ Product Spec
+                           │ (features, sprints, design direction)
+                           ▼
+              ┌────────────────────────┐
+              │                        │
+              │   GENERATOR-EVALUATOR  │
+              │      FEEDBACK LOOP     │
+              │                        │
+              │  ┌──────────┐          │
+              │  │GENERATOR │--build-->│──┐
+              │  │(Opus 4.6)│          │  │
+              │  └────▲─────┘          │  │
+              │       │                │  │ live app
+              │    feedback             │  │
+              │       │                │  │
+              │  ┌────┴─────┐          │  │
+              │  │EVALUATOR │<-test----│──┘
+              │  │(Opus 4.6)│          │
+              │  │+Playwright│         │
+              │  └──────────┘          │
+              │                        │
+              │   5-15 iterations      │
+              └────────────────────────┘
+```
+
+## The Three Agents
+
+### 1. Planner Agent
+
+**Role:** Product manager — expands a brief prompt into a full product specification.
+
+**Key behaviors:**
+- Takes a one-line prompt and produces a 16-feature, multi-sprint specification
+- Defines user stories, technical requirements, and visual design direction
+- Is deliberately **ambitious** — conservative planning leads to underwhelming results
+- Produces evaluation criteria that the Evaluator will use later
+
+**Model:** Opus 4.6 (needs deep reasoning for spec expansion)
+
+### 2. Generator Agent
+
+**Role:** Developer — implements features according to the spec.
+
+**Key behaviors:**
+- Works in structured sprints (or continuous mode with newer models)
+- Negotiates a "sprint contract" with the Evaluator before writing code
+- Uses full-stack tooling: React, FastAPI/Express, databases, CSS
+- Manages git for version control between iterations
+- Reads Evaluator feedback and incorporates it in next iteration
+
+**Model:** Opus 4.6 (needs strong coding capability)
+
+### 3. Evaluator Agent
+
+**Role:** QA engineer — tests the live running application, not just code.
+
+**Key behaviors:**
+- Uses **Playwright MCP** to interact with the live application
+- Clicks through features, fills forms, tests API endpoints
+- Scores against four criteria (configurable):
+  1. **Design Quality** — Does it feel like a coherent whole?
+  2. **Originality** — Custom decisions vs. template/AI patterns?
+  3. **Craft** — Typography, spacing, animations, micro-interactions?
+  4. **Functionality** — Do all features actually work?
+- Returns structured feedback with scores and specific issues
+- Is engineered to be **ruthlessly strict** — never praises mediocre work
+
+**Model:** Opus 4.6 (needs strong judgment + tool use)
+
+## Evaluation Criteria
+
+The default four criteria, each scored 1-10:
+
+```markdown
+## Evaluation Rubric
+
+### Design Quality (weight: 0.3)
+- 1-3: Generic, template-like, "AI slop" aesthetics
+- 4-6: Competent but unremarkable, follows conventions
+- 7-8: Distinctive, cohesive visual identity
+- 9-10: Could pass for a professional designer's work
+
+### Originality (weight: 0.2)
+- 1-3: Default colors, stock layouts, no personality
+- 4-6: Some custom choices, mostly standard patterns
+- 7-8: Clear creative vision, unique approach
+- 9-10: Surprising, delightful, genuinely novel
+
+### Craft (weight: 0.3)
+- 1-3: Broken layouts, missing states, no animations
+- 4-6: Works but feels rough, inconsistent spacing
+- 7-8: Polished, smooth transitions, responsive
+- 9-10: Pixel-perfect, delightful micro-interactions
+
+### Functionality (weight: 0.2)
+- 1-3: Core features broken or missing
+- 4-6: Happy path works, edge cases fail
+- 7-8: All features work, good error handling
+- 9-10: Bulletproof, handles every edge case
+```
+
+### Scoring
+
+- **Weighted score** = sum of (criterion_score * weight)
+- **Pass threshold** = 7.0 (configurable)
+- **Max iterations** = 15 (configurable, typically 5-15 sufficient)
+
+## Usage
+
+### Via Command
+
+```bash
+# Full three-agent harness
+/project:gan-build "Build a project management app with Kanban boards, team collaboration, and dark mode"
+
+# With custom config
+/project:gan-build "Build a recipe sharing platform" --max-iterations 10 --pass-threshold 7.5
+
+# Frontend design mode (generator + evaluator only, no planner)
+/project:gan-design "Create a landing page for a crypto portfolio tracker"
+```
+
+### Via Shell Script
+
+```bash
+# Basic usage
+./scripts/gan-harness.sh "Build a music streaming dashboard"
+
+# With options
+GAN_MAX_ITERATIONS=10 \
+GAN_PASS_THRESHOLD=7.5 \
+GAN_EVAL_CRITERIA="functionality,performance,security" \
+./scripts/gan-harness.sh "Build a REST API for task management"
+```
+
+### Via Claude Code (Manual)
+
+```bash
+# Step 1: Plan
+claude -p --model opus "You are a Product Planner. Read PLANNER_PROMPT.md. Expand this brief into a full product spec: 'Build a Kanban board app'. Write spec to spec.md"
+
+# Step 2: Generate (iteration 1)
+claude -p --model opus "You are a Generator. Read spec.md. Implement Sprint 1. Start the dev server on port 3000."
+
+# Step 3: Evaluate (iteration 1)
+claude -p --model opus --allowedTools "Read,Bash,mcp__playwright__*" "You are an Evaluator. Read EVALUATOR_PROMPT.md. Test the live app at http://localhost:3000. Score against the rubric. Write feedback to feedback-001.md"
+
+# Step 4: Generate (iteration 2 — reads feedback)
+claude -p --model opus "You are a Generator. Read spec.md and feedback-001.md. Address all issues. Improve the scores."
+
+# Repeat steps 3-4 until pass threshold met
+```
+
+## Evolution Across Model Capabilities
+
+The harness should simplify as models improve. Following Anthropic's evolution:
+
+### Stage 1 — Weaker Models (Sonnet-class)
+- Full sprint decomposition required
+- Context resets between sprints (avoid context anxiety)
+- 2-agent minimum: Initializer + Coding Agent
+- Heavy scaffolding compensates for model limitations
+
+### Stage 2 — Capable Models (Opus 4.5-class)
+- Full 3-agent harness: Planner + Generator + Evaluator
+- Sprint contracts before each implementation phase
+- 10-sprint decomposition for complex apps
+- Context resets still useful but less critical
+
+### Stage 3 — Frontier Models (Opus 4.6-class)
+- Simplified harness: single planning pass, continuous generation
+- Evaluation reduced to single end-pass (model is smarter)
+- No sprint structure needed
+- Automatic compaction handles context growth
+
+> **Key principle:** Every harness component encodes an assumption about what the model can't do alone. When models improve, re-test those assumptions. Strip away what's no longer needed.
+
+## Configuration
+
+### Environment Variables
+
+| Variable | Default | Description |
+|----------|---------|-------------|
+| `GAN_MAX_ITERATIONS` | `15` | Maximum generator-evaluator cycles |
+| `GAN_PASS_THRESHOLD` | `7.0` | Weighted score to pass (1-10) |
+| `GAN_PLANNER_MODEL` | `opus` | Model for planning agent |
+| `GAN_GENERATOR_MODEL` | `opus` | Model for generator agent |
+| `GAN_EVALUATOR_MODEL` | `opus` | Model for evaluator agent |
+| `GAN_EVAL_CRITERIA` | `design,originality,craft,functionality` | Comma-separated criteria |
+| `GAN_DEV_SERVER_PORT` | `3000` | Port for the live app |
+| `GAN_DEV_SERVER_CMD` | `npm run dev` | Command to start dev server |
+| `GAN_PROJECT_DIR` | `.` | Project working directory |
+| `GAN_SKIP_PLANNER` | `false` | Skip planner, use spec directly |
+| `GAN_EVAL_MODE` | `playwright` | `playwright`, `screenshot`, or `code-only` |
+
+### Evaluation Modes
+
+| Mode | Tools | Best For |
+|------|-------|----------|
+| `playwright` | Browser MCP + live interaction | Full-stack apps with UI |
+| `screenshot` | Screenshot + visual analysis | Static sites, design-only |
+| `code-only` | Tests + linting + build | APIs, libraries, CLI tools |
+
+## Anti-Patterns
+
+1. **Evaluator too lenient** — If the evaluator passes everything on iteration 1, your rubric is too generous. Tighten scoring criteria and add explicit penalties for common AI patterns.
+
+2. **Generator ignoring feedback** — Ensure feedback is passed as a file, not inline. The generator should read `feedback-NNN.md` at the start of each iteration.
+
+3. **Infinite loops** — Always set `GAN_MAX_ITERATIONS`. If the generator can't improve past a score plateau after 3 iterations, stop and flag for human review.
+
+4. **Evaluator testing superficially** — The evaluator must use Playwright to **interact** with the live app, not just screenshot it. Click buttons, fill forms, test error states.
+
+5. **Evaluator praising its own fixes** — Never let the evaluator suggest fixes and then evaluate those fixes. The evaluator only critiques; the generator fixes.
+
+6. **Context exhaustion** — For long sessions, use Claude Agent SDK's automatic compaction or reset context between major phases.
+
+## Results: What to Expect
+
+Based on Anthropic's published results:
+
+| Metric | Solo Agent | GAN Harness | Improvement |
+|--------|-----------|-------------|-------------|
+| Time | 20 min | 4-6 hours | 12-18x longer |
+| Cost | $9 | $125-200 | 14-22x more |
+| Quality | Barely functional | Production-ready | Phase change |
+| Core features | Broken | All working | N/A |
+| Design | Generic AI slop | Distinctive, polished | N/A |
+
+**The tradeoff is clear:** ~20x more time and cost for a qualitative leap in output quality. This is for projects where quality matters.
+
+## References
+
+- [Anthropic: Harness Design for Long-Running Apps](https://www.anthropic.com/engineering/harness-design-long-running-apps) — Original paper by Prithvi Rajasekaran
+- [Epsilla: The GAN-Style Agent Loop](https://www.epsilla.com/blogs/anthropic-harness-engineering-multi-agent-gan-architecture) — Architecture deconstruction
+- [Martin Fowler: Harness Engineering](https://martinfowler.com/articles/exploring-gen-ai/harness-engineering.html) — Broader industry context
+- [OpenAI: Harness Engineering](https://openai.com/index/harness-engineering/) — OpenAI's parallel work