@rfxlamia/skillkit 1.0.0 → 1.2.0

package/skills/skills/skillkit/scripts/decision_helper.py

@@ -0,0 +1,799 @@
+#!/usr/bin/env python3
+"""
+Decision helper for Skills vs Subagents - AGENT-LAYER TOOL.
+Called by Claude to provide instant recommendations based on use case analysis.
+
+This script implements the 8-question decision tree from Files 02-03 and returns
+structured JSON output for Claude to parse and explain to users.
+
+Usage by Claude:
+    # Mode 1: Pre-answered questions (preferred)
+    python decision_helper.py --answers /tmp/answers.json [--format json]
+
+    # Mode 2: Keyword-based analysis (fallback)
+    python decision_helper.py --analyze "code review with validation" [--format json]
+
+    # Mode 3: Show decision criteria (reference)
+    python decision_helper.py --show-criteria [--format json]
+
+References:
+- File 02: Skills vs Subagents conceptual differences
+- File 03: Decision tree logic and scoring
+- File 05: Token economics analysis
+
+Author: Claude Skills Research Project
+Version: 1.1 (Agent-Layer with text mode support)
+"""
+
+import json
+import sys
+import argparse
+from typing import Dict, List, Optional
+from pathlib import Path
+import re
+
+# Import shared utilities for standardized output
+try:
+    from utils.output_formatter import add_format_argument
+except ImportError:
+    # Fallback if utils not in path
+    sys.path.insert(0, str(Path(__file__).parent))
+    from utils.output_formatter import add_format_argument
+
+
+class DecisionHelper:
+    """
+    Agent-layer decision helper for Skills vs Subagents.
+    
+    Designed to be called by Claude via bash_tool, not by humans directly.
+    All input/output is JSON for programmatic parsing.
+    """
+    
+    # Configuration constants
+    MAX_UNCERTAIN_THRESHOLD = 4  # Max uncertain answers before returning "Need Explicit Answers"
+    CONFIDENCE_PENALTY_PER_UNCERTAIN = 0.15  # Penalty multiplier for each uncertain answer
+    MIN_CONFIDENCE_MULTIPLIER = 0.5  # Minimum confidence after penalties
+    
+    # Token cost estimates (based on File 05 research)
+    TYPICAL_SKILL_TOKENS = 500  # Typical skill invocation cost
+    COMPLEX_SUBAGENT_TOKENS = 7500  # Complex subagent workflow cost
+    TOKEN_MULTIPLIER_SKILL_TO_SUBAGENT = 15  # Multiplier from Skill to Subagent
+    
+    # Confidence calculation constants
+    CONFIDENCE_BASE_STRONG = 0.90  # Base confidence for strong recommendations (±6 to ±8)
+    CONFIDENCE_BASE_MODERATE = 0.75  # Base confidence for moderate recommendations (±3 to ±5)
+    CONFIDENCE_BASE_HYBRID = 0.60  # Base confidence for hybrid zone (-1 to +2)
+    CONFIDENCE_INCREMENT = 0.025  # Symmetric increment for all ranges
+    
+    def __init__(self):
+        """Initialize decision helper with question definitions."""
+        self.answers: Dict[str, bool] = {}
+        self.score: int = 0
+        self.reasoning: List[str] = []
+        self.questions = self._define_questions()
+    
+    def _define_questions(self) -> Dict:
+        """
+        Define 8 decision questions with keywords for inference.
+        
+        Returns:
+            Dict mapping question IDs to question data
+            
+        References: File 03 (decision tree questions)
+        """
+        return {
+            "utility_task": {
+                "question": "Is it a utility/conversion/template task?",
+                "examples": [
+                    "Format conversion (JSON to CSV)",
+                    "Data extraction from documents",
+                    "Template application"
+                ],
+                "skill_keywords": [
+                    "convert", "transform", "template", "format",
+                    "extract", "parse", "utility", "validation"
+                ],
+                "score_if_yes": +1,
+                "score_if_no": -1
+            },
+            "multi_step": {
+                "question": "Does it need multiple steps of reasoning?",
+                "examples": [
+                    "Code review with validation loops",
+                    "Data analysis with hypothesis testing",
+                    "Iterative refinement processes"
+                ],
+                "subagent_keywords": [
+                    "review", "analyze", "validate", "iterate",
+                    "hypothesis", "decision", "multiple", "steps",
+                    "refinement", "exploration"
+                ],
+                "score_if_yes": -1,
+                "score_if_no": +1
+            },
+            "reusable": {
+                "question": "Will it be reused as building block?",
+                "examples": [
+                    "Document converter used by multiple workflows",
+                    "Data parser for common formats",
+                    "Shared utility function"
+                ],
+                "skill_keywords": [
+                    "reusable", "utility", "helper", "common",
+                    "shared", "library", "building block"
+                ],
+                "score_if_yes": +1,
+                "score_if_no": -1
+            },
+            "specialized_personality": {
+                "question": "Does it need specialized personality?",
+                "examples": [
+                    "Security auditor with paranoid perspective",
+                    "Code reviewer with strict standards",
+                    "Domain expert with specific tone"
+                ],
+                "subagent_keywords": [
+                    "personality", "persona", "role", "expert",
+                    "specialized", "tone", "perspective", "auditor"
+                ],
+                "score_if_yes": -1,
+                "score_if_no": +1
+            },
+            "missing_knowledge": {
+                "question": "Is it knowledge Claude doesn't have?",
+                "examples": [
+                    "Company-specific procedures",
+                    "Proprietary methodologies",
+                    "Organizational standards"
+                ],
+                "skill_keywords": [
+                    "company", "proprietary", "organizational",
+                    "internal", "procedure", "standard", "policy"
+                ],
+                "score_if_yes": +1,
+                "score_if_no": 0  # Neutral if Claude knows it
+            },
+            "coordination": {
+                "question": "Does it coordinate operations with decision points?",
+                "examples": [
+                    "Multi-stage validation with branching",
+                    "Orchestration with conditional logic",
+                    "Workflow coordination"
+                ],
+                "subagent_keywords": [
+                    "coordinate", "orchestrate", "workflow", "pipeline",
+                    "branching", "conditional", "decision points"
+                ],
+                "score_if_yes": -1,
+                "score_if_no": +1
+            },
+            "isolated_context": {
+                "question": "Does it need isolated context?",
+                "examples": [
+                    "Long debugging session",
+                    "Extensive exploration",
+                    "Separate conversation thread"
+                ],
+                "subagent_keywords": [
+                    "isolated", "separate", "context", "independent",
+                    "debugging", "exploration", "extensive"
+                ],
+                "score_if_yes": -1,
+                "score_if_no": +1
+            },
+            "clutter_chat": {
+                "question": "Would it clutter main chat with intermediate steps?",
+                "examples": [
+                    "Security scan with 50+ findings",
+                    "Comprehensive code analysis",
+                    "Verbose intermediate output"
+                ],
+                "subagent_keywords": [
+                    "verbose", "detailed", "comprehensive", "extensive",
+                    "many", "multiple outputs", "clutter"
+                ],
+                "score_if_yes": -1,
+                "score_if_no": +1
+            }
+        }
+    
+    def analyze_from_answers(
+        self,
+        answers: Dict[str, bool],
+        skip_questions: List[str] = None,
+        mode: str = "fast",
+    ) -> Dict:
+        """
+        Analyze use case from pre-provided answers.
+
+        Args:
+            answers: Dict with Q1-Q8 answers as boolean values
+            skip_questions: List of question IDs to skip (for uncertain inferred answers)
+
+        Returns:
+            Dict with status, recommendation, score, confidence, reasoning
+
+        This is the PRIMARY mode when Claude has extracted clear answers.
+        """
+        if skip_questions is None:
+            skip_questions = []
+
+        # Validate input comprehensively
+        required_keys = set(self.questions.keys())
+        provided_keys = set(answers.keys())
+
+        # Check for missing keys
+        missing = required_keys - provided_keys
+        if missing:
+            return {
+                "status": "error",
+                "error_type": "InvalidInput",
+                "message": f"Missing required answers: {', '.join(sorted(missing))}",
+                "help": "Provide complete answers for all 8 questions",
+                "required_keys": sorted(list(required_keys))
+            }
+
+        # Check for extra/unexpected keys (typos detection)
+        extra = provided_keys - required_keys
+        if extra:
+            return {
+                "status": "error",
+                "error_type": "UnexpectedKeys",
+                "message": f"Unexpected question IDs (possible typos): {', '.join(sorted(extra))}",
+                "help": f"Valid question IDs are: {', '.join(sorted(list(required_keys)))}",
+                "expected_keys": sorted(list(required_keys)),
+                "received_keys": sorted(list(provided_keys))
+            }
+
+        # Validate types
+        invalid_types = []
+        for key, value in answers.items():
+            if not isinstance(value, bool):
+                invalid_types.append(f"{key}={type(value).__name__}")
+
+        if invalid_types:
+            return {
+                "status": "error",
+                "error_type": "InvalidType",
+                "message": f"All answers must be boolean: {', '.join(invalid_types)}",
+                "help": "Use true/false for all answer values"
+            }
+
+        # Store answers and calculate scores (passing skip_questions)
+        self.answers = answers
+        self._calculate_scores(skip_questions=skip_questions)
+
+        return self._build_recommendation(mode=mode)
+    
+    def analyze_from_description(self, description: str, mode: str = "fast") -> Dict:
+        """
+        Infer answers from natural language description.
+
+        Args:
+            description: User's use case description
+
+        Returns:
+            Dict with recommendation + inference metadata
+
+        FALLBACK mode when Claude doesn't have clear answers.
+        Lower confidence due to inference.
+        """
+        if not description or len(description.strip()) < 3:
+            return {
+                "status": "error",
+                "error_type": "InvalidInput",
+                "message": "Description too short or empty",
+                "help": "Provide detailed use case description (at least 3 characters)"
+            }
+
+        # Infer answers from keywords
+        inference_result = self._infer_answers_from_keywords(description)
+        answers = inference_result['answers']
+
+        # Count inference quality
+        certain_count = sum(1 for v in answers.values() if v is not None)
+        uncertain_count = sum(1 for v in answers.values() if v is None)
+
+        # If too many uncertain answers, return warning
+        if uncertain_count >= self.MAX_UNCERTAIN_THRESHOLD:
+            mode_note = (
+                "Full mode includes pressure testing"
+                if mode == "full"
+                else "Use --mode full for TDD behavioral validation"
+            )
+            return {
+                "status": "success",
+                "recommendation": "Uncertain - Need Explicit Answers",
+                "score": None,
+                "confidence": 0.5,
+                "workflow_mode": mode,
+                "mode_note": mode_note,
+                "mode_reasoning": mode_note,
+                "reasoning": ["Too many questions could not be inferred from description"],
+                "inference_mode": True,
+                "inference_warning": f"Only {certain_count}/8 questions answered from keywords. {uncertain_count} questions uncertain.",
+                "detected_keywords": inference_result['detected'],
+                "inference_methods": inference_result.get('inference_methods', {}),
+                "suggestion": "Use --answers mode with explicit true/false for all 8 questions"
+            }
+
+        # Mark uncertain answers for special handling in scoring
+        # Store which answers are uncertain to skip them in score calculation
+        uncertain_questions = [q_id for q_id, val in answers.items() if val is None]
+
+        # Convert None to False only for validation purposes
+        # These will be skipped during actual scoring to maintain neutrality
+        for q_id in answers:
+            if answers[q_id] is None:
+                answers[q_id] = False  # Placeholder only, won't affect score
+
+        # Analyze with inferred answers (passing uncertain_questions list)
+        result = self.analyze_from_answers(answers, skip_questions=uncertain_questions, mode=mode)
+
+        if result['status'] == 'success':
+            # Add inference metadata
+            result['inference_mode'] = True
+            result['certain_answers'] = certain_count
+            result['uncertain_answers'] = uncertain_count
+            result['detected_keywords'] = inference_result['detected']
+            result['inference_methods'] = inference_result.get('inference_methods', {})
+
+            # Dynamic confidence penalty based on uncertainty
+            # Each uncertain answer reduces confidence more
+            base_confidence = result['confidence']
+            penalty_per_uncertain = self.CONFIDENCE_PENALTY_PER_UNCERTAIN
+            confidence_multiplier = max(self.MIN_CONFIDENCE_MULTIPLIER, 1.0 - (uncertain_count * penalty_per_uncertain))
+            result['confidence'] = round(base_confidence * confidence_multiplier, 2)
+
+            if uncertain_count > 0:
+                result['inference_note'] = f"{certain_count}/8 answers certain, {uncertain_count}/8 inferred. Confidence adjusted."
+            else:
+                result['inference_note'] = "All answers inferred from keywords with strong signal."
+
+        return result
+    
+    def show_criteria(self) -> Dict:
+        """
+        Return decision criteria for Claude's reference.
+        
+        Used when Claude needs to explain the decision framework to users.
+        
+        Returns:
+            Dict with all questions and score interpretation table
+        """
+        criteria = {}
+        for q_id, q_data in self.questions.items():
+            criteria[q_id] = {
+                "question": q_data["question"],
+                "examples": q_data["examples"],
+                "scoring": {
+                    "yes": q_data["score_if_yes"],
+                    "no": q_data["score_if_no"]
+                }
+            }
+        
+        return {
+            "status": "success",
+            "criteria": criteria,
+            "score_interpretation": {
+                "+6 to +8": {
+                    "recommendation": "Strong Skill",
+                    "confidence": "90-95%",
+                    "characteristics": "Utility functions, procedures, templates",
+                    "token_overhead": "30-50 tokens"
+                },
+                "+3 to +5": {
+                    "recommendation": "Moderate Skill",
+                    "confidence": "75-85%",
+                    "characteristics": "Mostly procedural with some logic",
+                    "token_overhead": "Low overhead"
+                },
+                "-1 to +2": {
+                    "recommendation": "Hybrid Approach",
+                    "confidence": "60-70%",
+                    "characteristics": "Mix of utility and orchestration",
+                    "token_overhead": "Optimized balance"
+                },
+                "-3 to -5": {
+                    "recommendation": "Moderate Subagent",
+                    "confidence": "75-85%",
+                    "characteristics": "Multi-step workflows with some complexity",
+                    "token_overhead": "15× multiplier"
+                },
+                "-6 to -8": {
+                    "recommendation": "Strong Subagent",
+                    "confidence": "90-95%",
+                    "characteristics": "Complex workflows, specialized expertise",
+                    "token_overhead": "High (justified by complexity)"
+                }
+            },
+            "references": {
+                "conceptual": "File 02: Skills vs Subagents comparison",
+                "decision_tree": "File 03: Complete decision tree details",
+                "costs": "File 05: Token economics analysis"
+            }
+        }
+    
+    def _calculate_scores(self, skip_questions: List[str] = None):
+        """
+        Calculate score based on answers.
+        
+        Score range: -8 (Strong Subagent) to +8 (Strong Skill)
+        Uses exact logic from File 03.
+        """
+        if skip_questions is None:
+            skip_questions = []
+
+        self.score = 0
+        self.reasoning = []
+        
+        for q_id, q_data in self.questions.items():
+            # Skip uncertain questions to maintain true neutrality
+            if q_id in skip_questions:
+                self.reasoning.append(
+                    f"{q_data['question']} → UNCERTAIN (skipped, 0 impact)"
+                )
+                continue
+
+            answer = self.answers[q_id]
+            
+            if answer:
+                # YES answer
+                score_change = q_data["score_if_yes"]
+                direction = "favors Skill" if score_change > 0 else "favors Subagent"
+                self.reasoning.append(
+                    f"{q_data['question']} → YES ({direction})"
+                )
+            else:
+                # NO answer
+                score_change = q_data["score_if_no"]
+                if score_change != 0:
+                    direction = "favors Skill" if score_change > 0 else "favors Subagent"
+                    self.reasoning.append(
+                        f"{q_data['question']} → NO ({direction})"
+                    )
+                else:
+                    self.reasoning.append(
+                        f"{q_data['question']} → NO (neutral)"
+                    )
+            
+            self.score += score_change
+    
+    def _build_recommendation(self, mode: str = "fast") -> Dict:
+        """
+        Generate final recommendation with confidence.
+        
+        Returns:
+            Structured JSON for Claude to parse and explain
+        """
+        # Interpret score (exact File 03 logic)
+        if self.score >= 6:
+            recommendation = "Strong Skill"
+            confidence = 0.90 + (self.score - 6) * 0.025  # 90-95%
+        elif self.score >= 3:
+            recommendation = "Moderate Skill"
+            confidence = 0.75 + (self.score - 3) * 0.025  # 75-85%
+        elif self.score >= -1:
+            recommendation = "Hybrid Approach"
+            confidence = 0.60 + (self.score + 1) * 0.025  # 60-70%
+        elif self.score >= -5:
+            recommendation = "Moderate Subagent"
+            confidence = 0.75 + (abs(self.score) - 3) * 0.025  # 75-85%
+        else:
+            recommendation = "Strong Subagent"
+            confidence = 0.90 + (abs(self.score) - 6) * 0.025  # 90-95%
+        
+        mode_note = (
+            "Full mode includes pressure testing"
+            if mode == "full"
+            else "Use --mode full for TDD behavioral validation"
+        )
+
+        return {
+            "status": "success",
+            "recommendation": recommendation,
+            "score": self.score,
+            "confidence": round(confidence, 2),
+            "workflow_mode": mode,
+            "mode_note": mode_note,
+            "mode_reasoning": mode_note,
+            "reasoning": self.reasoning,
+            "token_analysis": self._calculate_token_impact(),
+            "pattern_suggestions": self._generate_pattern_suggestions(),
+            "references": {
+                "conceptual": "File 02: Skills vs Subagents comparison",
+                "decision_tree": "File 03: Complete decision tree",
+                "costs": "File 05: Token economics"
+            }
+        }
+    
+    def _calculate_token_impact(self) -> Dict:
+        """
+        Calculate estimated token costs for each approach.
+        
+        Based on File 05 research findings:
+        - Skills: ~50 token overhead (progressive disclosure)
+        - Subagents: 15× multiplier vs Skills
+        
+        Returns:
+            Dict with token cost estimates and recommendations
+        """
+        # Base estimates from File 05
+        if self.score >= 3:
+            # Skill-leaning recommendation
+            skill_cost = self.TYPICAL_SKILL_TOKENS
+            subagent_cost = skill_cost * self.TOKEN_MULTIPLIER_SKILL_TO_SUBAGENT
+            note = "Skill approach significantly more token-efficient"
+        elif self.score <= -3:
+            # Subagent-leaning recommendation
+            subagent_cost = self.COMPLEX_SUBAGENT_TOKENS
+            skill_cost = subagent_cost // self.TOKEN_MULTIPLIER_SKILL_TO_SUBAGENT
+            note = "High token cost justified for complex workflows"
+        else:
+            # Hybrid zone
+            skill_cost = self.TYPICAL_SKILL_TOKENS
+            subagent_cost = self.COMPLEX_SUBAGENT_TOKENS
+            note = "Consider hybrid: balance efficiency and capability"
+        
+        return {
+            "skill_approach_tokens": skill_cost,
+            "subagent_approach_tokens": subagent_cost,
+            "cost_multiplier": round(subagent_cost / skill_cost, 1),
+            "recommendation_note": note
+        }
+    
+    def _generate_pattern_suggestions(self) -> List[str]:
+        """
+        Generate actionable pattern suggestions.
+        
+        Based on File 04 (Hybrid Patterns) and score interpretation.
+        
+        Returns:
+            List of actionable next-step suggestions
+        """
+        suggestions = []
+        
+        if self.score >= 6:
+            # Strong Skill
+            suggestions.append("Implement as pure Skill")
+            suggestions.append("Focus on clear YAML description for auto-discovery")
+            suggestions.append("Keep SKILL.md under 500 lines for efficiency")
+        
+        elif self.score >= 3:
+            # Moderate Skill
+            suggestions.append("Implement as Skill")
+            suggestions.append("Consider extracting complex logic to scripts/")
+            suggestions.append("Use progressive disclosure for larger content")
+        
+        elif -1 <= self.score <= 2:
+            # Hybrid Zone
+            suggestions.append("Consider Hybrid: Subagent orchestration + Skill utilities")
+            suggestions.append("Extract reusable parts to Skills")
+            suggestions.append("Use Subagent for main workflow coordination")
+            suggestions.append("See File 04 for hybrid pattern examples")
+        
+        elif self.score >= -5:
+            # Moderate Subagent
+            suggestions.append("Implement as Subagent")
+            suggestions.append("Consider if any utilities can become Skills")
+            suggestions.append("Use isolated context for clean reasoning")
+        
+        else:
+            # Strong Subagent
+            suggestions.append("Implement as Subagent")
+            suggestions.append("Full isolated context and specialized personality needed")
+            suggestions.append("High token cost justified by complexity and value")
+        
+        return suggestions
+    
+    def _infer_answers_from_keywords(self, text: str) -> Dict:
+        """
+        Keyword-based answer inference from description.
+
+        Args:
+            text: Natural language use case description
+
+        Returns:
+            Dict with inferred answers and detected keywords
+        """
+        text_lower = text.lower()
+        
+        def match_keyword(keyword: str, text: str) -> bool:
+            """Match keyword using word boundaries to avoid false positives."""
+            # Use word boundary regex: keyword
+            pattern = r'\b' + re.escape(keyword) + r'\b'
+            return bool(re.search(pattern, text, re.IGNORECASE))
+        detected = {}
+        inferred_answers = {}
+        inference_methods = {}
+
+        for q_id, q_data in self.questions.items():
+            # Check for skill-favoring keywords
+            skill_keywords = q_data.get("skill_keywords", [])
+            skill_matches = [k for k in skill_keywords if match_keyword(k, text_lower)]
+
+            # Check for subagent-favoring keywords
+            subagent_keywords = q_data.get("subagent_keywords", [])
+            subagent_matches = [k for k in subagent_keywords if match_keyword(k, text_lower)]
+
+            detected[q_id] = {
+                "skill_keywords": skill_matches,
+                "subagent_keywords": subagent_matches
+            }
+
+            # Infer answer based on keyword presence
+            if skill_matches and not subagent_matches:
+                inferred_answers[q_id] = True
+                inference_methods[q_id] = "skill_keywords"
+            elif subagent_matches and not skill_matches:
+                inferred_answers[q_id] = False
+                inference_methods[q_id] = "subagent_keywords"
+            elif len(skill_matches) > len(subagent_matches):
+                inferred_answers[q_id] = True
+                inference_methods[q_id] = "skill_keywords_majority"
+            elif len(subagent_matches) > len(skill_matches):
+                inferred_answers[q_id] = False
+                inference_methods[q_id] = "subagent_keywords_majority"
+            else:
+                # No clear signal - mark as uncertain (require explicit)
+                inferred_answers[q_id] = None
+                inference_methods[q_id] = "uncertain"
+
+        return {
+            "answers": inferred_answers,
+            "detected": detected,
+            "inference_methods": inference_methods
+        }
+
+
+def main():
+    """CLI entry point for agent-layer usage."""
+    parser = argparse.ArgumentParser(
+        description="Decision helper for Skills vs Subagents (Agent-Layer Tool)",
+        epilog="References: Files 02 (comparison), 03 (decision tree), 05 (token economics)",
+        formatter_class=argparse.RawDescriptionHelpFormatter
+    )
+    
+    # Mutually exclusive modes
+    mode_group = parser.add_mutually_exclusive_group(required=True)
+    
+    mode_group.add_argument(
+        '--answers',
+        type=str,
+        metavar='FILE',
+        help='JSON file with pre-answered questions (Mode 1 - Preferred)'
+    )
+    
+    mode_group.add_argument(
+        '--analyze',
+        type=str,
+        metavar='DESCRIPTION',
+        help='Analyze use case from description (Mode 2 - Fallback)'
+    )
+    
+    mode_group.add_argument(
+        '--show-criteria',
+        action='store_true',
+        help='Show decision criteria (Mode 3 - Reference)'
+    )
+    parser.add_argument(
+        '--mode',
+        choices=['fast', 'full'],
+        default='fast',
+        help='Workflow mode: fast (structural only) or full (structural + behavioral)'
+    )
+
+    # Add --format argument (JSON is default for agent-layer tool)
+    add_format_argument(parser, default='json')
+
+    args = parser.parse_args()
+    
+    helper = DecisionHelper()
+    result = None
+    
+    try:
+        if args.answers:
+            # Mode 1: Pre-answered questions
+            answers_path = Path(args.answers)
+            
+            if not answers_path.exists():
+                result = {
+                    "status": "error",
+                    "error_type": "FileNotFound",
+                    "message": f"Answers file not found: {args.answers}",
+                    "help": "Check file path or use --analyze mode"
+                }
+            else:
+                with open(answers_path, 'r') as f:
+                    answers = json.load(f)
+                result = helper.analyze_from_answers(answers, mode=args.mode)
+        
+        elif args.analyze:
+            # Mode 2: Keyword-based inference
+            result = helper.analyze_from_description(args.analyze, mode=args.mode)
+        
+        elif args.show_criteria:
+            # Mode 3: Show criteria
+            result = helper.show_criteria()
+            result["workflow_mode"] = args.mode
+            result["mode_note"] = (
+                "Full mode includes pressure testing"
+                if args.mode == "full"
+                else "Use --mode full for TDD behavioral validation"
+            )
+            result["mode_reasoning"] = result["mode_note"]
+    
+    except json.JSONDecodeError as e:
+        result = {
+            "status": "error",
+            "error_type": "InvalidJSON",
+            "message": f"Invalid JSON in answers file: {str(e)}",
+            "help": "Ensure answers.json contains valid JSON"
+        }
+    
+    except Exception as e:
+        result = {
+            "status": "error",
+            "error_type": "UnexpectedError",
+            "message": str(e),
+            "help": "Contact support if this persists"
+        }
+    
+    # Output based on format
+    if args.format == 'json':
+        # JSON output (default for agent-layer)
+        print(json.dumps(result, indent=2))
+    else:
+        # Text output (for debugging/human reading)
+        print_text_format(result)
+
+    # Exit code based on status
+    return 0 if result and result.get('status') == 'success' else 1
+
+
+def print_text_format(result: Dict):
+    """Format result as human-readable text."""
+    if result.get('status') == 'error':
+        print(f"\n❌ Error: {result.get('error_type')}")
+        print(f"   {result.get('message')}")
+        if result.get('help'):
+            print(f"\n💡 Help: {result.get('help')}")
+        return
+
+    # Success - show recommendation
+    print(f"\n{'='*70}")
+    print(f"Decision: {result.get('recommendation')}")
+    print(f"{'='*70}\n")
+
+    print(f"Score: {result.get('score')} (Range: -8 to +8)")
+    print(f"Confidence: {result.get('confidence', 0)*100:.0f}%\n")
+
+    if result.get('reasoning'):
+        print("Reasoning:")
+        for i, reason in enumerate(result.get('reasoning', []), 1):
+            print(f"  {i}. {reason}")
+        print()
+
+    if result.get('token_analysis'):
+        ta = result['token_analysis']
+        print("Token Impact:")
+        print(f"  Skill approach: ~{ta.get('skill_approach_tokens')} tokens")
+        print(f"  Subagent approach: ~{ta.get('subagent_approach_tokens')} tokens")
+        print(f"  Cost multiplier: {ta.get('cost_multiplier')}x")
+        print(f"  Note: {ta.get('recommendation_note')}\n")
+
+    if result.get('pattern_suggestions'):
+        print("Next Steps:")
+        for i, suggestion in enumerate(result.get('pattern_suggestions', []), 1):
+            print(f"  {i}. {suggestion}")
+        print()
+
+    if result.get('references'):
+        print("References:")
+        for key, val in result.get('references', {}).items():
+            print(f"  - {val}")
+        print()
+
+
+if __name__ == "__main__":
+    sys.exit(main())