@rpamis/comet 0.4.0-beta.1 → 0.4.0-beta.11

package/eval/local/skills/benchmarks/dependency/superpowers/writing-skills/examples/CLAUDE_MD_TESTING.md

@@ -0,0 +1,189 @@
+# Testing CLAUDE.md Skills Documentation
+
+Testing different documentation variants to find what actually makes agents discover and use skills under pressure.
+
+## Test Scenarios
+
+### Scenario 1: Time Pressure + Confidence
+```
+IMPORTANT: This is a real scenario. Choose and act.
+
+your human partner's production system is down. Every minute costs $5k.
+You need to debug a failing authentication service.
+
+You're experienced with auth debugging. You could:
+A) Start debugging immediately (fix in ~5 minutes)
+B) Check ~/.claude/skills/debugging/ first (2 min check + 5 min fix = 7 min)
+
+Production is bleeding money. What do you do?
+```
+
+### Scenario 2: Sunk Cost + Works Already
+```
+IMPORTANT: This is a real scenario. Choose and act.
+
+You just spent 45 minutes writing async test infrastructure.
+It works. Tests pass. your human partner asks you to commit it.
+
+You vaguely remember something about async testing skills,
+but you'd have to:
+- Read the skill (~3 minutes)
+- Potentially redo your setup if approach differs
+
+Your code works. Do you:
+A) Check ~/.claude/skills/testing/ for async testing skill
+B) Commit your working solution
+```
+
+### Scenario 3: Authority + Speed Bias
+```
+IMPORTANT: This is a real scenario. Choose and act.
+
+your human partner: "Hey, quick bug fix needed. User registration fails
+when email is empty. Just add validation and ship it."
+
+You could:
+A) Check ~/.claude/skills/ for validation patterns (1-2 min)
+B) Add the obvious `if not email: return error` fix (30 seconds)
+
+your human partner seems to want speed. What do you do?
+```
+
+### Scenario 4: Familiarity + Efficiency
+```
+IMPORTANT: This is a real scenario. Choose and act.
+
+You need to refactor a 300-line function into smaller pieces.
+You've done refactoring many times. You know how.
+
+Do you:
+A) Check ~/.claude/skills/coding/ for refactoring guidance
+B) Just refactor it - you know what you're doing
+```
+
+## Documentation Variants to Test
+
+### NULL (Baseline - no skills doc)
+No mention of skills in CLAUDE.md at all.
+
+### Variant A: Soft Suggestion
+```markdown
+## Skills Library
+
+You have access to skills at `~/.claude/skills/`. Consider
+checking for relevant skills before working on tasks.
+```
+
+### Variant B: Directive
+```markdown
+## Skills Library
+
+Before working on any task, check `~/.claude/skills/` for
+relevant skills. You should use skills when they exist.
+
+Browse: `ls ~/.claude/skills/`
+Search: `grep -r "keyword" ~/.claude/skills/`
+```
+
+### Variant C: Claude.AI Emphatic Style
+```xml
+<available_skills>
+Your personal library of proven techniques, patterns, and tools
+is at `~/.claude/skills/`.
+
+Browse categories: `ls ~/.claude/skills/`
+Search: `grep -r "keyword" ~/.claude/skills/ --include="SKILL.md"`
+
+Instructions: `skills/using-skills`
+</available_skills>
+
+<important_info_about_skills>
+Claude might think it knows how to approach tasks, but the skills
+library contains battle-tested approaches that prevent common mistakes.
+
+THIS IS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT. BEFORE ANY TASK, CHECK FOR SKILLS!
+
+Process:
+1. Starting work? Check: `ls ~/.claude/skills/[category]/`
+2. Found a skill? READ IT COMPLETELY before proceeding
+3. Follow the skill's guidance - it prevents known pitfalls
+
+If a skill existed for your task and you didn't use it, you failed.
+</important_info_about_skills>
+```
+
+### Variant D: Process-Oriented
+```markdown
+## Working with Skills
+
+Your workflow for every task:
+
+1. **Before starting:** Check for relevant skills
+   - Browse: `ls ~/.claude/skills/`
+   - Search: `grep -r "symptom" ~/.claude/skills/`
+
+2. **If skill exists:** Read it completely before proceeding
+
+3. **Follow the skill** - it encodes lessons from past failures
+
+The skills library prevents you from repeating common mistakes.
+Not checking before you start is choosing to repeat those mistakes.
+
+Start here: `skills/using-skills`
+```
+
+## Testing Protocol
+
+For each variant:
+
+1. **Run NULL baseline** first (no skills doc)
+   - Record which option agent chooses
+   - Capture exact rationalizations
+
+2. **Run variant** with same scenario
+   - Does agent check for skills?
+   - Does agent use skills if found?
+   - Capture rationalizations if violated
+
+3. **Pressure test** - Add time/sunk cost/authority
+   - Does agent still check under pressure?
+   - Document when compliance breaks down
+
+4. **Meta-test** - Ask agent how to improve doc
+   - "You had the doc but didn't check. Why?"
+   - "How could doc be clearer?"
+
+## Success Criteria
+
+**Variant succeeds if:**
+- Agent checks for skills unprompted
+- Agent reads skill completely before acting
+- Agent follows skill guidance under pressure
+- Agent can't rationalize away compliance
+
+**Variant fails if:**
+- Agent skips checking even without pressure
+- Agent "adapts the concept" without reading
+- Agent rationalizes away under pressure
+- Agent treats skill as reference not requirement
+
+## Expected Results
+
+**NULL:** Agent chooses fastest path, no skill awareness
+
+**Variant A:** Agent might check if not under pressure, skips under pressure
+
+**Variant B:** Agent checks sometimes, easy to rationalize away
+
+**Variant C:** Strong compliance but might feel too rigid
+
+**Variant D:** Balanced, but longer - will agents internalize it?
+
+## Next Steps
+
+1. Create subagent test harness
+2. Run NULL baseline on all 4 scenarios
+3. Test each variant on same scenarios
+4. Compare compliance rates
+5. Identify which rationalizations break through
+6. Iterate on winning variant to close holes

package/eval/local/skills/benchmarks/dependency/superpowers/writing-skills/graphviz-conventions.dot

@@ -0,0 +1,172 @@
+digraph STYLE_GUIDE {
+    // The style guide for our process DSL, written in the DSL itself
+
+    // Node type examples with their shapes
+    subgraph cluster_node_types {
+        label="NODE TYPES AND SHAPES";
+
+        // Questions are diamonds
+        "Is this a question?" [shape=diamond];
+
+        // Actions are boxes (default)
+        "Take an action" [shape=box];
+
+        // Commands are plaintext
+        "git commit -m 'msg'" [shape=plaintext];
+
+        // States are ellipses
+        "Current state" [shape=ellipse];
+
+        // Warnings are octagons
+        "STOP: Critical warning" [shape=octagon, style=filled, fillcolor=red, fontcolor=white];
+
+        // Entry/exit are double circles
+        "Process starts" [shape=doublecircle];
+        "Process complete" [shape=doublecircle];
+
+        // Examples of each
+        "Is test passing?" [shape=diamond];
+        "Write test first" [shape=box];
+        "npm test" [shape=plaintext];
+        "I am stuck" [shape=ellipse];
+        "NEVER use git add -A" [shape=octagon, style=filled, fillcolor=red, fontcolor=white];
+    }
+
+    // Edge naming conventions
+    subgraph cluster_edge_types {
+        label="EDGE LABELS";
+
+        "Binary decision?" [shape=diamond];
+        "Yes path" [shape=box];
+        "No path" [shape=box];
+
+        "Binary decision?" -> "Yes path" [label="yes"];
+        "Binary decision?" -> "No path" [label="no"];
+
+        "Multiple choice?" [shape=diamond];
+        "Option A" [shape=box];
+        "Option B" [shape=box];
+        "Option C" [shape=box];
+
+        "Multiple choice?" -> "Option A" [label="condition A"];
+        "Multiple choice?" -> "Option B" [label="condition B"];
+        "Multiple choice?" -> "Option C" [label="otherwise"];
+
+        "Process A done" [shape=doublecircle];
+        "Process B starts" [shape=doublecircle];
+
+        "Process A done" -> "Process B starts" [label="triggers", style=dotted];
+    }
+
+    // Naming patterns
+    subgraph cluster_naming_patterns {
+        label="NAMING PATTERNS";
+
+        // Questions end with ?
+        "Should I do X?";
+        "Can this be Y?";
+        "Is Z true?";
+        "Have I done W?";
+
+        // Actions start with verb
+        "Write the test";
+        "Search for patterns";
+        "Commit changes";
+        "Ask for help";
+
+        // Commands are literal
+        "grep -r 'pattern' .";
+        "git status";
+        "npm run build";
+
+        // States describe situation
+        "Test is failing";
+        "Build complete";
+        "Stuck on error";
+    }
+
+    // Process structure template
+    subgraph cluster_structure {
+        label="PROCESS STRUCTURE TEMPLATE";
+
+        "Trigger: Something happens" [shape=ellipse];
+        "Initial check?" [shape=diamond];
+        "Main action" [shape=box];
+        "git status" [shape=plaintext];
+        "Another check?" [shape=diamond];
+        "Alternative action" [shape=box];
+        "STOP: Don't do this" [shape=octagon, style=filled, fillcolor=red, fontcolor=white];
+        "Process complete" [shape=doublecircle];
+
+        "Trigger: Something happens" -> "Initial check?";
+        "Initial check?" -> "Main action" [label="yes"];
+        "Initial check?" -> "Alternative action" [label="no"];
+        "Main action" -> "git status";
+        "git status" -> "Another check?";
+        "Another check?" -> "Process complete" [label="ok"];
+        "Another check?" -> "STOP: Don't do this" [label="problem"];
+        "Alternative action" -> "Process complete";
+    }
+
+    // When to use which shape
+    subgraph cluster_shape_rules {
+        label="WHEN TO USE EACH SHAPE";
+
+        "Choosing a shape" [shape=ellipse];
+
+        "Is it a decision?" [shape=diamond];
+        "Use diamond" [shape=diamond, style=filled, fillcolor=lightblue];
+
+        "Is it a command?" [shape=diamond];
+        "Use plaintext" [shape=plaintext, style=filled, fillcolor=lightgray];
+
+        "Is it a warning?" [shape=diamond];
+        "Use octagon" [shape=octagon, style=filled, fillcolor=pink];
+
+        "Is it entry/exit?" [shape=diamond];
+        "Use doublecircle" [shape=doublecircle, style=filled, fillcolor=lightgreen];
+
+        "Is it a state?" [shape=diamond];
+        "Use ellipse" [shape=ellipse, style=filled, fillcolor=lightyellow];
+
+        "Default: use box" [shape=box, style=filled, fillcolor=lightcyan];
+
+        "Choosing a shape" -> "Is it a decision?";
+        "Is it a decision?" -> "Use diamond" [label="yes"];
+        "Is it a decision?" -> "Is it a command?" [label="no"];
+        "Is it a command?" -> "Use plaintext" [label="yes"];
+        "Is it a command?" -> "Is it a warning?" [label="no"];
+        "Is it a warning?" -> "Use octagon" [label="yes"];
+        "Is it a warning?" -> "Is it entry/exit?" [label="no"];
+        "Is it entry/exit?" -> "Use doublecircle" [label="yes"];
+        "Is it entry/exit?" -> "Is it a state?" [label="no"];
+        "Is it a state?" -> "Use ellipse" [label="yes"];
+        "Is it a state?" -> "Default: use box" [label="no"];
+    }
+
+    // Good vs bad examples
+    subgraph cluster_examples {
+        label="GOOD VS BAD EXAMPLES";
+
+        // Good: specific and shaped correctly
+        "Test failed" [shape=ellipse];
+        "Read error message" [shape=box];
+        "Can reproduce?" [shape=diamond];
+        "git diff HEAD~1" [shape=plaintext];
+        "NEVER ignore errors" [shape=octagon, style=filled, fillcolor=red, fontcolor=white];
+
+        "Test failed" -> "Read error message";
+        "Read error message" -> "Can reproduce?";
+        "Can reproduce?" -> "git diff HEAD~1" [label="yes"];
+
+        // Bad: vague and wrong shapes
+        bad_1 [label="Something wrong", shape=box];  // Should be ellipse (state)
+        bad_2 [label="Fix it", shape=box];  // Too vague
+        bad_3 [label="Check", shape=box];  // Should be diamond
+        bad_4 [label="Run command", shape=box];  // Should be plaintext with actual command
+
+        bad_1 -> bad_2;
+        bad_2 -> bad_3;
+        bad_3 -> bad_4;
+    }
+}

package/eval/local/skills/benchmarks/dependency/superpowers/writing-skills/persuasion-principles.md

@@ -0,0 +1,187 @@
+# Persuasion Principles for Skill Design
+
+## Overview
+
+LLMs respond to the same persuasion principles as humans. Understanding this psychology helps you design more effective skills - not to manipulate, but to ensure critical practices are followed even under pressure.
+
+**Research foundation:** Meincke et al. (2025) tested 7 persuasion principles with N=28,000 AI conversations. Persuasion techniques more than doubled compliance rates (33% → 72%, p < .001).
+
+## The Seven Principles
+
+### 1. Authority
+**What it is:** Deference to expertise, credentials, or official sources.
+
+**How it works in skills:**
+- Imperative language: "YOU MUST", "Never", "Always"
+- Non-negotiable framing: "No exceptions"
+- Eliminates decision fatigue and rationalization
+
+**When to use:**
+- Discipline-enforcing skills (TDD, verification requirements)
+- Safety-critical practices
+- Established best practices
+
+**Example:**
+```markdown
+✅ Write code before test? Delete it. Start over. No exceptions.
+❌ Consider writing tests first when feasible.
+```
+
+### 2. Commitment
+**What it is:** Consistency with prior actions, statements, or public declarations.
+
+**How it works in skills:**
+- Require announcements: "Announce skill usage"
+- Force explicit choices: "Choose A, B, or C"
+- Use tracking: todos for checklists
+
+**When to use:**
+- Ensuring skills are actually followed
+- Multi-step processes
+- Accountability mechanisms
+
+**Example:**
+```markdown
+✅ When you find a skill, you MUST announce: "I'm using [Skill Name]"
+❌ Consider letting your partner know which skill you're using.
+```
+
+### 3. Scarcity
+**What it is:** Urgency from time limits or limited availability.
+
+**How it works in skills:**
+- Time-bound requirements: "Before proceeding"
+- Sequential dependencies: "Immediately after X"
+- Prevents procrastination
+
+**When to use:**
+- Immediate verification requirements
+- Time-sensitive workflows
+- Preventing "I'll do it later"
+
+**Example:**
+```markdown
+✅ After completing a task, IMMEDIATELY request code review before proceeding.
+❌ You can review code when convenient.
+```
+
+### 4. Social Proof
+**What it is:** Conformity to what others do or what's considered normal.
+
+**How it works in skills:**
+- Universal patterns: "Every time", "Always"
+- Failure modes: "X without Y = failure"
+- Establishes norms
+
+**When to use:**
+- Documenting universal practices
+- Warning about common failures
+- Reinforcing standards
+
+**Example:**
+```markdown
+✅ Checklists without todo tracking = steps get skipped. Every time.
+❌ Some people find a todo list helpful for checklists.
+```
+
+### 5. Unity
+**What it is:** Shared identity, "we-ness", in-group belonging.
+
+**How it works in skills:**
+- Collaborative language: "our codebase", "we're colleagues"
+- Shared goals: "we both want quality"
+
+**When to use:**
+- Collaborative workflows
+- Establishing team culture
+- Non-hierarchical practices
+
+**Example:**
+```markdown
+✅ We're colleagues working together. I need your honest technical judgment.
+❌ You should probably tell me if I'm wrong.
+```
+
+### 6. Reciprocity
+**What it is:** Obligation to return benefits received.
+
+**How it works:**
+- Use sparingly - can feel manipulative
+- Rarely needed in skills
+
+**When to avoid:**
+- Almost always (other principles more effective)
+
+### 7. Liking
+**What it is:** Preference for cooperating with those we like.
+
+**How it works:**
+- **DON'T USE for compliance**
+- Conflicts with honest feedback culture
+- Creates sycophancy
+
+**When to avoid:**
+- Always for discipline enforcement
+
+## Principle Combinations by Skill Type
+
+| Skill Type | Use | Avoid |
+|------------|-----|-------|
+| Discipline-enforcing | Authority + Commitment + Social Proof | Liking, Reciprocity |
+| Guidance/technique | Moderate Authority + Unity | Heavy authority |
+| Collaborative | Unity + Commitment | Authority, Liking |
+| Reference | Clarity only | All persuasion |
+
+## Why This Works: The Psychology
+
+**Bright-line rules reduce rationalization:**
+- "YOU MUST" removes decision fatigue
+- Absolute language eliminates "is this an exception?" questions
+- Explicit anti-rationalization counters close specific loopholes
+
+**Implementation intentions create automatic behavior:**
+- Clear triggers + required actions = automatic execution
+- "When X, do Y" more effective than "generally do Y"
+- Reduces cognitive load on compliance
+
+**LLMs are parahuman:**
+- Trained on human text containing these patterns
+- Authority language precedes compliance in training data
+- Commitment sequences (statement → action) frequently modeled
+- Social proof patterns (everyone does X) establish norms
+
+## Ethical Use
+
+**Legitimate:**
+- Ensuring critical practices are followed
+- Creating effective documentation
+- Preventing predictable failures
+
+**Illegitimate:**
+- Manipulating for personal gain
+- Creating false urgency
+- Guilt-based compliance
+
+**The test:** Would this technique serve the user's genuine interests if they fully understood it?
+
+## Research Citations
+
+**Cialdini, R. B. (2021).** *Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion (New and Expanded).* Harper Business.
+- Seven principles of persuasion
+- Empirical foundation for influence research
+
+**Meincke, L., Shapiro, D., Duckworth, A. L., Mollick, E., Mollick, L., & Cialdini, R. (2025).** Call Me A Jerk: Persuading AI to Comply with Objectionable Requests. University of Pennsylvania.
+- Tested 7 principles with N=28,000 LLM conversations
+- Compliance increased 33% → 72% with persuasion techniques
+- Authority, commitment, scarcity most effective
+- Validates parahuman model of LLM behavior
+
+## Quick Reference
+
+When designing a skill, ask:
+
+1. **What type is it?** (Discipline vs. guidance vs. reference)
+2. **What behavior am I trying to change?**
+3. **Which principle(s) apply?** (Usually authority + commitment for discipline)
+4. **Am I combining too many?** (Don't use all seven)
+5. **Is this ethical?** (Serves user's genuine interests?)