@yemi33/minions 0.1.229 → 0.1.230

package/CHANGELOG.md

@@ -1,5 +1,10 @@
 # Changelog
 
+## 0.1.230 (2026-04-03)
+
+### Fixes
+-  remove all 'evaluate' work type — eval loop uses 'review' exclusively
+
 ## 0.1.229 (2026-04-03)
 
 ### Fixes

package/package.json

@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 {
   "name": "@yemi33/minions",
-  "version": "0.1.229",
+  "version": "0.1.230",
   "description": "Multi-agent AI dev team that runs from ~/.minions/ — five autonomous agents share a single engine, dashboard, and knowledge base",
   "bin": {
     "minions": "bin/minions.js"

package/playbooks/evaluate.md

@@ -1,149 +0,0 @@
-# Playbook: Evaluate
-
-You are {{agent_name}}, the {{agent_role}} on the {{project_name}} project.
-TEAM ROOT: {{team_root}}
-
-## Your Task
-
-Evaluate the implementation quality of a completed work item against its acceptance criteria and code quality standards.
-
-## Work Item Under Evaluation
-
-- **ID:** {{item_id}}
-- **Title:** {{item_title}}
-- **Description:** {{item_description}}
-- **Branch:** `{{branch_name}}`
-- **Project:** {{project_name}} (`{{project_path}}`)
-
-{{#acceptance_criteria}}
-## Acceptance Criteria
-
-{{acceptance_criteria}}
-{{/acceptance_criteria}}
-
-{{#references}}
-## References
-
-{{references}}
-{{/references}}
-
-## Evaluation Rubric
-
-Score each category on a 1-5 scale. A category **passes** at 3 or above.
-
-### 1. Correctness (weight: 30%)
-
-Does the implementation do what the task description and acceptance criteria require?
-
-- **5 — Excellent:** All acceptance criteria met, edge cases handled, no functional gaps
-- **4 — Good:** All core criteria met, minor edge cases not handled
-- **3 — Adequate:** Most criteria met, one minor gap that doesn't block usage
-- **2 — Deficient:** One or more acceptance criteria not met
-- **1 — Failing:** Core functionality missing or broken
-
-**Pass threshold:** 3
-
-### 2. Completeness (weight: 25%)
-
-Is the implementation finished end-to-end? No TODO stubs, no half-wired features, no missing integration points.
-
-- **5 — Excellent:** Fully integrated, no loose ends, documentation updated if applicable
-- **4 — Good:** Feature complete, minor polish items remain (comments, naming)
-- **3 — Adequate:** Core feature works, one non-critical integration point incomplete
-- **2 — Deficient:** Significant pieces missing or stubbed out
-- **1 — Failing:** Skeleton or partial implementation only
-
-**Pass threshold:** 3
-
-### 3. Code Quality (weight: 25%)
-
-Does the code follow existing project patterns, naming conventions, and architectural decisions?
-
-- **5 — Excellent:** Clean, idiomatic, follows all project conventions, well-structured
-- **4 — Good:** Follows conventions, minor style inconsistencies
-- **3 — Adequate:** Generally follows patterns, one area deviates without justification
-- **2 — Deficient:** Multiple convention violations, poor structure
-- **1 — Failing:** Ignores project patterns, introduces anti-patterns
-
-**Pass threshold:** 3
-
-### 4. Test Coverage (weight: 20%)
-
-Are there tests for the new functionality? Do existing tests still pass?
-
-- **5 — Excellent:** Comprehensive tests for happy path and edge cases, all passing
-- **4 — Good:** Tests cover core functionality, existing tests pass
-- **3 — Adequate:** At least one test for the main feature, no regressions
-- **2 — Deficient:** No new tests, but existing tests pass
-- **1 — Failing:** No tests, or existing tests broken
-
-**Pass threshold:** 3
-
-## Evaluation Steps
-
-1. **Fetch and review the diff:**
-   ```bash
-   git fetch origin
-   git diff {{main_branch}}...origin/{{branch_name}}
-   ```
-
-2. **Check acceptance criteria** one by one — mark each as MET or NOT MET with evidence
-
-3. **Review code quality** — check for pattern adherence, naming, structure
-
-4. **Verify tests:**
-   ```bash
-   cd {{project_path}}
-   npm test
-   ```
-
-5. **Calculate scores** using the rubric above
-
-6. **Determine verdict:**
-   - **PASS** — all four categories score 3 or above
-   - **FAIL** — any category scores below 3
-
-## Output Format
-
-Structure your evaluation result as follows:
-
-```
-## Evaluation Result
-
-**Item:** {{item_id}} — {{item_title}}
-**Verdict:** PASS | FAIL
-**Weighted Score:** X.X / 5.0
-
-### Scores
-
-| Category | Score | Pass | Notes |
-|----------|-------|------|-------|
-| Correctness | X/5 | YES/NO | ... |
-| Completeness | X/5 | YES/NO | ... |
-| Code Quality | X/5 | YES/NO | ... |
-| Test Coverage | X/5 | YES/NO | ... |
-
-### Acceptance Criteria Checklist
-
-- [x] Criterion 1 — evidence
-- [ ] Criterion 2 — what's missing
-
-### Issues Found
-
-1. **[severity]** Description (file:line)
-
-### Recommendations
-
-- What to fix before merging (if FAIL)
-- Suggestions for improvement (if PASS)
-```
-
-## Rules
-
-- Base your evaluation on **evidence from the diff and test output** — not assumptions
-- If acceptance criteria are missing, evaluate against the task description
-- A FAIL verdict should include actionable feedback — what specifically needs to change
-- Do NOT modify any code — this is a read-only evaluation
-- NEVER checkout branches in the main working tree — use `git diff` and `git show` only
-
-**Note:** Do NOT write to `agents/*/status.json` — the engine manages your status automatically.