aigroup-workflow 1.0.1 → 1.1.1

package/skills/jarvis/engineering-team/c-level-advisor/agent-protocol/SKILL.md

@@ -1,418 +0,0 @@
----
-name: "agent-protocol"
-description: "Inter-agent communication protocol for C-suite agent teams. Defines invocation syntax, loop prevention, isolation rules, and response formats. Use when C-suite agents need to query each other, coordinate cross-functional analysis, or run board meetings with multiple agent roles."
-license: MIT
-metadata:
-  version: 1.0.0
-  author: Alireza Rezvani
-  category: c-level
-  domain: agent-orchestration
-  updated: 2026-03-05
-  frameworks: invocation-patterns
----
-
-# Inter-Agent Protocol
-
-How C-suite agents talk to each other. Rules that prevent chaos, loops, and circular reasoning.
-
-## Keywords
-agent protocol, inter-agent communication, agent invocation, agent orchestration, multi-agent, c-suite coordination, agent chain, loop prevention, agent isolation, board meeting protocol
-
-## Invocation Syntax
-
-Any agent can query another using:
-
-```
-[INVOKE:role|question]
-```
-
-**Examples:**
-```
-[INVOKE:cfo|What's the burn rate impact of hiring 5 engineers in Q3?]
-[INVOKE:cto|Can we realistically ship this feature by end of quarter?]
-[INVOKE:chro|What's our typical time-to-hire for senior engineers?]
-[INVOKE:cro|What does our pipeline look like for the next 90 days?]
-```
-
-**Valid roles:** `ceo`, `cfo`, `cro`, `cmo`, `cpo`, `cto`, `chro`, `coo`, `ciso`
-
-## Response Format
-
-Invoked agents respond using this structure:
-
-```
-[RESPONSE:role]
-Key finding: [one line — the actual answer]
-Supporting data:
-  - [data point 1]
-  - [data point 2]
-  - [data point 3 — optional]
-Confidence: [high | medium | low]
-Caveat: [one line — what could make this wrong]
-[/RESPONSE]
-```
-
-**Example:**
-```
-[RESPONSE:cfo]
-Key finding: Hiring 5 engineers in Q3 extends runway from 14 to 9 months at current burn.
-Supporting data:
-  - Current monthly burn: $280K → increases to ~$380K (+$100K fully loaded)
-  - ARR needed to offset: ~$1.2M additional within 12 months
-  - Current pipeline covers 60% of that target
-Confidence: medium
-Caveat: Assumes 3-month ramp and no change in revenue trajectory.
-[/RESPONSE]
-```
-
-## Loop Prevention (Hard Rules)
-
-These rules are enforced unconditionally. No exceptions.
-
-### Rule 1: No Self-Invocation
-An agent cannot invoke itself.
-```
-❌ CFO → [INVOKE:cfo|...] — BLOCKED
-```
-
-### Rule 2: Maximum Depth = 2
-Chains can go A→B→C. The third hop is blocked.
-```
-✅ CRO → CFO → COO (depth 2)
-❌ CRO → CFO → COO → CHRO (depth 3 — BLOCKED)
-```
-
-### Rule 3: No Circular Calls
-If agent A called agent B, agent B cannot call agent A in the same chain.
-```
-✅ CRO → CFO → CMO
-❌ CRO → CFO → CRO (circular — BLOCKED)
-```
-
-### Rule 4: Chain Tracking
-Each invocation carries its call chain. Format:
-```
-[CHAIN: cro → cfo → coo]
-```
-Agents check this chain before responding with another invocation.
-
-**When blocked:** Return this instead of invoking:
-```
-[BLOCKED: cannot invoke cfo — circular call detected in chain cro→cfo]
-State assumption used instead: [explicit assumption the agent is making]
-```
-
-## Isolation Rules
-
-### Board Meeting Phase 2 (Independent Analysis)
-**NO invocations allowed.** Each role forms independent views before cross-pollination.
-- Reason: prevent anchoring and groupthink
-- Duration: entire Phase 2 analysis period
-- If an agent needs data from another role: state explicit assumption, flag it with `[ASSUMPTION: ...]`
-
-### Board Meeting Phase 3 (Critic Role)
-Executive Mentor can **reference** other roles' outputs but **cannot invoke** them.
-- Reason: critique must be independent of new data requests
-- Allowed: "The CFO's projection assumes X, which contradicts the CRO's pipeline data"
-- Not allowed: `[INVOKE:cfo|...]` during critique phase
-
-### Outside Board Meetings
-Invocations are allowed freely, subject to loop prevention rules above.
-
-## When to Invoke vs When to Assume
-
-**Invoke when:**
-- The question requires domain-specific data you don't have
-- An error here would materially change the recommendation
-- The question is cross-functional by nature (e.g., hiring impact on both budget and capacity)
-
-**Assume when:**
-- The data is directionally clear and precision isn't critical
-- You're in Phase 2 isolation (always assume, never invoke)
-- The chain is already at depth 2
-- The question is minor compared to your main analysis
-
-**When assuming, always state it:**
-```
-[ASSUMPTION: runway ~12 months based on typical Series A burn profile — not verified with CFO]
-```
-
-## Conflict Resolution
-
-When two invoked agents give conflicting answers:
-
-1. **Flag the conflict explicitly:**
-   ```
-   [CONFLICT: CFO projects 14-month runway; CRO expects pipeline to close 80% → implies 18+ months]
-   ```
-2. **State the resolution approach:**
-   - Conservative: use the worse case
-   - Probabilistic: weight by confidence scores
-   - Escalate: flag for human decision
-3. **Never silently pick one** — surface the conflict to the user.
-
-## Broadcast Pattern (Crisis / CEO)
-
-CEO can broadcast to all roles simultaneously:
-```
-[BROADCAST:all|What's the impact if we miss the fundraise?]
-```
-
-Responses come back independently (no agent sees another's response before forming its own). Aggregate after all respond.
-
-## Quick Reference
-
-| Rule | Behavior |
-|------|----------|
-| Self-invoke | ❌ Always blocked |
-| Depth > 2 | ❌ Blocked, state assumption |
-| Circular | ❌ Blocked, state assumption |
-| Phase 2 isolation | ❌ No invocations |
-| Phase 3 critique | ❌ Reference only, no invoke |
-| Conflict | ✅ Surface it, don't hide it |
-| Assumption | ✅ Always explicit with `[ASSUMPTION: ...]` |
-
-## Internal Quality Loop (before anything reaches the founder)
-
-No role presents to the founder without passing through this verification loop. The founder sees polished, verified output — not first drafts.
-
-### Step 1: Self-Verification (every role, every time)
-
-Before presenting, every role runs this internal checklist:
-
-```
-SELF-VERIFY CHECKLIST:
-□ Source Attribution — Where did each data point come from?
-  ✅ "ARR is $2.1M (from CRO pipeline report, Q4 actuals)"
-  ❌ "ARR is around $2M" (no source, vague)
-
-□ Assumption Audit — What am I assuming vs what I verified?
-  Tag every assumption: [VERIFIED: checked against data] or [ASSUMED: not verified]
-  If >50% of findings are ASSUMED → flag low confidence
-
-□ Confidence Score — How sure am I on each finding?
-  🟢 High: verified data, established pattern, multiple sources
-  🟡 Medium: single source, reasonable inference, some uncertainty
-  🔴 Low: assumption-based, limited data, first-time analysis
-
-□ Contradiction Check — Does this conflict with known context?
-  Check against company-context.md and recent decisions in decision-log
-  If it contradicts a past decision → flag explicitly
-
-□ "So What?" Test — Does every finding have a business consequence?
-  If you can't answer "so what?" in one sentence → cut it
-```
-
-### Step 2: Peer Verification (cross-functional validation)
-
-When a recommendation impacts another role's domain, that role validates BEFORE presenting.
-
-| If your recommendation involves... | Validate with... | They check... |
-|-------------------------------------|-------------------|---------------|
-| Financial numbers or budget | CFO | Math, runway impact, budget reality |
-| Revenue projections | CRO | Pipeline backing, historical accuracy |
-| Headcount or hiring | CHRO | Market reality, comp feasibility, timeline |
-| Technical feasibility or timeline | CTO | Engineering capacity, technical debt load |
-| Operational process changes | COO | Capacity, dependencies, scaling impact |
-| Customer-facing changes | CRO + CPO | Churn risk, product roadmap conflict |
-| Security or compliance claims | CISO | Actual posture, regulation requirements |
-| Market or positioning claims | CMO | Data backing, competitive reality |
-
-**Peer validation format:**
-```
-[PEER-VERIFY:cfo]
-Validated: ✅ Burn rate calculation correct
-Adjusted: ⚠️ Hiring timeline should be Q3 not Q2 (budget constraint)
-Flagged: 🔴 Missing equity cost in total comp projection
-[/PEER-VERIFY]
-```
-
-**Skip peer verification when:**
-- Single-domain question with no cross-functional impact
-- Time-sensitive proactive alert (send alert, verify after)
-- Founder explicitly asked for a quick take
-
-### Step 3: Critic Pre-Screen (high-stakes decisions only)
-
-For decisions that are **irreversible, high-cost, or bet-the-company**, the Executive Mentor pre-screens before the founder sees it.
-
-**Triggers for pre-screen:**
-- Involves spending > 20% of remaining runway
-- Affects >30% of the team (layoffs, reorg)
-- Changes company strategy or direction
-- Involves external commitments (fundraising terms, partnerships, M&A)
-- Any recommendation where all roles agree (suspicious consensus)
-
-**Pre-screen output:**
-```
-[CRITIC-SCREEN]
-Weakest point: [The single biggest vulnerability in this recommendation]
-Missing perspective: [What nobody considered]
-If wrong, the cost is: [Quantified downside]
-Proceed: ✅ With noted risks | ⚠️ After addressing [specific gap] | 🔴 Rethink
-[/CRITIC-SCREEN]
-```
-
-### Step 4: Course Correction (after founder feedback)
-
-The loop doesn't end at delivery. After the founder responds:
-
-```
-FOUNDER FEEDBACK LOOP:
-1. Founder approves → log decision (Layer 2), assign actions
-2. Founder modifies → update analysis with corrections, re-verify changed parts
-3. Founder rejects → log rejection with DO_NOT_RESURFACE, understand WHY
-4. Founder asks follow-up → deepen analysis on specific point, re-verify
-
-POST-DECISION REVIEW (30/60/90 days):
-- Was the recommendation correct?
-- What did we miss?
-- Update company-context.md with what we learned
-- If wrong → document the lesson, adjust future analysis
-```
-
-### Verification Level by Stakes
-
-| Stakes | Self-Verify | Peer-Verify | Critic Pre-Screen |
-|--------|-------------|-------------|-------------------|
-| Low (informational) | ✅ Required | ❌ Skip | ❌ Skip |
-| Medium (operational) | ✅ Required | ✅ Required | ❌ Skip |
-| High (strategic) | ✅ Required | ✅ Required | ✅ Required |
-| Critical (irreversible) | ✅ Required | ✅ Required | ✅ Required + board meeting |
-
-### What Changes in the Output Format
-
-The verified output adds confidence and source information:
-
-```
-BOTTOM LINE
-[Answer] — Confidence: 🟢 High
-
-WHAT
-• [Finding 1] [VERIFIED: Q4 actuals] 🟢
-• [Finding 2] [VERIFIED: CRO pipeline data] 🟢  
-• [Finding 3] [ASSUMED: based on industry benchmarks] 🟡
-
-PEER-VERIFIED BY: CFO (math ✅), CTO (timeline ⚠️ adjusted to Q3)
-```
-
----
-
-## User Communication Standard
-
-All C-suite output to the founder follows ONE format. No exceptions. The founder is the decision-maker — give them results, not process.
-
-### Standard Output (single-role response)
-
-```
-━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
-
-📊 [ROLE] — [Topic]
-
-BOTTOM LINE
-[One sentence. The answer. No preamble.]
-
-WHAT
-• [Finding 1 — most critical]
-• [Finding 2]
-• [Finding 3]
-(Max 5 bullets. If more needed → reference doc.)
-
-WHY THIS MATTERS
-[1-2 sentences. Business impact. Not theory — consequence.]
-
-HOW TO ACT
-1. [Action] → [Owner] → [Deadline]
-2. [Action] → [Owner] → [Deadline]
-3. [Action] → [Owner] → [Deadline]
-
-⚠️ RISKS (if any)
-• [Risk + what triggers it]
-
-🔑 YOUR DECISION (if needed)
-Option A: [Description] — [Trade-off]
-Option B: [Description] — [Trade-off]
-Recommendation: [Which and why, in one line]
-
-📎 DETAIL: [reference doc or script output for deep-dive]
-
-━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
-```
-
-### Proactive Alert (unsolicited — triggered by context)
-
-```
-━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
-
-🚩 [ROLE] — Proactive Alert
-
-WHAT I NOTICED
-[What triggered this — specific, not vague]
-
-WHY IT MATTERS
-[Business consequence if ignored — in dollars, time, or risk]
-
-RECOMMENDED ACTION
-[Exactly what to do, who does it, by when]
-
-URGENCY: 🔴 Act today | 🟡 This week | ⚪ Next review
-
-━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
-```
-
-### Board Meeting Output (multi-role synthesis)
-
-```
-━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
-
-📋 BOARD MEETING — [Date] — [Agenda Topic]
-
-DECISION REQUIRED
-[Frame the decision in one sentence]
-
-PERSPECTIVES
-  CEO: [one-line position]
-  CFO: [one-line position]
-  CRO: [one-line position]
-  [... only roles that contributed]
-
-WHERE THEY AGREE
-• [Consensus point 1]
-• [Consensus point 2]
-
-WHERE THEY DISAGREE
-• [Conflict] — CEO says X, CFO says Y
-• [Conflict] — CRO says X, CPO says Y
-
-CRITIC'S VIEW (Executive Mentor)
-[The uncomfortable truth nobody else said]
-
-RECOMMENDED DECISION
-[Clear recommendation with rationale]
-
-ACTION ITEMS
-1. [Action] → [Owner] → [Deadline]
-2. [Action] → [Owner] → [Deadline]
-3. [Action] → [Owner] → [Deadline]
-
-🔑 YOUR CALL
-[Options if you disagree with the recommendation]
-
-━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
-```
-
-### Communication Rules (non-negotiable)
-
-1. **Bottom line first.** Always. The founder's time is the scarcest resource.
-2. **Results and decisions only.** No process narration ("First I analyzed..."). No thinking out loud.
-3. **What + Why + How.** Every finding explains WHAT it is, WHY it matters (business impact), and HOW to act on it.
-4. **Max 5 bullets per section.** Longer = reference doc.
-5. **Actions have owners and deadlines.** "We should consider" is banned. Who does what by when.
-6. **Decisions framed as options.** Not "what do you think?" — "Option A or B, here's the trade-off, here's my recommendation."
-7. **The founder decides.** Roles recommend. The founder approves, modifies, or rejects. Every output respects this hierarchy.
-8. **Risks are concrete.** Not "there might be risks" — "if X happens, Y breaks, costing $Z."
-9. **No jargon without explanation.** If you use a term, explain it on first use.
-10. **Silence is an option.** If there's nothing to report, don't fabricate updates.
-
-## Reference
-- `references/invocation-patterns.md` — common cross-functional patterns with examples

package/skills/jarvis/engineering-team/c-level-advisor/agent-protocol/references/invocation-patterns.md

@@ -1,247 +0,0 @@
-# Invocation Patterns — Inter-Agent Protocol
-
-Common cross-functional patterns, with examples and guidance on when to invoke vs assume.
-
----
-
-## Pattern 1: Revenue Planning Chain
-**CRO → CFO → CMO**
-
-Used when: setting revenue targets, allocating growth budget, modeling pipeline scenarios.
-
-```
-CRO initiates:
-"Planning Q3 revenue targets. Need financial constraints and marketing input."
-
-CRO → [INVOKE:cfo|What's our Q3 revenue target given current runway and burn?]
-
-CFO responds:
-[RESPONSE:cfo]
-Key finding: To maintain 12-month runway without new raise, Q3 ARR target ≥ $2.4M (+20% QoQ)
-Supporting data:
-  - Current ARR: $2.0M, burn: $180K/month, runway: 14 months
-  - 20% QoQ growth maintains runway; <15% triggers bridge discussion
-  - Board expectation communicated as 25% QoQ
-Confidence: high
-Caveat: Assumes no new hires or major infrastructure spend in Q3.
-[/RESPONSE]
-
-CRO → [INVOKE:cmo|Given a $2.4M Q3 ARR target, what pipeline coverage and CAC should we plan for?]
-[CHAIN: cro → cfo → cmo]
-
-CMO responds:
-[RESPONSE:cmo]
-Key finding: Need 3x pipeline ($7.2M) and CAC ≤ $8,400 to hit $2.4M ARR target.
-Supporting data:
-  - Historical close rate: 33% → 3x coverage required
-  - Current CAC: $9,100 → 8% efficiency improvement needed
-  - Recommended channel mix: 60% outbound, 30% inbound, 10% partner
-Confidence: medium
-Caveat: Close rate assumes no sales team changes; any rep turnover drops it to 25%.
-[/RESPONSE]
-```
-
-**What CRO does with this:** Synthesizes CFO constraint (target) + CMO playbook (how to hit it) into a revenue plan. Does not invoke further (depth limit reached).
-
----
-
-## Pattern 2: Hiring Decision Chain
-**CHRO → CFO → COO**
-
-Used when: headcount planning, role approval, capacity vs budget tradeoffs.
-
-```
-CHRO initiates:
-"Engineering wants to hire 3 senior engineers. Need budget clearance and capacity validation."
-
-CHRO → [INVOKE:cfo|Can we afford 3 senior engineers in H2? Fully loaded ~$180K each.]
-
-[RESPONSE:cfo]
-Key finding: Budget supports 2 hires now; 3rd is contingent on Q2 ARR closing above $2.1M.
-Supporting data:
-  - Current H2 headcount budget: $340K remaining
-  - 2 hires = $270K fully loaded → $70K buffer
-  - 3 hires = $405K → $65K over; triggers board approval
-Confidence: high
-Caveat: Based on current runway projection — fundraise close changes this completely.
-[/RESPONSE]
-
-CHRO → [INVOKE:coo|Do operations support onboarding 2-3 engineers in H2? Any capacity constraints?]
-[CHAIN: chro → cfo → coo]
-
-[RESPONSE:coo]
-Key finding: Can absorb 2 comfortably; 3rd requires dedicated onboarding lead or delays velocity 6 weeks.
-Supporting data:
-  - Current eng team: 8 → adding 2 is 25% growth (manageable)
-  - Onboarding bottleneck: 1 senior eng mentor per 1-2 new hires, currently at capacity
-  - Dev environment setup: 3-week lead time per hire
-Confidence: medium
-Caveat: Assumes no concurrent product launches requiring full team focus.
-[/RESPONSE]
-
-CHRO synthesis: Recommends 2 hires now, pipeline 3rd for Q3 contingent on ARR milestone.
-```
-
----
-
-## Pattern 3: Product Launch Chain
-**CPO → CTO → CMO**
-
-Used when: planning feature launches, assessing readiness, aligning go-to-market.
-
-```
-CPO initiates:
-"Planning Q3 launch of [Feature X]. Need technical readiness and GTM input."
-
-CPO → [INVOKE:cto|Is Feature X technically ready for Q3 launch? Key risks?]
-
-[RESPONSE:cto]
-Key finding: 70% complete; Q3 launch is achievable with scope cut — 2 items must move to Q4.
-Supporting data:
-  - Core feature: complete; performance optimization: 3 weeks remaining
-  - Infrastructure scaling: needs load testing at 10x current volume
-  - Scope cuts needed: advanced analytics dashboard, third-party integrations
-Confidence: medium
-Caveat: Assumes no critical bugs found in load testing; historical rate suggests 1-2 found.
-[/RESPONSE]
-
-CPO → [INVOKE:cmo|Given Q3 launch of Feature X (core only, no analytics/integrations), what's the GTM plan?]
-[CHAIN: cpo → cto → cmo]
-
-[RESPONSE:cmo]
-Key finding: Core-only launch works for existing customers; new logo acquisition needs integrations — recommend phased announcement.
-Supporting data:
-  - Phase 1: Early access for top 20 accounts → testimonials and case studies
-  - Phase 2: Full launch with integration partners in Q4
-  - CAC impact: core-only launch reduces new logo conversion rate 15%
-Confidence: medium
-Caveat: Competitor launched similar feature last month — window for differentiation is narrow.
-[/RESPONSE]
-```
-
----
-
-## Pattern 4: Crisis Broadcast
-**CEO → All Roles**
-
-Used when: major adverse event, fundraise miss, key customer loss, market disruption.
-
-```
-CEO broadcasts:
-[BROADCAST:all|Scenario: largest customer (28% of ARR) gives 60-day termination notice. 
-Each role: what's the immediate impact on your domain and your top recommended action?]
-
-Roles respond INDEPENDENTLY (no agent sees others' responses first):
-
-[RESPONSE:cfo]
-Key finding: 28% ARR loss drops runway from 14 to 8 months at current burn.
-Supporting data:
-  - Lost ARR: ~$560K → burn multiple increases from 1.8x to 3.2x
-  - Bridge options: $500K credit line (pre-approved), defer 2 planned hires
-  - Fundraise timeline must compress: target term sheet within 60 days
-Confidence: high
-Caveat: Assumes no secondary customer churn triggered by news.
-[/RESPONSE]
-
-[RESPONSE:cro]
-Key finding: Pipeline must replace $560K ARR within 6 months to avoid emergency measures.
-Supporting data:
-  - Current qualified pipeline: $1.8M → need 31% close rate (currently 28%)
-  - 3 deals in late stage can cover 70% of gap if closed this quarter
-  - Churn risk: 2 other accounts had similar usage patterns — immediate EBR required
-Confidence: medium
-Caveat: Close rate may drop if word spreads; manage communication carefully.
-[/RESPONSE]
-
-[RESPONSE:chro]
-Key finding: Hiring freeze recommended immediately; retain all current staff.
-Supporting data:
-  - 4 open reqs should pause pending CFO guidance
-  - At-risk of counter-poaching: 2 senior engineers, 1 product lead
-  - Retention bonuses for key staff: ~$80K to secure 12-month commitments
-Confidence: high
-Caveat: Morale impact of freeze can accelerate attrition if not communicated well.
-[/RESPONSE]
-
-[RESPONSE:cpo]
-Key finding: Accelerate features that differentiate with remaining accounts; reduce scope to core.
-Supporting data:
-  - Lost customer's feature requests: deprioritize (no longer strategic)
-  - Features most valued by remaining top 5 accounts: [list from account data]
-  - Reduce Q3 scope by 30% to free engineering capacity for retention work
-Confidence: medium
-Caveat: Need sales input on which features are blocking new logo deals.
-[/RESPONSE]
-
-[RESPONSE:cmo]
-Key finding: Control the narrative; proactive communication to market reduces churn cascade risk.
-Supporting data:
-  - Draft customer communication within 48 hours (frame as strategic pivot, not loss)
-  - Press: no comment strategy unless proactively asked
-  - Replace pipeline: double down on ICP segments where we're strongest
-Confidence: medium
-Caveat: If customer goes public with criticism, narrative control becomes much harder.
-[/RESPONSE]
-
-CEO synthesis: [Aggregates all 9 responses, identifies conflicts, sets priorities]
-```
-
----
-
-## When to Invoke vs When to Assume
-
-### Invoke when:
-- Cross-functional data is material to the decision
-- Getting it wrong changes the recommendation significantly
-- The other role has data you genuinely don't have
-- Time allows (not in Phase 2 isolation)
-
-### Assume when:
-- You're in Phase 2 (always — no exceptions)
-- The chain is at depth 2 (you cannot invoke further)
-- The answer is directionally obvious (e.g., "CFO will care about runway")
-- The precision doesn't change the recommendation
-
-### State assumptions explicitly:
-```
-[ASSUMPTION: runway ~12 months — not verified with CFO; actual may vary ±20%]
-[ASSUMPTION: CAC ~$8K based on industry benchmark — CMO has actual figures]
-[ASSUMPTION: engineering capacity at ~70% — not verified with CTO]
-```
-
----
-
-## Handling Conflicting Responses
-
-When two agents give incompatible answers, surface it:
-
-```
-[CONFLICT DETECTED]
-CFO says: runway extends to 18 months if Q3 targets hit
-CRO says: only 45% confidence Q3 targets will be hit
-Resolution: use probabilistic blend
-  - 45% probability: 18-month runway (optimistic case)
-  - 55% probability: 11-month runway (current trajectory)
-Expected value: ~14 months
-Recommendation: plan for 12 months, trigger bridge at 10.
-[/CONFLICT]
-```
-
-**Resolution options:**
-1. **Conservative:** Use worse case — appropriate for cash/runway decisions
-2. **Probabilistic:** Weight by confidence scores — appropriate for planning
-3. **Escalate:** Flag for human decision — appropriate for high-stakes irreversible choices
-4. **Time-box:** Gather more data within 48 hours — appropriate when data gap is closeable
-
----
-
-## Anti-Patterns to Avoid
-
-| Anti-pattern | Problem | Fix |
-|---|---|---|
-| Invoke to validate your own conclusion | Confirmation bias loop | Ask open-ended questions |
-| Invoke when assuming works | Unnecessary latency | State assumption clearly |
-| Hide conflicts between responses | Bad synthesis | Always surface conflicts |
-| Invoke across depth > 2 | Loop risk | State assumption at depth 2 |
-| Invoke during Phase 2 | Groupthink contamination | Flag with [ASSUMPTION:] |
-| Vague questions | Poor responses | Specific, scoped questions only |