aiox-core 5.0.2 → 5.0.4

package/pro/squads/squad-creator-pro/minds/pedro_valerio/heuristics/PV_BS_001.md

@@ -0,0 +1,144 @@
+# PV_BS_001 - Future Back-Casting
+
+**Type:** Decision Heuristic
+**Phase:** 2 (Architecture)
+**Agent:** @hybridOps:process-architect
+**Pattern:** HO-PP-003 (Quality Gate Pattern)
+
+## Purpose
+
+Strategic alignment validation using future back-casting methodology. Evaluates whether proposed actions directly enable or create optionality paths towards the end-state vision.
+
+## Configuration
+
+```yaml
+PV_BS_001:
+  name: "Future Back-Casting"
+  phase: 2
+  pattern_reference: "HO-PP-003"
+
+  weights:
+    end_state_vision: 0.9
+    market_signals: 0.1
+
+  thresholds:
+    high_priority: 0.8
+    medium_priority: 0.7
+    low_priority: 0.5
+
+  veto_conditions:
+    - condition: "end_state_vision_clarity < 0.7"
+      action: "VETO - Vision unclear, return to Discovery"
+    - condition: "strategic_priority_score < 0.5"
+      action: "REVIEW - Alignment questionable"
+
+  feedback_on_failure:
+    - "Clarify end-state vision before proceeding"
+    - "Define clear success criteria for the future state"
+    - "Map proposed actions to strategic outcomes"
+
+  output:
+    type: "decision"
+    values: ["APPROVE", "REVIEW", "VETO"]
+```
+
+## Application
+
+**Input:** Architecture design proposal, process blueprint, system design
+**Process:** Evaluate against end-state vision using weighted criteria
+**Output:** APPROVE | REVIEW | VETO
+
+## Decision Tree
+
+```
+IF (proposed_action directly enables 'end_state_vision')
+  THEN resource_allocation_priority = HIGH → APPROVE
+
+ELSE IF (proposed_action creates optionality_path towards 'end_state_vision')
+  THEN resource_allocation_priority = MEDIUM → APPROVE with conditions
+
+ELSE IF (action does not serve end_state vision)
+  THEN REVIEW - requires justification
+
+TERMINATION: Action clearly contradicts end_state OR more direct path identified
+FALLBACK: IF (multiple actions conflict), prioritize the one that builds
+          the more fundamental layer of the future system
+```
+
+## Evaluation Criteria
+
+| Criterion | Weight | Threshold | Description |
+|-----------|--------|-----------|-------------|
+| End-state vision clarity | 0.9 | ≥0.8 | How clearly defined is the future state? |
+| Strategic priority score | 0.1 | ≥0.7 | Does this align with top priorities? |
+| Optionality creation | 0.8 | ≥0.6 | Does this create future flexibility? |
+| Resource efficiency | 0.7 | ≥0.5 | Optimal use of available resources? |
+
+## Confidence Requirements
+
+- **High commitment decisions:** Requires >80% confidence in 'end_state_vision' before committing significant, irreversible resources
+- **Tactical decisions:** Can proceed with 60% confidence if easily reversible
+
+## Performance Metrics
+
+```yaml
+performance:
+  decision_speed: "1-3 days (vision crystallization); <1 hour (subsequent tactical decisions)"
+  accuracy_rate: "85% (on 3-5 year horizons)"
+  confidence_level: "95% (once vision is established)"
+  resource_efficiency: 9/10
+  context_sensitivity: 8/10
+```
+
+## Failure Modes
+
+### Vision Lock-In
+- **Trigger:** Lack of new data inputs challenging original vision; excessive confirmation bias
+- **Manifestation:** Ignoring contradictory market signals, labeling them as "noise"
+- **Detection:** Key project metrics diverging from projections
+- **Recovery:** Force "red teaming" session where team challenges strategic vision with data
+- **Prevention:** Implement "contradictory signals" dashboard monitoring data that challenges 'end_state_vision'
+
+## Behavioral Evidence
+
+**Example:** Creating an AI team 1.5 years before needed
+- **Context:** Influencer market focused on manual activation
+- **Information Available:** Weak signals about first-party data importance and Chinese model unsustainability
+- **Heuristic Application:** Predicted end-state of automated, performance-based advertising market (TTCX) and worked backward, identifying AI team as fundamental step
+- **Outcome:** Became #1 in Latin America for TTCX when market shifted
+
+## Integration with HO-PP-003
+
+This heuristic integrates with the Quality Gate Pattern at Phase 2:
+
+```yaml
+checkpoint:
+  id: "strategic-alignment"
+  heuristic: PV_BS_001
+  phase: 2
+
+  criteria:
+    - metric: "end_state_vision_clarity"
+      threshold: 0.8
+      operator: ">="
+    - metric: "strategic_priority_score"
+      threshold: 0.7
+      operator: ">="
+
+  veto_conditions:
+    - condition: "end_state_vision_clarity < 0.7"
+      action: "HALT - Vision unclear, return to Discovery"
+
+  validation_questions:
+    - "Is the end-state vision clearly defined?"
+    - "Does this align with strategic priorities?"
+    - "Are all stakeholder needs addressed?"
+
+  pass_action: "Proceed to Phase 3 (Executors)"
+  fail_action: "Return to Phase 1 with feedback"
+```
+
+---
+
+**Pattern Compliance:** HO-PP-003 (Quality Gate) ✓
+**Source:** PV Mind Artifacts - Heurísticas de Decisão

package/pro/squads/squad-creator-pro/minds/pedro_valerio/heuristics/PV_PA_001.md

@@ -0,0 +1,174 @@
+# PV_PA_001 - Systemic Coherence Scan
+
+**Type:** Decision Heuristic
+**Phase:** 3 (Executors)
+**Agent:** @hybridOps:executor-designer
+**Pattern:** HO-PP-003 (Quality Gate Pattern)
+
+## Purpose
+
+Coherence validation for executor assignments and people assessment. Evaluates truthfulness, system adherence potential, and technical skills with truthfulness having VETO power.
+
+## Configuration
+
+```yaml
+PV_PA_001:
+  name: "Systemic Coherence Scan"
+  phase: 3
+  pattern_reference: "HO-PP-003"
+
+  weights:
+    truthfulness_coherence: 1.0  # VETO power
+    system_adherence_potential: 0.8
+    technical_skill: 0.3
+
+  thresholds:
+    truthfulness: 0.7  # Must be 'Coherent'
+    system_adherence: 0.7
+    technical_skill: null  # No minimum, context-dependent
+
+  veto_conditions:
+    - condition: "truthfulness_coherence < 0.7"
+      action: "VETO - REJECT/REMOVE immediately"
+    - condition: "detected_incoherence = true"
+      action: "VETO - Trust violation, cannot proceed"
+
+  fallback_mechanisms:
+    - "In case of doubt about coherence, apply test period with tasks that reveal consistency"
+    - "Use objective metrics over subjective impressions"
+
+  output:
+    type: "decision"
+    values: ["APPROVE", "REVIEW", "VETO"]
+```
+
+## Application
+
+**Input:** Executor assignment proposals, role definitions, team roster
+**Process:** Evaluate each executor against coherence criteria
+**Output:** APPROVE | REVIEW | VETO
+
+## Decision Tree
+
+```
+PRIMARY BRANCH:
+  IF (truthfulness_coherence == 'Incoherent' OR 'Lie Detected')
+    THEN REJECT/REMOVE immediately → VETO
+
+SECONDARY BRANCH:
+  ELSE IF (system_adherence_potential < 0.7)
+    THEN REJECT or FLAG for observation → REVIEW
+
+TERTIARY BRANCH:
+  ELSE IF (technical_skill < required_level)
+    THEN Consider training or reassignment → REVIEW with conditions
+
+TERMINATION: Primary branch violation
+FALLBACK: Apply test period with revealing tasks when coherence is uncertain
+```
+
+## Evaluation Criteria
+
+| Criterion | Weight | Threshold | VETO Power | Description |
+|-----------|--------|-----------|------------|-------------|
+| Truthfulness Coherence | 1.0 | Must be 'Coherent' | YES | Is the executor honest and consistent? |
+| System Adherence Potential | 0.8 | ≥0.7 | NO | Can they operate within clear systems? |
+| Technical Skill | 0.3 | Context-dependent | NO | Current technical ability level |
+
+## Truthfulness Assessment
+
+```yaml
+truthfulness_states:
+  coherent:
+    description: "Statements align with actions and observable data"
+    score_range: [0.7, 1.0]
+    action: "APPROVE"
+
+  incoherent:
+    description: "Statements contradict actions or data without explanation"
+    score_range: [0.4, 0.7]
+    action: "REVIEW - Investigate further"
+
+  lie_detected:
+    description: "Deliberate misrepresentation identified"
+    score_range: [0.0, 0.4]
+    action: "VETO - Immediate removal"
+```
+
+## Performance Metrics
+
+```yaml
+performance:
+  decision_speed:
+    rejection_for_incoherence: "< 5 minutes"
+    full_evaluation: "1-2 days"
+  accuracy_rate: "95% (predicting long-term cultural fit)"
+  confidence_level: "99%"
+  resource_efficiency: 10/10
+```
+
+## Failure Modes
+
+### False Negative Rejection
+- **Trigger:** Interpreting communication error or misunderstanding as deliberate lie; overly rigid system
+- **Manifestation:** Rejecting talented, high-potential candidate for small interview inconsistency
+- **Detection:** Feedback from other interviewers that 'lie' perception was too severe
+- **Recovery:** Institute "appeal tribunal" with trust circle for borderline cases
+- **Prevention:** Add subroutine differentiating between 'inconsistency from nervousness' and 'inconsistency from intent'
+
+## Behavioral Evidence
+
+**Example:** Dismissing technically superior filmmakers
+- **Context:** Internal conflict in filming team
+- **Information Available:** Evidence that filmmakers were creating stories (lying) to harm a colleague
+- **Heuristic Application:** 'truthfulness_coherence' parameter was violated. Weight of 'technical_skill' became irrelevant. Removal decision was immediate.
+- **Outcome:** More cohesive team aligned with company values, though temporarily less technically skilled
+
+## Integration with HO-PP-003
+
+This heuristic integrates with the Quality Gate Pattern at Phase 3:
+
+```yaml
+checkpoint:
+  id: "coherence-scan"
+  heuristic: PV_PA_001
+  phase: 3
+
+  criteria:
+    - metric: "executor_truthfulness"
+      threshold: 0.7
+      operator: ">="
+      scope: "each executor"
+    - metric: "weighted_coherence"
+      threshold: 0.8
+      operator: ">="
+    - metric: "system_adherence"
+      threshold: 0.6
+      operator: ">="
+
+  veto_conditions:
+    - condition: "any executor truthfulness < 0.7"
+      action: "VETO - Reassign executor"
+
+  validation_questions:
+    - "Is each executor the right fit for their tasks?"
+    - "Are human tasks truly requiring human judgment?"
+    - "Can any human tasks be automated?"
+
+  pass_action: "Proceed to Phase 4 (Workflows)"
+  fail_action: "Reassign executors and re-evaluate"
+```
+
+## Executor Type Coherence Matrix
+
+| Executor Type | Min Truthfulness | Min System Adherence | Technical Weight |
+|---------------|------------------|----------------------|------------------|
+| Human | 0.7 (VETO) | 0.7 | 0.3 |
+| Hybrid | 0.7 (VETO) | 0.8 | 0.4 |
+| Agent | N/A | 0.9 | 0.6 |
+| Worker | N/A | 0.95 | 0.8 |
+
+---
+
+**Pattern Compliance:** HO-PP-003 (Quality Gate) ✓ | HO-EP-XXX (Executor Patterns) ✓
+**Source:** PV Mind Artifacts - Heurísticas de Decisão

package/pro/squads/squad-creator-pro/minds/pedro_valerio/heuristics/PV_PM_001.md

@@ -0,0 +1,191 @@
+# PV_PM_001 - Automation Tipping Point
+
+**Type:** Decision Heuristic
+**Phase:** 4 (Workflows)
+**Agent:** @hybridOps:workflow-designer
+**Pattern:** HO-PP-003 (Quality Gate Pattern)
+
+## Purpose
+
+Determine when to automate processes based on frequency, systemic impact, and standardization level. Implements the "Automation Before Delegation" principle with safety guardrails.
+
+## Configuration
+
+```yaml
+PV_PM_001:
+  name: "Automation Tipping Point"
+  phase: 4
+  pattern_reference: "HO-PP-003"
+
+  weights:
+    task_systemic_impact: 0.9
+    task_automatability: 0.8
+    task_frequency: 0.7
+    guardrails_present: 1.0  # VETO power
+
+  thresholds:
+    systemic_impact: 0.6  # For primary time allocation
+    automatability: 0.5   # For immediate removal from agenda
+    frequency: "2x per month"  # Minimum for automation justification
+    standardization: 0.7  # Process must be standardized
+
+  veto_conditions:
+    - condition: "guardrails_missing = true"
+      action: "VETO - Define safety guardrails first"
+    - condition: "frequency < 1x per month AND impact < 0.5"
+      action: "VETO - Not worth automating"
+
+  output:
+    type: "decision"
+    values: ["AUTOMATE", "DELEGATE", "ELIMINATE", "KEEP_MANUAL"]
+```
+
+## Application
+
+**Input:** Workflow definitions, task frequency data, process maps
+**Process:** Evaluate automation potential for each workflow step
+**Output:** AUTOMATE | DELEGATE | ELIMINATE | KEEP_MANUAL
+
+## Decision Tree
+
+```
+PRIMARY BRANCH:
+  IF (task_automatability > 0.5)
+    THEN AUTOMATE/DELEGATE
+
+SECONDARY BRANCH:
+  ELSE IF (task_systemic_impact > 0.6)
+    THEN ALLOCATE_DEEP_WORK_TIME (keep for humans)
+
+TERMINATION: All tasks are either high-impact or automated/delegated
+CONSTRAINT: NEVER automate without guardrails
+```
+
+## The Automation Mandate
+
+```yaml
+automation_mandate:
+  rule_1:
+    trigger: "Task repeated 2+ times"
+    action: "Document and automate"
+
+  rule_2:
+    trigger: "Task repeated 3+ times without automation"
+    assessment: "Grave design failure"
+    action: "Immediate remediation required"
+
+  rule_3:
+    trigger: "Any automation"
+    requirement: "Must have guardrails, idempotency, logs, and manual escape route"
+```
+
+## Automation Readiness Criteria
+
+| Criterion | Weight | Threshold | Description |
+|-----------|--------|-----------|-------------|
+| Task Frequency | 0.7 | >2x/month | How often does this task occur? |
+| Systemic Impact | 0.9 | ≥0.6 | Impact on long-term system creation |
+| Automatability | 0.8 | ≥0.5 | How easily can this be automated? |
+| Standardization | 0.7 | ≥0.7 | Is the process well-defined? |
+| Guardrails Present | 1.0 | Required | Safety mechanisms in place? |
+
+## Guardrails Requirements
+
+```yaml
+automation_guardrails:
+  required:
+    - loop_prevention: "Deduplication and max iteration limits"
+    - idempotency: "Same input always produces same output"
+    - audit_trail: "Log of last agent/event"
+    - manual_escape: "Human override route available"
+    - retry_logic: "Graceful failure handling"
+
+  validation:
+    - "Can a human intervene at any point?"
+    - "Are all state changes logged?"
+    - "Is there a rollback mechanism?"
+    - "Are rate limits implemented?"
+```
+
+## Performance Metrics
+
+```yaml
+performance:
+  decision_speed: "Seconds"
+  accuracy_rate: "98%"
+  confidence_level: "100%"
+  resource_efficiency: 9/10
+```
+
+## Failure Modes
+
+### Over-Automation
+- **Trigger:** Automating everything without considering human judgment needs
+- **Manifestation:** Critical decisions made by automation that require nuance
+- **Detection:** Quality issues in outputs, edge cases mishandled
+- **Recovery:** Add human review checkpoints
+- **Prevention:** Always evaluate if task requires human judgment
+
+### Under-Automation
+- **Trigger:** Fear of complexity or change resistance
+- **Manifestation:** Manual repetitive work continues despite clear automation opportunity
+- **Detection:** Team burnout, inconsistent outputs, scaling bottlenecks
+- **Recovery:** Apply the "2x rule" rigorously
+- **Prevention:** Regular process audits for automation candidates
+
+## Behavioral Evidence
+
+**Example:** Building integrated lifestyle (home, office, leisure in same location)
+- **Context:** Life and daily routine planning
+- **Information Available:** "Commute" task has zero systemic impact and cannot be automated
+- **Heuristic Application:** Task 'commute' has systemic impact = 0, not automatable, so must be ELIMINATED. Task 'being with children' has high family system impact.
+- **Outcome:** Elimination of commute time, maximization of focus time and family time
+
+## Integration with HO-PP-003
+
+This heuristic integrates with the Quality Gate Pattern at Phase 4:
+
+```yaml
+checkpoint:
+  id: "automation-readiness"
+  heuristic: PV_PM_001
+  phase: 4
+
+  criteria:
+    - metric: "task_frequency"
+      threshold: "2x per month"
+      operator: ">"
+    - metric: "guardrails_present"
+      required: true
+    - metric: "standardization_level"
+      threshold: 0.7
+      operator: ">="
+
+  veto_conditions:
+    - condition: "guardrails_missing"
+      action: "VETO - Define safety guardrails first"
+
+  validation_questions:
+    - "Are automations triggered frequently enough to justify?"
+    - "Are all safety guardrails in place?"
+    - "Is the workflow sufficiently standardized?"
+
+  pass_action: "Proceed to Phase 5 (Task Definitions)"
+  fail_action: "Add guardrails or reduce automation scope"
+```
+
+## Automation Decision Matrix
+
+| Frequency | Impact | Automatability | Decision |
+|-----------|--------|----------------|----------|
+| High (>4x/month) | High | High | **AUTOMATE** immediately |
+| High | High | Low | **DELEGATE** with training |
+| High | Low | High | **AUTOMATE** (efficiency) |
+| Low (<2x/month) | High | Any | **KEEP_MANUAL** (judgment needed) |
+| Low | Low | Any | **ELIMINATE** |
+| Any | Any | Any (no guardrails) | **VETO** - add guardrails first |
+
+---
+
+**Pattern Compliance:** HO-PP-003 (Quality Gate) ✓ | HO-AP-XXX (Automation Patterns) ✓
+**Source:** PV Mind Artifacts - Heurísticas de Decisão

package/pro/squads/squad-creator-pro/package.json

@@ -0,0 +1,26 @@
+{
+  "name": "@aios-pro/squad-creator-pro",
+  "version": "1.0.0",
+  "description": "Squad Creator Pro - Meta-squad for creating AI agent squads based on real elite minds",
+  "main": "index.js",
+  "scripts": {
+    "install:expansion": "echo 'Use the tasks in this pack to install other expansion packs'"
+  },
+  "keywords": [
+    "aios",
+    "aios-pro",
+    "squad",
+    "squad-creator-pro",
+    "tools"
+  ],
+  "author": "AIOS Team",
+  "license": "PROPRIETARY",
+  "repository": {
+    "type": "git",
+    "url": "https://github.com/SynkraAI/aios-pro",
+    "directory": "squads/squad-creator-pro"
+  },
+  "engines": {
+    "node": ">=18.0.0"
+  }
+}

package/pro/squads/squad-creator-pro/protocols/ai-first-governance.md

@@ -0,0 +1,63 @@
+# AI-First Governance Protocol (Squad Creator)
+
+## Objective
+
+Ensure squads are created with reliable, auditable behavior while avoiding unnecessary CI blocking.
+
+## Core Rules
+
+1. Canonical Source Hierarchy
+- `squads/{squad}/config.yaml` and `squads/{squad}/squad.yaml` define structure truth.
+- `squads/{squad}/agents/*`, `tasks/*`, `workflows/*` define operational truth.
+- `squads/{squad}/data/*` is reference truth for frameworks/checklists.
+- `docs/research/*` is supporting evidence only, never final source of truth.
+
+2. Evidence Contract
+- Every important recommendation must include:
+  - evidence source path
+  - status (`implemented`, `partial`, `concept`)
+  - explicit unresolved items
+
+3. Contradiction Guard
+- Never claim completion when dependencies are `partial` or `concept`.
+- If artifacts conflict, prefer canonical source hierarchy and log conflict.
+
+4. Research-to-Execution Handshake
+- Always map `Existing -> Gap -> Decision` before creation or migration.
+- If confidence is low, mark as `assumption`.
+
+5. No Name-Only Inference (Critical)
+- Never infer squad/domain scope from name alone (e.g., slug, shorthand, alias).
+- Before recommendations, resolve scope from canonical artifacts (`squad.yaml`, `config.yaml`, agent/task/workflow files, registry entries).
+- If canonical scope is missing or conflicting, halt recommendation flow and ask clarification first.
+
+## CI Caution Policy (Minimal by Design)
+
+Use CI as blocking only for deterministic checks:
+- YAML/JSON syntax
+- broken file references
+- secrets/security scanning
+- required file presence
+
+Do NOT block CI for subjective/semantic quality checks:
+- strategy quality
+- writing style
+- routing judgment
+- architecture taste decisions
+
+These semantic checks must be enforced in agent/task/workflow checkpoints.
+
+## Required Output Block
+
+```yaml
+governance_check:
+  protocol: squads/squad-creator-pro/protocols/ai-first-governance.md
+  canonical_sources_checked:
+    - path: ""
+      status: "implemented|partial|concept"
+  evidence:
+    - claim: ""
+      source: ""
+  contradictions_found: []
+  unresolved_items: []
+```