aiox-core 5.0.2 → 5.0.4

package/pro/squads/squad-creator-pro/test-cases/an-clone-review/opus-baseline.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,566 @@
+# Clone Review: mmos-victoria
+# Task: an-clone-review v2.0.0
+# Executor: Claude Opus 4.5
+# Date: 2026-02-11
+
+clone_review:
+  clone: "Victoria (Viability Specialist)"
+  clone_file: ".claude/agents/mmos-victoria.md"
+  persona_file: ".claude/agents/MMOS/agents/victoria-viability-specialist.md"
+  date: "2026-02-11"
+  task_version: "2.0.0"
+
+  # ============================================================
+  # STEP 1: SOURCE QUALITY REVIEW
+  # ============================================================
+  source_quality:
+    total_sources: 0
+    ouro_count: 0
+    bronze_count: 0
+    ouro_percentage: "N/A"
+    curadoria_score: "N/A - No dedicated source files"
+
+    analysis: |
+      The Victoria clone does NOT have dedicated source files in a sources/ directory.
+      Instead, it references inspiration sources directly in the agent definition:
+
+      Inspiration Sources Listed (not extracted, just referenced):
+      - "The Innovator's Dilemma (1997)"
+      - "The Innovator's Solution (2003)"
+      - "Competing Against Luck (2016)"
+      - "How Will You Measure Your Life? (2012)"
+      - Harvard Business School academic background
+
+      CRITICAL: These are bibliographic references, NOT extracted DNA sources.
+      The clone is a "persona-based agent" (inspired by Clayton Christensen),
+      NOT a "mind clone" of a real person with extracted content.
+
+    sources_checked: []
+
+    recommendation: |
+      This is NOT a mind clone in the traditional MMOS sense. It's a persona-based
+      agent inspired by Clayton Christensen's frameworks. Source quality scoring
+      does not apply - the relevant question is "framework fidelity" not "source curadoria".
+
+  # ============================================================
+  # STEP 2: TRINITY VERIFICATION (Binary Checkpoints)
+  # ============================================================
+  trinity:
+
+    # ----- PLAYBOOK (5 checkpoints) -----
+    playbook:
+      checkpoints:
+        - id: 1
+          name: "Section exists"
+          look_for: "playbook: or workflow:"
+          evidence: |
+            Found in signature_methods section:
+            - jobs_to_be_done_analysis
+            - circumstances_mapping
+            - competitive_landscape
+            - use_case_specification
+            - deployment_architecture
+            - integration_testing
+            - success_metrics_definition
+            - production_readiness
+            - final_handoff
+            Also: commands: section with 9 commands defining workflows
+          passed: true
+
+        - id: 2
+          name: "Has steps"
+          look_for: "steps: or numbered list"
+          evidence: |
+            Each signature_method has structured components:
+            - jobs_to_be_done_analysis: 4 components (job_statement, functional, emotional, social)
+            - use_case_specification: template with 6 items, output defined
+            - deployment_architecture: environment_specification (5 components), integration_design (5 elements), operational_procedures (5 procedures)
+            - integration_testing: 3 sub-methods with 5+ items each
+            - final_handoff: 3 sub-methods with 5+ items each
+            Total: 9 major workflows, each with 3-6 sub-steps
+          passed: true
+
+        - id: 3
+          name: "Steps are sequential"
+          look_for: "Order logic, numbers, sequence"
+          evidence: |
+            validation_gates section shows clear sequence:
+            - GATE 1: Is the job-to-be-done clearly defined?
+            - GATE 2: Are primary use cases fully specified?
+            - GATE 3: Is the deployment environment defined?
+            - GATE 4: Have integration tests passed?
+            - GATE 5: Are success metrics defined and measurable?
+            - GATE 6: Is the production readiness checklist complete?
+            - GATE 7: Is the handoff package complete?
+            - GATE 8: Has the receiver accepted and signed off?
+            Clear logical progression from definition to handoff.
+          passed: true
+
+        - id: 4
+          name: "Steps are actionable"
+          look_for: "Verbs, action words"
+          evidence: |
+            Commands use action verbs:
+            - define-use-case, plan-deployment, test-integration
+            - define-success-metrics, check-production-readiness, prepare-handoff
+            Methods use imperative language:
+            - "Define the job this mind is hired to do"
+            - "Validate mind works in real environment"
+            - "Transfer operational knowledge to receiver"
+          passed: true
+
+        - id: 5
+          name: "Has output definition"
+          look_for: "output: per step"
+          evidence: |
+            EVERY signature_method has explicit output field:
+            - jobs_to_be_done_analysis: output: "Complete Job-to-be-Done specification"
+            - circumstances_mapping: output: "Circumstances map with trigger inventory"
+            - competitive_landscape: output: "Competitive positioning analysis"
+            - primary_use_cases: output: "Primary use case specifications"
+            - environment_specification: output: "Environment specification document"
+            - test_scenarios: output: "Test scenario inventory"
+            - outcome_metrics: output: "Outcome metrics specification"
+            - handoff_package: output: "Complete handoff package"
+            Total: 20+ explicit output definitions
+          passed: true
+
+      checkpoints_passed: [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
+      checkpoints_failed: []
+      score: 5
+      gaps: []
+
+    # ----- FRAMEWORK (5 checkpoints) -----
+    framework:
+      checkpoints:
+        - id: 1
+          name: "Section exists"
+          look_for: "framework: or heuristics:"
+          evidence: |
+            Multiple framework sections found:
+            - core_principles.christensen_foundation (5 principles)
+            - core_principles.viability_methodology (5 principles)
+            - core_principles.jobs_to_be_done_principles (5 principles)
+            - core_principles.deployment_philosophy (5 principles)
+            - methodological_toolkit (5 methods)
+            - quality_standards (4 domains with 5 criteria each)
+          passed: true
+
+        - id: 2
+          name: "Has rules"
+          look_for: "rules: or SE/ENTAO"
+          evidence: |
+            Rules in multiple formats:
+            1. core_principles (20 rules total):
+               - "JOBS TO BE DONE: Every mind must have a clear job"
+               - "DEPLOY OR DIE: A mind that can't be deployed has zero value"
+               - "METRICS OR MYTH: Without measurement, success claims are stories"
+            2. anti_patterns (10 rules):
+               - "AVOID: Building impressive minds with no deployment path"
+               - "AVOID: Success claims without measurable metrics"
+            3. vocabulary.never_use (5 rules):
+               - "hopefully", "probably works", "good enough"
+          passed: true
+
+        - id: 3
+          name: "Rules are conditional"
+          look_for: "if:, when:, SE:"
+          evidence: |
+            Conditional logic found in:
+            - behavioral_states with triggers:
+              * assessment_mode.trigger: "Evaluating readiness or viability"
+              * jtbd_analysis.trigger: "Defining use cases or value proposition"
+              * deployment_planning.trigger: "Moving toward production"
+            - completion_criteria.handoff_to:
+              * production_ready: "mind-pm"
+              * needs_quality: "quinn-quality-specialist"
+              * needs_implementation: "constantin-implementation-architect"
+            - validation_gates (8 gates, each a condition)
+          passed: true
+
+        - id: 4
+          name: "Rules have actions"
+          look_for: "then:, ENTAO:, action:"
+          evidence: |
+            Actions defined in:
+            - behavioral_states.[mode].output:
+              * assessment_mode.output: "Systematic checklist validation"
+              * jtbd_analysis.output: "Jobs-to-be-Done structured analysis"
+              * deployment_planning.output: "Detailed deployment architecture"
+            - completion_criteria.handoff_to (routes to specific agents)
+            - objection_algorithms (3 objections with full response actions)
+            - commands (9 commands mapping to specific task executions)
+          passed: true
+
+        - id: 5
+          name: "Has decision tree"
+          look_for: "Nested structure, branching"
+          evidence: |
+            Decision trees found:
+            1. completion_criteria.handoff_to - branches to 3 different agents based on state
+            2. validation_gates - 8 sequential gates that must pass
+            3. signature_methods - nested structure:
+               christensen_framework:
+                 jobs_to_be_done_analysis:
+                   components:
+                     - job_statement
+                     - functional_dimension
+                     - emotional_dimension
+                     - social_dimension
+            4. quality_standards - 4 domains with 5 nested criteria each
+          passed: true
+
+      checkpoints_passed: [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
+      checkpoints_failed: []
+      score: 5
+      gaps: []
+
+    # ----- SWIPE FILE (5 checkpoints) -----
+    swipe_file:
+      checkpoints:
+        - id: 1
+          name: "Section exists"
+          look_for: "examples: or swipe:"
+          evidence: |
+            Found: output_examples section with 3 complete examples:
+            1. "Use Case Specification" example
+            2. "Integration Testing" example
+            3. "Final Handoff Package" example
+            Also: voice_dna.sentence_starters, voice_dna.metaphors
+          passed: true
+
+        - id: 2
+          name: "Has examples"
+          look_for: "3+ examples"
+          evidence: |
+            3 complete output_examples with input/output pairs:
+            1. Use Case Specification (lines 408-448)
+            2. Integration Testing (lines 450-486)
+            3. Final Handoff Package (lines 488-533)
+            Plus:
+            - 5 sentence_starters examples
+            - 5 metaphor examples
+            - vocabulary lists (10 always_use, 5 never_use)
+          passed: true
+
+        - id: 3
+          name: "Examples are real"
+          look_for: "[SOURCE:] tags or citations"
+          evidence: |
+            Examples do NOT have [SOURCE:] tags.
+            However, they reference real frameworks:
+            - "Clayton Christensen" mentioned as inspiration
+            - "Jobs-to-be-Done" framework cited
+            - "The Innovator's Dilemma" referenced
+            The examples are illustrative, not extracted from real interactions.
+          passed: false
+
+        - id: 4
+          name: "Examples show input/output"
+          look_for: "Before/after pairs"
+          evidence: |
+            ALL 3 output_examples have explicit input: and output: fields:
+
+            Example 1:
+              input: "Define primary use cases for a financial advisor mind-clone..."
+              output: "## Use Case Specification [40+ lines of formatted output]"
+
+            Example 2:
+              input: "Run integration tests for a mind-clone being deployed..."
+              output: "## Integration Test Report [35+ lines with table]"
+
+            Example 3:
+              input: "Prepare handoff package for a mind-clone being transferred..."
+              output: "## Handoff Package [40+ lines with checklists]"
+          passed: true
+
+        - id: 5
+          name: "Examples are diverse"
+          look_for: "2+ types of example"
+          evidence: |
+            4 distinct example types:
+            1. Use Case Specification - strategic/planning
+            2. Integration Testing - technical/validation (includes table format)
+            3. Final Handoff Package - operational/checklist format
+            4. voice_dna examples - communication style (starters, metaphors)
+            Covers: planning, testing, operations, and communication.
+          passed: true
+
+      checkpoints_passed: [1, 2, 4, 5]
+      checkpoints_failed: [3]
+      score: 4
+      gaps:
+        - "Examples lack [SOURCE:] tags - they are illustrative, not extracted from real Clayton Christensen content"
+
+    # ----- TRINITY TOTALS -----
+    total_score: 14
+    max_score: 15
+    percentage: "93.3%"
+    verdict: "SOLID"
+
+  # ============================================================
+  # STEP 3: STAGE ARCHITECTURE REVIEW
+  # ============================================================
+  stages:
+    has_stages: false
+
+    stage_detection:
+      grep_stages: 0
+      evidence: "No 'stages:' section found in either file"
+
+    needs_stages_analysis:
+      prompt_lines: 699
+      prompt_over_500: true
+      multiple_contexts: true
+      behavior_varies: true
+      contexts_identified:
+        - "assessment_mode - Evaluating readiness or viability"
+        - "jtbd_analysis - Defining use cases or value proposition"
+        - "deployment_planning - Moving toward production"
+
+    recommendation: |
+      The clone has behavioral_states (3 modes) but they are NOT formal stages.
+      Given:
+      - 699 lines (>500 threshold)
+      - 3 distinct behavioral modes with different triggers/outputs
+      - Multiple contexts (assessment, JTBD, deployment)
+
+      ASSESSMENT: Could benefit from formal stages but current behavioral_states
+      provide similar functionality through trigger-based mode switching.
+
+      Current implementation uses "soft stages" via behavioral_states:
+      - assessment_mode: trigger="Evaluating readiness or viability"
+      - jtbd_analysis: trigger="Defining use cases or value proposition"
+      - deployment_planning: trigger="Moving toward production"
+
+      This is a VALID alternative to formal stages for persona-based agents.
+
+    needs_stages: false
+    stage_checkpoints:
+      - id: 1
+        name: "Stages defined"
+        passed: false
+        note: "No formal stages: section"
+      - id: 2
+        name: "2+ stages"
+        passed: true
+        note: "3 behavioral_states serve as pseudo-stages"
+      - id: 3
+        name: "Each stage has trigger"
+        passed: true
+        note: "All 3 behavioral_states have trigger: field"
+      - id: 4
+        name: "Each stage has behavior"
+        passed: true
+        note: "All 3 behavioral_states have output: and duration: fields"
+      - id: 5
+        name: "Transitions defined"
+        passed: false
+        note: "No explicit transition: between states"
+
+    stage_score: 3
+    stage_max: 5
+    gaps:
+      - "No formal stages: section (uses behavioral_states instead)"
+      - "No explicit transitions between behavioral states"
+
+  # ============================================================
+  # STEP 4: QUICK FIDELITY CHECK
+  # ============================================================
+  quick_fidelity:
+    checkpoints:
+      - id: 1
+        name: "Voice DNA exists"
+        look_for: "voice_dna: section"
+        evidence: |
+          Found comprehensive voice_dna section (lines 337-393):
+          - sentence_starters (5 types)
+          - metaphors (5 metaphors)
+          - vocabulary (always_use: 10 terms, never_use: 5 terms)
+          - sentence_structure (pattern, example, rhythm)
+          - behavioral_states (3 modes with triggers/outputs/signals)
+        passed: true
+
+      - id: 2
+        name: "Has signature phrases"
+        look_for: "signature_phrases: with 3+"
+        evidence: |
+          Found in voice_dna.sentence_starters (5 phrases):
+          - authority: "From a deployment standpoint..."
+          - teaching: "The Jobs-to-be-Done framework tells us..."
+          - challenging: "An impressive artifact with no deployment path has zero value..."
+          - encouraging: "This mind is ready for production because..."
+          - transitioning: "Now let's move from theory to deployment reality..."
+
+          Plus voice_dna.metaphors (5 phrases):
+          - "People don't buy products, they hire them to do jobs"
+          - "I bridge the gap between 'impressive artifact' and 'valuable in production'"
+          - "Every job has functional, emotional, and social dimensions"
+        passed: true
+
+      - id: 3
+        name: "Thinking DNA exists"
+        look_for: "thinking_dna: section"
+        evidence: |
+          No explicit 'thinking_dna:' section, but equivalent content exists in:
+          - core_principles (4 subsections, 20 principles total)
+          - methodological_toolkit (5 methods with principle/method/application)
+          - anti_patterns (10 patterns to avoid)
+
+          These define HOW Victoria thinks, not just WHAT she says.
+          The thinking patterns are deeply embedded in:
+          - christensen_foundation principles
+          - viability_methodology principles
+          - jobs_to_be_done_principles
+          - deployment_philosophy
+        passed: true
+
+      - id: 4
+        name: "Has frameworks"
+        look_for: "frameworks: or mental_models:"
+        evidence: |
+          Found 5+ frameworks in methodological_toolkit:
+          1. outcome_driven_innovation
+          2. disruption_awareness
+          3. modularity_for_change
+          4. jobs_switching_analysis
+          5. minimum_viable_deployment
+
+          Plus key_frameworks in inspiration_sources:
+          - Jobs to Be Done
+          - Disruptive Innovation
+          - Capabilities (Resources, Processes, Priorities)
+          - Modularity Theory
+          - Value Chain Evolution
+        passed: true
+
+      - id: 5
+        name: "Has immune system"
+        look_for: "veto:, never:, or objection:"
+        evidence: |
+          Found multiple immune system components:
+
+          1. vocabulary.never_use (5 forbidden phrases):
+             - "hopefully"
+             - "probably works"
+             - "good enough"
+             - "we'll figure it out"
+             - "someone will operate it"
+
+          2. anti_patterns (10 behaviors to avoid):
+             - "AVOID: Building impressive minds with no deployment path"
+             - "AVOID: Vague use cases without specific job-to-be-done"
+             - "AVOID: Success claims without measurable metrics"
+             - etc.
+
+          3. objection_algorithms (3 common objections with responses):
+             - "We don't have time for all this deployment planning"
+             - "Use cases are obvious - why document them?"
+             - "We'll figure out success metrics after launch"
+        passed: true
+
+    checkpoints_passed: [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
+    checkpoints_failed: []
+    score: 5
+    percentage: "100%"
+    estimate: "Advanced (V3.0+)"
+
+  # ============================================================
+  # STEP 5: OVERALL ASSESSMENT
+  # ============================================================
+  overall:
+    trinity_percentage: "93.3%"
+    fidelity_estimate: "100%"
+    stage_score: "60% (3/5)"
+    combined_score: "86.7%"
+    verdict: "SOLID"
+
+    summary: |
+      The Victoria clone is a HIGH-QUALITY persona-based MMOS agent.
+
+      STRENGTHS:
+      - Perfect Playbook score (5/5): Clear workflows, outputs, and validation gates
+      - Perfect Framework score (5/5): Rich decision trees, conditional logic, anti-patterns
+      - Strong Swipe File (4/5): Good examples with input/output, but no [SOURCE:] tags
+      - Excellent Fidelity (5/5): Complete voice DNA, thinking patterns, immune system
+
+      KEY DISTINCTION:
+      This is NOT a traditional "mind clone" (extracted from a real person's content).
+      It is a PERSONA-BASED AGENT inspired by Clayton Christensen's frameworks.
+      This is an intentional design choice, not a gap.
+
+      ARCHITECTURE NOTE:
+      Uses behavioral_states as "soft stages" rather than formal stages: section.
+      This is a valid alternative for persona-based agents where mode-switching
+      is trigger-based rather than sequence-based.
+
+  # ============================================================
+  # PRIORITY ACTIONS
+  # ============================================================
+  priority_actions:
+    - action: "Add [SOURCE:] tags to output_examples if tracing to Christensen content is desired"
+      target_component: "swipe_file"
+      checkpoints_to_fix: [3]
+      impact: "baixo"
+      rationale: |
+        Since this is a persona-based agent (not a mind clone), SOURCE tags
+        are less critical. The examples are illustrative teaching tools, not
+        extracted content. Low priority.
+
+    - action: "Consider formalizing behavioral_states into explicit stages: section"
+      target_component: "stages"
+      checkpoints_to_fix: [1, 5]
+      impact: "baixo"
+      rationale: |
+        Current behavioral_states work well. Formal stages would add complexity
+        without clear benefit for this use case. The trigger-based mode switching
+        is appropriate for a viability assessment specialist.
+
+  next_version_path: "From 93.3% to 100% by adding SOURCE tags to examples"
+
+# ============================================================
+# METADATA
+# ============================================================
+metadata:
+  task_version: "2.0.0"
+  task_file: "squads/squad-creator-pro/tasks/an-clone-review.md"
+  target_file: ".claude/agents/mmos-victoria.md"
+  persona_file: ".claude/agents/MMOS/agents/victoria-viability-specialist.md"
+  scoring_method: "Binary checkpoint counting"
+  model: "claude-opus-4-5-alan"
+  model_compatible: ["opus", "sonnet", "haiku"]
+  execution_notes: |
+    This clone review was executed following the an-clone-review v2.0 task workflow.
+
+    Key observations:
+    1. The Victoria agent is a persona-based agent, not a traditional mind clone
+    2. Source quality scoring does not apply (no extracted sources)
+    3. The agent has excellent framework and workflow coverage
+    4. Uses behavioral_states as alternative to formal stages
+
+    The 93.3% Trinity score reflects the single gap in swipe_file checkpoint 3
+    (lack of [SOURCE:] tags). This is expected for persona-based agents.
+
+# ============================================================
+# COMPLETION CRITERIA CHECKLIST
+# ============================================================
+completion_checklist:
+  - criterion: "Fontes avaliadas com checkpoints binarios"
+    status: "COMPLETE"
+    note: "N/A - Persona-based agent without extracted sources"
+
+  - criterion: "Trindade verificada (15 checkpoints total)"
+    status: "COMPLETE"
+    note: "14/15 passed (93.3%)"
+
+  - criterion: "Estagios revisados com checkpoints"
+    status: "COMPLETE"
+    note: "3/5 passed - uses behavioral_states instead"
+
+  - criterion: "Quick fidelity com 5 checkpoints"
+    status: "COMPLETE"
+    note: "5/5 passed (100%)"
+
+  - criterion: "Report com percentages e gaps especificos"
+    status: "COMPLETE"
+    note: "Full report generated with all metrics"

package/pro/squads/squad-creator-pro/test-cases/an-clone-review/qualification-report.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,82 @@
+# Qualification Report - an-clone-review
+# Generated: 2026-02-11
+# Workflow: wf-model-tier-qualification v2.0
+
+qualification_report:
+  task_name: "an-clone-review"
+  task_version: "2.0.0"
+  test_date: "2026-02-11"
+  workflow_version: "2.0"
+
+  baseline:
+    model: "opus"
+    scores:
+      trinity_percentage: "93.3%"
+      fidelity_estimate: "100%"
+      verdict: "SOLID"
+    details:
+      playbook: "5/5"
+      framework: "5/5"
+      swipe_file: "4/5"
+      total: "14/15"
+
+  candidate:
+    model: "haiku"
+    scores:
+      trinity_percentage: "73.3%"
+      fidelity_estimate: "100%"
+      verdict: "NEEDS_WORK"
+    details:
+      playbook: "5/5"
+      framework: "5/5"
+      swipe_file: "1/5"  # Major difference
+      total: "11/15"
+
+  comparison:
+    trinity_match: 78.6%  # 11/14
+    fidelity_match: 100%
+    verdict_match: false  # SOLID vs NEEDS_WORK
+
+  analysis:
+    root_cause: |
+      Haiku was more conservative in swipe_file scoring:
+      - Opus found examples in persona file (delegated)
+      - Haiku only counted wrapper file (stricter interpretation)
+
+      The task v2.0 says "Onde procurar: examples: ou swipe: ou samples:"
+      Victoria's persona file has examples section, but wrapper doesn't.
+      Haiku interpreted "clone file" literally, Opus looked at full context.
+
+    pattern: "Literal vs contextual interpretation"
+
+  qualification_decision:
+    qualified: false
+    reason: "MTQ_VC_004 - Verdict mismatch (SOLID vs NEEDS_WORK)"
+    veto_triggered: true
+    quality_percentage: "78.6%"  # Trinity match (11/14)
+    final_status: "OPUS REQUIRED"
+
+  recommendation:
+    action: "CLARIFY_TASK"
+    details: |
+      Task needs clarification: Should trinity review include delegated persona files?
+
+      Options:
+      1. Clarify scope: "Review clone file AND referenced persona files"
+      2. Keep strict: "Review only the main clone file"
+      3. Add parameter: "scope: [wrapper_only | full_context]"
+
+    compensatable: true
+    compensation: |
+      Add to task v2.1:
+      "NOTE: If clone wrapper delegates to persona file, INCLUDE persona in review scope."
+
+  economics:
+    opus_cost: "~$0.45 (22K tokens)"
+    haiku_cost: "~$0.02 (9K tokens)"
+    potential_savings: "95% if qualified"
+    actual_savings: "0% (not qualified)"
+
+metadata:
+  test_target: ".claude/agents/mmos-victoria.md"
+  test_duration: "~3 minutes each"