aiox-core 5.0.3 → 5.0.5

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

@@ -1,566 +0,0 @@
-# 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

@@ -1,82 +0,0 @@
-# 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"