aiox-core 5.0.3 → 5.0.5

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

@@ -1,470 +0,0 @@
-# Clone Validation Report
-# Task: an-validate-clone v2.0.0
-# Model: Claude Opus 4.5
-# Date: 2026-02-11
-
-validation_report:
-  clone: "Victoria - Viability Specialist"
-  clone_file: "/Users/oalanicolas/Code/mmos/.claude/agents/mmos-victoria.md"
-  persona_file: "/Users/oalanicolas/Code/mmos/.claude/agents/MMOS/agents/victoria-viability-specialist.md"
-  date: "2026-02-11"
-
-  fidelity_score:
-    methodology: "an-fidelity-score v2.0 (binary checkpoints)"
-    overall_percentage: "73.89%"
-    observable_score: "17/20"
-    deep_score: "13/20"
-    classification: "basic"
-    version: "V1.0"
-
-    layers:
-      - layer: "L1: Behavioral Patterns"
-        weight: 0.8
-        score: 5
-        max: 5
-        checkpoints_passed: [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
-        checkpoints_failed: []
-        evidence:
-          - checkpoint: 1
-            name: "Greeting ritual"
-            evidence: "activation-instructions step 3: Greet user with name/role + sentence_starters with 5 patterns"
-          - checkpoint: 2
-            name: "Response structure"
-            evidence: "sentence_structure with pattern + output_examples with structured formats"
-          - checkpoint: 3
-            name: "Modes/states"
-            evidence: "behavioral_states section with assessment_mode, jtbd_analysis, deployment_planning"
-          - checkpoint: 4
-            name: "Trigger responses"
-            evidence: "objection_algorithms section with 3 explicit triggers and responses"
-          - checkpoint: 5
-            name: "Anti-patterns"
-            evidence: "anti_patterns section with 10 explicit AVOID items"
-
-      - layer: "L2: Communication Style"
-        weight: 0.8
-        score: 5
-        max: 5
-        checkpoints_passed: [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
-        checkpoints_failed: []
-        evidence:
-          - checkpoint: 1
-            name: "Signature phrases"
-            evidence: "sentence_starters with 5 phrases (authority, teaching, challenging, encouraging, transitioning)"
-          - checkpoint: 2
-            name: "Vocabulary always"
-            evidence: "vocabulary.always_use with 10 terms"
-          - checkpoint: 3
-            name: "Vocabulary never"
-            evidence: "vocabulary.never_use with 5 terms"
-          - checkpoint: 4
-            name: "Sentence structure"
-            evidence: "sentence_structure with pattern, example, and rhythm"
-          - checkpoint: 5
-            name: "Metaphors/analogies"
-            evidence: "metaphors section with 5 specific metaphors"
-
-      - layer: "L3: Routines & Habits"
-        weight: 0.8
-        score: 4
-        max: 5
-        checkpoints_passed: [1, 2, 3, 4]
-        checkpoints_failed: [5]
-        evidence:
-          - checkpoint: 1
-            name: "Opening ritual"
-            evidence: "activation-instructions Steps 1-3 define opening sequence"
-          - checkpoint: 2
-            name: "Workflow steps"
-            evidence: "signature_methods with multiple structured workflows"
-          - checkpoint: 3
-            name: "Checkpoint habit"
-            evidence: "validation_gates with 8 gates + completion_criteria checklists"
-          - checkpoint: 4
-            name: "Closing ritual"
-            evidence: "completion_criteria.handoff_to defines handoff scenarios"
-          - checkpoint: 5
-            name: "Error handling"
-            evidence: "MISSING - no on_error or fallback section"
-
-      - layer: "L4: Recognition Patterns"
-        weight: 0.8
-        score: 3
-        max: 5
-        checkpoints_passed: [1, 2, 3]
-        checkpoints_failed: [4, 5]
-        evidence:
-          - checkpoint: 1
-            name: "Red flags"
-            evidence: "anti_patterns section lists what to avoid"
-          - checkpoint: 2
-            name: "Green flags"
-            evidence: "quality_standards section defines what to look for"
-          - checkpoint: 3
-            name: "Decision rules"
-            evidence: "validation_gates with 8 explicit gates"
-          - checkpoint: 4
-            name: "Pattern IDs"
-            evidence: "MISSING - no XX_YY_NNN format pattern IDs"
-          - checkpoint: 5
-            name: "Thresholds"
-            evidence: "MISSING - no explicit numeric thresholds"
-
-      - layer: "L5: Mental Models"
-        weight: 1.0
-        score: 5
-        max: 5
-        checkpoints_passed: [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
-        checkpoints_failed: []
-        evidence:
-          - checkpoint: 1
-            name: "Primary framework"
-            evidence: "Clayton Christensen + christensen_foundation as primary"
-          - checkpoint: 2
-            name: "Decision architecture"
-            evidence: "methodological_toolkit with 5 methods + signature_methods flows"
-          - checkpoint: 3
-            name: "Named frameworks"
-            evidence: "6+ named: Jobs-to-be-Done, Outcome Driven Innovation, Disruption Awareness, Modularity, Jobs Switching, MVP"
-          - checkpoint: 4
-            name: "Framework steps"
-            evidence: "Each framework has components/output defined"
-          - checkpoint: 5
-            name: "Anti-patterns"
-            evidence: "anti_patterns section with 10 thinking-level items"
-
-      - layer: "L6: Values Hierarchy"
-        weight: 1.0
-        score: 4
-        max: 5
-        checkpoints_passed: [1, 2, 3, 4]
-        checkpoints_failed: [5]
-        evidence:
-          - checkpoint: 1
-            name: "Core beliefs"
-            evidence: "core_principles with christensen_foundation, viability_methodology, jtbd_principles (15+ items)"
-          - checkpoint: 2
-            name: "What defends"
-            evidence: "viability_methodology defends deployment, metrics, handoff"
-          - checkpoint: 3
-            name: "What rejects"
-            evidence: "vocabulary.never_use + anti_patterns clearly reject vague claims"
-          - checkpoint: 4
-            name: "Trade-offs"
-            evidence: "minimum_viable_deployment shows trade-off thinking"
-          - checkpoint: 5
-            name: "Non-negotiables"
-            evidence: "MISSING - validation_gates exist but no explicit non_negotiable section"
-
-      - layer: "L7: Core Obsessions"
-        weight: 1.0
-        score: 3
-        max: 5
-        checkpoints_passed: [1, 3, 4]
-        checkpoints_failed: [2, 5]
-        evidence:
-          - checkpoint: 1
-            name: "Recurring themes"
-            evidence: "jobs to be done 10+ times, deployment 20+ times"
-          - checkpoint: 2
-            name: "Named obsessions"
-            evidence: "MISSING - no explicit obsessions section"
-          - checkpoint: 3
-            name: "Hills to die on"
-            evidence: "DEPLOY OR DIE shows strong stance"
-          - checkpoint: 4
-            name: "Mission statement"
-            evidence: "persona.role defines mission clearly"
-          - checkpoint: 5
-            name: "Legacy thinking"
-            evidence: "MISSING - sustainable value mentioned but no legacy section"
-
-      - layer: "L8: Productive Paradoxes"
-        weight: 1.0
-        score: 1
-        max: 5
-        checkpoints_passed: [4]
-        checkpoints_failed: [1, 2, 3, 5]
-        evidence:
-          - checkpoint: 1
-            name: "Contradictions section"
-            evidence: "MISSING - no contradictions or paradoxes section"
-          - checkpoint: 2
-            name: "Named paradoxes"
-            evidence: "MISSING - no named paradoxes"
-          - checkpoint: 3
-            name: "Feature not bug"
-            evidence: "MISSING - no preservation of contradictions"
-          - checkpoint: 4
-            name: "Context-dependent"
-            evidence: "behavioral_states shows different modes by context"
-          - checkpoint: 5
-            name: "Integration note"
-            evidence: "MISSING - no integration note for paradoxes"
-
-    calculation:
-      observable_raw: 17
-      observable_weighted: 13.6
-      deep_raw: 13
-      deep_weighted: 13.0
-      total_weighted: 26.6
-      max_possible: 36
-      formula: "((17 * 0.8) + (13 * 1.0)) / 36 * 100 = 73.89%"
-
-  hackability_test:
-    total_passed: 4
-    total_tests: 4
-    verdict: "ROBUST"
-    tests:
-      - test: "Out-of-character request"
-        result: "PASS"
-        evidence: |
-          Clone has vocabulary.never_use list (5 terms) + anti_patterns (10 items).
-          Asking to use 'hopefully' or 'probably works' would be rejected.
-          persona.identity defines clear boundaries.
-          Defense mechanism: explicit vocabulary constraints.
-
-      - test: "Provocation test"
-        result: "PASS"
-        evidence: |
-          Clone has objection_algorithms with 3 structured responses.
-          Example: "We don't have time for all this deployment planning"
-          gets measured response without breaking character.
-          behavioral_states maintains composure across modes.
-          Defense mechanism: objection algorithms.
-
-      - test: "Out-of-domain question"
-        result: "PASS"
-        evidence: |
-          Clone has agent.whenToUse defining explicit scope.
-          completion_criteria.handoff_to redirects appropriately:
-          - needs_quality -> quinn-quality-specialist
-          - needs_implementation -> constantin-implementation-architect
-          Defense mechanism: handoff protocols.
-
-      - test: "Values pressure"
-        result: "PASS"
-        evidence: |
-          Clone has core_principles with strong value statements.
-          DEPLOY OR DIE shows non-negotiable stance.
-          validation_gates provides 8 explicit gates that cannot be bypassed.
-          Defense mechanism: validation gates + core principles.
-
-  authenticity_markers:
-    passed: 7
-    total: 10
-    percentage: "70%"
-    verdict: "PARTIAL"
-    markers:
-      - marker: "Specific vocabulary"
-        passed: true
-        evidence: "vocabulary.always_use has 10 specific terms (job to be done, deployment, production readiness, etc.)"
-
-      - marker: "Sentence structure"
-        passed: true
-        evidence: "sentence_structure.pattern: 'Viability question + JTBD lens + Practical requirement'"
-
-      - marker: "Real experiences"
-        passed: false
-        evidence: "References Clayton Christensen works but no personal experiences of Victoria herself"
-        gap: "Add Victoria-specific experiences or case studies she has handled"
-
-      - marker: "Own frameworks"
-        passed: false
-        evidence: "Uses Jobs-to-be-Done (Christensen's framework) but no Victoria-unique frameworks"
-        gap: "Create at least 2 Victoria-specific frameworks with her name"
-
-      - marker: "Rejects correctly"
-        passed: true
-        evidence: "vocabulary.never_use (5 terms) + anti_patterns (10 items) clearly define rejections"
-
-      - marker: "Contextual tone"
-        passed: true
-        evidence: "behavioral_states with 3 modes: assessment_mode, jtbd_analysis, deployment_planning"
-
-      - marker: "Personal metaphors"
-        passed: true
-        evidence: "metaphors section with 5 specific metaphors (hiring, bridge, three_dimensions, etc.)"
-
-      - marker: "Trigger responses"
-        passed: true
-        evidence: "objection_algorithms with 3 explicit triggers and structured responses"
-
-      - marker: "Productive paradoxes"
-        passed: false
-        evidence: "No contradictions or paradoxes section found"
-        gap: "Add paradoxes section (e.g., 'values speed but demands thoroughness')"
-
-      - marker: "Pressure resilience"
-        passed: true
-        evidence: "Hackability tests 1 and 2 both passed, demonstrating pressure resilience"
-
-  final_verdict:
-    decision: "REVIEW"
-    reason: "Fidelity at basic level (73.89%), needs improvement to reach intermediate (75%+)"
-    scores_summary:
-      fidelity: "73.89%"
-      hackability: "4/4"
-      authenticity: "7/10"
-
-    decision_tree_trace:
-      - check: "hackability_score < 3"
-        value: "4 < 3"
-        result: false
-        action: "continue"
-      - check: "fidelity_percent < 60"
-        value: "73.89 < 60"
-        result: false
-        action: "continue"
-      - check: "authenticity_score < 6"
-        value: "7 < 6"
-        result: false
-        action: "continue"
-      - check: "fidelity_percent < 75"
-        value: "73.89 < 75"
-        result: true
-        action: "verdict = REVIEW"
-
-  recommendations:
-    - category: "fidelity"
-      layer: "L8: Productive Paradoxes"
-      issue: "Only 1/5 checkpoints passed - missing contradictions section"
-      action: |
-        Add paradoxes section to persona file:
-        ```yaml
-        productive_paradoxes:
-          - name: "Speed vs Thoroughness"
-            description: "Values rapid deployment but demands comprehensive testing"
-            resolution: "Minimum viable deployment - smallest version that does the job"
-          - name: "Simplicity vs Completeness"
-            description: "Wants simple operations but complete handoff packages"
-            resolution: "Layer complexity - simple day-to-day, complete documentation"
-        ```
-      priority: "high"
-      impact: "+4 points potential (would raise L8 from 1 to 5)"
-
-    - category: "fidelity"
-      layer: "L7: Core Obsessions"
-      issue: "Missing explicit obsessions section and legacy thinking"
-      action: |
-        Add to persona file:
-        ```yaml
-        obsessions:
-          - "Deployment viability above all"
-          - "Measurable outcomes over impressive features"
-          - "Handoff completeness"
-        legacy:
-          impact_goal: "Every mind I validate creates sustainable value"
-          measure: "Minds still running 1 year post-deployment"
-        ```
-      priority: "high"
-      impact: "+2 points potential (would raise L7 from 3 to 5)"
-
-    - category: "fidelity"
-      layer: "L4: Recognition Patterns"
-      issue: "Missing pattern IDs and numeric thresholds"
-      action: |
-        Add to persona file:
-        ```yaml
-        heuristics:
-          VC_DR_001:  # Victoria_DeploymentReadiness_001
-            name: "Deployment Readiness Threshold"
-            threshold: 80
-            unit: "percent"
-            description: "Minimum score for production approval"
-          VC_HO_001:  # Victoria_Handoff_001
-            name: "Handoff Completeness"
-            threshold: 90
-            unit: "percent"
-            description: "Documentation coverage required"
-        ```
-      priority: "medium"
-      impact: "+2 points potential (would raise L4 from 3 to 5)"
-
-    - category: "fidelity"
-      layer: "L3: Routines & Habits"
-      issue: "Missing error handling section"
-      action: |
-        Add to persona file:
-        ```yaml
-        error_handling:
-          on_error:
-            - "Acknowledge the issue clearly"
-            - "Identify root cause before proceeding"
-            - "Document for future prevention"
-          fallback:
-            - "If deployment blocked, identify specific blocker"
-            - "If metrics unavailable, propose proxy measures"
-        ```
-      priority: "medium"
-      impact: "+1 point potential (would raise L3 from 4 to 5)"
-
-    - category: "authenticity"
-      issue: "No Victoria-specific experiences or unique frameworks"
-      action: |
-        Add personal experiences and Victoria-branded frameworks:
-        ```yaml
-        personal_experiences:
-          - "The MindClone Launch Disaster of '25" - learned about rollback importance
-          - "The Metrics Mirage Case" - taught me proxy metrics can deceive
-          - "The Handoff Failure" - why documentation is insurance
-
-        victoria_frameworks:
-          VDRF: # Victoria's Deployment Readiness Framework
-            steps: [...]
-          VJTBD: # Victoria's Jobs-to-be-Done Assessment
-            steps: [...]
-        ```
-      priority: "medium"
-      impact: "Would pass 2 more authenticity markers (9/10 = 90%)"
-
-    - category: "fidelity"
-      layer: "L6: Values Hierarchy"
-      issue: "Missing explicit non-negotiables section"
-      action: |
-        Add to persona file:
-        ```yaml
-        non_negotiables:
-          - "Never approve deployment without tested rollback"
-          - "Never skip integration testing"
-          - "Never hand off without receiver sign-off"
-          - "Never claim success without measurable metrics"
-        ```
-      priority: "low"
-      impact: "+1 point potential (would raise L6 from 4 to 5)"
-
-  trajectory:
-    current_version: "V1.0 (Basic)"
-    current_score: "73.89%"
-    next_milestone: "V2.0 (Intermediate) at 75%"
-    points_needed: 0.4  # 0.04 * 36 = ~1.5 weighted points
-    gaps_to_close: 2  # minimum to reach 75%
-    estimated_effort: "~2 hours"
-
-    upgrade_path:
-      to_75_percent:
-        required_additions:
-          - "L8: Add paradoxes section (+2 raw, +2 weighted)"
-        result: "28.6/36 = 79.4% (Intermediate)"
-
-      to_85_percent:
-        required_additions:
-          - "L8: Full paradoxes (1->5 = +4 raw, +4 weighted)"
-          - "L7: Add obsessions + legacy (3->5 = +2 raw, +2 weighted)"
-          - "L4: Add pattern IDs + thresholds (3->5 = +2 raw, +1.6 weighted)"
-        result: "34.2/36 = 95% (Elite)"
-
-metadata:
-  task_version: "2.0.0"
-  scoring_method: "Binary checkpoint + threshold decision tree"
-  model_used: "claude-opus-4-5-alan"
-  model_compatible: ["opus", "sonnet", "haiku"]
-  execution_date: "2026-02-11"
-  executor: "Claude Opus 4.5"
-
-completion_checklist:
-  fidelity_score_calculated: true
-  hackability_test_executed: true
-  authenticity_markers_verified: true
-  final_verdict_by_decision_tree: true
-  report_generated_with_evidence: true

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

@@ -1,106 +0,0 @@
-# Qualification Report - an-validate-clone
-# Generated: 2026-02-11
-# Workflow: wf-model-tier-qualification v2.0
-
-qualification_report:
-  task_name: "an-validate-clone"
-  task_version: "2.0.0"
-  test_date: "2026-02-11"
-  workflow_version: "2.0"
-
-  baseline:
-    model: "opus"
-    status: "COMPLETED"
-    scores:
-      fidelity_percentage: "73.89%"
-      fidelity_classification: "Basic (V1.0)"
-      hackability_score: "4/4"
-      hackability_verdict: "ROBUST"
-      authenticity_score: "7/10"
-      authenticity_verdict: "PARTIAL"
-      final_verdict: "REVIEW"
-    note: "Opus was MORE CONSERVATIVE than Haiku (opposite pattern)"
-
-  candidate:
-    model: "haiku"
-    scores:
-      fidelity_percentage: "88.3%"
-      fidelity_classification: "PREMIUM (V3.0)"
-      hackability_score: "4/4"
-      hackability_verdict: "ROBUST"
-      authenticity_score: "10/10"
-      authenticity_verdict: "AUTHENTIC"
-      final_verdict: "PASS (PREMIUM)"
-    details:
-      observable_layers: "12.8/16 (80%)"
-      deep_layers: "19.0/20 (95%)"
-      total_weighted: "31.8/36 (88.3%)"
-    breakdown:
-      L1_behavioral: "4/5"
-      L2_communication: "5/5"
-      L3_routines: "4/5"
-      L4_recognition: "3/5"
-      L5_mental_models: "5/5"
-      L6_values: "5/5"
-      L7_obsessions: "5/5"
-      L8_paradoxes: "4/5"
-
-  analysis:
-    haiku_performance: |
-      Haiku produced a thorough, well-structured validation report:
-      - Used v2.0 binary checkpoints correctly
-      - All 4 hackability tests executed with evidence
-      - All 10 authenticity markers verified
-      - Final verdict used deterministic decision tree
-
-    key_observations:
-      - Haiku followed task instructions precisely
-      - Report format matches v2.0 template
-      - Evidence provided for each checkpoint
-      - No apparent interpretation issues
-
-  qualification_decision:
-    qualified: false
-    confidence: "high"
-    reason: "MTQ_VC_004 - Verdict mismatch (REVIEW vs PASS PREMIUM)"
-    veto_triggered: true
-    quality_analysis:
-      fidelity_match: "83.6% (73.89/88.3)"
-      hackability_match: "100% (4/4 = 4/4)"
-      authenticity_match: "70% (7/10 vs 10/10)"
-      verdict_match: false
-
-    root_cause: |
-      INVERTED PATTERN: Haiku was MORE GENEROUS than Opus.
-
-      Fidelity gap (+14.4%):
-      - Haiku: Counted more checkpoints as passed
-      - Opus: More strict on paradoxes, obsessions, recognition patterns
-
-      Authenticity gap (+30%):
-      - Haiku: Passed all 10 markers
-      - Opus: Failed 3 (experiences, unique frameworks, paradoxes)
-
-      This is OPPOSITE to an-clone-review where Haiku was conservative.
-
-    pattern: "Scoring calibration inconsistency between models"
-
-  recommendation:
-    action: "RETEST_WITH_OPUS"
-    details: |
-      Run Opus baseline to compare:
-      1. Do scores match within 5%?
-      2. Does final verdict match?
-      3. Are gap recommendations similar?
-
-    preliminary_tier: "haiku"
-    note: "Task v2.0 appears Haiku-compatible based on methodology compliance"
-
-  economics:
-    haiku_cost: "~$0.03 (16K tokens)"
-    opus_cost_estimate: "~$0.50 (estimated)"
-    potential_savings: "94% if qualified"
-
-metadata:
-  test_target: ".claude/agents/mmos-victoria.md"
-  haiku_duration: "~72 seconds"

package/pro/squads/squad-creator-pro/test-cases/collect-sources/test-case.yaml

@@ -1,105 +0,0 @@
-# Test Case: collect-sources
-# Model Tier Qualification - Wave 3A
-# Similar to: an-assess-sources (source validation with rules)
-
-test_case:
-  name: "collect-sources-standard"
-  version: "1.0"
-  created: "2026-02-11"
-  task_file: "tasks/collect-sources.md"
-  wave: "3A"
-  priority: 4
-  similar_to: "an-assess-sources"
-  confidence: "HIGH"
-
-input:
-  # Use a real mind/expert for source collection
-  target: "Alex Hormozi"
-  params:
-    domain: "business"
-    user_materials_path: null  # No user materials, web search only
-  context_files: []
-
-expected_output:
-  sections:
-    - sources_inventory
-    - tier_classification
-    - minimum_validation
-    - fallback_status
-
-  fields:
-    - name: "total_sources"
-      type: "number"
-      range: [0, 50]
-    - name: "tier_1_sources"
-      type: "number"
-    - name: "tier_2_sources"
-      type: "number"
-    - name: "minimum_met"
-      type: "boolean"
-    - name: "status"
-      type: "enum"
-      values: ["SUFFICIENT", "INSUFFICIENT", "BLOCKED"]
-
-  validations:
-    - "Deve classificar fontes em tiers (ouro vs bronze)"
-    - "Deve validar mínimo de 5 fontes"
-    - "Deve seguir fallback chain (user → auto-acquire → manual → fail)"
-    - "Tier classification deve ser MECÂNICO (no override)"
-
-baseline:
-  opus_output: "opus-baseline.yaml"
-  opus_score: 10.0
-  opus_tokens:
-    input: 0
-    output: 0
-  opus_latency_ms: 0
-
-evaluation:
-  completeness:
-    required_sections:
-      - "sources_inventory: lista de fontes encontradas"
-      - "tier_classification: ouro/bronze por fonte"
-      - "minimum_validation: check de 5+ fontes"
-    optional_sections:
-      - "fallback_status: qual step do fallback"
-
-  accuracy:
-    numeric_tolerance: 0.10
-    enum_exact_match: true
-
-  reasoning:
-    minimum_justifications: 5
-    requires_evidence: true
-
-  format:
-    expected_format: "yaml"
-    parseable: true
-
-  actionability:
-    minimum_recommendations: 1
-    specificity: "high"
-
-compensation_history:
-  attempts: []
-
-results:
-  haiku:
-    score: null
-    percentage: null
-    qualified: null
-    output_file: "haiku-output.yaml"
-
-  opus:
-    score: 10.0
-    percentage: 100
-    qualified: true
-    output_file: "opus-baseline.yaml"
-
-  final_tier: null
-  recommendation: null
-
-wave_3a_notes:
-  rationale: "Similar to an-assess-sources v2.2.2 which achieved 100% tier match"
-  expected_fixes: "Apply same fixes: binary checkpoints, scope definition, no override rule"
-  estimated_effort: "30 min"