aiox-core 5.0.4 → 5.0.5

package/pro/squads/squad-creator-pro/checklists/deep-research-quality.md

@@ -1,506 +0,0 @@
-# Deep Research Quality Checklist
-
-**Purpose:** Validate research output BEFORE using it to create agents and tasks.
-**Used by:** `workflows/research-then-create-agent.md` (Step 5)
-**Quality Gate:** BLOCKING - research that fails cannot proceed to agent creation.
-
----
-
-## Quick Validation (Automated)
-
-### Minimum Thresholds
-
-| Metric | Minimum | Target | Measurement |
-|--------|---------|--------|-------------|
-| Total lines | 500 | 800+ | `wc -l research.md` |
-| Primary sources | 3 | 5+ | Count citations marked (PRIMARY) |
-| Scope sections covered | 4/6 | 6/6 | Count ## headers matching scope |
-| Actionable frameworks | 1 | 2+ | Count extracted process/checklist |
-| Real examples analyzed | 2 | 5+ | Count case studies with analysis |
-
-```yaml
-automated_checks:
-  - check: "total_lines >= 500"
-    weight: 20%
-    fail_action: "BLOCK - insufficient research depth"
-
-  - check: "primary_sources >= 3"
-    weight: 20%
-    fail_action: "BLOCK - need more primary evidence"
-
-  - check: "scope_coverage >= 4/6"
-    weight: 15%
-    fail_action: "WARN - gaps in coverage"
-
-  - check: "has_actionable_framework == true"
-    weight: 25%
-    fail_action: "BLOCK - no extractable process"
-
-  - check: "real_examples >= 2"
-    weight: 20%
-    fail_action: "WARN - need more examples"
-```
-
----
-
-## 1. DOCUMENT STRUCTURE
-
-### 1.1 Required Sections
-
-- [ ] **Executive Summary** present (2-3 paragraphs)
-- [ ] **Scope sections** match original research prompt (4-6 sections)
-- [ ] **Consolidated Framework** section present
-- [ ] **Sources** section with citations
-- [ ] **Research Metadata** section
-
-### 1.2 Section Quality
-
-- [ ] Each scope section has substantive content (50+ lines minimum)
-- [ ] Sections follow logical progression
-- [ ] No empty or placeholder sections
-- [ ] Headers use consistent formatting (## for main, ### for sub)
-
----
-
-## 2. PRIMARY EVIDENCE
-
-### 2.1 Source Types
-
-**Primary Sources (highest value):**
-- [ ] Direct quotes from expert/specialist
-- [ ] Excerpts from expert's books/articles
-- [ ] Transcripts of expert's speeches/interviews
-- [ ] Expert's documented processes/frameworks
-
-**Secondary Sources (supporting):**
-- [ ] Analysis by practitioners who studied the expert
-- [ ] Case studies applying expert's methods
-- [ ] Academic research on the methodology
-- [ ] Industry commentary and validation
-
-### 2.2 Citation Quality
-
-- [ ] Each major claim has source attribution
-- [ ] Primary sources clearly marked as `(PRIMARY)` or `(EVIDENCE)`
-- [ ] Source format includes: Author, Work, Year/Chapter when available
-- [ ] URLs provided for web sources
-- [ ] No unsourced claims in framework sections
-
-### 2.3 Evidence Distribution
-
-```yaml
-evidence_distribution:
-  minimum:
-    primary_sources: 3
-    secondary_sources: 2
-    case_studies: 2
-
-  ideal:
-    primary_sources: 5+
-    secondary_sources: 3+
-    case_studies: 5+
-
-  red_flags:
-    - "All sources from single origin"
-    - "No direct quotes from expert"
-    - "Only blog posts, no books/papers"
-    - "Sources older than 20 years with no modern validation"
-```
-
----
-
-## 3. SCOPE COVERAGE
-
-### 3.1 Per-Section Validation
-
-For EACH scope section in the research prompt, verify:
-
-- [ ] **Section exists** with matching header
-- [ ] **Minimum depth:** 50+ lines of content
-- [ ] **Sub-points addressed:** All sub-points from prompt covered
-- [ ] **Evidence present:** At least 1 citation in section
-- [ ] **Actionable content:** Contains how-to, not just theory
-
-### 3.2 Coverage Scoring
-
-| Coverage | Score | Status |
-|----------|-------|--------|
-| 6/6 sections | 100% | PASS |
-| 5/6 sections | 83% | PASS |
-| 4/6 sections | 67% | CONDITIONAL |
-| 3/6 sections | 50% | FAIL |
-| <3 sections | <50% | HARD FAIL |
-
-### 3.3 Depth Indicators
-
-**Adequate depth (per section):**
-- [ ] Has introduction explaining section relevance
-- [ ] Has 2+ specific techniques or principles
-- [ ] Has at least 1 real example
-- [ ] Has practical guidance (not just theory)
-
-**Insufficient depth:**
-- [ ] Only definitions without application
-- [ ] Single paragraph treatment
-- [ ] No examples or evidence
-- [ ] Vague generalizations
-
----
-
-## 4. ACTIONABLE CONTENT
-
-### 4.1 Framework Extraction Readiness
-
-The research MUST contain enough detail to extract:
-
-**Principles (3+ required):**
-- [ ] Explicit rules stated by expert
-- [ ] Documented beliefs/philosophy
-- [ ] What expert considers important
-- [ ] Format: Clear, quotable statements
-
-**Process (1 required):**
-- [ ] Step-by-step workflow
-- [ ] Sequence of actions
-- [ ] How expert actually does the work
-- [ ] Format: Numbered or ordered steps
-
-**Structure (1 required):**
-- [ ] Anatomy of the output (sections, components)
-- [ ] Template or blueprint
-- [ ] What the deliverable looks like
-- [ ] Format: List of sections with purposes
-
-**Quality Criteria (1 required):**
-- [ ] What expert considers "good"
-- [ ] What expert considers "bad"
-- [ ] Evaluation criteria
-- [ ] Format: Do/Don't or Excellent/Weak lists
-
-**Checklist (derivable):**
-- [ ] Enough criteria to create validation checklist
-- [ ] Specific enough to be checkable
-- [ ] Based on expert's standards, not generic
-
-### 4.2 Actionability Scoring
-
-```yaml
-actionability_check:
-  has_extractable_principles: true/false
-  has_extractable_process: true/false
-  has_extractable_structure: true/false
-  has_extractable_criteria: true/false
-
-  minimum_to_pass: 3/4
-  ideal: 4/4
-
-  fail_message: |
-    Research lacks actionable content.
-    Found: {found_items}
-    Missing: {missing_items}
-    Action: Re-research with focus on "how-to" and "process" queries
-```
-
----
-
-## 5. REAL EXAMPLES
-
-### 5.1 Example Quality Criteria
-
-Each example MUST have:
-
-- [ ] **Identification:** What it is (name, type, date)
-- [ ] **Context:** Why it's relevant
-- [ ] **Analysis:** What makes it work (or not work)
-- [ ] **Lessons:** What to learn from it
-
-### 5.2 Example Types
-
-**Strong examples:**
-- [ ] Expert's own work analyzed
-- [ ] Case studies with documented results
-- [ ] Before/after comparisons
-- [ ] Line-by-line or section-by-section breakdowns
-
-**Weak examples:**
-- [ ] Hypothetical scenarios
-- [ ] "Imagine if..." constructions
-- [ ] Generic illustrations without specifics
-- [ ] Examples without analysis
-
-### 5.3 Example Distribution
-
-| Count | Status | Notes |
-|-------|--------|-------|
-| 5+ examples | Excellent | Strong foundation |
-| 3-4 examples | Good | Adequate for framework |
-| 2 examples | Minimum | Proceed with caution |
-| 0-1 examples | Fail | Re-research needed |
-
----
-
-## 6. CONSOLIDATED FRAMEWORK
-
-### 6.1 Required Components
-
-The "Consolidated Framework" section MUST include:
-
-- [ ] **Principles list** (3-7 items, with citations)
-- [ ] **Process steps** (numbered workflow)
-- [ ] **Structure/Anatomy** (sections with purposes)
-- [ ] **Quality Criteria** (excellent vs weak)
-- [ ] **Checklist** (validation items)
-
-### 6.2 Framework Quality
-
-**Each principle:**
-- [ ] Is a clear, actionable statement
-- [ ] Has source citation
-- [ ] Is specific to the domain/expert
-- [ ] Is not generic advice
-
-**Process steps:**
-- [ ] Are in logical order
-- [ ] Each step is clear and executable
-- [ ] Steps cover complete workflow
-- [ ] No vague "and then magic happens" steps
-
-**Structure/Anatomy:**
-- [ ] All sections identified
-- [ ] Each section has clear purpose
-- [ ] Includes expert's specific guidance per section
-- [ ] Covers complete deliverable
-
-**Quality Criteria:**
-- [ ] "Excellent" examples are specific
-- [ ] "Weak" examples are specific
-- [ ] Criteria are observable/testable
-- [ ] Based on expert's standards
-
----
-
-## 7. SOURCE QUALITY
-
-### 7.1 Source Credibility Tiers
-
-**Tier 1 - Primary (Most Valuable):**
-- Expert's own books
-- Expert's documented frameworks
-- Expert's interviews/speeches (transcribed)
-- Expert's case studies
-
-**Tier 2 - Validated Secondary:**
-- Analysis by known practitioners
-- Academic research citing expert
-- Industry-recognized case studies
-- Peer-reviewed analysis
-
-**Tier 3 - General Secondary:**
-- Blog posts about expert
-- YouTube summaries
-- Forum discussions
-- Social media references
-
-### 7.2 Source Mix Requirements
-
-```yaml
-source_requirements:
-  minimum:
-    tier_1: 2 sources
-    tier_2: 1 source
-    tier_3: unlimited (supporting only)
-
-  ideal:
-    tier_1: 4+ sources
-    tier_2: 2+ sources
-    tier_3: as needed
-
-  red_flags:
-    - "Zero Tier 1 sources"
-    - "Only Tier 3 sources"
-    - "Single source dominance (>80% from one)"
-```
-
-### 7.3 Source Documentation
-
-Each source entry should have:
-- [ ] Author/Creator name
-- [ ] Work title
-- [ ] Year (if available)
-- [ ] Specific chapter/section (if book)
-- [ ] URL (if web source)
-- [ ] Tier classification
-
----
-
-## 8. ANTI-PATTERNS (Red Flags)
-
-### 8.1 Content Red Flags
-
-- [ ] **Generic advice** not specific to expert
-- [ ] **Invented frameworks** attributed to expert
-- [ ] **Unsourced claims** about expert's methods
-- [ ] **Contradictory statements** within research
-- [ ] **Filler content** (obvious padding)
-- [ ] **Circular references** (citing summaries of summaries)
-
-### 8.2 Structure Red Flags
-
-- [ ] **Missing sections** from original scope
-- [ ] **Stub sections** (<20 lines)
-- [ ] **Copy-paste blocks** without analysis
-- [ ] **No framework extraction possible**
-- [ ] **Examples without analysis**
-
-### 8.3 Source Red Flags
-
-- [ ] **No primary sources**
-- [ ] **Single-source research**
-- [ ] **Only AI-generated summaries**
-- [ ] **Broken/invalid URLs**
-- [ ] **Sources don't support claims**
-
----
-
-## 9. VALIDATION WORKFLOW
-
-### 9.1 Automated Pass (Fast Path)
-
-```python
-def quick_validate(research_doc):
-    checks = {
-        'lines': count_lines(research_doc) >= 500,
-        'primary_sources': count_primary_sources(research_doc) >= 3,
-        'scope_coverage': count_scope_sections(research_doc) >= 4,
-        'has_framework': has_consolidated_framework(research_doc),
-        'has_examples': count_examples(research_doc) >= 2
-    }
-
-    if all(checks.values()):
-        return "PASS", 100
-    elif checks['lines'] and checks['has_framework']:
-        return "CONDITIONAL", calculate_score(checks)
-    else:
-        return "FAIL", calculate_score(checks)
-```
-
-### 9.2 Manual Review Triggers
-
-Run detailed checklist review if:
-- [ ] Score between 60-80% (borderline)
-- [ ] Specialist is new/unfamiliar
-- [ ] Domain is high-stakes
-- [ ] Research will feed multiple agents
-
-### 9.3 Decision Matrix
-
-| Score | Status | Action |
-|-------|--------|--------|
-| 95-100% | PASS | Proceed to framework extraction |
-| 80-94% | PASS | Proceed with minor notes |
-| 60-79% | CONDITIONAL | Review gaps, proceed with caution |
-| 40-59% | FAIL | Retry research with adjusted queries |
-| <40% | HARD FAIL | Fundamental issues, restart |
-
----
-
-## 10. RETRY PROTOCOL
-
-### 10.1 On CONDITIONAL (60-79%)
-
-```yaml
-retry_conditional:
-  max_retries: 1
-  focus: "Fill specific gaps identified"
-  queries:
-    - "More examples of {weak_section}"
-    - "{expert} {topic} case studies"
-    - "{expert} {topic} step-by-step process"
-  action: "Append to existing research, re-validate"
-```
-
-### 10.2 On FAIL (40-59%)
-
-```yaml
-retry_fail:
-  max_retries: 2
-  focus: "Broaden research scope"
-  queries:
-    - Different query formulations
-    - Alternative source types
-    - Related experts in same domain
-  action: "Replace weak sections, re-validate"
-```
-
-### 10.3 On HARD FAIL (<40%)
-
-```yaml
-hard_fail:
-  action: "STOP workflow"
-  message: |
-    Research quality insufficient for agent creation.
-    Issues: {critical_issues}
-    Recommendation: Manual research or different specialist
-  options:
-    - "Accept partial research with heavy warnings"
-    - "Switch to generic (non-specialist) agent"
-    - "Abort agent creation"
-```
-
----
-
-## VALIDATION REPORT TEMPLATE
-
-```markdown
-# Research Validation Report
-
-**Document:** {research_file_path}
-**Validated:** {timestamp}
-**Validator:** {automated|manual}
-
-## Quick Metrics
-
-| Metric | Value | Threshold | Status |
-|--------|-------|-----------|--------|
-| Total Lines | {n} | 500 | {PASS/FAIL} |
-| Primary Sources | {n} | 3 | {PASS/FAIL} |
-| Scope Coverage | {n}/6 | 4/6 | {PASS/FAIL} |
-| Has Framework | {yes/no} | yes | {PASS/FAIL} |
-| Examples | {n} | 2 | {PASS/FAIL} |
-
-## Overall Score: {score}%
-## Status: {PASS|CONDITIONAL|FAIL|HARD_FAIL}
-
-## Section-by-Section
-
-| Section | Lines | Sources | Examples | Status |
-|---------|-------|---------|----------|--------|
-| {section_1} | {n} | {n} | {n} | {OK/WARN/FAIL} |
-| ... | ... | ... | ... | ... |
-
-## Framework Extraction Readiness
-
-- [ ] Principles extractable: {yes/no}
-- [ ] Process extractable: {yes/no}
-- [ ] Structure extractable: {yes/no}
-- [ ] Criteria extractable: {yes/no}
-
-## Red Flags Detected
-
-{list of red flags or "None"}
-
-## Recommendation
-
-{PROCEED | PROCEED_WITH_CAUTION | RETRY | ABORT}
-
-## Notes
-
-{additional observations}
-```
-
----
-
-**Checklist Version:** 1.0.0
-**Created:** 2026-01-22
-**Part of:** squads/squad-chief
-**Used by:** workflows/research-then-create-agent.md