aiox-core 5.0.4 → 5.0.5

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

@@ -1,144 +0,0 @@
-# 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

@@ -1,174 +0,0 @@
-# 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

@@ -1,191 +0,0 @@
-# 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

@@ -1,26 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "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

@@ -1,63 +0,0 @@
-# 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: []
-```