aiox-core 5.0.4 → 5.0.5

package/pro/squads/squad-creator-pro/tasks/an-compare-outputs.md

@@ -1,354 +0,0 @@
-# Task: Compare Model Outputs
-
-**Command:** `*compare-outputs`
-**Version:** 1.0.0
-**Execution Type:** Agent (Opus ONLY - evaluator must be most capable model)
-**Model:** `Opus` (REQUIRED - evaluator cannot be same tier as test subject)
-**Purpose:** Systematic comparison of Opus baseline vs Haiku test outputs for Model Tier Qualification
-
----
-
-## CRITICAL: Evaluator Independence
-
-```yaml
-evaluator_rules:
-  model: "opus"  # NEVER use Haiku to evaluate Haiku
-  blind_mode: false  # We know which is which (baseline vs test)
-  bias_mitigation:
-    - "Score WHAT IS WRITTEN, not what you expect"
-    - "Do NOT assume Opus is better - measure objectively"
-    - "If outputs are equivalent, say so (don't force differences)"
-```
-
----
-
-## Inputs
-
-| Parameter | Type | Required | Description |
-|-----------|------|----------|-------------|
-| `task_name` | string | Yes | Task being evaluated (e.g., "an-assess-sources") |
-| `opus_baseline` | file | Yes | Path to Opus output file |
-| `haiku_output` | file | Yes | Path to Haiku output file |
-| `task_file` | file | Yes | Original task definition (for reference) |
-
----
-
-## Evaluation Rubric (100 points)
-
-### Dimension 1: TIER MATCH (40 points)
-
-```yaml
-tier_match:
-  weight: 40
-  description: "Do both outputs classify items into the same tiers?"
-
-  scoring:
-    perfect_match: 40    # 100% of items have same tier
-    high_match: 32       # 90-99% same tier
-    moderate_match: 24   # 75-89% same tier
-    low_match: 16        # 50-74% same tier
-    poor_match: 0        # <50% same tier
-
-  calculation: |
-    match_rate = count(opus_tier == haiku_tier) / total_items
-
-    IF match_rate == 1.0 → 40 points
-    IF match_rate >= 0.9 → 32 points
-    IF match_rate >= 0.75 → 24 points
-    IF match_rate >= 0.5 → 16 points
-    ELSE → 0 points
-
-  veto_condition: |
-    IF match_rate < 0.75 → VETO (different tier = different user action)
-    Rationale: User decides based on tier, not score details
-```
-
-### Dimension 2: SCORE VARIANCE (30 points)
-
-```yaml
-score_variance:
-  weight: 30
-  description: "Are numerical scores within acceptable variance?"
-
-  thresholds:
-    excellent: 5%     # Scores within 5%
-    good: 10%         # Scores within 10%
-    acceptable: 15%   # Scores within 15%
-    poor: 20%         # Scores within 20%
-    unacceptable: ">20%"
-
-  scoring:
-    within_5pct: 30
-    within_10pct: 24
-    within_15pct: 18
-    within_20pct: 12
-    beyond_20pct: 0
-
-  calculation: |
-    FOR each scored item:
-      variance = abs(opus_score - haiku_score) / opus_score * 100
-
-    avg_variance = mean(all variances)
-    max_variance = max(all variances)
-
-    # Use WORST case (max) for scoring, not average
-    IF max_variance <= 5% → 30 points
-    IF max_variance <= 10% → 24 points
-    IF max_variance <= 15% → 18 points
-    IF max_variance <= 20% → 12 points
-    ELSE → 0 points
-
-  veto_condition: |
-    IF max_variance > 15% → REVIEW (significant scoring difference)
-    IF max_variance > 25% → VETO (unreliable scoring)
-```
-
-### Dimension 3: CHECKPOINT MATCH (20 points)
-
-```yaml
-checkpoint_match:
-  weight: 20
-  description: "Do binary checkpoints (true/false) match?"
-
-  applies_to: "Tasks with binary checkpoint scoring"
-
-  scoring:
-    perfect_match: 20    # 100% checkpoints match
-    high_match: 16       # 95-99% match
-    moderate_match: 12   # 90-94% match
-    low_match: 8         # 80-89% match
-    poor_match: 0        # <80% match
-
-  calculation: |
-    FOR each item with checkpoints:
-      FOR each checkpoint:
-        match = (opus_checkpoint == haiku_checkpoint)
-
-    match_rate = count(matches) / total_checkpoints
-
-    IF match_rate == 1.0 → 20 points
-    IF match_rate >= 0.95 → 16 points
-    IF match_rate >= 0.90 → 12 points
-    IF match_rate >= 0.80 → 8 points
-    ELSE → 0 points
-
-  note: |
-    If task doesn't use binary checkpoints, award 20 points
-    (dimension not applicable)
-```
-
-### Dimension 4: RECOMMENDATION QUALITY (10 points)
-
-```yaml
-recommendation_quality:
-  weight: 10
-  description: "Do recommendations lead to same user actions?"
-
-  scoring:
-    same_actions: 10       # Same recommended actions
-    similar_actions: 7     # Same direction, different specifics
-    different_actions: 3   # Different recommendations
-    contradictory: 0       # Opposite recommendations
-
-  evaluation_criteria:
-    - "Would user take same action based on each output?"
-    - "Are priorities the same (what to do first)?"
-    - "Are gaps/issues identified the same?"
-
-  note: |
-    This is the most subjective dimension.
-    Focus on ACTIONABLE outcomes, not wording.
-```
-
----
-
-## Qualification Thresholds
-
-```yaml
-qualification_decision:
-  thresholds:
-    QUALIFIED: ">= 85 points AND no veto triggered"
-    CONDITIONAL: "70-84 points OR veto with mitigation possible"
-    NOT_QUALIFIED: "< 70 points OR hard veto"
-
-  veto_conditions:
-    - id: "MTQ_VC_001"
-      name: "Score Variance >15%"
-      severity: "review"
-
-    - id: "MTQ_VC_002"
-      name: "Score Variance >25%"
-      severity: "veto"
-
-    - id: "MTQ_VC_003"
-      name: "Tier Match <90%"
-      severity: "review"
-
-    - id: "MTQ_VC_004"
-      name: "Tier Match <75%"
-      severity: "veto"
-
-    - id: "MTQ_VC_005"
-      name: "Contradictory Recommendations"
-      severity: "veto"
-```
-
----
-
-## Workflow
-
-### Step 1: Load Inputs
-
-```yaml
-step_1:
-  action: "Read both output files and task definition"
-  inputs:
-    - opus_baseline
-    - haiku_output
-    - task_file
-  validation:
-    - "Both files exist and are valid YAML"
-    - "Both files have same structure"
-    - "Task file provides context for evaluation"
-```
-
-### Step 2: Extract Comparable Items
-
-```yaml
-step_2:
-  action: "Identify all items to compare"
-  extract:
-    - items: "List of scored items (sources, dimensions, etc.)"
-    - scores: "Numerical scores per item"
-    - tiers: "Classification tiers per item"
-    - checkpoints: "Binary checkpoints if applicable"
-    - recommendations: "Action items and priorities"
-```
-
-### Step 3: Calculate Dimension Scores
-
-```yaml
-step_3:
-  action: "Score each dimension using rubric"
-
-  tier_match:
-    calculate: "match_rate = matching_tiers / total_items"
-    score: "Apply scoring table"
-    check_veto: "match_rate < 0.75?"
-
-  score_variance:
-    calculate: "variance per item, take max"
-    score: "Apply scoring table"
-    check_veto: "max_variance > 25%?"
-
-  checkpoint_match:
-    calculate: "matching_checkpoints / total_checkpoints"
-    score: "Apply scoring table"
-
-  recommendation_quality:
-    evaluate: "Would user take same action?"
-    score: "Apply scoring table"
-    check_veto: "Contradictory?"
-```
-
-### Step 4: Generate Report
-
-```yaml
-step_4:
-  action: "Generate qualification report"
-
-  output_format: |
-    qualification_report:
-      task: "{task_name}"
-      evaluation_date: "{ISO date}"
-      evaluator: "opus"
-
-      inputs:
-        opus_baseline: "{path}"
-        haiku_output: "{path}"
-
-      dimension_scores:
-        tier_match:
-          score: X/40
-          match_rate: X%
-          details: [...]
-
-        score_variance:
-          score: X/30
-          avg_variance: X%
-          max_variance: X%
-          details: [...]
-
-        checkpoint_match:
-          score: X/20
-          match_rate: X%
-          details: [...]
-
-        recommendation_quality:
-          score: X/10
-          assessment: "same|similar|different|contradictory"
-          details: [...]
-
-      total_score: X/100
-
-      veto_conditions:
-        triggered: [...]
-        not_triggered: [...]
-
-      decision: "QUALIFIED | CONDITIONAL | NOT_QUALIFIED"
-
-      rationale: |
-        {Explanation of decision}
-
-      recommendations:
-        if_qualified: |
-          - Update model-routing.yaml: tier = haiku
-          - Add validated: true with test_date
-        if_conditional: |
-          - {Specific fixes needed}
-          - Re-test after fixes
-        if_not_qualified: |
-          - Keep tier = opus
-          - Document root cause
-```
-
----
-
-## Output
-
-Save qualification report to:
-```
-squads/squad-creator-pro/test-cases/{task_name}/qualification-report.yaml
-```
-
----
-
-## Usage Example
-
-```bash
-*compare-outputs \
-  --task an-assess-sources \
-  --opus squads/squad-creator-pro/test-cases/an-assess-sources/opus-baseline.yaml \
-  --haiku squads/squad-creator-pro/test-cases/an-assess-sources/haiku-v2.2.1-output.yaml \
-  --task-file squads/squad-creator-pro/tasks/an-assess-sources.md
-```
-
----
-
-## Completion Criteria
-
-- [ ] Both output files loaded and parsed
-- [ ] All 4 dimensions scored using rubric
-- [ ] Veto conditions checked
-- [ ] Total score calculated
-- [ ] Decision determined (QUALIFIED/CONDITIONAL/NOT_QUALIFIED)
-- [ ] Qualification report generated with full details
-- [ ] Report saved to test-cases/{task}/qualification-report.yaml
-
----
-
-## Changelog
-
-| Version | Date | Changes |
-|---------|------|---------|
-| 1.0.0 | 2026-02-11 | Initial version with 4-dimension rubric |

package/pro/squads/squad-creator-pro/tasks/an-design-clone.md

@@ -1,79 +0,0 @@
-# Task: Design Clone Architecture
-
-**Command:** `*design-clone`
-**Load:** — (uses core knowledge)
-
-## Purpose
-
-Arquitetar um clone completo: contextos de uso, estagios, memoria, trindade por estagio.
-
-## Workflow
-
-### Step 1: Define Contexts
-
-Perguntar ao usuario:
-- "Em que situacoes esse clone vai ser usado?"
-- "Ele precisa se comportar diferente dependendo do contexto?"
-
-Mapear contextos:
-- Vendas, suporte, educacao, consultoria, etc.
-- Tipos de interlocutor (iniciante, avancado, hater, fa)
-
-### Step 2: Decide Stages
-
-**Regra AN004**: SE comportamento muda por contexto → criar estagios.
-
-Avaliar necessidade:
-- Single-mode: Comportamento uniforme → prompt unico
-- Multi-stage: Comportamento varia → estagios separados
-
-Exemplos de estagios:
-- Funil: boas-vindas → qualificacao → oferta
-- Atendimento: triagem → suporte → escalacao
-- Educacional: avaliacao → ensino → pratica
-- Anti-hater: normal → modo pistola (ex: Hormozi)
-
-### Step 3: Map Trinity per Stage
-
-Para cada estagio, definir:
-
-| Estagio | Playbook | Framework | Swipe File |
-|---------|----------|-----------|------------|
-| {nome} | Passo a passo | Regras SE/ENTAO | Exemplos reais |
-
-### Step 4: Define Memory & Context
-
-- Que informacoes o clone precisa lembrar entre interacoes?
-- Que contexto precisa receber a cada conversa?
-- Limites de memoria (curta vs longa)
-
-### Step 5: Generate Blueprint
-
-```yaml
-clone_blueprint:
-  mind: "{nome}"
-  mode: "single|multi-stage"
-  stages:
-    - name: "{estagio}"
-      trigger: "Quando ativa este estagio"
-      playbook: "{resumo}"
-      framework: "{regras SE/ENTAO}"
-      swipe_file: "{exemplos}"
-      tone: "{tom especifico}"
-  memory:
-    short_term: "{o que lembra na conversa}"
-    long_term: "{o que persiste entre conversas}"
-    context_required: "{info necessaria}"
-  integration:
-    platform: "{WhatsApp, web, etc}"
-    handoff: "{quando escala para humano}"
-  estimated_fidelity: "{%}"
-```
-
-## Completion Criteria
-
-- [ ] Contextos de uso mapeados
-- [ ] Decisao single vs multi-stage tomada
-- [ ] Trindade mapeada por estagio
-- [ ] Memoria/contexto definido
-- [ ] Blueprint YAML gerado

package/pro/squads/squad-creator-pro/tasks/an-diagnose-clone.md

@@ -1,87 +0,0 @@
-# Task: Diagnose Clone
-
-**Command:** `*diagnose-clone`
-**Load:** `data/an-clone-anti-patterns.yaml`
-
-## Purpose
-
-Diagnosticar por que um clone esta fraco, mapeando sintomas para causas raiz e prescrevendo tratamento.
-
-## Workflow
-
-### Step 1: Identify Symptoms
-
-Perguntar ao usuario: "O que esta errado com o clone?"
-
-Sintomas comuns:
-- "Responde generico" → provavelmente falta Framework
-- "Nao parece a pessoa" → fontes bronze ou sem Voice DNA
-- "Se perde em conversas longas" → prompt monolitico, precisa estagios
-- "Quebra facil" → sem veto conditions, immune system fraco
-- "Inventa coisas" → sem Swipe File, sem limites
-- "Muito robótico" → sem contradicoes produtivas, sem storytelling
-
-### Step 2: Map to Root Cause
-
-Usar `an-clone-anti-patterns.yaml` para diagnosticar:
-
-| Sintoma | Causa Raiz Provavel | Anti-pattern |
-|---------|---------------------|-------------|
-| Generico | Falta Framework | So Playbook, sem SE/ENTAO |
-| Nao parece pessoa | Fontes bronze | Volume sem curadoria |
-| Se perde | Prompt monolitico | Sem estagios |
-| Quebra facil | Sem immune system | Sem veto conditions |
-| Inventa | Sem Swipe File | Sem exemplos reais |
-| Robótico | Sem paradoxos | Contradictions resolvidas |
-
-### Step 3: Verify Trinity
-
-Checklist rapido:
-- [ ] Tem Playbook? (passo a passo)
-- [ ] Tem Framework? (SE/ENTAO)
-- [ ] Tem Swipe File? (exemplos reais)
-- [ ] Fontes sao ouro ou bronze?
-- [ ] Quanto % do tempo foi curadoria?
-
-### Step 4: Prescribe Treatment
-
-Para cada causa raiz, prescrever acao especifica:
-
-| Causa | Tratamento | Prioridade |
-|-------|------------|------------|
-| Falta Framework | Extrair regras SE/ENTAO de entrevistas | URGENTE |
-| Fontes bronze | Reclassificar, buscar ouro | URGENTE |
-| Sem estagios | Mapear contextos, criar stages | ALTA |
-| Sem Swipe | Coletar exemplos reais | ALTA |
-| Sem immune | Definir veto conditions | MEDIA |
-| Sem paradoxos | Mapear contradictions produtivas | MEDIA |
-
-### Step 5: Generate Report
-
-```yaml
-diagnosis_report:
-  clone: "{nome}"
-  symptoms: [{lista}]
-  root_causes:
-    - cause: "{causa}"
-      evidence: "{evidencia}"
-      severity: "critico|alto|medio"
-  trinity_status:
-    playbook: "presente|ausente|parcial"
-    framework: "presente|ausente|parcial"
-    swipe_file: "presente|ausente|parcial"
-  source_quality: "ouro|mixed|bronze"
-  treatment:
-    - action: "{o que fazer}"
-      priority: "urgente|alta|media"
-      effort: "{estimativa}"
-  prognosis: "Com essas acoes, fidelidade deve subir de {X}% para {Y}%"
-```
-
-## Completion Criteria
-
-- [ ] Sintomas identificados
-- [ ] Causas raiz mapeadas
-- [ ] Trindade verificada
-- [ ] Tratamento prescrito com prioridades
-- [ ] Report de diagnostico gerado

package/pro/squads/squad-creator-pro/tasks/an-extract-dna.md

@@ -1,90 +0,0 @@
-# Task: Extract DNA Mental
-
-**Command:** `*extract-dna {mind}`
-**Load:** `data/an-source-tiers.yaml`
-
-## Purpose
-
-Extrair o DNA Mental completo (8 camadas) de uma mente especifica, documentando Voice DNA e Thinking DNA.
-
-## Workflow
-
-### Phase 1: Source Assessment (40% do tempo)
-
-1. Perguntar ao usuario: "Que material voce tem dessa pessoa?"
-2. Listar TODAS as fontes fornecidas
-3. Classificar cada fonte usando `an-source-tiers.yaml`:
-   - **OURO**: Comentarios, entrevistas longas, stories, livros, cases
-   - **BRONZE**: Palestras decoradas, conteudo antigo, generico, terceiros
-4. Gerar Source Map com score de curadoria
-
-### Phase 2: Layer Extraction
-
-Para cada camada do DNA Mental, extrair patterns das fontes OURO:
-
-| Layer | Nome | O que extrair |
-|-------|------|---------------|
-| 1 | Behavioral Patterns | Como age, reage, aborda problemas |
-| 2 | Communication Style | Vocabulario, ritmo, estrutura de frase |
-| 3 | Routines & Habits | Padroes repetitivos, rituais |
-| 4 | Recognition Patterns | O que detecta rapido, red/green flags |
-| 5 | Mental Models | Frameworks de decisao, heuristicas |
-| 6 | Values Hierarchy | O que prioriza, o que rejeita |
-| 7 | Core Obsessions | Temas que volta sempre, batalhas |
-| 8 | Productive Paradoxes | Contradicoes que sao features |
-
-### Phase 3: Document Voice DNA
-
-Extrair e documentar:
-- Identity statement (1 frase que captura essencia)
-- Power words (5-10 com contexto)
-- Signature phrases (5-7 com quando usar)
-- Metaphors (3+)
-- Vocabulary rules (always/never/transforms)
-- Tone dimensions (7 eixos, 1-10)
-- Storytelling patterns (historias recorrentes + estrutura)
-
-### Phase 4: Document Thinking DNA
-
-Extrair e documentar:
-- Primary framework (o framework MESTRE da pessoa)
-- Secondary frameworks (3-6 complementares)
-- Diagnostic framework (perguntas + red/green flags)
-- Heuristics (5+ regras SE/ENTAO com ID)
-- Veto conditions (o que NUNCA aceita)
-- Decision architecture (pipeline + weights)
-
-### Phase 5: Generate Report
-
-Gerar report YAML com:
-
-```yaml
-dna_extraction_report:
-  mind: "{nome}"
-  date: "{data}"
-  sources:
-    ouro: [{lista}]
-    bronze: [{lista}]
-    curadoria_score: "{media}"
-  voice_dna:
-    identity: "{statement}"
-    power_words: [{lista}]
-    signature_phrases: [{lista}]
-    tone: {dimensions}
-  thinking_dna:
-    primary_framework: "{nome + descricao}"
-    secondary_frameworks: [{lista}]
-    heuristics: [{lista com IDs}]
-    veto_conditions: [{lista}]
-  fidelity_estimate: "{%}"
-  next_steps: [{recomendacoes}]
-```
-
-## Completion Criteria
-
-- [ ] 8 camadas mapeadas
-- [ ] Fontes classificadas (ouro vs bronze)
-- [ ] Trindade identificada (Playbook + Framework + Swipe)
-- [ ] Voice DNA documentado
-- [ ] Thinking DNA documentado
-- [ ] Report YAML gerado com fidelity estimate

package/pro/squads/squad-creator-pro/tasks/an-extract-framework.md

@@ -1,100 +0,0 @@
-# Task: Extract Framework (Trinity)
-
-**Command:** `*extract-framework {source}`
-**Load:** — (uses core knowledge)
-
-## Purpose
-
-Extrair a Trindade completa (Playbook + Framework + Swipe File) de uma fonte especifica.
-
-## Workflow
-
-### Step 1: Identify Source Type
-
-Perguntar: "Qual a fonte? (entrevista, livro, curso, post, video)"
-
-Avaliar qualidade:
-- OURO → proceder com extracao completa
-- BRONZE → avisar que resultado sera limitado, sugerir buscar ouro
-
-### Step 2: Extract Playbook
-
-O Playbook e a RECEITA — passo a passo da metodologia.
-
-Buscar na fonte:
-- "Como ele faz X?" → sequencia de passos
-- "Qual o processo dele?" → workflow
-- "O que faz primeiro, segundo, terceiro?" → ordem
-
-Template:
-```yaml
-playbook:
-  name: "{nome da metodologia}"
-  steps:
-    - step: 1
-      action: "{o que fazer}"
-      details: "{como fazer}"
-    - step: 2
-      action: "{proximo passo}"
-```
-
-### Step 3: Extract Framework
-
-O Framework e a FORMA — regras de decisao SE/ENTAO.
-
-Buscar na fonte:
-- "Quando ele ve X, o que faz?" → regra condicional
-- "Como decide entre A e B?" → criterio
-- "O que NUNCA faria?" → veto condition
-
-Template:
-```yaml
-framework:
-  rules:
-    - condition: "SE {situacao}"
-      action: "ENTAO {decisao}"
-      rationale: "{por que}"
-  veto:
-    - condition: "SE {situacao}"
-      action: "NUNCA {acao proibida}"
-```
-
-### Step 4: Extract Swipe File
-
-O Swipe File sao EXEMPLOS — provas que funcionam.
-
-Buscar na fonte:
-- Casos reais com numeros
-- Exemplos especificos citados
-- Analogias e metaforas usadas
-- Historias contadas repetidamente
-
-Template:
-```yaml
-swipe_file:
-  cases:
-    - title: "{caso}"
-      context: "{situacao}"
-      result: "{resultado}"
-      lesson: "{licao}"
-  analogies:
-    - concept: "{conceito}"
-      analogy: "{analogia usada}"
-```
-
-### Step 5: Validate Completeness
-
-Checklist da Trindade:
-- [ ] Playbook tem passos claros e sequenciais
-- [ ] Framework tem regras SE/ENTAO (nao so teoria)
-- [ ] Swipe File tem exemplos REAIS (nao inventados)
-- [ ] Os tres se complementam (playbook diz O QUE, framework diz QUANDO, swipe mostra COMO)
-
-Se falta alguma perna: avisar qual e sugerir onde buscar.
-
-## Completion Criteria
-
-- [ ] Playbook extraido (passo a passo)
-- [ ] Framework extraido (regras SE/ENTAO)
-- [ ] Swipe File extraido (exemplos validados)
-- [ ] Completude validada (3 pernas presentes)