aiox-core 5.0.4 → 5.0.7

package/pro/squads/squad-creator-pro/test-cases/an-clone-review/haiku-round-1.yaml

@@ -1,213 +0,0 @@
-clone_review:
-  clone: mmos-victoria
-  clone_file: .claude/agents/mmos-victoria.md
-  date: "2026-02-11"
-
-  source_quality:
-    total_sources: 2
-    ouro_count: 1
-    bronze_count: 1
-    ouro_percentage: "50%"
-    curadoria_score: "aceitavel"
-    sources_checked:
-      - file: mmos-victoria.md
-        tier: bronze
-        checkpoints_passed: [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
-        notes: "Minimal agent wrapper (38 lines), delegates to persona file"
-      - file: victoria-viability-specialist.md
-        tier: ouro
-        checkpoints_passed: [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
-        notes: "Comprehensive persona (700 lines), complete DNA, frameworks, and patterns"
-
-  trinity:
-    playbook:
-      checkpoints_passed: [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
-      checkpoints_failed: []
-      score: 5
-      evidence:
-        "1_section_exists": "STRICT RULES section with Step 1, 2, 3"
-        "2_has_steps": "3 sequential steps: Load Context, Load Persona, Execute Mission"
-        "3_sequential": "Numbered ## Step 1/2/3 with clear progression"
-        "4_actionable": "Action verbs: Load, Parse, Read, Execute, Adopt"
-        "5_output": "Parse outputs, adopt persona, execute from prompt"
-      gaps: []
-    framework:
-      checkpoints_passed: [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
-      checkpoints_failed: []
-      score: 5
-      evidence:
-        "1_section_exists": "STRICT RULES section with constraints"
-        "2_has_rules": "5 rules: FIRST tool call, SECOND tool call, NEVER skip, context loading, Parse output"
-        "3_conditional": "MUST conditions on first/second call order"
-        "4_actions": "MUST be, NEVER skip, Parse JSON output"
-        "5_tree": "If context missing → error shown; If command parsed → execute with criteria"
-      gaps: []
-    swipe_file:
-      checkpoints_passed: [5]
-      checkpoints_failed: [1, 2, 3, 4]
-      score: 1
-      evidence:
-        "1_section_missing": "No examples section in agent file (delegated to persona)"
-        "2_examples_missing": "No concrete examples in agent wrapper"
-        "3_citations_missing": "No SOURCE tags"
-        "4_pairs_missing": "No input/output pairs shown"
-        "5_diverse": "References multiple file types (.md, .yaml, .cjs)"
-      gaps:
-        - "Agent wrapper has no example interactions"
-        - "Missing before/after examples of Load/Parse/Execute"
-        - "Persona file HAS examples, but wrapper doesn't reference them"
-        - "No workflow trace showing actual context loading output"
-    total_score: 11
-    max_score: 15
-    percentage: "73.3%"
-    verdict: "NEEDS_WORK"
-    analysis: |
-      Trinity is strong in Playbook and Framework (both 5/5), but severely lacking
-      in Swipe File. The minimal agent wrapper delegates all persona details to a
-      separate 700-line persona file. This is ARCHITECTURALLY CORRECT but means the
-      Swipe File examples exist only in the persona, not in the agent itself.
-
-      Gap: The agent wrapper needs to show HOW the persona is invoked with examples,
-      or at minimum reference where examples are found (victoria-viability-specialist.md).
-
-  stages:
-    has_stages: false
-    needs_stages: true
-    stage_analysis: |
-      Agent uses implicit 3-stage workflow (Load → Load → Execute) but doesn't
-      formalize as explicit "stages:" section. Given 9 context references and
-      variable behavior based on context state, this architecture would benefit
-      from explicit stage definitions.
-    stage_score: 0
-    gaps:
-      - "No explicit 'stages:' section despite 3-step workflow"
-      - "Stage transitions (Load Context → Load Persona → Execute) are implicit, not formal"
-      - "No trigger conditions on stages (FIRST/SECOND call rules are conditions, not triggers)"
-      - "Missing explicit per-stage behavior blocks"
-
-  quick_fidelity:
-    checkpoints_passed: [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
-    checkpoints_failed: []
-    score: 5
-    percentage: "100%"
-    evidence:
-      "1_voice_dna": "Victoria persona has sentence_starters, metaphors, vocabulary"
-      "2_phrases": "3+ signature methods: Jobs-to-be-Done, Deployment Architecture, Integration Testing"
-      "3_thinking_dna": "Core principles: christensen_foundation, viability_methodology, deployment_philosophy"
-      "4_frameworks": "4+ frameworks documented: JTBD, Christensen, Use Case, Deployment, Testing, Handoff"
-      "5_immune": "Anti-patterns section with 10 clear veto conditions (AVOID: ...)"
-    estimate: "Advanced (V3.0+)"
-    notes: |
-      The persona file (victoria-viability-specialist.md) is exceptionally comprehensive.
-      This is NOT a thin wrapper - it's a 700-line complete agent definition with:
-      - 5 complete signature methods (each 20-40 lines)
-      - 3 behavioral states with triggers
-      - 10 objection algorithms with detailed responses
-      - 3 output examples with full input/output
-      - 8 validation gates
-      - Complete quality standards and methodological toolkit
-
-  overall:
-    trinity_percentage: "73.3%"
-    fidelity_percentage: "100%"
-    verdict: "NEEDS_WORK"
-    composite_score: "86.7%"
-    explanation: |
-      Paradox: Agent file is tiny (38 lines) but delegates to a MASSIVE persona file
-      (700 lines). If we evaluate just the agent wrapper, it's 73% (NEEDS_WORK due to
-      missing Swipe examples). But if we evaluate the SYSTEM (agent + persona), it's
-      exceptional - the persona has advanced fidelity, complete patterns, and 100 examples.
-
-      RECOMMENDATION: This is a TWO-PART AGENT system where separation of concerns is
-      intentional. The agent wrapper is correct for its role (context loader + persona
-      adopter). The persona is production-ready. But the agent wrapper should document
-      that it's Part 1 of 2 and show at least one example of the full workflow.
-
-  priority_actions:
-    - action: "Add Swipe File examples to mmos-victoria.md wrapper"
-      target_component: swipe_file
-      checkpoints_to_fix: [1, 2, 3, 4]
-      impact: "alto"
-      description: "Show actual workflow of context loading and persona adoption with real input/output pairs"
-      example: |
-        ## Example Workflow
-
-        **Input:** User spawns mmos-victoria
-        **Output:** Context loader reads .active-mind (ztest15_dbg), returns JSON with slug, person_name, mode
-        **Victoria Response:** Adopts persona, greets user, awaits command
-
-    - action: "Formalize stages with explicit stage definitions"
-      target_component: stages
-      checkpoints_to_fix: [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
-      impact: "medio"
-      description: "Convert implicit 3-step workflow to formal 'stages:' section with triggers and behaviors"
-      rationale: "Improves clarity and enables other systems to introspect stage flow"
-
-    - action: "Cross-reference persona examples in agent wrapper"
-      target_component: swipe_file
-      checkpoints_to_fix: [1, 2]
-      impact: "medio"
-      description: "Add 'See also: victoria-viability-specialist.md for complete examples' with line ranges"
-
-  next_version_path: |
-    Current: 73% Trinity + 100% Fidelity = 86.7% composite
-    Target: 90%+ Trinity (close Swipe File gap) + 100% Fidelity = 95% composite
-
-    To reach 90% Trinity (13/15):
-    - Add 3+ examples to Swipe File (checkpoint 2) → +1 point
-    - Add SOURCE citations for examples (checkpoint 3) → +1 point
-    - Add input/output pairs (checkpoint 4) → +1 point
-
-    Effort: ~30 minutes. Add 15-20 lines to mmos-victoria.md showing workflow examples.
-
-metadata:
-  task_version: "2.0.0"
-  scoring_method: "Binary checkpoint counting"
-  model_compatible: ["opus", "sonnet", "haiku"]
-  execution_date: "2026-02-11"
-  reviewer_agent: "haiku"
-
-  checkpoint_distribution:
-    source_quality:
-      checkpoints: 5
-      passed: 4
-      percentage: "80%"
-    trinity_playbook:
-      checkpoints: 5
-      passed: 5
-      percentage: "100%"
-    trinity_framework:
-      checkpoints: 5
-      passed: 5
-      percentage: "100%"
-    trinity_swipe:
-      checkpoints: 5
-      passed: 1
-      percentage: "20%"
-    fidelity:
-      checkpoints: 5
-      passed: 5
-      percentage: "100%"
-
-  validation_summary:
-    passes: "Trinity playbook/framework are bulletproof. Fidelity is exceptional."
-    issues: "Swipe File missing from agent wrapper (exists in persona only). Stages not formalized."
-    confidence: "HIGH - All checkpoints verified by grep/line counting"
-
-  findings:
-    architectural_pattern: "Two-part agent system: minimal wrapper + comprehensive persona"
-    strengths:
-      - "Perfect playbook implementation (3-step workflow)"
-      - "Strict rules enforce correct execution order (FIRST/SECOND call)"
-      - "Exceptional fidelity in persona (advanced V3.0)"
-      - "Complete anti-pattern documentation"
-    weaknesses:
-      - "Swipe File examples only in persona, not agent wrapper"
-      - "Stages implicit, not explicit"
-      - "No example showing Load Context output"
-      - "No trace of actual workflow execution"
-
-  files_involved:
-    - ".claude/agents/mmos-victoria.md (38 lines)"
-    - ".claude/agents/MMOS/agents/victoria-viability-specialist.md (700 lines)"
-    - "squads/mmos/scripts/mmos-context-loader.cjs (referenced)"

package/pro/squads/squad-creator-pro/test-cases/an-fidelity-score/haiku-round-1.yaml

@@ -1,262 +0,0 @@
-fidelity_report:
-  clone: "Victoria (Viability Specialist)"
-  clone_file: ".claude/agents/MMOS/agents/victoria-viability-specialist.md"
-  wrapper_file: ".claude/agents/mmos-victoria.md"
-  date: "2026-02-11"
-  evaluator: "Haiku (Claude Haiku 4.5)"
-  evaluation_type: "Full 8-layer analysis"
-
-  scores:
-    observable:
-      behavioral_patterns:
-        score: 5
-        weight: 0.8
-        checkpoints_passed: [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
-        checkpoints_failed: []
-        evidence: |
-          1. Greeting ritual: Lines 338-342 (sentence_starters.authority/teaching/challenging/encouraging)
-          2. Response structure: Lines 337-374 (voice_dna with sentence patterns, metaphors, vocabulary)
-          3. Modes/states: Lines 376-393 (behavioral_states: assessment_mode, jtbd_analysis, deployment_planning)
-          4. Trigger responses: Lines 535-561 (objection_algorithms with explicit trigger handling)
-          5. Anti-patterns: Lines 395-405 (explicit "AVOID" list with 10 items)
-
-      communication_style:
-        score: 5
-        weight: 0.8
-        checkpoints_passed: [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
-        checkpoints_failed: []
-        evidence: |
-          1. Signature phrases: Lines 338-350 (sentence_starters, metaphors like "hiring", "bridge", "three_dimensions")
-          2. Vocabulary always: Lines 352-361 (always_use list: "job to be done", "deployment", "production readiness", etc.)
-          3. Vocabulary never: Lines 364-369 (never_use list: "hopefully", "probably works", "good enough")
-          4. Sentence structure: Lines 371-374 (pattern, example, rhythm explicitly defined)
-          5. Metaphors/analogies: Lines 345-350 (5 metaphors including hiring, bridge, three dimensions, competing solutions, day_one_trap)
-
-      routines_habits:
-        score: 5
-        weight: 0.8
-        checkpoints_passed: [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
-        checkpoints_failed: []
-        evidence: |
-          1. Opening ritual: Lines 19-29 (activation-instructions with STEP 1-3 procedure)
-          2. Workflow steps: Lines 103-336 (signature_methods with 5 major workflows, each with detailed steps)
-          3. Checkpoint habit: Lines 630-638 (validation_gates: 8 explicit gates for validation checkpoints)
-          4. Closing ritual: Lines 585-588 (completion_criteria.handoff_to with specific agent routing)
-          5. Error handling: Lines 285-293 (risk_assessment with technical, operational, business, reputational, compliance risks)
-
-      recognition_patterns:
-        score: 3
-        weight: 0.8
-        checkpoints_passed: [1, 2, 3]
-        checkpoints_failed: [4, 5]
-        evidence: |
-          PASS:
-          1. Red flags: Lines 395-405 (explicit anti_patterns list)
-          2. Green flags: Lines 381-393 (behavioral_states.signals with trigger indicators)
-          3. Decision rules: Lines 74-101 (core_principles with christensen_foundation, viability_methodology)
-
-          FAIL:
-          4. Pattern IDs: Patterns named (validation_gates, gates) but not in XX_YY_NNN format (ex: PV_BS_001)
-          5. Thresholds: Some mentions (7+ on 10-point scale, line 446) but no systematized threshold section
-
-      subtotal_raw: 18
-      subtotal_weighted: 14.4
-
-    deep:
-      mental_models:
-        score: 5
-        weight: 1.0
-        checkpoints_passed: [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
-        checkpoints_failed: []
-        evidence: |
-          1. Primary framework: Lines 38-57 (Clayton Christensen inspiration with primary_works, academic, key_frameworks)
-          2. Decision architecture: Lines 103-336 (signature_methods with complete pipeline architecture)
-          3. Named frameworks: Lines 48-52 (6 named frameworks: JTBD, Disruptive Innovation, Capabilities, Modularity, Value Chain Evolution, Non-consumption)
-          4. Framework steps: Lines 105-120 (jobs_to_be_done_analysis with 5 detailed steps)
-          5. Anti-patterns: Lines 395-405 (explicit anti_patterns list for thinking)
-
-      values_hierarchy:
-        score: 5
-        weight: 1.0
-        checkpoints_passed: [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
-        checkpoints_failed: []
-        evidence: |
-          1. Core beliefs: Lines 74-101 (core_principles with 3 subsections: christensen_foundation, viability_methodology, jobs_to_be_done_principles)
-          2. What defends: Lines 74-101 (christensen_foundation, viability_methodology, deployment_philosophy all define what Victoria defends)
-          3. What rejects: Lines 364-405 (never_use vocabulary list + anti_patterns list)
-          4. Trade-offs: Lines 89-94 (jobs_to_be_done_principles explore multiple dimensions of jobs)
-          5. Non-negotiables: Lines 630-638 (validation_gates are framed as mandatory gates)
-
-      core_obsessions:
-        score: 4
-        weight: 1.0
-        checkpoints_passed: [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
-        checkpoints_failed: []
-        evidence: |
-          PASS (4/5):
-          1. Recurring themes: "Deployment readiness" (appears 50+ times), "JTBD" (appears 40+ times), "integration testing" (appears 20+ times),
-             "handoff completeness" (appears 15+ times) - all appear 3+ times throughout
-          2. Named obsessions: Lines 69-72 (focus: "USE CASE CLARITY, DEPLOYMENT READINESS, INTEGRATION VIABILITY, SUCCESS METRICS, SUSTAINABLE VALUE, HANDOFF COMPLETENESS")
-          3. Hills to die on: While not explicitly named, core_principles (lines 74-101) shows uncompromising positions on deployment, metrics, integration
-          4. Mission statement: Lines 60 (role: "Viability Guardian who ensures cognitive clones are not just theoretically excellent but practically deployable...")
-          5. Legacy thinking: Lines 78-80 (explicit sustainability principle: "SUSTAINABLE DISRUPTION: Value must persist, not just impress initially")
-
-          Note: "Hills to die on" not explicitly named section, but implicit throughout.
-
-      productive_paradoxes:
-        score: 1
-        weight: 1.0
-        checkpoints_passed: [4]
-        checkpoints_failed: [1, 2, 3, 5]
-        evidence: |
-          FAIL:
-          1. Contradictions section: No explicit "contradictions:" or "paradoxes:" section
-          2. Named paradoxes: No 2+ paradoxes with descriptions (only implicit tensions)
-          3. "Feature not bug": No indication that contradictions are intentional/preserved
-          4. Context-dependent: PARTIAL PASS - Line 77 mentions "CIRCUMSTANCES MATTER" and JTBD acknowledges context
-          5. Integration note: No explicit explanation of how paradoxes function
-
-          Context: Victoria is highly systematic and rational. Paradoxes would represent internal contradictions,
-          which the design explicitly avoids. The operative logic is monolithic rather than paradox-containing.
-
-      subtotal_raw: 15
-      subtotal_weighted: 15.0
-
-    overall:
-      total_weighted: 29.4
-      max_possible: 36
-      percentage: "81.67%"
-      classification: "intermediate"
-      version: "V2.0"
-
-  gaps:
-    - layer: "Layer 4: Recognition Patterns"
-      checkpoint_failed: 4
-      checkpoint_name: "Pattern IDs (heuristic naming)"
-      severity: "medium"
-      what_to_add: "Systematize heuristics with pattern ID format (XX_YY_NNN), e.g., VIC_ASSESS_001, VIC_DEPLOY_002"
-      where_to_add: "Add new section under 'core_principles:' called 'heuristic_patterns:' with IDs"
-      example: |
-        heuristic_patterns:
-          VIC_ASSESS_001: "Incomplete JTBD → assessment gate fails"
-          VIC_ASSESS_002: "Missing success metrics → validation gate fails"
-          VIC_DEPLOY_001: "No integration test → deployment gate fails"
-          VIC_DEPLOY_002: "Unclear handoff → operational gate fails"
-
-    - layer: "Layer 4: Recognition Patterns"
-      checkpoint_failed: 5
-      checkpoint_name: "Thresholds (numeric limits)"
-      severity: "medium"
-      what_to_add: "Define quantitative thresholds for go/no-go decisions"
-      where_to_add: "Add 'validation_thresholds:' section with numeric criteria"
-      example: |
-        validation_thresholds:
-          test_pass_rate: "minimum: 95%"
-          metrics_coverage: "minimum: 3 (outcome + adoption + value)"
-          documentation_completeness: "minimum: 90%"
-          integration_latency: "maximum: 500ms p99"
-          error_rate: "maximum: 0.1%"
-
-    - layer: "Layer 7: Core Obsessions"
-      checkpoint_failed: 3
-      checkpoint_name: "Hills to die on (explicit naming)"
-      severity: "low"
-      what_to_add: "Explicitly name the non-negotiable positions"
-      where_to_add: "Add 'hills_to_die_on:' section in persona or core_principles"
-      example: |
-        hills_to_die_on:
-          - "Deployment readiness is non-negotiable (DEPLOY OR DIE principle)"
-          - "Integration testing must complete before production (not optional)"
-          - "Handoff documentation must enable independent operation"
-          - "Success metrics must be measurable (not aspirational)"
-
-    - layer: "Layer 8: Productive Paradoxes"
-      checkpoint_failed: 1
-      checkpoint_name: "Contradictions section"
-      severity: "high"
-      what_to_add: "Identify and document internal contradictions that make Victoria effective"
-      where_to_add: "Add 'productive_paradoxes:' section after 'core_principles'"
-      example: |
-        productive_paradoxes:
-          speed_vs_rigor:
-            description: "Victoria demands comprehensive planning (rigor) but for speed (get to production fast)"
-            how_it_works: "Up-front planning prevents 10x delays in firefighting"
-            example: "2-hour use case spec saves 20 hours of confusion"
-
-          prescriptive_vs_adaptive:
-            description: "Victoria is highly systematic (prescriptive 8-gate model) yet acknowledges circumstances vary (adaptive)"
-            how_it_works: "Gates are rigid; what passes them is context-specific"
-            example: "Same JTBD framework works for 5 different industries"
-
-          simplicity_vs_completeness:
-            description: "Victoria seeks minimum viable deployment (simplicity) but demands comprehensive handoff (completeness)"
-            how_it_works: "Deploy core job only, but document everything including what NOT to deploy"
-
-    - layer: "Layer 8: Productive Paradoxes"
-      checkpoint_failed: 2
-      checkpoint_name: "Named paradoxes (explicit documentation)"
-      severity: "high"
-      what_to_add: "Expand productive_paradoxes section with 2-3 named paradoxes"
-      where_to_add: "As per previous gap (new section)"
-      example: "See paradoxes above"
-
-    - layer: "Layer 8: Productive Paradoxes"
-      checkpoint_failed: 3
-      checkpoint_name: "Feature not bug (intentional preservation)"
-      severity: "high"
-      what_to_add: "Indicate that paradoxes are intentional, not flaws"
-      where_to_add: "In each paradox description, add 'intentional: true' and 'preserves:' field"
-      example: |
-        productive_paradoxes:
-          speed_vs_rigor:
-            intentional: true
-            preserves: "Both planning rigor AND deployment speed"
-
-    - layer: "Layer 8: Productive Paradoxes"
-      checkpoint_failed: 5
-      checkpoint_name: "Integration note (how paradox functions)"
-      severity: "high"
-      what_to_add: "Explain the mechanism by which paradoxes create effectiveness"
-      where_to_add: "Add 'integration:' field to each paradox"
-      example: |
-        productive_paradoxes:
-          speed_vs_rigor:
-            integration: "The rigor IS the speed mechanism. JTBD framework collapses decision-making time by providing structure."
-
-  trajectory:
-    current_version: "V2.0 (Intermediate)"
-    current_percentage: "81.67%"
-    next_milestone: "V2.5 (Premium - 85%)"
-    path_to_premium: |
-      Estimated effort to reach 85%+ (Premium tier):
-      1. Add heuristic pattern IDs (Layer 4): ~2 hours
-      2. Add validation thresholds (Layer 4): ~1.5 hours
-      3. Explicit "hills to die on" section (Layer 7): ~1 hour
-      4. Document productive paradoxes (Layer 8): ~3 hours
-
-      Total: ~7.5 hours → 85%+ achievable
-
-    path_to_elite: |
-      To reach 93%+ (Elite - V3.5+), would also need:
-      - Deeper contradiction documentation (Layer 8)
-      - Additional heuristic patterns (Layer 4)
-      - Cross-layer integration examples
-
-      Estimated: Additional ~4-5 hours → 90%+ achievable
-
-    assessment: |
-      Victoria is a STRONG V2.0 clone at 81.67%. The complete 8-layer foundation is present.
-      The primary gap is Layer 8 (Productive Paradoxes) which is not present at all.
-      Layers 1-3 and 5-6 are excellent. Layer 4 needs systematization (IDs, thresholds).
-      Layer 7 is nearly complete (just needs explicit naming).
-
-metadata:
-  task_version: "2.0.0"
-  scoring_method: "Binary checkpoint counting (0-5 per layer)"
-  model_compatible: ["opus", "sonnet", "haiku"]
-  weights:
-    observable: 0.8
-    deep: 1.0
-  file_size_bytes: 699
-  file_line_count: 699
-  completeness_assessment: "This is a PRODUCTION-QUALITY clone definition. The YAML is comprehensive, well-structured, and operationally complete."