aw-ecc 1.4.31 → 1.4.47

package/skills/aw-adk/references/schemas.md

@@ -0,0 +1,222 @@
+# ADK JSON Schemas
+
+Defines the JSON structures used by the ADK eval-driven iteration system. Adapted from skill-creator for CASRE context.
+
+---
+
+## evals.json
+
+Defines test prompts and assertions for an artifact. Located at `skills/aw-adk/evals/evals.json` or `<artifact>/evals/evals.json`.
+
+```json
+{
+  "artifact_name": "payments-agent",
+  "artifact_type": "agent",
+  "evals": [
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "prompt": "Create an agent for payments processing in the revex/memberships namespace",
+      "expected_output": "Agent file with Identity, Core Mission, Critical Rules, Process, Deliverables sections",
+      "files": [],
+      "expectations": [
+        "The agent has a Core Mission section with 2+ sentences",
+        "Frontmatter includes name, description, tools, model, category, squad",
+        "Agent file is placed at correct registry path",
+        "At least 2 colocated eval files created"
+      ]
+    }
+  ]
+}
+```
+
+**Fields:**
+- `artifact_name`: Name of the artifact being tested
+- `artifact_type`: One of: command, agent, skill, rule, eval
+- `evals[].id`: Unique integer identifier
+- `evals[].prompt`: The task to execute (realistic user request)
+- `evals[].expected_output`: Human-readable success description
+- `evals[].files`: Optional input file paths
+- `evals[].expectations`: Verifiable assertions (graded by agents/grader.md)
+
+---
+
+## eval_metadata.json
+
+Per-eval directory metadata. Located at `<workspace>/iteration-N/<eval-name>/eval_metadata.json`.
+
+```json
+{
+  "eval_id": 1,
+  "eval_name": "create-payments-agent",
+  "prompt": "Create an agent for payments processing in the revex/memberships namespace",
+  "assertions": [
+    "The agent has a Core Mission section with 2+ sentences",
+    "Frontmatter includes name, description, tools, model"
+  ]
+}
+```
+
+---
+
+## grading.json
+
+Output from the grader agent. Located at `<run-dir>/grading.json`.
+
+```json
+{
+  "expectations": [
+    {
+      "text": "The agent has a Core Mission section",
+      "passed": true,
+      "evidence": "Found '## Core Mission' at line 42 with 3 sentences"
+    }
+  ],
+  "summary": {
+    "passed": 8,
+    "failed": 2,
+    "total": 10,
+    "pass_rate": 0.80
+  },
+  "execution_metrics": {
+    "tool_calls": { "Read": 5, "Write": 2, "Bash": 3 },
+    "total_tool_calls": 10,
+    "total_steps": 6,
+    "errors_encountered": 0
+  },
+  "timing": {
+    "executor_duration_seconds": 45.0,
+    "total_duration_seconds": 52.0
+  },
+  "claims": [
+    {
+      "claim": "Agent scores B-Tier (65/100)",
+      "type": "quality",
+      "verified": true,
+      "evidence": "Rubric scoring confirms total = 65"
+    }
+  ],
+  "eval_feedback": {
+    "suggestions": [],
+    "overall": "Assertions cover structure well. Consider adding behavioral checks."
+  }
+}
+```
+
+**Important:** The viewer depends on exact field names: `text`, `passed`, `evidence` in expectations (not `name`/`met`/`details`).
+
+---
+
+## timing.json
+
+Wall clock timing. Located at `<run-dir>/timing.json`.
+
+```json
+{
+  "total_tokens": 84852,
+  "duration_ms": 23332,
+  "total_duration_seconds": 23.3
+}
+```
+
+**How to capture:** When a subagent task completes, the notification includes `total_tokens` and `duration_ms`. Save immediately — this data is not persisted elsewhere.
+
+---
+
+## benchmark.json
+
+Aggregated results. Located at `<workspace>/iteration-N/benchmark.json`. Generated by `scripts/aggregate-benchmark.py`.
+
+```json
+{
+  "metadata": {
+    "artifact_name": "payments-agent",
+    "iteration_dir": "payments-agent-workspace/iteration-1",
+    "evals_run": ["create-payments-agent", "score-minimal-agent"],
+    "total_runs": 4
+  },
+  "runs": [
+    {
+      "eval_id": 1,
+      "eval_name": "create-payments-agent",
+      "configuration": "with_artifact",
+      "run_number": 1,
+      "result": {
+        "pass_rate": 0.85,
+        "passed": 6,
+        "failed": 1,
+        "total": 7,
+        "time_seconds": 42.5,
+        "tokens": 3800,
+        "errors": 0
+      },
+      "expectations": [
+        { "text": "...", "passed": true, "evidence": "..." }
+      ]
+    }
+  ],
+  "run_summary": {
+    "with_artifact": {
+      "pass_rate": { "mean": 0.85, "stddev": 0.05 },
+      "time_seconds": { "mean": 45.0, "stddev": 12.0 },
+      "tokens": { "mean": 3800, "stddev": 400 }
+    },
+    "without_artifact": {
+      "pass_rate": { "mean": 0.35, "stddev": 0.08 },
+      "time_seconds": { "mean": 32.0, "stddev": 8.0 },
+      "tokens": { "mean": 2100, "stddev": 300 }
+    },
+    "delta": {
+      "pass_rate": "+0.500",
+      "time_seconds": "+13.0",
+      "tokens": "+1700"
+    }
+  },
+  "notes": [
+    "Without-artifact runs consistently fail on eval placement checks (0% pass rate)"
+  ]
+}
+```
+
+**Important:** The viewer reads `configuration` (not `config`) and `result.pass_rate` (not top-level `pass_rate`).
+
+---
+
+## comparison.json
+
+Output from blind comparator. Located at `<grading-dir>/comparison.json`.
+
+```json
+{
+  "winner": "A",
+  "reasoning": "Artifact A has stronger Identity section with concrete traits...",
+  "rubric": {
+    "A": { "dimensions": { "1_frontmatter": 8, "2_identity": 9 }, "total": 74, "tier": "B" },
+    "B": { "dimensions": { "1_frontmatter": 7, "2_identity": 5 }, "total": 61, "tier": "B" }
+  },
+  "output_quality": {
+    "A": { "score": 74, "strengths": ["..."], "weaknesses": ["..."] },
+    "B": { "score": 61, "strengths": ["..."], "weaknesses": ["..."] }
+  }
+}
+```
+
+---
+
+## feedback.json
+
+Human review feedback. Downloaded from eval-viewer. Located at `<workspace>/iteration-N/feedback.json`.
+
+```json
+{
+  "reviews": [
+    {
+      "run_id": "create-payments-agent-with_artifact",
+      "feedback": "Identity section is great but Code Examples are too generic",
+      "timestamp": "2026-04-22T10:30:00Z"
+    }
+  ],
+  "status": "complete"
+}
+```
+
+Empty feedback means the reviewer thought it was fine.

package/skills/aw-adk/references/template-agent.md

@@ -0,0 +1,251 @@
+# Agent Template
+
+Copy the scaffold below as your starting point. Replace all `<placeholder>` tokens.
+
+---
+
+## Scaffold
+
+````markdown
+---
+name: <namespace>-<agent-slug>
+description: "<1-2 sentences. Primary capability + trigger scenario.>"
+tools: [Read, Edit, Write, Bash, Grep, Glob]
+model: <sonnet|opus|haiku>
+category: <domain>
+squad: <team/sub_team>
+skills: [<skill-1>, <skill-2>]
+---
+
+# <Agent Display Name>
+
+## Identity
+
+You are **<Agent Name>**, a <role description>.
+
+- **Expertise**: <2-3 specific domains of deep knowledge>
+- **Personality**: <How you communicate — direct, methodical, thorough, etc.>
+- **Strengths**: <What you do better than a generalist>
+- **Limitations**: <What you explicitly do NOT do — keeps scope tight>
+
+## Core Mission
+
+<2-3 sentences describing the agent's primary purpose, the outcomes it produces,
+and the value it delivers. This is the "elevator pitch" for the agent.>
+
+### Primary Objectives
+
+1. <Objective 1 — specific, measurable outcome>
+2. <Objective 2 — specific, measurable outcome>
+3. <Objective 3 — specific, measurable outcome>
+
+### Success Criteria
+
+- <Criterion 1 — observable and verifiable>
+- <Criterion 2 — observable and verifiable>
+- <Criterion 3 — observable and verifiable>
+
+## Critical Rules
+
+### BLOCK — Stop and escalate
+
+These conditions halt execution. Do not proceed until resolved.
+
+- **<Block condition 1>**: <What triggers it and why it's dangerous>
+- **<Block condition 2>**: <What triggers it and why it's dangerous>
+
+### NEVER — Hard constraints
+
+Violating these produces incorrect or harmful output.
+
+- Never <action 1> because <consequence>
+- Never <action 2> because <consequence>
+- Never <action 3> because <consequence>
+
+### ALWAYS — Required behaviors
+
+Skipping these degrades quality below acceptable thresholds.
+
+- Always <action 1> because <reason>
+- Always <action 2> because <reason>
+- Always <action 3> because <reason>
+
+## Process
+
+### Step 1: <Phase Name>
+
+<What to do and why. Include concrete commands when applicable.>
+
+```bash
+# Example command
+<command>
+```
+
+**Output:** <What this step produces>
+**Checkpoint:** <How to verify this step succeeded before moving on>
+
+### Step 2: <Phase Name>
+
+<Instructions for the next phase.>
+
+```bash
+# Example command
+<command>
+```
+
+**Output:** <What this step produces>
+**Checkpoint:** <Verification criteria>
+
+### Step 3: <Phase Name>
+
+<Continue the pattern. Add as many steps as needed.>
+
+### Step N: Deliver Results
+
+<Final step — produce the deliverables and verify them.>
+
+## Deliverables
+
+| # | Artifact | Format | Location | Required |
+|---|----------|--------|----------|----------|
+| 1 | <artifact-name> | <format> | <path> | Yes |
+| 2 | <artifact-name> | <format> | <path> | Yes |
+| 3 | <artifact-name> | <format> | <path> | No |
+
+## Communication Style
+
+### Tone
+
+<Describe how the agent communicates: formal/informal, terse/verbose, etc.>
+
+### Example Phrases
+
+- When starting: "<example opening phrase>"
+- When blocked: "<example escalation phrase>"
+- When delivering: "<example completion phrase>"
+- When uncertain: "<example clarification phrase>"
+
+### Reporting Format
+
+<How the agent structures its responses. Example:>
+
+```
+## <Title>
+
+**Status:** <PASS | FAIL | NEEDS_REVIEW>
+**Summary:** <1-2 sentences>
+
+### Findings
+1. <finding with evidence>
+
+### Recommendations
+1. <actionable recommendation>
+```
+
+## Learning & Memory
+
+### Pattern Recognition
+
+The agent should recognize and adapt to these patterns:
+
+- **<Pattern 1>**: <What to look for> -> <How to respond>
+- **<Pattern 2>**: <What to look for> -> <How to respond>
+
+### Context Accumulation
+
+Between invocations, the agent retains understanding of:
+
+- <Context type 1 — e.g., "codebase architecture from previous reviews">
+- <Context type 2 — e.g., "team conventions observed in prior sessions">
+
+### Anti-Patterns to Flag
+
+- <Anti-pattern 1>: <What it looks like and why it's wrong>
+- <Anti-pattern 2>: <What it looks like and why it's wrong>
+
+## Success Metrics
+
+| Metric | Target | Measurement |
+|--------|--------|-------------|
+| <metric-1> | <quantified target, e.g., ">90%"> | <how to measure> |
+| <metric-2> | <quantified target> | <how to measure> |
+| <metric-3> | <quantified target> | <how to measure> |
+
+## Advanced Capabilities
+
+### <Capability 1>
+
+<Description of an advanced behavior the agent supports when invoked
+with specific inputs or in specific contexts.>
+
+### <Capability 2>
+
+<Another advanced capability. These are optional behaviors that
+extend the core mission for power users.>
+
+## Skills & References
+
+- [<skill-name>](../skills/<slug>/SKILL.md) — <when to load>
+- [<reference-name>](references/<file>.md) — <what it covers>
+````
+
+---
+
+## Section-by-Section Guide
+
+### Identity (4 Required Fields)
+
+The Identity section defines the agent's persona. All four fields are mandatory:
+
+1. **Expertise** — Narrow scope. "Database optimization" is better than "backend development." Narrow agents outperform generalists because the model focuses its knowledge.
+
+2. **Personality** — This shapes output tone. "Methodical and evidence-driven" produces different output than "fast and opinionated." Choose what fits the use case.
+
+3. **Strengths** — What makes this agent worth spawning instead of asking the base model directly. If you can't articulate this, the agent may not need to exist.
+
+4. **Limitations** — Explicit scope boundaries prevent the agent from drifting into adjacent domains. "Does NOT write production code" keeps a reviewer focused on reviewing.
+
+### Core Mission
+
+The bridge between identity and action. A reader should understand what this agent produces after reading just the Identity and Core Mission sections. Everything below is implementation detail.
+
+### Critical Rules
+
+Three severity tiers, each with a distinct consequence:
+
+- **BLOCK** — execution stops. Use sparingly. Reserved for data loss, security breaches, or irreversible actions.
+- **NEVER** — output quality drops below acceptable. These are hard constraints the model must internalize.
+- **ALWAYS** — quality degrades when skipped. These are positive behaviors, not prohibitions.
+
+Explain WHY each rule exists. "Never modify production data because rollback is impossible in this system" is better than "Never modify production data."
+
+### Process
+
+Step-by-step instructions the agent follows. Each step needs:
+- What to do (action)
+- Why (reasoning — helps the model handle edge cases)
+- How to verify (checkpoint — prevents cascading failures)
+
+Include bash commands where the step involves tooling. The model follows concrete commands more reliably than abstract instructions.
+
+### Deliverables Table
+
+Explicit contract between the agent and its caller. The caller knows exactly what to expect. The agent knows exactly what to produce. No ambiguity.
+
+### Communication Style
+
+Example phrases are surprisingly effective at shaping agent output. The model pattern-matches against them. Providing 4-5 examples in the right tone produces more consistent output than paragraphs of description.
+
+### Success Metrics
+
+Quantified targets enable eval creation. "Accuracy > 90%" can be tested. "Good accuracy" cannot. Every metric should be measurable by a grader agent or deterministic script.
+
+## Model Tier Selection
+
+| Tier | When to Use | Cost |
+|---|---|---|
+| `haiku` | High-frequency, narrow-scope tasks (linting, formatting, simple checks) | Lowest |
+| `sonnet` | Most agent work (review, analysis, implementation, orchestration) | Medium |
+| `opus` | Deep reasoning, architectural decisions, complex multi-step analysis | Highest |
+
+Default to `sonnet` unless you have a specific reason for `haiku` (high frequency) or `opus` (deep reasoning).