hive-skills 0.1.0

package/assets/skills/converted/skill-creator/composable/mini/11-json-schemas.md

@@ -0,0 +1,414 @@
+# JSON Schemas
+
+This document defines the JSON schemas used by skill-creator. (Source: the vendored `references/schemas.md` at `skills/sources/anthropic/skill-creator/`.)
+
+## evals.json
+
+Defines the evals for a skill. Located at `evals/evals.json` within the skill directory.
+
+```json
+{
+  "skill_name": "example-skill",
+  "evals": [
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "prompt": "User's example prompt",
+      "expected_output": "Description of expected result",
+      "files": ["evals/files/sample1.pdf"],
+      "expectations": [
+        "The output includes X",
+        "The skill used script Y"
+      ]
+    }
+  ]
+}
+```
+
+**Fields:**
+- `skill_name`: Name matching the skill's frontmatter
+- `evals[].id`: Unique integer identifier
+- `evals[].prompt`: The task to execute
+- `evals[].expected_output`: Human-readable description of success
+- `evals[].files`: Optional list of input file paths (relative to skill root)
+- `evals[].expectations`: List of verifiable statements
+
+## history.json
+
+Tracks version progression in Improve mode. Located at workspace root.
+
+```json
+{
+  "started_at": "2026-01-15T10:30:00Z",
+  "skill_name": "pdf",
+  "current_best": "v2",
+  "iterations": [
+    {
+      "version": "v0",
+      "parent": null,
+      "expectation_pass_rate": 0.65,
+      "grading_result": "baseline",
+      "is_current_best": false
+    },
+    {
+      "version": "v1",
+      "parent": "v0",
+      "expectation_pass_rate": 0.75,
+      "grading_result": "won",
+      "is_current_best": false
+    },
+    {
+      "version": "v2",
+      "parent": "v1",
+      "expectation_pass_rate": 0.85,
+      "grading_result": "won",
+      "is_current_best": true
+    }
+  ]
+}
+```
+
+**Fields:**
+- `started_at`: ISO timestamp of when improvement started
+- `skill_name`: Name of the skill being improved
+- `current_best`: Version identifier of the best performer
+- `iterations[].version`: Version identifier (v0, v1, ...)
+- `iterations[].parent`: Parent version this was derived from
+- `iterations[].expectation_pass_rate`: Pass rate from grading
+- `iterations[].grading_result`: "baseline", "won", "lost", or "tie"
+- `iterations[].is_current_best`: Whether this is the current best version
+
+## grading.json
+
+Output from the grader agent. Located at `<run-dir>/grading.json`.
+
+```json
+{
+  "expectations": [
+    {
+      "text": "The output includes the name 'John Smith'",
+      "passed": true,
+      "evidence": "Found in transcript Step 3: 'Extracted names: John Smith, Sarah Johnson'"
+    },
+    {
+      "text": "The spreadsheet has a SUM formula in cell B10",
+      "passed": false,
+      "evidence": "No spreadsheet was created. The output was a text file."
+    }
+  ],
+  "summary": {
+    "passed": 2,
+    "failed": 1,
+    "total": 3,
+    "pass_rate": 0.67
+  },
+  "execution_metrics": {
+    "tool_calls": {
+      "Read": 5,
+      "Write": 2,
+      "Bash": 8
+    },
+    "total_tool_calls": 15,
+    "total_steps": 6,
+    "errors_encountered": 0,
+    "output_chars": 12450,
+    "transcript_chars": 3200
+  },
+  "timing": {
+    "executor_duration_seconds": 165.0,
+    "grader_duration_seconds": 26.0,
+    "total_duration_seconds": 191.0
+  },
+  "claims": [
+    {
+      "claim": "The form has 12 fillable fields",
+      "type": "factual",
+      "verified": true,
+      "evidence": "Counted 12 fields in field_info.json"
+    }
+  ],
+  "user_notes_summary": {
+    "uncertainties": ["Used 2023 data, may be stale"],
+    "needs_review": [],
+    "workarounds": ["Fell back to text overlay for non-fillable fields"]
+  },
+  "eval_feedback": {
+    "suggestions": [
+      {
+        "assertion": "The output includes the name 'John Smith'",
+        "reason": "A hallucinated document that mentions the name would also pass"
+      }
+    ],
+    "overall": "Assertions check presence but not correctness."
+  }
+}
+```
+
+**Fields:**
+- `expectations[]`: Graded expectations with evidence
+- `summary`: Aggregate pass/fail counts
+- `execution_metrics`: Tool usage and output size (from executor's metrics.json)
+- `timing`: Wall clock timing (from timing.json)
+- `claims`: Extracted and verified claims from the output
+- `user_notes_summary`: Issues flagged by the executor
+- `eval_feedback`: (optional) Improvement suggestions for the evals, only present when the grader identifies issues worth raising
+
+## metrics.json
+
+Output from the executor agent. Located at `<run-dir>/outputs/metrics.json`.
+
+```json
+{
+  "tool_calls": {
+    "Read": 5,
+    "Write": 2,
+    "Bash": 8,
+    "Edit": 1,
+    "Glob": 2,
+    "Grep": 0
+  },
+  "total_tool_calls": 18,
+  "total_steps": 6,
+  "files_created": ["filled_form.pdf", "field_values.json"],
+  "errors_encountered": 0,
+  "output_chars": 12450,
+  "transcript_chars": 3200
+}
+```
+
+**Fields:**
+- `tool_calls`: Count per tool type
+- `total_tool_calls`: Sum of all tool calls
+- `total_steps`: Number of major execution steps
+- `files_created`: List of output files created
+- `errors_encountered`: Number of errors during execution
+- `output_chars`: Total character count of output files
+- `transcript_chars`: Character count of transcript
+
+## timing.json
+
+Wall clock timing for a run. Located at `<run-dir>/timing.json`.
+
+**How to capture:** When a subagent task completes, the task notification includes `total_tokens` and `duration_ms`. Save these immediately — they are not persisted anywhere else and cannot be recovered after the fact.
+
+```json
+{
+  "total_tokens": 84852,
+  "duration_ms": 23332,
+  "total_duration_seconds": 23.3,
+  "executor_start": "2026-01-15T10:30:00Z",
+  "executor_end": "2026-01-15T10:32:45Z",
+  "executor_duration_seconds": 165.0,
+  "grader_start": "2026-01-15T10:32:46Z",
+  "grader_end": "2026-01-15T10:33:12Z",
+  "grader_duration_seconds": 26.0
+}
+```
+
+## benchmark.json
+
+Output from Benchmark mode. Located at `benchmarks/<timestamp>/benchmark.json`.
+
+```json
+{
+  "metadata": {
+    "skill_name": "pdf",
+    "skill_path": "/path/to/pdf",
+    "executor_model": "claude-sonnet-4-20250514",
+    "analyzer_model": "most-capable-model",
+    "timestamp": "2026-01-15T10:30:00Z",
+    "evals_run": [1, 2, 3],
+    "runs_per_configuration": 3
+  },
+
+  "runs": [
+    {
+      "eval_id": 1,
+      "eval_name": "Ocean",
+      "configuration": "with_skill",
+      "run_number": 1,
+      "result": {
+        "pass_rate": 0.85,
+        "passed": 6,
+        "failed": 1,
+        "total": 7,
+        "time_seconds": 42.5,
+        "tokens": 3800,
+        "tool_calls": 18,
+        "errors": 0
+      },
+      "expectations": [
+        {"text": "...", "passed": true, "evidence": "..."}
+      ],
+      "notes": [
+        "Used 2023 data, may be stale",
+        "Fell back to text overlay for non-fillable fields"
+      ]
+    }
+  ],
+
+  "run_summary": {
+    "with_skill": {
+      "pass_rate": {"mean": 0.85, "stddev": 0.05, "min": 0.80, "max": 0.90},
+      "time_seconds": {"mean": 45.0, "stddev": 12.0, "min": 32.0, "max": 58.0},
+      "tokens": {"mean": 3800, "stddev": 400, "min": 3200, "max": 4100}
+    },
+    "without_skill": {
+      "pass_rate": {"mean": 0.35, "stddev": 0.08, "min": 0.28, "max": 0.45},
+      "time_seconds": {"mean": 32.0, "stddev": 8.0, "min": 24.0, "max": 42.0},
+      "tokens": {"mean": 2100, "stddev": 300, "min": 1800, "max": 2500}
+    },
+    "delta": {
+      "pass_rate": "+0.50",
+      "time_seconds": "+13.0",
+      "tokens": "+1700"
+    }
+  },
+
+  "notes": [
+    "Assertion 'Output is a PDF file' passes 100% in both configurations - may not differentiate skill value",
+    "Eval 3 shows high variance (50% ± 40%) - may be flaky or model-dependent",
+    "Without-skill runs consistently fail on table extraction expectations",
+    "Skill adds 13s average execution time but improves pass rate by 50%"
+  ]
+}
+```
+
+**Fields:**
+- `metadata`: Information about the benchmark run
+  - `skill_name`: Name of the skill
+  - `timestamp`: When the benchmark was run
+  - `evals_run`: List of eval names or IDs
+  - `runs_per_configuration`: Number of runs per config (e.g. 3)
+- `runs[]`: Individual run results
+  - `eval_id`: Numeric eval identifier
+  - `eval_name`: Human-readable eval name (used as section header in the viewer)
+  - `configuration`: Must be `"with_skill"` or `"without_skill"` (the viewer uses this exact string for grouping and color coding)
+  - `run_number`: Integer run number (1, 2, 3...)
+  - `result`: Nested object with `pass_rate`, `passed`, `total`, `time_seconds`, `tokens`, `errors`
+- `run_summary`: Statistical aggregates per configuration
+  - `with_skill` / `without_skill`: Each contains `pass_rate`, `time_seconds`, `tokens` objects with `mean` and `stddev` fields
+  - `delta`: Difference strings like `"+0.50"`, `"+13.0"`, `"+1700"`
+- `notes`: Freeform observations from the analyzer
+
+**Important:** The viewer reads these field names exactly. Using `config` instead of `configuration`, or putting `pass_rate` at the top level of a run instead of nested under `result`, will cause the viewer to show empty/zero values. Always reference this schema when generating benchmark.json manually.
+
+## comparison.json
+
+Output from blind comparator. Located at `<grading-dir>/comparison-N.json`.
+
+```json
+{
+  "winner": "A",
+  "reasoning": "Output A provides a complete solution with proper formatting and all required fields. Output B is missing the date field and has formatting inconsistencies.",
+  "rubric": {
+    "A": {
+      "content": {
+        "correctness": 5,
+        "completeness": 5,
+        "accuracy": 4
+      },
+      "structure": {
+        "organization": 4,
+        "formatting": 5,
+        "usability": 4
+      },
+      "content_score": 4.7,
+      "structure_score": 4.3,
+      "overall_score": 9.0
+    },
+    "B": {
+      "content": {
+        "correctness": 3,
+        "completeness": 2,
+        "accuracy": 3
+      },
+      "structure": {
+        "organization": 3,
+        "formatting": 2,
+        "usability": 3
+      },
+      "content_score": 2.7,
+      "structure_score": 2.7,
+      "overall_score": 5.4
+    }
+  },
+  "output_quality": {
+    "A": {
+      "score": 9,
+      "strengths": ["Complete solution", "Well-formatted", "All fields present"],
+      "weaknesses": ["Minor style inconsistency in header"]
+    },
+    "B": {
+      "score": 5,
+      "strengths": ["Readable output", "Correct basic structure"],
+      "weaknesses": ["Missing date field", "Formatting inconsistencies", "Partial data extraction"]
+    }
+  },
+  "expectation_results": {
+    "A": {
+      "passed": 4,
+      "total": 5,
+      "pass_rate": 0.80,
+      "details": [
+        {"text": "Output includes name", "passed": true}
+      ]
+    },
+    "B": {
+      "passed": 3,
+      "total": 5,
+      "pass_rate": 0.60,
+      "details": [
+        {"text": "Output includes name", "passed": true}
+      ]
+    }
+  }
+}
+```
+
+## analysis.json
+
+Output from post-hoc analyzer. Located at `<grading-dir>/analysis.json`.
+
+```json
+{
+  "comparison_summary": {
+    "winner": "A",
+    "winner_skill": "path/to/winner/skill",
+    "loser_skill": "path/to/loser/skill",
+    "comparator_reasoning": "Brief summary of why comparator chose winner"
+  },
+  "winner_strengths": [
+    "Clear step-by-step instructions for handling multi-page documents",
+    "Included validation script that caught formatting errors"
+  ],
+  "loser_weaknesses": [
+    "Vague instruction 'process the document appropriately' led to inconsistent behavior",
+    "No script for validation, agent had to improvise"
+  ],
+  "instruction_following": {
+    "winner": {
+      "score": 9,
+      "issues": ["Minor: skipped optional logging step"]
+    },
+    "loser": {
+      "score": 6,
+      "issues": [
+        "Did not use the skill's formatting template",
+        "Invented own approach instead of following step 3"
+      ]
+    }
+  },
+  "improvement_suggestions": [
+    {
+      "priority": "high",
+      "category": "instructions",
+      "suggestion": "Replace 'process the document appropriately' with explicit steps",
+      "expected_impact": "Would eliminate ambiguity that caused inconsistent behavior"
+    }
+  ],
+  "transcript_insights": {
+    "winner_execution_pattern": "Read skill -> Followed 5-step process -> Used validation script",
+    "loser_execution_pattern": "Read skill -> Unclear on approach -> Tried 3 different methods"
+  }
+}
+```

package/assets/skills/converted/skill-creator/composable/mini/12-agent-grader.md

@@ -0,0 +1,225 @@
+# Grader Agent
+
+Instructions for the specialized grader subagent. (Source: the vendored `agents/grader.md` at `skills/sources/anthropic/skill-creator/`. Spawn a subagent with these instructions — or grade inline — when grading a run.)
+
+Evaluate expectations against an execution transcript and outputs.
+
+## Role
+
+The Grader reviews a transcript and output files, then determines whether each expectation passes or fails. Provide clear evidence for each judgment.
+
+You have two jobs: grade the outputs, and critique the evals themselves. A passing grade on a weak assertion is worse than useless — it creates false confidence. When you notice an assertion that's trivially satisfied, or an important outcome that no assertion checks, say so.
+
+## Inputs
+
+You receive these parameters in your prompt:
+
+- **expectations**: List of expectations to evaluate (strings)
+- **transcript_path**: Path to the execution transcript (markdown file)
+- **outputs_dir**: Directory containing output files from execution
+
+## Process
+
+### Step 1: Read the Transcript
+
+1. Read the transcript file completely
+2. Note the eval prompt, execution steps, and final result
+3. Identify any issues or errors documented
+
+### Step 2: Examine Output Files
+
+1. List files in outputs_dir
+2. Read/examine each file relevant to the expectations. If outputs aren't plain text, use the inspection tools provided in your prompt — don't rely solely on what the transcript says the executor produced.
+3. Note contents, structure, and quality
+
+### Step 3: Evaluate Each Assertion
+
+For each expectation:
+
+1. **Search for evidence** in the transcript and outputs
+2. **Determine verdict**:
+   - **PASS**: Clear evidence the expectation is true AND the evidence reflects genuine task completion, not just surface-level compliance
+   - **FAIL**: No evidence, or evidence contradicts the expectation, or the evidence is superficial (e.g., correct filename but empty/wrong content)
+3. **Cite the evidence**: Quote the specific text or describe what you found
+
+### Step 4: Extract and Verify Claims
+
+Beyond the predefined expectations, extract implicit claims from the outputs and verify them:
+
+1. **Extract claims** from the transcript and outputs:
+   - Factual statements ("The form has 12 fields")
+   - Process claims ("Used pypdf to fill the form")
+   - Quality claims ("All fields were filled correctly")
+
+2. **Verify each claim**:
+   - **Factual claims**: Can be checked against the outputs or external sources
+   - **Process claims**: Can be verified from the transcript
+   - **Quality claims**: Evaluate whether the claim is justified
+
+3. **Flag unverifiable claims**: Note claims that cannot be verified with available information
+
+This catches issues that predefined expectations might miss.
+
+### Step 5: Read User Notes
+
+If `{outputs_dir}/user_notes.md` exists:
+1. Read it and note any uncertainties or issues flagged by the executor
+2. Include relevant concerns in the grading output
+3. These may reveal problems even when expectations pass
+
+### Step 6: Critique the Evals
+
+After grading, consider whether the evals themselves could be improved. Only surface suggestions when there's a clear gap.
+
+Good suggestions test meaningful outcomes — assertions that are hard to satisfy without actually doing the work correctly. Think about what makes an assertion *discriminating*: it passes when the skill genuinely succeeds and fails when it doesn't.
+
+Suggestions worth raising:
+- An assertion that passed but would also pass for a clearly wrong output (e.g., checking filename existence but not file content)
+- An important outcome you observed — good or bad — that no assertion covers at all
+- An assertion that can't actually be verified from the available outputs
+
+Keep the bar high. The goal is to flag things the eval author would say "good catch" about, not to nitpick every assertion.
+
+### Step 7: Write Grading Results
+
+Save results to `{outputs_dir}/../grading.json` (sibling to outputs_dir).
+
+## Grading Criteria
+
+**PASS when**:
+- The transcript or outputs clearly demonstrate the expectation is true
+- Specific evidence can be cited
+- The evidence reflects genuine substance, not just surface compliance (e.g., a file exists AND contains correct content, not just the right filename)
+
+**FAIL when**:
+- No evidence found for the expectation
+- Evidence contradicts the expectation
+- The expectation cannot be verified from available information
+- The evidence is superficial — the assertion is technically satisfied but the underlying task outcome is wrong or incomplete
+- The output appears to meet the assertion by coincidence rather than by actually doing the work
+
+**When uncertain**: The burden of proof to pass is on the expectation.
+
+### Step 8: Read Executor Metrics and Timing
+
+1. If `{outputs_dir}/metrics.json` exists, read it and include in grading output
+2. If `{outputs_dir}/../timing.json` exists, read it and include timing data
+
+## Output Format
+
+Write a JSON file with this structure:
+
+```json
+{
+  "expectations": [
+    {
+      "text": "The output includes the name 'John Smith'",
+      "passed": true,
+      "evidence": "Found in transcript Step 3: 'Extracted names: John Smith, Sarah Johnson'"
+    },
+    {
+      "text": "The spreadsheet has a SUM formula in cell B10",
+      "passed": false,
+      "evidence": "No spreadsheet was created. The output was a text file."
+    },
+    {
+      "text": "The assistant used the skill's OCR script",
+      "passed": true,
+      "evidence": "Transcript Step 2 shows: 'Tool: Bash - python ocr_script.py image.png'"
+    }
+  ],
+  "summary": {
+    "passed": 2,
+    "failed": 1,
+    "total": 3,
+    "pass_rate": 0.67
+  },
+  "execution_metrics": {
+    "tool_calls": {
+      "Read": 5,
+      "Write": 2,
+      "Bash": 8
+    },
+    "total_tool_calls": 15,
+    "total_steps": 6,
+    "errors_encountered": 0,
+    "output_chars": 12450,
+    "transcript_chars": 3200
+  },
+  "timing": {
+    "executor_duration_seconds": 165.0,
+    "grader_duration_seconds": 26.0,
+    "total_duration_seconds": 191.0
+  },
+  "claims": [
+    {
+      "claim": "The form has 12 fillable fields",
+      "type": "factual",
+      "verified": true,
+      "evidence": "Counted 12 fields in field_info.json"
+    },
+    {
+      "claim": "All required fields were populated",
+      "type": "quality",
+      "verified": false,
+      "evidence": "Reference section was left blank despite data being available"
+    }
+  ],
+  "user_notes_summary": {
+    "uncertainties": ["Used 2023 data, may be stale"],
+    "needs_review": [],
+    "workarounds": ["Fell back to text overlay for non-fillable fields"]
+  },
+  "eval_feedback": {
+    "suggestions": [
+      {
+        "assertion": "The output includes the name 'John Smith'",
+        "reason": "A hallucinated document that mentions the name would also pass — consider checking it appears as the primary contact with matching phone and email from the input"
+      },
+      {
+        "reason": "No assertion checks whether the extracted phone numbers match the input — I observed incorrect numbers in the output that went uncaught"
+      }
+    ],
+    "overall": "Assertions check presence but not correctness. Consider adding content verification."
+  }
+}
+```
+
+## Field Descriptions
+
+- **expectations**: Array of graded expectations
+  - **text**: The original expectation text
+  - **passed**: Boolean - true if expectation passes
+  - **evidence**: Specific quote or description supporting the verdict
+- **summary**: Aggregate statistics
+  - **passed**: Count of passed expectations
+  - **failed**: Count of failed expectations
+  - **total**: Total expectations evaluated
+  - **pass_rate**: Fraction passed (0.0 to 1.0)
+- **execution_metrics**: Copied from executor's metrics.json (if available)
+  - **output_chars**: Total character count of output files (proxy for tokens)
+  - **transcript_chars**: Character count of transcript
+- **timing**: Wall clock timing from timing.json (if available)
+  - **executor_duration_seconds**: Time spent in executor subagent
+  - **total_duration_seconds**: Total elapsed time for the run
+- **claims**: Extracted and verified claims from the output
+  - **claim**: The statement being verified
+  - **type**: "factual", "process", or "quality"
+  - **verified**: Boolean - whether the claim holds
+  - **evidence**: Supporting or contradicting evidence
+- **user_notes_summary**: Issues flagged by the executor
+  - **uncertainties**: Things the executor wasn't sure about
+  - **needs_review**: Items requiring human attention
+  - **workarounds**: Places where the skill didn't work as expected
+- **eval_feedback**: Improvement suggestions for the evals (only when warranted)
+  - **suggestions**: List of concrete suggestions, each with a `reason` and optionally an `assertion` it relates to
+  - **overall**: Brief assessment — can be "No suggestions, evals look solid" if nothing to flag
+
+## Guidelines
+
+- **Be objective**: Base verdicts on evidence, not assumptions
+- **Be specific**: Quote the exact text that supports your verdict
+- **Be thorough**: Check both transcript and output files
+- **Be consistent**: Apply the same standard to each expectation
+- **Explain failures**: Make it clear why evidence was insufficient
+- **No partial credit**: Each expectation is pass or fail, not partial