invos 1.0.0

package/kit/.agents/squads/advisory-board/data/routing-catalog.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,89 @@
+# ═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
+# Routing Catalog: Advisory Board Squad
+# Version: 1.0.0
+# ═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
+
+domains:
+  investment_decisions:
+    keywords: [investment, portfolio, asset allocation, risk management, macro, hedge fund, capital, returns]
+    primary_agent: ray-dalio
+    secondary_agent: charlie-munger
+    description: "Investment strategy, portfolio construction, risk management, and macroeconomic analysis"
+
+  mental_models:
+    keywords: [mental models, multidisciplinary, latticework, inversion, second-order thinking, biases, rationality]
+    primary_agent: charlie-munger
+    secondary_agent: ray-dalio
+    description: "Mental model frameworks, multidisciplinary thinking, cognitive biases, and rational decision making"
+
+  startup_strategy:
+    keywords: [startup, zero to one, monopoly, contrarian, product-market fit, venture, competition]
+    primary_agent: peter-thiel
+    secondary_agent: naval-ravikant
+    description: "Startup strategy, contrarian thinking, monopoly building, and venture philosophy"
+
+  wealth_creation:
+    keywords: [wealth, leverage, specific knowledge, accountability, compounding, passive income, freedom]
+    primary_agent: naval-ravikant
+    secondary_agent: charlie-munger
+    description: "Wealth creation principles, leverage types, specific knowledge, and long-term compounding"
+
+  scaling_decisions:
+    keywords: [scaling, blitzscaling, growth, network effects, marketplace, platform, hypergrowth]
+    primary_agent: reid-hoffman
+    secondary_agent: peter-thiel
+    description: "When and how to scale, blitzscaling framework, network effects, and platform strategy"
+
+  network_building:
+    keywords: [network, connections, alliance, partnerships, ecosystem, relationship capital, professional network]
+    primary_agent: reid-hoffman
+    secondary_agent: naval-ravikant
+    description: "Strategic network building, alliance formation, and relationship-driven strategy"
+
+  purpose_leadership:
+    keywords: [purpose, why, infinite game, inspiration, leadership, vision, mission, golden circle]
+    primary_agent: simon-sinek
+    secondary_agent: brene-brown
+    description: "Purpose-driven leadership, the Golden Circle, infinite game mindset, and inspirational leadership"
+
+  team_dysfunction:
+    keywords: [team, dysfunction, trust, conflict, accountability, commitment, results, team health]
+    primary_agent: patrick-lencioni
+    secondary_agent: brene-brown
+    description: "Team health assessment, Five Dysfunctions framework, building trust, and productive conflict"
+
+  vulnerability_courage:
+    keywords: [vulnerability, courage, shame, empathy, belonging, daring, wholehearted, brave leadership]
+    primary_agent: brene-brown
+    secondary_agent: simon-sinek
+    description: "Courage-based leadership, vulnerability as strength, shame resilience, and brave cultures"
+
+  trust_building:
+    keywords: [trust, psychological safety, emotional intelligence, connection, authenticity, relationships]
+    primary_agent: brene-brown
+    secondary_agent: patrick-lencioni
+    description: "Building organizational trust, psychological safety, and authentic connection"
+
+  minimalist_business:
+    keywords: [minimalist, simplicity, hell yeah or no, enough, small business, lifestyle business, indie]
+    primary_agent: derek-sivers
+    secondary_agent: yvon-chouinard
+    description: "Minimalist entrepreneurship, contrarian simplicity, and intentional business building"
+
+  mission_driven:
+    keywords: [mission, environment, sustainability, responsible business, activism, purpose-driven, B-corp]
+    primary_agent: yvon-chouinard
+    secondary_agent: simon-sinek
+    description: "Mission-driven business, environmental activism, responsible capitalism"
+
+  contrarian_thinking:
+    keywords: [contrarian, unconventional, secrets, hidden truth, independent thinking, non-consensus]
+    primary_agent: peter-thiel
+    secondary_agent: derek-sivers
+    description: "Contrarian strategy, finding hidden truths, thinking independently, and non-consensus bets"
+
+  decision_frameworks:
+    keywords: [decision, framework, principles, systematic, process, criteria, evaluation, trade-offs]
+    primary_agent: ray-dalio
+    secondary_agent: charlie-munger
+    description: "Systematic decision frameworks, principles-based evaluation, and structured decision processes"

package/kit/.agents/squads/advisory-board/squad.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,50 @@
+name: advisory-board
+version: "1.0.0"
+short-title: "Advisory Board"
+description: "Board de 11 conselheiros estrategicos — Ray Dalio, Charlie Munger, Naval Ravikant, Peter Thiel, Reid Hoffman, Simon Sinek, Brene Brown, e mais."
+author: "Synkra AIOS"
+license: MIT
+slashPrefix: "advisory-board"
+
+aios:
+  minVersion: "4.0.0"
+  type: squad
+
+tags:
+  - strategy
+  - investment
+  - leadership
+  - mental-models
+  - scaling
+  - purpose
+  - entrepreneurship
+
+components:
+  agents:
+    - board-chair.md
+    - ray-dalio.md
+    - charlie-munger.md
+    - naval-ravikant.md
+    - peter-thiel.md
+    - reid-hoffman.md
+    - simon-sinek.md
+    - brene-brown.md
+    - patrick-lencioni.md
+    - derek-sivers.md
+    - yvon-chouinard.md
+  tasks:
+    - convene-board.md
+    - diagnose.md
+    - evaluate-scaling.md
+    - get-founder-counsel.md
+    - resolve-culture-crisis.md
+    - review.md
+    - seek-investment-counsel.md
+  workflows:
+    - wf-board-meeting.yaml
+    - wf-decision-framework.yaml
+  checklists:
+    - output-quality.md
+
+config:
+  extends: extend

package/kit/.agents/squads/advisory-board/tasks/convene-board.md

@@ -0,0 +1,152 @@
+---
+task: conveneBoard()
+responsavel: "@board-chair"
+responsavel_type: Agent
+atomic_layer: Task
+elicit: true
+
+Entrada:
+  - campo: strategic_question
+    tipo: string
+    origem: User Input
+    obrigatorio: true
+  - campo: context
+    tipo: string
+    origem: User Input
+    obrigatorio: true
+
+Saida:
+  - campo: board_meeting
+    tipo: string
+    destino: Console
+    persistido: false
+
+Checklist:
+  - "[ ] 3-5 relevant advisors consulted with their frameworks"
+  - "[ ] Synthesis identifies agreement, disagreement, and tensions"
+  - "[ ] Unified recommendation with dissenting views included"
+---
+
+# Task: Full Board Meeting
+
+**Task ID:** BOARD-001
+**Version:** 1.0.0
+**Command:** `*convene-board`
+**Agent:** Board Chair (board-chair)
+**Purpose:** Convene a full advisory board session on a strategic question, synthesizing multiple advisor perspectives.
+
+---
+
+## Inputs
+
+| Input | Source | Required |
+|-------|--------|----------|
+| `strategic_question` | User prompt | YES |
+| `context` | Business situation, data, constraints | YES |
+| `advisors_requested` | Specific advisors to include | NO (default: 3-5 most relevant) |
+| `decision_urgency` | Timeline for decision | NO |
+| `previous_decisions` | Related past decisions | NO |
+
+## Preconditions
+
+1. Strategic question is clearly framed
+2. Sufficient context provided for advisors to form meaningful opinions
+3. At least 3 advisors are relevant to the question domain
+
+## Execution Phases
+
+### Phase 1: Frame the Question (board-chair)
+
+1. Restate the strategic question in precise terms
+2. Identify the decision type: investment, scaling, culture, hiring, product, pivot, exit
+3. Map the decision dimensions: financial, operational, cultural, strategic, ethical
+4. Determine which 3-5 advisors are most relevant based on expertise domains
+5. Define the constraints — time, resources, risk appetite, values
+6. Frame the question for each advisor in their language and framework
+7. Set the agenda — order of consultation based on logical flow
+
+### Phase 2: Collect Perspectives (routed to 3-5 advisors)
+
+For each selected advisor, request their perspective:
+
+1. **Ray Dalio** — Principles-based analysis, systematic risk assessment, radical transparency lens
+2. **Charlie Munger** — Mental models application, inversion thinking, what could go wrong
+3. **Peter Thiel** — Zero-to-one thinking, contrarian perspective, monopoly potential
+4. **Reid Hoffman** — Network effects, blitzscaling lens, alliance strategy
+5. **Naval Ravikant** — Leverage analysis, specific knowledge application, long-term thinking
+6. **Simon Sinek** — Purpose alignment, infinite game perspective, why behind the decision
+7. **Brene Brown** — Courage assessment, vulnerability in leadership, trust implications
+8. **Patrick Lencioni** — Team health impact, organizational dysfunction risks
+9. **Derek Sivers** — Contrarian simplicity, "hell yeah or no" test, minimalist lens
+10. **Yvon Chouinard** — Mission alignment, environmental/ethical impact, long-term sustainability
+
+Each advisor provides:
+- Their analysis through their specific framework
+- Key risks they see
+- Their recommendation
+- Confidence level (high/medium/low)
+
+### Phase 3: Synthesize Perspectives (board-chair)
+
+1. Identify areas of agreement — where do advisors converge?
+2. Identify areas of disagreement — where do they diverge and why?
+3. Map the tensions — which disagreements represent genuine tradeoffs vs different assumptions?
+4. Weight perspectives by relevance — whose expertise matters most for THIS question?
+5. Identify blind spots — what has no advisor addressed?
+6. Look for the "and" — can seemingly opposing views be reconciled?
+
+### Phase 4: Present Unified Recommendation (board-chair)
+
+1. State the synthesized recommendation clearly
+2. Explain the reasoning — which advisor perspectives shaped it most and why
+3. Acknowledge dissenting views — what strong arguments exist against the recommendation
+4. Define the risk profile — what could go wrong and mitigation strategies
+5. Provide decision criteria — what would change the recommendation
+6. Offer the contrarian check — the strongest argument against the recommendation
+7. Define next steps — specific actions if the recommendation is adopted
+
+## Output Format
+
+```yaml
+board_meeting:
+  chair: "board-chair"
+  question: "{strategic question}"
+  advisors_consulted: ["{advisor list}"]
+  perspectives:
+    - advisor: "{name}"
+      framework: "{their lens}"
+      analysis: "{their perspective}"
+      recommendation: "{their advice}"
+      confidence: "HIGH | MEDIUM | LOW"
+      key_risk: "{biggest concern}"
+  synthesis:
+    areas_of_agreement: ["{convergence points}"]
+    areas_of_disagreement: ["{divergence points}"]
+    key_tensions: ["{genuine tradeoffs}"]
+    blind_spots: ["{unaddressed areas}"]
+  recommendation:
+    action: "{what to do}"
+    reasoning: "{why}"
+    dissenting_views: ["{strong counterarguments}"]
+    risk_profile: "{what could go wrong}"
+    contrarian_check: "{strongest argument against}"
+    next_steps: ["{specific actions}"]
+```
+
+## Veto Conditions
+
+- **NEVER** present a recommendation without acknowledging dissenting views
+- **NEVER** consult fewer than 3 advisors on a strategic question
+- **NEVER** let one advisor's voice dominate without explicit justification
+- **NEVER** skip the contrarian check — every recommendation needs a devil's advocate
+- **NEVER** present unanimous agreement without questioning if groupthink is present
+
+## Completion Criteria
+
+- [ ] Question framed precisely with constraints defined
+- [ ] 3-5 relevant advisors consulted with their specific frameworks
+- [ ] Each advisor's perspective documented with confidence level
+- [ ] Synthesis identifies agreement, disagreement, and tensions
+- [ ] Unified recommendation with clear reasoning
+- [ ] Dissenting views and contrarian check included
+- [ ] Next steps defined for implementation

package/kit/.agents/squads/advisory-board/tasks/diagnose.md

@@ -0,0 +1,138 @@
+---
+task: diagnoseAdvisoryBoard()
+responsavel: "@board-chair"
+responsavel_type: Agent
+atomic_layer: Task
+elicit: true
+
+Entrada:
+  - campo: user_message
+    tipo: string
+    origem: User Input
+    obrigatorio: true
+  - campo: routing_catalog
+    tipo: string
+    origem: data/routing-catalog.yaml
+    obrigatorio: true
+
+Saida:
+  - campo: diagnosis
+    tipo: string
+    destino: Console
+    persistido: false
+
+Checklist:
+  - "[ ] User intent parsed and categorized"
+  - "[ ] Cross-cutting answer delivered to user"
+  - "[ ] Routing suggestion provided"
+---
+
+# Task: Diagnose & Route — Advisory Board Squad
+
+## Metadata
+
+| Field         | Value                                            |
+|---------------|--------------------------------------------------|
+| Task ID       | `advisory-board:diagnose`                        |
+| Command       | `@advisory-board` or `@advisory-board:board-chair` |
+| Orchestrator  | `board-chair`                                    |
+| Version       | 1.0.0                                            |
+| Created       | 2026-03-05                                       |
+
+## Purpose
+
+Analyze the user's strategic question, provide an immediate cross-cutting answer,
+and determine whether specialist routing is needed. The chair NEVER loads an advisor
+agent file during diagnosis — it only identifies the best route.
+
+## Inputs
+
+| Input            | Source              | Required |
+|------------------|---------------------|----------|
+| `user_message`   | User prompt         | YES      |
+| `routing_catalog` | `data/routing-catalog.yaml` | YES |
+| `config`         | `config/config.yaml` | YES     |
+| `conversation_history` | Session context | NO       |
+
+## Preconditions
+
+1. User message is not empty
+2. Routing catalog is loaded and accessible
+
+## Execution Phases
+
+### Phase 1: Parse Request
+
+1. Extract the core question or intent from the user message
+2. Identify keywords, advisory domains, and strategic context
+3. Determine the advisory domain: financial, entrepreneurial, organizational, or philosophical
+4. Determine the decision style needed: quantitative/systematic, mental-model-based, first-principles, network-strategic, purpose-driven, courage-based, team-health-based, or minimalist-contrarian
+
+### Phase 2: Match Routing Catalog
+
+1. Load `data/routing-catalog.yaml`
+2. Match extracted keywords against domain keyword lists
+3. Score each domain by keyword overlap and contextual relevance
+4. Identify `primary_agent` and `secondary_agent` for the top-scoring domain
+5. If multiple domains score equally, consider the decision style to break ties:
+   - Quantitative decisions: prefer ray-dalio
+   - Mental model questions: prefer charlie-munger
+   - First-principles problems: prefer peter-thiel, naval-ravikant
+   - Network/scaling: prefer reid-hoffman
+   - Purpose/culture: prefer simon-sinek, brene-brown
+   - Team dynamics: prefer patrick-lencioni
+
+### Phase 3: Cross-Cutting Answer
+
+**MANDATORY — Always execute this phase before any routing.**
+
+1. Provide an immediate, useful answer to the user's question
+2. The answer should be actionable and demonstrate strategic advisory competence
+3. Include relevant context: frameworks, principles, or mental models applicable
+4. Reference the applicable advisory perspective by name
+5. This answer must stand alone — even if the user never follows the routing suggestion
+
+### Phase 4: Confidence Assessment
+
+Assess routing confidence:
+
+| Level  | Criteria                                      | Action                        |
+|--------|-----------------------------------------------|-------------------------------|
+| HIGH   | Clear keyword match, single domain, unambiguous | Route to primary advisor     |
+| MEDIUM | Multiple domains match, slight ambiguity       | Suggest primary + secondary   |
+| LOW    | No clear match, vague request, cross-domain    | Stay with chair, ask clarifying questions |
+
+## Output Format
+
+```yaml
+diagnosis:
+  intent: "{parsed user intent}"
+  advisory_domain: "financial | entrepreneurial | organizational | philosophical"
+  decision_style: "{identified decision style}"
+  matched_domain: "{domain from routing catalog}"
+  confidence: "HIGH | MEDIUM | LOW"
+  primary_agent: "{agent-id}"
+  secondary_agent: "{agent-id}"
+  cross_cutting_answer: |
+    {The immediate answer provided to the user}
+  routing_suggestion: |
+    {Why this advisor was chosen and what they can add}
+```
+
+## Veto Conditions
+
+- **NEVER** route without providing a cross-cutting answer first
+- **NEVER** route when confidence is LOW — stay with chair and ask clarifying questions
+- **NEVER** load an advisor agent file during diagnosis — only identify the route
+- **NEVER** invoke a full board meeting during diagnosis — route to one advisor at a time
+- **NEVER** default to the same advisor for every question — match the actual domain
+
+## Completion Criteria
+
+- [x] User intent parsed and categorized
+- [x] Advisory domain and decision style identified
+- [x] Routing catalog consulted and domain matched
+- [x] Cross-cutting answer delivered to user
+- [x] Confidence level assessed
+- [x] Routing suggestion provided (if confidence >= MEDIUM)
+- [x] No advisor agent files loaded during diagnosis

package/kit/.agents/squads/advisory-board/tasks/evaluate-scaling.md

@@ -0,0 +1,165 @@
+---
+task: evaluateScaling()
+responsavel: "@board-chair"
+responsavel_type: Agent
+atomic_layer: Task
+elicit: true
+
+Entrada:
+  - campo: business_description
+    tipo: string
+    origem: User Input
+    obrigatorio: true
+  - campo: scaling_trigger
+    tipo: string
+    origem: User Input
+    obrigatorio: true
+
+Saida:
+  - campo: scaling_evaluation
+    tipo: string
+    destino: Console
+    persistido: false
+
+Checklist:
+  - "[ ] Readiness assessed by all three advisors (Hoffman, Thiel, Naval)"
+  - "[ ] Scaling strategy identified with clear rationale"
+  - "[ ] Go/No-Go verdict with playbook and kill criteria"
+---
+
+# Task: Scaling Decision Analysis
+
+**Task ID:** BOARD-004
+**Version:** 1.0.0
+**Command:** `*evaluate-scaling`
+**Agent:** Board Chair routes to Reid Hoffman + Peter Thiel + Naval Ravikant
+**Purpose:** Evaluate whether and how to scale a business, product, or team.
+
+---
+
+## Inputs
+
+| Input | Source | Required |
+|-------|--------|----------|
+| `business_description` | Current state of the business | YES |
+| `scaling_trigger` | Why scaling is being considered now | YES |
+| `current_metrics` | Revenue, users, growth rate, unit economics | PREFERRED |
+| `resources_available` | Capital, team, infrastructure | PREFERRED |
+| `market_context` | Market size, competition, timing | NO |
+| `constraints` | Limitations, values, non-negotiables | NO |
+
+## Preconditions
+
+1. Business has some form of product-market fit (or believes it does)
+2. Scaling is being actively considered as a strategic move
+3. Basic metrics or traction data is available
+
+## Execution Phases
+
+### Phase 1: Assess Readiness
+
+**Reid Hoffman — Blitzscaling Readiness:**
+1. Is there a large, growing market? (TAM analysis)
+2. Is there product-market fit? (retention, referral, organic growth)
+3. Are there network effects? (does the product get better with more users?)
+4. Do you have distribution advantage? (viral, embedded, paid scalable?)
+5. Is there a first-scaler advantage? (winner-take-most dynamics?)
+6. Rate blitzscaling readiness: NOT READY / APPROACHING / READY / OVERDUE
+
+**Peter Thiel — Monopoly Assessment:**
+1. Are you dominating a small market? (You should be #1 or #2 in a niche)
+2. What is your secret? (What do you know that others do not?)
+3. Can you achieve monopoly in a defined space?
+4. Is your technology 10x better (not just incrementally)?
+5. Are you building proprietary technology, network effects, economies of scale, or brand?
+6. Rate monopoly potential: WEAK / MODERATE / STRONG
+
+**Naval Ravikant — Leverage Analysis:**
+1. Are you applying leverage? (Code, media, capital, labor — in that order of preference)
+2. Do you have specific knowledge? (Something the market cannot easily replicate)
+3. Are you building assets that earn while you sleep?
+4. Is this a compounding opportunity? (Does each unit of effort build on the last?)
+5. What is the accountability structure? (Who has skin in the game?)
+6. Rate leverage position: LOW / MEDIUM / HIGH
+
+### Phase 2: Identify Scaling Strategy
+
+1. **Speed vs Efficiency** — Should you prioritize growth speed or unit economics?
+   - Hoffman: Speed when market is winner-take-most
+   - Thiel: Efficiency when building monopoly in a niche
+   - Naval: Leverage when you can scale without proportional effort
+2. **Horizontal vs Vertical** — Expand breadth (more markets) or depth (more value)?
+3. **Organic vs Inorganic** — Grow internally or through acquisition/partnership?
+4. **Capital Strategy** — Bootstrap, raise venture, or revenue-fund growth?
+5. Map the scaling sequence — what must be true at each stage
+
+### Phase 3: Risk Assessment
+
+1. **Premature scaling risks** — Scaling before product-market fit is the #1 startup killer
+2. **Execution risk** — Can your team handle 10x complexity?
+3. **Culture risk** — Will rapid growth break your culture? (Hoffman's "firefighting" phase)
+4. **Financial risk** — What is the burn rate during scaling? Runway?
+5. **Market risk** — Is the timing right? Could the window close?
+6. **Competitive risk** — Will scaling invite retaliation from incumbents?
+7. Apply Thiel's definite optimism test — do you have a specific plan, not just hope?
+
+### Phase 4: Go/No-Go Recommendation
+
+1. Synthesize readiness, strategy, and risk assessments
+2. Deliver a clear verdict:
+   - **GO — Scale Now** — Market timing, readiness, and resources align
+   - **CONDITIONAL GO** — Scale after specific conditions are met (list them)
+   - **NO-GO — Not Ready** — Specify what must change before reconsidering
+   - **PIVOT** — Scaling the current approach is wrong; redirect first
+3. If GO: Define the scaling playbook (first 90 days, 6 months, 12 months)
+4. Define success metrics and checkpoints at each stage
+5. Establish kill criteria — what would make you stop scaling and reassess
+
+## Output Format
+
+```yaml
+scaling_evaluation:
+  advisors: [reid-hoffman, peter-thiel, naval-ravikant]
+  readiness:
+    hoffman_blitzscaling: "NOT_READY | APPROACHING | READY | OVERDUE"
+    thiel_monopoly: "WEAK | MODERATE | STRONG"
+    naval_leverage: "LOW | MEDIUM | HIGH"
+  strategy:
+    approach: "speed | efficiency | leverage"
+    direction: "horizontal | vertical"
+    growth_type: "organic | inorganic | hybrid"
+    capital_strategy: "bootstrap | venture | revenue-funded"
+  risks:
+    premature_scaling: "{assessment}"
+    execution: "{assessment}"
+    culture: "{assessment}"
+    financial: "{assessment}"
+    market: "{assessment}"
+    competitive: "{assessment}"
+  verdict: "GO | CONDITIONAL_GO | NO_GO | PIVOT"
+  conditions: ["{if conditional}"]
+  playbook:
+    days_90: ["{first actions}"]
+    months_6: ["{medium-term actions}"]
+    months_12: ["{long-term actions}"]
+  success_metrics: ["{what to measure}"]
+  kill_criteria: ["{when to stop}"]
+```
+
+## Veto Conditions
+
+- **NEVER** recommend scaling without evidence of product-market fit
+- **NEVER** ignore unit economics — growth without margins is just expensive failure
+- **NEVER** recommend blitzscaling when there is no first-scaler advantage
+- **NEVER** skip the risk assessment — overconfidence kills more companies than competition
+- **NEVER** recommend scaling if it conflicts with the founder's core values (ask first)
+
+## Completion Criteria
+
+- [ ] Blitzscaling readiness assessed (Hoffman)
+- [ ] Monopoly potential evaluated (Thiel)
+- [ ] Leverage position analyzed (Naval)
+- [ ] Scaling strategy identified with clear rationale
+- [ ] Risk assessment completed across all dimensions
+- [ ] Clear Go/No-Go verdict with reasoning
+- [ ] Playbook defined with metrics and kill criteria