invos 1.0.0

package/kit/.agents/squads/advisory-board/tasks/get-founder-counsel.md

@@ -0,0 +1,169 @@
+---
+task: getFounderCounsel()
+responsavel: "@board-chair"
+responsavel_type: Agent
+atomic_layer: Task
+elicit: true
+
+Entrada:
+  - campo: crossroads_description
+    tipo: string
+    origem: User Input
+    obrigatorio: true
+  - campo: founder_context
+    tipo: string
+    origem: User Input
+    obrigatorio: true
+
+Saida:
+  - campo: founder_counsel
+    tipo: string
+    destino: Console
+    persistido: false
+
+Checklist:
+  - "[ ] All three advisor perspectives delivered (Sivers, Chouinard, Naval)"
+  - "[ ] Contrarian check completed with regret minimization"
+  - "[ ] Decision framework offered with journaling prompt"
+---
+
+# Task: Founder Crossroads Counsel
+
+**Task ID:** BOARD-005
+**Version:** 1.0.0
+**Command:** `*get-founder-counsel`
+**Agent:** Board Chair routes to Derek Sivers + Yvon Chouinard + Naval Ravikant
+**Purpose:** Provide wisdom and perspective for founders at critical life/business decision points.
+
+---
+
+## Inputs
+
+| Input | Source | Required |
+|-------|--------|----------|
+| `crossroads_description` | The decision or dilemma | YES |
+| `founder_context` | Stage, values, personal situation | YES |
+| `options_considered` | Paths being weighed | PREFERRED |
+| `fears_and_hopes` | What they are afraid of and what they want | PREFERRED |
+| `constraints` | Non-negotiables, commitments | NO |
+
+## Preconditions
+
+1. Founder is facing a genuine crossroads (not a trivial decision)
+2. Context about the founder's situation and values is available
+3. Openness to unconventional or contrarian perspectives
+
+## Execution Phases
+
+### Phase 1: Frame the Crossroads (board-chair)
+
+1. Clarify the decision in precise terms — what exactly must be decided?
+2. Identify the type of crossroads:
+   - **Start vs Stay** — Leave security for entrepreneurship
+   - **Grow vs Stay Small** — Scale or maintain a lifestyle business
+   - **Sell vs Keep** — Exit offer on the table
+   - **Pivot vs Persist** — The current path is not working
+   - **Solo vs Partner** — Go alone or bring in co-founders/investors
+   - **Burnout Crossroads** — Keep going or step back for health
+3. Map the emotional landscape — what fears and hopes are driving the decision?
+4. Identify hidden assumptions — what is being taken for granted?
+5. Route to the three founder-philosopher advisors
+
+### Phase 2: Multiple Perspectives
+
+**Derek Sivers — Contrarian Simplicity:**
+1. Apply the "Hell Yeah or No" test — does this option make you say "HELL YEAH!"?
+2. Check for conventional thinking — are you doing this because "everyone says you should"?
+3. Apply the "opposite is also true" principle — what if the opposite path is right?
+4. Assess simplicity — which option is simpler? Complexity is usually a warning sign
+5. Consider the "happy to be wrong" scenario — which choice would you be happiest to be wrong about?
+6. Key question: "What would you do if you knew no one would judge you?"
+
+**Yvon Chouinard — Mission-Driven Wisdom:**
+1. Does this align with your deepest values? (Not your stated values — your REAL values)
+2. What is the environmental and social impact of each path?
+3. Apply the 100-year lens — which decision will you be proud of in the very long term?
+4. Is this about growth or about quality? (Chouinard always chose quality)
+5. Can you "let my people go surfing" — does this path allow for a full, balanced life?
+6. Key question: "What does the planet (and your community) need you to do?"
+
+**Naval Ravikant — First Principles Wisdom:**
+1. Apply specific knowledge — what are you uniquely suited to do?
+2. Assess leverage — which path creates the most leverage (code > media > capital > labor)?
+3. Check for playing status games — are you chasing status or creating wealth?
+4. Apply the "40-year-old test" — which path leads to freedom and peace at 40, 50, 60?
+5. Consider compounding — which choice compounds best over decades?
+6. Key question: "Which path makes you the most interesting and fulfilled version of yourself?"
+
+### Phase 3: Contrarian Check
+
+1. For each path, find the strongest argument AGAINST it
+2. Identify which fears are legitimate and which are ego-driven
+3. Check for "golden handcuffs" — is comfort masquerading as wisdom?
+4. Apply the "regret minimization framework" — at 80, which choice will you regret NOT making?
+5. Test for reversibility — is this a one-way door or a two-way door? (Two-way doors need less deliberation)
+6. Ask: "What would you advise your best friend to do in this situation?"
+
+### Phase 4: Decision Framework
+
+1. Synthesize all three perspectives into a coherent picture
+2. Identify the core tension — what is the real tradeoff?
+3. Present the decision not as right/wrong but as different-life-paths
+4. Offer a decision framework:
+   - If values-driven → lean on Chouinard's lens
+   - If freedom-driven → lean on Naval's lens
+   - If happiness-driven → lean on Sivers' lens
+5. Suggest a small experiment before committing (if possible)
+6. Provide a journaling prompt for the founder to process before deciding
+7. Remind: The decision itself matters less than the commitment to make it work
+
+## Output Format
+
+```yaml
+founder_counsel:
+  advisors: [derek-sivers, yvon-chouinard, naval-ravikant]
+  crossroads: "{description}"
+  type: "{crossroads type}"
+  perspectives:
+    sivers:
+      hell_yeah_test: "{result}"
+      contrarian_view: "{what if the opposite is true}"
+      key_insight: "{core wisdom}"
+    chouinard:
+      values_alignment: "{assessment}"
+      long_term_lens: "{100-year perspective}"
+      key_insight: "{core wisdom}"
+    naval:
+      leverage_analysis: "{which path has more leverage}"
+      specific_knowledge: "{what are you uniquely suited for}"
+      key_insight: "{core wisdom}"
+  contrarian_check:
+    strongest_argument_against: "{for each path}"
+    regret_minimization: "{at 80, what would you regret}"
+    reversibility: "one-way | two-way"
+  synthesis:
+    core_tension: "{the real tradeoff}"
+    framework: "{decision lens recommendation}"
+    experiment: "{small test before committing}"
+    journaling_prompt: "{for personal reflection}"
+  closing_wisdom: |
+    {A synthesized, personal message from the board}
+```
+
+## Veto Conditions
+
+- **NEVER** make the decision for the founder — provide wisdom, not directives
+- **NEVER** dismiss emotional concerns as irrational — feelings are data
+- **NEVER** push toward conventional success if the founder values unconventional living
+- **NEVER** rush the decision — crossroads deserve deliberation
+- **NEVER** ignore the human behind the business — health, relationships, and joy matter
+
+## Completion Criteria
+
+- [ ] Crossroads clearly framed with type identified
+- [ ] All three advisor perspectives delivered through their unique lenses
+- [ ] Contrarian check completed for each path
+- [ ] Regret minimization and reversibility assessed
+- [ ] Core tension identified and named
+- [ ] Decision framework offered (not a directive)
+- [ ] Journaling prompt or experiment suggested for reflection

package/kit/.agents/squads/advisory-board/tasks/resolve-culture-crisis.md

@@ -0,0 +1,164 @@
+---
+task: resolveCultureCrisis()
+responsavel: "@board-chair"
+responsavel_type: Agent
+atomic_layer: Task
+elicit: true
+
+Entrada:
+  - campo: crisis_description
+    tipo: string
+    origem: User Input
+    obrigatorio: true
+  - campo: symptoms
+    tipo: string
+    origem: User Input
+    obrigatorio: true
+
+Saida:
+  - campo: culture_resolution
+    tipo: string
+    destino: Console
+    persistido: false
+
+Checklist:
+  - "[ ] All three diagnostic frameworks applied"
+  - "[ ] Root cause identified with causal chain mapped"
+  - "[ ] Implementation plan with quick wins and measurement criteria"
+---
+
+# Task: Culture & Team Dysfunction Resolution
+
+**Task ID:** BOARD-003
+**Version:** 1.0.0
+**Command:** `*resolve-culture-crisis`
+**Agent:** Board Chair routes to Simon Sinek + Brene Brown + Patrick Lencioni
+**Purpose:** Diagnose and resolve organizational culture dysfunction or team breakdown.
+
+---
+
+## Inputs
+
+| Input | Source | Required |
+|-------|--------|----------|
+| `crisis_description` | User prompt | YES |
+| `team_size` | Number of people affected | PREFERRED |
+| `symptoms` | Observable behaviors and problems | YES |
+| `duration` | How long has this been happening | PREFERRED |
+| `previous_interventions` | What has been tried already | NO |
+| `organizational_context` | Company stage, industry, values | NO |
+
+## Preconditions
+
+1. Culture or team dysfunction is acknowledged
+2. Observable symptoms are described (not just a vague feeling)
+3. Willingness to address root causes, not just symptoms
+
+## Execution Phases
+
+### Phase 1: Diagnose Dysfunction
+
+**Patrick Lencioni — Five Dysfunctions Assessment:**
+1. **Absence of Trust** — Do team members hide weaknesses and mistakes?
+2. **Fear of Conflict** — Do they avoid difficult conversations?
+3. **Lack of Commitment** — Do they fail to buy into decisions?
+4. **Avoidance of Accountability** — Do they avoid calling out peers?
+5. **Inattention to Results** — Do they prioritize individual status over team goals?
+6. Identify which dysfunction is the primary root (they cascade from trust downward)
+7. Assess severity: early warning, established pattern, or crisis
+
+**Brene Brown — Vulnerability Assessment:**
+1. Is there psychological safety to be honest and imperfect?
+2. Are people armoring up (perfectionism, cynicism, numbing)?
+3. Is there a gap between espoused values and practiced values?
+4. What stories are people telling themselves about the situation?
+5. Is shame present — are people afraid of being seen as inadequate?
+
+**Simon Sinek — Purpose Alignment Check:**
+1. Is the WHY clear and shared across the team?
+2. Has the organization drifted from its founding purpose?
+3. Are people playing a finite game (winning) or infinite game (sustaining)?
+4. Is there a just cause that inspires the team?
+5. Are leaders serving the people, or are people serving the leaders?
+
+### Phase 2: Identify Root Cause
+
+1. Cross-reference all three diagnostic frameworks
+2. Identify the deepest root — usually trust or purpose, not the visible symptom
+3. Trace the causal chain: root cause → cascade → visible symptoms
+4. Determine if this is a people problem, process problem, or leadership problem
+5. Assess whether leadership is part of the cause or part of the solution
+6. Identify the one intervention that would have the highest leverage
+
+### Phase 3: Design Intervention
+
+**For Trust Deficit (Lencioni lead):**
+1. Personal histories exercise — build vulnerability-based trust
+2. Behavioral profiling — understand each other's working styles
+3. Team effectiveness exercise — open discussion of strengths and weaknesses
+4. Leader goes first — vulnerability must come from the top
+
+**For Courage Deficit (Brown lead):**
+1. Name the armor — what defensive behaviors are present?
+2. Rumble with vulnerability — facilitated conversations about hard topics
+3. Values clarification — align stated values with actual behavior
+4. Clear is kind — establish norms for direct, compassionate feedback
+
+**For Purpose Deficit (Sinek lead):**
+1. Rediscover the WHY — what originally inspired the team/company?
+2. Find the Just Cause — what is the long-term vision worth fighting for?
+3. Establish infinite game mindset — shift from "beating competitors" to "advancing the cause"
+4. Identify worthy rivals — learn from others instead of trying to destroy them
+
+### Phase 4: Implementation Plan
+
+1. Sequence interventions — address root cause first, then downstream effects
+2. Define quick wins — what can improve within 1 week?
+3. Define structural changes — what needs 30-90 days?
+4. Assign leadership responsibilities — who drives each intervention?
+5. Set measurement criteria — how will you know it is working?
+6. Plan check-ins — weekly for first month, then bi-weekly
+7. Define escalation triggers — what signals the intervention is not working?
+
+## Output Format
+
+```yaml
+culture_resolution:
+  advisors: [simon-sinek, brene-brown, patrick-lencioni]
+  diagnosis:
+    lencioni_dysfunction: "{primary dysfunction}"
+    brown_vulnerability: "{courage assessment}"
+    sinek_purpose: "{alignment assessment}"
+    root_cause: "{deepest root}"
+    causal_chain: "{root → cascade → symptoms}"
+    severity: "early_warning | established | crisis"
+  intervention:
+    primary: "{highest leverage intervention}"
+    trust_building: ["{specific exercises}"]
+    courage_building: ["{specific practices}"]
+    purpose_alignment: ["{specific actions}"]
+  implementation:
+    week_1: ["{quick wins}"]
+    month_1: ["{structural changes}"]
+    month_3: ["{sustained practices}"]
+    measurement: ["{success indicators}"]
+    escalation_triggers: ["{warning signs}"]
+```
+
+## Veto Conditions
+
+- **NEVER** blame individuals — focus on systems, patterns, and leadership
+- **NEVER** skip the trust assessment — trust is the foundation of everything
+- **NEVER** recommend surface-level fixes (team building events) without addressing root cause
+- **NEVER** ignore the role of leadership in the dysfunction
+- **NEVER** rush the process — culture change takes time and consistent effort
+
+## Completion Criteria
+
+- [ ] All three diagnostic frameworks applied
+- [ ] Root cause identified with causal chain mapped
+- [ ] Severity assessed (early warning / established / crisis)
+- [ ] Intervention designed addressing root cause first
+- [ ] Implementation plan with quick wins and structural changes
+- [ ] Measurement criteria defined
+- [ ] Escalation triggers established

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

@@ -0,0 +1,133 @@
+---
+task: reviewStrategicCounsel()
+responsavel: "@board-chair"
+responsavel_type: Agent
+atomic_layer: Task
+elicit: true
+
+Entrada:
+  - campo: specialist_output
+    tipo: string
+    origem: Specialist Agent
+    obrigatorio: true
+  - campo: original_request
+    tipo: string
+    origem: User Input
+    obrigatorio: true
+
+Saida:
+  - campo: review_report
+    tipo: string
+    destino: Console
+    persistido: false
+
+Checklist:
+  - "[ ] All checklist items evaluated and scored"
+  - "[ ] Verdict rendered (APPROVE/REVISE/REJECT)"
+  - "[ ] Perspective breadth and risk coverage assessed"
+---
+
+# Task: Review Strategic Counsel Output
+
+**Task ID:** ADVISORY-CHIEF-002
+**Version:** 1.0.0
+**Command:** `*review`
+**Orchestrator:** Board Chair (board-chair)
+**Purpose:** Review specialist output against quality checklist, score, and approve or request revision.
+
+---
+
+## Inputs
+
+| Field | Type | Source | Required | Validation |
+|-------|------|--------|----------|------------|
+| specialist_output | string | Specialist agent | Yes | Non-empty deliverable |
+| original_request | string | User prompt | Yes | The original request that triggered the work |
+| specialist_id | string | Routing | Yes | Agent ID that produced the output |
+
+---
+
+## Preconditions
+
+- Specialist has completed their task and produced output
+- Output quality checklist is available at checklists/output-quality.md
+
+---
+
+## Execution Phases
+
+### Phase 1: Understand Context
+
+1. Re-read the original user request
+2. Identify what was asked vs what was delivered
+3. Note the specialist who produced the output
+4. Identify the advisory domain: strategy, finance, operations, market entry, partnerships, governance
+5. Determine the decision gravity: reversible/low-stakes vs irreversible/high-stakes
+
+### Phase 2: Apply Quality Checklist
+
+1. Load checklists/output-quality.md
+2. Evaluate each item against the specialist output
+3. Mark each item: [x] Pass, [ ] Fail, [N/A] Not Applicable
+4. Count CRITICAL failures and total failures
+5. Pay special attention to: multi-perspective analysis, risk identification, assumption transparency, and actionability
+
+### Phase 3: Score and Decide
+
+| Score | Verdict | Action |
+|-------|---------|--------|
+| All CRITICAL pass, < 2 non-critical fail | APPROVE | Deliver to user |
+| All CRITICAL pass, 2+ non-critical fail | REVISE | Return to specialist with specific feedback |
+| Any CRITICAL fail | REJECT | Return to specialist, block delivery |
+
+### Phase 4: Output
+
+Produce review report with verdict, score, and feedback.
+
+---
+
+## Output Format
+
+```markdown
+## Review Report
+
+**Specialist:** {name} ({id})
+**Verdict:** {APPROVE | REVISE | REJECT}
+**Score:** {X}/{total} items passed
+
+### Passed
+- {items that passed}
+
+### Issues Found
+- [{CRITICAL|WARN}] {description} — {recommendation}
+
+### Advisory-Specific Notes
+- Perspective breadth: {assessment}
+- Risk coverage: {assessment}
+- Decision readiness: {assessment}
+
+### Recommendation
+{Next step: deliver / revise specific items / redo}
+```
+
+---
+
+## Veto Conditions
+
+- NEVER approve output with CRITICAL failures
+- NEVER reject without providing specific, actionable feedback
+- NEVER modify the specialist's output — only review and provide feedback
+- NEVER approve counsel that considers only one perspective or scenario
+- NEVER approve recommendations without stated assumptions and risks
+
+---
+
+## Completion Criteria
+
+- [ ] Original request re-read and understood
+- [ ] Advisory domain and decision gravity identified
+- [ ] All checklist items evaluated
+- [ ] Score calculated
+- [ ] Verdict rendered (APPROVE/REVISE/REJECT)
+- [ ] Specific feedback provided for any failures
+- [ ] Perspective breadth and risk coverage individually assessed

package/kit/.agents/squads/advisory-board/tasks/seek-investment-counsel.md

@@ -0,0 +1,161 @@
+---
+task: seekInvestmentCounsel()
+responsavel: "@board-chair"
+responsavel_type: Agent
+atomic_layer: Task
+elicit: true
+
+Entrada:
+  - campo: opportunity_description
+    tipo: string
+    origem: User Input
+    obrigatorio: true
+  - campo: financial_data
+    tipo: string
+    origem: User Input
+    obrigatorio: false
+
+Saida:
+  - campo: investment_counsel
+    tipo: string
+    destino: Console
+    persistido: false
+
+Checklist:
+  - "[ ] All three analyses (Dalio, Munger, Thiel) completed"
+  - "[ ] Clear recommendation with terms or conditions"
+  - "[ ] Kill criteria and monitoring framework defined"
+---
+
+# Task: Investment Committee Session
+
+**Task ID:** BOARD-002
+**Version:** 1.0.0
+**Command:** `*seek-investment-counsel`
+**Agent:** Board Chair routes to Ray Dalio + Charlie Munger + Peter Thiel
+**Purpose:** Evaluate an investment or major financial decision through multiple analytical lenses.
+
+---
+
+## Inputs
+
+| Input | Source | Required |
+|-------|--------|----------|
+| `opportunity_description` | User prompt | YES |
+| `financial_data` | Revenue, costs, projections | PREFERRED |
+| `investment_amount` | Capital required | PREFERRED |
+| `market_context` | Industry, competition, timing | PREFERRED |
+| `risk_appetite` | Conservative, moderate, aggressive | NO |
+| `time_horizon` | Short-term, medium, long-term | NO |
+
+## Preconditions
+
+1. Investment opportunity or financial decision is described
+2. At least basic financial context is available
+3. Decision-maker's constraints and values are understood
+
+## Execution Phases
+
+### Phase 1: Present Opportunity (board-chair)
+
+1. Frame the opportunity in clear terms — what is being considered?
+2. Summarize available financial data and projections
+3. Identify the decision: invest/pass, amount, terms, timing
+4. Map known risks and unknowns
+5. Route to the investment committee: Dalio, Munger, Thiel
+
+### Phase 2: Risk Analysis
+
+**Ray Dalio — Principles-Based Analysis:**
+1. Apply radical transparency — what are the uncomfortable truths?
+2. Stress-test assumptions — what if projections are 50% wrong?
+3. Assess systematic risk — is this correlated with macro factors?
+4. Apply pain + reflection = progress — what does past experience teach?
+5. Calculate expected value — probability-weighted outcomes
+6. Check: Does this align with established investment principles?
+
+**Charlie Munger — Mental Models Analysis:**
+1. Apply inversion — what would make this fail? Work backwards from disaster
+2. Check for cognitive biases — confirmation bias, FOMO, sunk cost, anchoring
+3. Assess circle of competence — do you truly understand this domain?
+4. Apply Lollapalooza effect — are multiple forces combining (for or against)?
+5. Check the moat — what is the durable competitive advantage?
+6. Apply the "newspaper test" — would you be proud of this decision on the front page?
+
+**Peter Thiel — Zero-to-One Analysis:**
+1. Is this a 0-to-1 opportunity (creating something new) or 1-to-n (copying)?
+2. What is the secret — what do you believe that most people do not?
+3. Can this become a monopoly in a small market before expanding?
+4. Apply definite optimism — is there a specific plan, not just hope?
+5. Assess the power law — could this be a 100x return, or is it incremental?
+6. Check last mover advantage — will this be the definitive solution?
+
+### Phase 3: Mental Models Application
+
+1. Compile all three analyses side by side
+2. Identify where all three agree (high-confidence signal)
+3. Identify where they disagree (requires deeper analysis)
+4. Apply second-order thinking — what happens AFTER the first move?
+5. Calculate the asymmetry — is the upside much larger than the downside?
+6. Run the pre-mortem — imagine it failed, what was the cause?
+
+### Phase 4: Recommendation
+
+1. Synthesize into a clear invest/pass/conditional recommendation
+2. If invest: recommended terms, amount, and conditions
+3. If pass: what would need to change to reconsider
+4. If conditional: specific milestones or information needed
+5. Define kill criteria — what triggers exiting the investment
+6. Provide monitoring framework — what metrics to track
+
+## Output Format
+
+```yaml
+investment_counsel:
+  opportunity: "{description}"
+  committee: [ray-dalio, charlie-munger, peter-thiel]
+  analyses:
+    dalio:
+      principles_assessment: "{analysis}"
+      expected_value: "{calculation}"
+      stress_test: "{worst case}"
+      verdict: "INVEST | PASS | CONDITIONAL"
+    munger:
+      mental_models_applied: ["{models used}"]
+      inversion_result: "{failure scenarios}"
+      bias_check: ["{biases identified}"]
+      verdict: "INVEST | PASS | CONDITIONAL"
+    thiel:
+      zero_to_one: "{is this creating something new?}"
+      monopoly_potential: "{assessment}"
+      power_law_fit: "{could this be a 100x?}"
+      verdict: "INVEST | PASS | CONDITIONAL"
+  synthesis:
+    agreement: ["{convergence}"]
+    disagreement: ["{divergence}"]
+    asymmetry: "{upside vs downside}"
+  recommendation:
+    verdict: "INVEST | PASS | CONDITIONAL"
+    terms: "{if invest}"
+    conditions: "{if conditional}"
+    kill_criteria: ["{exit triggers}"]
+    monitoring: ["{key metrics}"]
+```
+
+## Veto Conditions
+
+- **NEVER** recommend investing without stress-testing assumptions
+- **NEVER** skip the inversion exercise — always consider how it could fail
+- **NEVER** ignore cognitive biases in the analysis
+- **NEVER** recommend based on FOMO or social proof alone
+- **NEVER** present a recommendation without defining kill criteria
+
+## Completion Criteria
+
+- [ ] Opportunity framed with available financial data
+- [ ] Dalio's principles-based analysis completed with stress test
+- [ ] Munger's mental models applied with inversion and bias check
+- [ ] Thiel's zero-to-one analysis completed with monopoly assessment
+- [ ] Analyses synthesized with agreement and disagreement mapped
+- [ ] Clear recommendation with terms or conditions
+- [ ] Kill criteria and monitoring framework defined