invos 1.0.0

package/kit/.agents/squads/brand/tasks/logo-evaluation.md

@@ -0,0 +1,103 @@
+# Logo Evaluation
+
+```yaml
+task:
+  task_name: "Evaluate Logo Design"
+  status: pending
+  responsible_executor: sagi-haviv
+  execution_type: Agent
+  estimated_time: "30-60min"
+  elicit: true
+
+  input:
+    - "Logo file/description"
+    - "Brand strategy context"
+    - "Competitor logos"
+
+  output:
+    - "5-pillar evaluation scorecard"
+    - "Simplicity test results"
+    - "Recommendations"
+
+  action_items:
+    - step: 1
+      name: "5-Pillar Evaluation"
+      description: |
+        Score 1-10 on each:
+        1. APPROPRIATENESS — Does it fit the brand personality?
+        2. DISTINCTIVENESS — Is it ownable in its category?
+        3. SIMPLICITY — Can you describe in 10 words? Sketch from memory?
+        4. MEMORABILITY — Does it stick after one viewing?
+        5. TIMELESSNESS — Will it look relevant in 10+ years?
+
+    - step: 2
+      name: "Simplicity Test"
+      description: |
+        5 questions (pass/fail):
+        1. Describable in 10 words or fewer?
+        2. Sketchable from memory?
+        3. Recognizable at 16px?
+        4. Works in one color?
+        5. Could a child approximate it?
+
+    - step: 3
+      name: "Application Check"
+      description: |
+        Does the logo work in:
+        - Horizontal lockup
+        - Vertical/stacked lockup
+        - Icon only
+        - Favicon (16x16, 32x32)
+        - Social avatar (circular)
+        - Monochrome (black, white, reversed)
+        - On dark backgrounds
+        - On light backgrounds
+        - At billboard scale
+
+    - step: 4
+      name: "Recommendations"
+      description: |
+        Based on scores:
+        - 40+/50: Strong logo. Minor refinements only.
+        - 30-39: Good foundation. Specific improvements needed.
+        - 20-29: Significant weaknesses. Major rework recommended.
+        - <20: Does not meet minimum standards. Redesign.
+
+  output_example: |
+    ## Logo Evaluation: Synkra
+
+    **5-Pillar Scorecard:**
+    | Pillar | Score | Finding |
+    |--------|-------|---------|
+    | Appropriateness | 8/10 | Geometric precision matches tech/orchestration personality |
+    | Distinctiveness | 7/10 | Ownable in dev tools; slightly generic in broader tech |
+    | Simplicity | 9/10 | Three interlocking arcs — describable, sketchable |
+    | Memorability | 7/10 | Clean shape sticks; needs more character to reach 9+ |
+    | Timelessness | 8/10 | No gradients or trends; pure geometry ages well |
+    | **Total** | **39/50** | **Good foundation. Minor refinements needed.** |
+
+    **Simplicity Test:** 4/5 PASS
+    - Describable in 10 words: PASS ("Three arcs forming an S-shape")
+    - Sketchable from memory: PASS
+    - Recognizable at 16px: PASS
+    - Works in one color: PASS
+    - Child could approximate: FAIL (arc alignment too precise)
+
+    **Application Check:** All formats work. Favicon strong. Circular crop needs padding adjustment.
+
+    **Recommendation:** Score 39/50 — strong logo. Refine arc weight for better 16px rendering. Consider adding a subtle detail to boost memorability.
+
+  acceptance_criteria:
+    - "All 5 pillars scored"
+    - "Simplicity test completed"
+    - "Application check documented"
+    - "Clear recommendations provided"
+
+  veto_conditions:
+    - "Logo fails 3+ simplicity test questions → recommend redesign"
+    - "Logo scores <5 on appropriateness → misaligned with brand"
+
+  handoff:
+    on_complete: "Pass recommendations to michael-johnson for brand guidelines integration"
+    deliverable: "Logo evaluation scorecard + recommendations"
+```

package/kit/.agents/squads/brand/tasks/movement-architecture.md

@@ -0,0 +1,136 @@
+# Movement Architecture
+
+```yaml
+task:
+  task_name: "Design Brand Movement Architecture"
+  status: pending
+  responsible_executor: emily-heyward
+  execution_type: Agent
+  estimated_time: "1-2h"
+  elicit: true
+
+  input:
+    - "Complete brand identity (strategy + positioning + name + visual)"
+    - "Business context"
+
+  output:
+    - "Brand Soul Canvas"
+    - "Movement architecture"
+    - "Emotional hook definition"
+    - "Touchpoint plan"
+    - "Launch narrative"
+
+  action_items:
+    - step: 1
+      name: "Identify Emotional Hook"
+      description: |
+        Ask:
+        1. What frustration exists in this category that NO ONE talks about?
+        2. What aspiration do customers have that current brands ignore?
+        3. What would make someone say "FINALLY, someone gets it"?
+
+        The emotional hook = the gap between what exists and what should exist.
+
+    - step: 2
+      name: "Build Brand Narrative"
+      description: |
+        Three-act structure:
+        1. TENSION: The world is broken because [shared enemy]
+        2. BELIEF: We believe [brand worldview]
+        3. RESOLUTION: That's why we built [brand] to [transformation]
+
+        Test: Would someone share this story with a friend?
+
+    - step: 3
+      name: "Complete Brand Soul Canvas"
+      description: |
+        Fill all 7 blocks:
+        | Block | Content |
+        |-------|---------|
+        | Founding Myth | The story of the struggle that birthed the brand |
+        | The Why | Why would the world be worse without this brand? |
+        | Shared Enemy | The status quo you exist to disrupt |
+        | Sacred Values | 3-5 non-negotiables (hiring/firing decisions) |
+        | Rituals | Internal + external behaviors reinforcing identity |
+        | The Lexicon | Specific language used by the tribe |
+        | Brand Tension | Two opposing forces the brand balances |
+
+    - step: 4
+      name: "Design Movement Architecture"
+      description: |
+        1. SHARED ENEMY: What are we fighting against?
+        2. RALLYING CRY: What's our battle call? (not a tagline — a belief)
+        3. TRIBE RITUALS: What do our believers DO?
+           - Onboarding ritual (first experience)
+           - Regular ritual (recurring engagement)
+           - Initiation ritual (becoming an insider)
+        4. TRIBE SIGNALS: How do members recognize each other?
+        5. ESCALATION: How do casual users become evangelists?
+
+    - step: 5
+      name: "Touchpoint Plan"
+      description: |
+        For each touchpoint, define how it reinforces the brand belief:
+        1. Website above the fold — First impression
+        2. Onboarding flow — First experience
+        3. Packaging/unboxing — Physical encounter
+        4. Email communications — Ongoing relationship
+        5. Social media — Public personality
+        6. Customer support — Crisis moment
+        7. Error states — When things go wrong
+        8. Success moments — Celebration
+
+    - step: 6
+      name: "Launch Narrative"
+      description: |
+        Create the story for launch:
+        - Who are we?
+        - Why now?
+        - What do we believe?
+        - What are we fighting against?
+        - What happens when you join us?
+
+        Format: 500-word brand manifesto.
+
+  output_example: |
+    ## Brand Soul Canvas — Synkra
+
+    | Block | Content |
+    |-------|---------|
+    | Founding Myth | Born from the chaos of managing 12 AI tools that didn't talk to each other |
+    | The Why | Without Synkra, dev teams drown in AI tool fragmentation |
+    | Shared Enemy | The "AI tool sprawl" — 50 AI products, zero orchestration |
+    | Sacred Values | 1. Clarity over complexity 2. Systems over hacks 3. Human judgment first |
+    | Rituals | Weekly "orchestration review," onboarding "first flow" moment |
+    | The Lexicon | "Orchestrate" not "automate," "squad" not "team," "flow" not "pipeline" |
+    | Brand Tension | Powerful capability x Simple interface |
+
+    ## Movement Architecture
+    - **Shared Enemy:** The fragmented AI stack that wastes 40% of dev time
+    - **Rallying Cry:** "One system to orchestrate them all"
+    - **Tribe Rituals:**
+      - Onboarding: First successful multi-agent flow (the "aha" moment)
+      - Regular: Weekly orchestration review with squad metrics
+      - Initiation: Publishing your first custom squad template
+    - **Escalation Path:** User → Power user → Squad builder → Community contributor
+
+    ## Emotional Hook
+    "You didn't become a developer to babysit 12 disconnected AI tools.
+    You became a developer to build things that matter."
+
+  acceptance_criteria:
+    - "Brand Soul Canvas all 7 blocks filled"
+    - "Emotional hook is specific and resonant"
+    - "Movement architecture has shared enemy"
+    - "Touchpoint plan covers 8 key moments"
+    - "Launch narrative is emotion-first"
+
+  veto_conditions:
+    - "No emotional hook → VETO"
+    - "Brand narrative leads with features → VETO"
+    - "Sacred values are generic → VETO"
+
+  handoff:
+    on_complete: "Present to brand-chief for final review"
+    deliverable: "Brand Soul Canvas + Movement Architecture + Launch Narrative"
+```

package/kit/.agents/squads/brand/tasks/naming-exercise.md

@@ -0,0 +1,134 @@
+# Naming Exercise
+
+```yaml
+task:
+  task_name: "Execute Brand Naming"
+  status: pending
+  responsible_executor: alexandra-watkins
+  execution_type: Agent
+  estimated_time: "1-2h"
+  elicit: true
+
+  input:
+    - "Brand strategy document"
+    - "Positioning canvas"
+    - "Domain/trademark constraints"
+
+  output:
+    - "Naming creative brief"
+    - "50+ name candidates"
+    - "Top 5 finalists with SMILE/SCRATCH scores"
+    - "Recommended name with rationale"
+    - "Tagline options"
+
+  action_items:
+    - step: 1
+      name: "Creative Brief"
+      description: |
+        Document:
+        1. What the brand does (one sentence)
+        2. Who it's for (target characteristics)
+        3. What it should FEEL like (3 adjectives)
+        4. What it should NOT feel like (3 adjectives)
+        5. Competitor names to AVOID similarity to
+        6. Constraints (domain availability, trademark, language)
+
+    - step: 2
+      name: "Name Storm"
+      description: |
+        Generate 50+ candidates using 8 techniques:
+        1. Word associations (from brand values)
+        2. Metaphors (what is the brand LIKE?)
+        3. Compound words (two words merged)
+        4. Portmanteaus (blended words)
+        5. Foreign words (relevant languages)
+        6. Mythology/history references
+        7. Evocative imagery (what picture does it paint?)
+        8. Sound symbolism (does it SOUND like what it is?)
+
+    - step: 3
+      name: "SMILE Test"
+      description: |
+        Score each candidate 1-5 on:
+        S = Suggestive (evokes brand meaning)
+        M = Memorable (sticks in memory)
+        I = Imagery (triggers visual)
+        L = Legs (extension potential)
+        E = Emotional (moves people)
+
+        Total possible: 25. Keep candidates scoring 18+.
+
+    - step: 4
+      name: "SCRATCH Test"
+      description: |
+        Eliminate if ANY apply:
+        S = Spelling-challenged (hard to spell)
+        C = Copycat (too similar to competitor)
+        R = Restrictive (limits future growth)
+        A = Annoying (forced puns, groan-worthy)
+        T = Tame (bland, forgettable)
+        C = Curse of Knowledge (insiders only)
+        H = Hard to pronounce (fails radio test)
+
+        One fail = elimination.
+
+    - step: 5
+      name: "Shortlist & Present"
+      description: |
+        Top 5-10 candidates:
+        - Name
+        - SMILE score (/25)
+        - SCRATCH result (PASS/FAIL per criterion)
+        - Rationale (why this name works)
+        - Domain check (available? alternatives?)
+        - Tagline pairing possibility
+
+    - step: 6
+      name: "Tagline Creation"
+      description: |
+        For the top 3 names, create 3 tagline options each.
+
+        Rules:
+        - 7 words or fewer
+        - Works without the brand name
+        - Passes the t-shirt test
+        - Types: Imperative, Descriptive, Provocative
+
+  output_example: |
+    ## Naming Exercise: Top 5 Finalists
+
+    | Rank | Name | SMILE | S | C | R | A | T | C | H | Rationale |
+    |------|------|-------|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|-----------|
+    | 1 | **Synkra** | 22/25 | P | P | P | P | P | P | P | Evokes "sync" + "craft"; short, ownable, global |
+    | 2 | Orkos | 20/25 | P | P | P | P | P | P | P | From "orchestrate"; strong, memorable |
+    | 3 | Condukt | 19/25 | P | P | P | P | P | F | P | "Conduct" as in orchestra; spelling may confuse |
+    | 4 | Fluxon | 19/25 | P | P | P | P | P | P | P | Flow + motion; modern feel |
+    | 5 | Agora | 18/25 | P | F | P | P | P | P | P | Greek marketplace; may conflict with existing brands |
+
+    **Recommendation:** Synkra
+    - SMILE breakdown: S=5, M=5, I=4, L=4, E=4
+    - Domain: synkra.com available
+    - Trademark: No conflicts in software class
+    - Why it wins: Instantly suggests synchronization and precision. Two syllables, globally pronounceable, no negative connotations in major languages.
+
+    **Tagline Options:**
+    1. "Orchestrate everything." (Imperative)
+    2. "Your agents. Your workflow." (Descriptive)
+    3. "Stop prompting. Start shipping." (Provocative)
+
+  acceptance_criteria:
+    - "50+ candidates generated and documented"
+    - "Top 5 all score 18+ on SMILE"
+    - "Top 5 all pass SCRATCH"
+    - "Recommended name has full rationale"
+    - "At least 3 tagline options"
+
+  veto_conditions:
+    - "Name fails SCRATCH → cannot be recommended"
+    - "Name requires explanation → VETO"
+    - "Fewer than 30 candidates generated → insufficient exploration"
+
+  handoff:
+    on_complete: "Pass to michael-johnson + sagi-haviv for visual identity"
+    deliverable: "Selected name + tagline + naming brief"
+```

package/kit/.agents/squads/brand/tasks/positioning-exercise.md

@@ -0,0 +1,146 @@
+# Positioning Exercise
+
+```yaml
+task:
+  task_name: "Execute Positioning Canvas"
+  status: pending
+  responsible_executor: april-dunford
+  execution_type: Agent
+  estimated_time: "1-2h"
+  elicit: true
+
+  input:
+    - "Brand strategy (from brand-diagnosis task)"
+    - "Competitor landscape"
+    - "Customer data/interviews (if available)"
+
+  output:
+    - "Positioning canvas (10 elements)"
+    - "One-sentence positioning statement"
+    - "Competitive alternatives map"
+    - "Target customer profile"
+
+  action_items:
+    - step: 1
+      name: "Map Competitive Alternatives"
+      description: |
+        Ask: "If your product didn't exist, what would customers use instead?"
+
+        List ALL alternatives including:
+        - Direct competitors (same category)
+        - Indirect competitors (different approach, same job)
+        - Status quo (spreadsheets, manual processes, doing nothing)
+
+        For each: What's good about it? What's bad?
+
+    - step: 2
+      name: "Identify Unique Attributes"
+      description: |
+        For each competitive alternative, ask:
+        "What features/capabilities do WE have that THEY don't?"
+
+        Rules:
+        - Must be objective facts, not opinions
+        - Must be verifiable
+        - List ALL, even small ones
+        - Group into themes
+
+    - step: 3
+      name: "Map Value (and Proof)"
+      description: |
+        For each unique attribute, answer:
+        "So what? What VALUE does this enable for the customer?"
+
+        Then: "How can we PROVE this value?" (data, case studies, demos)
+
+        Value must be described in CUSTOMER language, not company language.
+
+    - step: 4
+      name: "Define Target Customer Characteristics"
+      description: |
+        NOT demographics. CHARACTERISTICS:
+        "What makes a customer most likely to care about our differentiated value?"
+
+        Examples:
+        - "Teams that have outgrown spreadsheet-based project management"
+        - "Companies with 10-50 engineers shipping weekly"
+        - "Founders who've been burned by agency pricing"
+
+    - step: 5
+      name: "Select Market Category"
+      description: |
+        Three options:
+        1. HEAD-TO-HEAD: Compete in existing category (risky but clear)
+        2. BIG FISH SMALL POND: Dominate a sub-segment (safer, narrower)
+        3. CREATE NEW CATEGORY: Define a new space (hardest, highest reward)
+
+        Selection criteria:
+        - Where does our differentiated value shine MOST?
+        - Where is competition WEAKEST?
+        - Where can we be #1 or #2?
+
+    - step: 6
+      name: "Identify Relevant Trends"
+      description: |
+        What trends make your positioning MORE relevant right now?
+        - Technology shifts
+        - Market changes
+        - Cultural movements
+        - Regulatory changes
+
+        Must be REAL trends, not aspirational.
+
+    - step: 7
+      name: "Synthesize Positioning Statement"
+      description: |
+        Template:
+        "For [target customers] who [need/want], [brand] is a [market category]
+        that [differentiated value] unlike [alternatives] because [proof]."
+
+        Test: Read it aloud. Is it clear in one pass?
+
+  output_example: |
+    ## Positioning Canvas: Synkra AIOX
+
+    **Competitive Alternatives:**
+    1. Cursor / Windsurf — AI code editors (single-agent, no workflow)
+    2. Custom GPT chains — manual prompt engineering (fragile, no structure)
+    3. Doing it manually — copy-paste between ChatGPT and IDE
+
+    **Unique Attributes:**
+    - Multi-agent squads with specialized personas
+    - Story-driven development with automated QA gates
+    - Constitutional guardrails preventing agent drift
+
+    **Value Map:**
+    | Attribute | Value (customer language) | Proof |
+    |-----------|--------------------------|-------|
+    | Agent squads | "I don't context-switch between tools" | Side-by-side demo: 1 workflow vs 6 tabs |
+    | Story-driven | "Every change is traceable and reviewable" | Audit trail in story files |
+    | QA gates | "Bugs caught before I even see them" | 73% defect reduction in pilot |
+
+    **Target Customer:**
+    "Solo founders and small teams (2-8 devs) shipping SaaS products who've tried AI coding tools but hit the wall of inconsistency and context loss."
+
+    **Market Category:** Big Fish Small Pond — "AI Development Orchestration"
+
+    **Positioning Statement:**
+    "For small SaaS teams who've outgrown single-agent AI coding, Synkra is an AI development orchestrator that coordinates specialized agents through structured workflows, unlike Cursor or custom GPT chains, because it enforces quality gates and maintains context across the entire development lifecycle."
+
+  acceptance_criteria:
+    - "Competitive alternatives are real, named companies"
+    - "Unique attributes are facts, not aspirations"
+    - "Value is described in customer language"
+    - "Target characteristics are behavioral, not demographic"
+    - "Positioning statement is one clear sentence"
+
+  veto_conditions:
+    - "No competitive alternatives identified → VETO"
+    - "Target is 'everyone' → VETO"
+    - "Value claims have no proof → VETO"
+    - "Uses 'innovative' or 'cutting-edge' as differentiator → VETO"
+
+  handoff:
+    on_complete: "Pass to alexandra-watkins for naming"
+    deliverable: "Positioning canvas document"
+```