kenaz 0.3.21 → 0.3.23

package/core/dev/archive/ansuz/legacy/phases/phase_1.yaml

@@ -1,376 +0,0 @@
-phase: 1
-name: "需求理解"
-goal: "快速理解用戶需求，澄清模糊點"
-
-cognitive_checkpoint:
-  recall: "synapse_recall + cortex_recall 並行查詢需求相關的歷史 rune（risk/fix）"
-  rule: "Phase 1 開始時必須執行 recall（本地 + 跨專案），不可跳過"
-  parallel: "同時呼叫 synapse_recall 和 cortex_recall（無依賴，必須並行）"
-
-ddx_mandatory:
-  # COG-DDX-001 enforcement — see .rule/general/ddx-synapse-stack.yaml
-  rule: |
-    任何非 trivial 的需求，在 Phase 1 cli_format 輸出前必須列出 3+ 競爭假說。
-    這是 universal 要求，不是條件觸發。principles-as-text 不會自動觸發 —
-    必須在 Phase 1 checklist 強制驗證。
-  when_required: |
-    Default: REQUIRED for all requirement analysis.
-    Exception: trivial requests (typo fix, rename, single-file <20 line edit,
-    mechanical execution of already-specified steps). Mark with trivial_scope=true.
-  format: |
-    For each hypothesis (minimum 3):
-      - id: H1/H2/H3/...
-      - description: 1-line statement of what problem might be
-      - evidence_for: what supports this hypothesis
-      - evidence_against: what would falsify it
-      - cheapest_test: how to discriminate
-  drift_signals: |
-    You skipped DDx if:
-      - you are about to test your first instinct without alternatives
-      - you cannot name 2 hypotheses besides the one you are pursuing
-      - you are extending a dead hypothesis with variants
-    On drift: STOP, re-enumerate, pick cheapest discriminator.
-  output: "在 cli_format 中展示「🔀 DDx 假說」區塊（trivial_scope=true 時省略）"
-
-ddx_trigger_legacy:
-  # Retained for reference — replaced by ddx_mandatory above
-  when: "需求類型為 Bug/Fix — 根因不明確時"
-  how: "懶載入 modules/ddx.yaml → 套用 differential_over_intuition protocol"
-  output: "在 cli_format 中展示「根因鑑別」區塊"
-
-input_types:
-  natural_language: "用戶自然語言描述 → 確認意圖再行動"
-  task_id: "TASK_XXX → 讀取任務詳情，確認理解"
-  qa_issue: "QA 缺陷報告 → 懶載入 modules/qa_intake.yaml"
-
-role_calibration:
-  description: |
-    Dynamic role calibration based on Ansuz skill level vs User expertise level.
-    After requirement understanding, determine the primary domain → compute role calibration
-    → store in session context for Phase 3 rigor and Phase 8 autonomy.
-
-  function: |
-    getRoleCalibration(domain, ansuzSkillMatrix, userProfile):
-      1. Determine Ansuz skill level for the domain:
-         - Read ansuz_skill_matrix.json (path: {PROJECT_PATH}/.kenaz/specialist/ansuz_skill_matrix.json)
-         - Find matching skill_key containing the domain (case-insensitive prefix match)
-         - If found: use success_rate to classify:
-             expert:       success_rate >= 0.8
-             intermediate: success_rate >= 0.5 and < 0.8
-             weak:         success_rate < 0.5
-         - If not found or file missing: default to "intermediate" (cautious middle ground)
-      2. Determine User expertise level for the domain:
-         - Read user_profile.json (path: ~/.kenaz/user_profile.json — cross-project identity; threads live separately in {PROJECT_PATH}/.kenaz/user_threads.json)
-         - Look up userProfile.expertise[domain].confidence
-         - If found: classify:
-             expert:   confidence >= 0.8
-             intermediate: confidence >= 0.5 and < 0.8
-             learning: confidence < 0.5
-         - If not found or user_profile_loaded=false: default to "intermediate"
-      3. Look up role mode from calibration matrix (rows=Ansuz, cols=User):
-         Return the role mode string.
-
-  matrix:
-    #                    User: expert          User: intermediate     User: learning
-    ansuz_expert:      ["peer_debate",         "guide_execute",       "teach_execute"]
-    ansuz_intermediate: ["defer_to_user",       "collaborate",         "guide_execute"]
-    ansuz_weak:        ["listen_learn",         "cautious_verify",     "flag_uncertainty"]
-
-  role_modes:
-    peer_debate:
-      description: "Both expert — engage as equals, challenge assumptions, debate trade-offs"
-      phase_3_rigor: "high"
-      phase_8_autonomy: "high"
-    guide_execute:
-      description: "Ansuz leads with expertise, user follows with moderate oversight"
-      phase_3_rigor: "high"
-      phase_8_autonomy: "medium"
-    teach_execute:
-      description: "Ansuz teaches while executing — explain reasoning, surface learning opportunities"
-      phase_3_rigor: "highest"
-      phase_8_autonomy: "medium"
-    defer_to_user:
-      description: "User is expert, Ansuz is not — present options, let user decide"
-      phase_3_rigor: "low"
-      phase_8_autonomy: "low"
-    collaborate:
-      description: "Both at similar level — work together, cross-verify each other"
-      phase_3_rigor: "medium"
-      phase_8_autonomy: "medium"
-    listen_learn:
-      description: "User is expert, Ansuz is weak — absorb user guidance, ask clarifying questions"
-      phase_3_rigor: "lowest"
-      phase_8_autonomy: "lowest"
-    cautious_verify:
-      description: "Ansuz is weak, user is intermediate — double-check everything, flag uncertainty"
-      phase_3_rigor: "medium"
-      phase_8_autonomy: "low"
-    flag_uncertainty:
-      description: "Both lack strong expertise — be transparent about limitations, suggest external review"
-      phase_3_rigor: "medium"
-      phase_8_autonomy: "lowest"
-
-  integration:
-    timing: "After requirement understanding (actions step 1-2), before outputting cli_format"
-    steps:
-      - "Identify primary domain from the requirement (e.g., 'rust', 'react', 'tauri', 'synapse')"
-      - "Call getRoleCalibration(domain, ansuzSkillMatrix, userModel)"
-      - "Store result in session context: role_calibration = { domain, ansuz_level, user_level, mode, phase_3_rigor, phase_8_autonomy }"
-      - "Include role_calibration in cli_format output"
-    fallback: "If both data sources are unavailable → default to 'collaborate' mode"
-
-interaction_adaptation:
-  description: |
-    Adapt Ansuz interaction style based on User Model communication preferences
-    and decision style. Applied AFTER role_calibration, uses user_level from
-    role_calibration to determine domain expertise context.
-
-  function: |
-    getInteractionStyle(domain, userProfile, roleCalibration):
-      1. Read communication preferences:
-         - source: userProfile.communication (from Phase 0 session var)
-         - If user_profile_loaded=false or communication is empty → use defaults
-         - Extract: preferred_depth (verbose|balanced|concise), preferred_language (zh|en|auto)
-      2. Read decision style:
-         - source: userProfile.decision_style (from Phase 0 session var)
-         - If user_profile_loaded=false or decision_style is empty → use defaults
-         - Extract: priority (quality_first|speed_first|balanced), risk_tolerance (conservative|moderate|aggressive)
-      3. Compute explanation_depth from domain expertise + communication preference:
-         - user_level (from roleCalibration) × preferred_depth → matrix lookup
-         - Return: explanation_depth setting for this session
-      4. Compute option_framing from decision_style:
-         - priority × risk_tolerance → framing approach
-         - Return: option_framing setting for this session
-      5. Store in session context: interaction_style = {
-           explanation_depth, option_framing, adaptations_applied[]
-         }
-
-  explanation_depth_matrix:
-    # Rows = user_level (from role_calibration), Cols = preferred_depth (from communication)
-    # Output = how much context/explanation to provide
-    #                    verbose              balanced              concise
-    expert:            ["full_rationale",     "trade_off_summary",  "decision_only"]
-    intermediate:      ["guided_explanation", "balanced_context",   "key_points"]
-    learning:          ["step_by_step",       "conceptual_bridge",  "structured_overview"]
-
-  explanation_modes:
-    decision_only:
-      description: "Expert user prefers concise — state the recommendation and trade-off in 1-2 sentences"
-      verbosity: "minimal"
-      include_rationale: false
-      include_alternatives: "only if trade-off is non-obvious"
-    trade_off_summary:
-      description: "Expert user, balanced — brief trade-off discussion with key factors"
-      verbosity: "low"
-      include_rationale: true
-      include_alternatives: "top 2 with pros/cons"
-    full_rationale:
-      description: "Expert user wants depth — comprehensive analysis with evidence"
-      verbosity: "high"
-      include_rationale: true
-      include_alternatives: "all viable options with detailed comparison"
-    key_points:
-      description: "Intermediate user prefers concise — bullet-point key factors"
-      verbosity: "low"
-      include_rationale: "brief"
-      include_alternatives: "recommended option highlighted"
-    balanced_context:
-      description: "Intermediate user, balanced — moderate explanation with context"
-      verbosity: "medium"
-      include_rationale: true
-      include_alternatives: "top 2-3 with brief comparison"
-    guided_explanation:
-      description: "Intermediate user wants depth — explain reasoning and guide decision"
-      verbosity: "high"
-      include_rationale: true
-      include_alternatives: "all options with guided recommendation"
-    structured_overview:
-      description: "Learning user prefers concise — structured summary with key concepts defined"
-      verbosity: "medium"
-      include_rationale: "with definitions"
-      include_alternatives: "recommended option with explanation of why"
-    conceptual_bridge:
-      description: "Learning user, balanced — connect new concepts to familiar ones, moderate depth"
-      verbosity: "medium-high"
-      include_rationale: true
-      include_alternatives: "all options with learning context"
-    step_by_step:
-      description: "Learning user wants depth — full walkthrough with concept explanations"
-      verbosity: "highest"
-      include_rationale: "detailed with examples"
-      include_alternatives: "all options with educational comparison"
-
-  option_framing_matrix:
-    # Rows = decision_style.priority, Cols = decision_style.risk_tolerance
-    # Output = how to present options and recommendations
-    #                         conservative              moderate                aggressive
-    quality_first:           ["safest_proven",          "quality_balanced",     "quality_innovative"]
-    speed_first:             ["quick_safe",             "quick_pragmatic",      "quick_bold"]
-    balanced:                ["conservative_balanced",  "neutral_balanced",     "progressive_balanced"]
-
-  option_framing_modes:
-    safest_proven:
-      description: "Emphasize correctness and proven patterns, conservative risk"
-      lead_with: "most reliable option"
-      ordering: "safest first"
-      highlight: "stability, test coverage, rollback ease"
-    quality_balanced:
-      description: "Emphasize correctness with moderate risk acceptance"
-      lead_with: "best quality option"
-      ordering: "quality score descending"
-      highlight: "correctness, maintainability, edge case coverage"
-    quality_innovative:
-      description: "Emphasize correctness but open to novel approaches"
-      lead_with: "best option (including non-standard approaches)"
-      ordering: "quality score descending"
-      highlight: "correctness, innovation potential, future-proofing"
-    quick_safe:
-      description: "Emphasize speed with minimal risk"
-      lead_with: "fastest safe option"
-      ordering: "implementation speed, safety"
-      highlight: "time to ship, rollback plan, known patterns"
-    quick_pragmatic:
-      description: "Emphasize quick wins with pragmatic trade-offs"
-      lead_with: "fastest viable option"
-      ordering: "speed first"
-      highlight: "time saved, acceptable trade-offs, iteration plan"
-    quick_bold:
-      description: "Emphasize speed, accept higher risk for faster delivery"
-      lead_with: "fastest option"
-      ordering: "speed first, risk acknowledged"
-      highlight: "speed, potential risks noted but not blocking"
-    conservative_balanced:
-      description: "Balance quality and speed, lean toward safety"
-      lead_with: "recommended balanced option"
-      ordering: "balanced score, safety tiebreak"
-      highlight: "balance of speed and quality, low risk"
-    neutral_balanced:
-      description: "Balance quality and speed equally"
-      lead_with: "recommended option"
-      ordering: "balanced score"
-      highlight: "trade-offs clearly stated, no bias"
-    progressive_balanced:
-      description: "Balance quality and speed, lean toward progress"
-      lead_with: "recommended option with forward momentum"
-      ordering: "balanced score, progress tiebreak"
-      highlight: "forward progress, acceptable trade-offs"
-
-  defaults:
-    explanation_depth: "balanced_context"
-    option_framing: "neutral_balanced"
-    note: "Applied when user_profile.json does not exist, communication/decision_style are empty, or user_profile_loaded=false"
-
-  integration:
-    timing: "Immediately after role_calibration (actions step 4 → step 4b), before outputting cli_format"
-    steps:
-      - "Read user_profile.communication from Phase 0 session var (already loaded)"
-      - "Read user_profile.decision_style from Phase 0 session var (already loaded)"
-      - "If user_profile_loaded=false OR communication is empty → use defaults.explanation_depth"
-      - "If user_profile_loaded=false OR decision_style is empty → use defaults.option_framing"
-      - "Otherwise: look up explanation_depth_matrix[roleCalibration.user_level][communication.preferred_depth]"
-      - "Look up option_framing_matrix[decision_style.priority][decision_style.risk_tolerance]"
-      - "Store in session context: interaction_style = { explanation_depth, option_framing, adaptations_applied: [list of non-default adaptations] }"
-      - "Apply interaction_style to all Phase 1 output: requirement summary depth, option listing, clarification question style"
-    downstream:
-      - "interaction_style → Phase 3 (analysis depth matches explanation_depth)"
-      - "interaction_style → Phase 5 (option presentation matches option_framing)"
-      - "interaction_style → Phase 11 (log adaptations_applied for effectiveness tracking)"
-
-actions:
-  - "識別需求類型（新功能/Bug/優化/重構/設計）"
-  - "識別核心目標 + 隱含需求"
-  - "確認技術約束和優先級"
-  - |
-    【Role Calibration】需求理解完成後（步驟 1-3 之後）：
-      1. 從需求中識別 primary domain（例如：rust、react、tauri、synapse、formation）
-      2. 讀取 {PROJECT_PATH}/.kenaz/specialist/ansuz_skill_matrix.json
-         - 找到匹配 domain 的 skill_key → 取 success_rate → 分級 (expert/intermediate/weak)
-         - 檔案不存在或無匹配 → 預設 intermediate
-      3. 讀取 user_profile（Phase 0 已載入的 session var）
-         - 取 expertise[domain].confidence → 分級 (expert/intermediate/learning)
-         - user_profile_loaded=false 或無匹配 domain → 預設 intermediate
-      4. 查表 role_calibration.matrix → 取得 role mode
-      5. 設定 session var: role_calibration = {
-           domain: "<primary_domain>",
-           ansuz_level: "<expert|intermediate|weak>",
-           user_level: "<expert|intermediate|learning>",
-           mode: "<role_mode>",
-           phase_3_rigor: "<from role_modes>",
-           phase_8_autonomy: "<from role_modes>"
-         }
-      6. 若兩個資料來源都不可用 → 預設 mode="collaborate"
-  - |
-    【Interaction Style Adaptation】Role Calibration 完成後（步驟 4 之後）：
-      1. 讀取 user_profile.communication（Phase 0 已載入的 session var）
-         - 取 preferred_depth → 若存在：用於 explanation_depth_matrix 查表
-         - user_profile_loaded=false 或 communication 為空 → 使用預設 explanation_depth="balanced_context"
-      2. 讀取 user_profile.decision_style（Phase 0 已載入的 session var）
-         - 取 priority 和 risk_tolerance → 若存在：用於 option_framing_matrix 查表
-         - user_profile_loaded=false 或 decision_style 為空 → 使用預設 option_framing="neutral_balanced"
-      3. 查表 explanation_depth_matrix[role_calibration.user_level][communication.preferred_depth]
-         → 取得 explanation_depth mode（決定解釋深度、是否包含 rationale、替代方案呈現方式）
-      4. 查表 option_framing_matrix[decision_style.priority][decision_style.risk_tolerance]
-         → 取得 option_framing mode（決定選項排序、強調重點、呈現風格）
-      5. 設定 session var: interaction_style = {
-           explanation_depth: "<mode from explanation_modes>",
-           option_framing: "<mode from option_framing_modes>",
-           adaptations_applied: ["<list of non-default adaptations applied>"]
-         }
-      6. 將 interaction_style 套用到本次 Phase 1 輸出：
-         - 需求摘要的詳細程度依 explanation_depth.verbosity
-         - 選項/方案呈現依 option_framing 的 lead_with + ordering + highlight
-         - 澄清問題的措辭依 explanation_depth（learning → 更多引導語；expert → 直接問核心取捨）
-      7. 若全部使用預設值（user_profile 不存在或欄位為空）→ interaction_style.adaptations_applied = []
-         （行為與未加入 interaction_adaptation 前完全一致 — graceful degradation）
-  - "1-2 句話總結需求"
-
-cli_format: |
-  📋 需求理解
-  ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
-  需求摘要: {1-2 句話}
-  需求類型: {新功能/Bug/優化/重構/設計}
-  核心目標: {用戶想達成什麼}
-  優先級: {P0/P1/P2/P3}
-  🎯 角色校準: {role_calibration.mode} ({role_calibration.domain}: Ansuz={role_calibration.ansuz_level}, User={role_calibration.user_level})
-  🗣️ 互動風格: {interaction_style.explanation_depth} × {interaction_style.option_framing}    ← 僅在 adaptations_applied 非空時顯示；全部預設時省略此行
-
-  🔀 DDx 假說（COG-DDX-001 強制區塊；trivial_scope=true 時省略）
-  H1: {description} | for: {evidence} | against: {evidence} | test: {cheapest}
-  H2: {description} | for: {evidence} | against: {evidence} | test: {cheapest}
-  H3: {description} | for: {evidence} | against: {evidence} | test: {cheapest}
-  ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
-
-interaction:
-  type: "ask"
-  instruction: |
-    輸出 cli_format 後，用 AskUserQuestion 工具提問，提供選項：
-    「需求理解是否正確？
-    [A] 正確，繼續
-    [B] 需要修正（請說明）
-    [C] 有額外補充」
-  on_A: "→ Phase 2（靜默調研）→ Phase 3"
-  on_B: "根據用戶說明重新理解，再次輸出 cli_format + 再次詢問"
-  on_C: "記錄補充，更新 cli_format，再次詢問確認"
-  clarification_rule: "需求模糊時，先用選項縮小範圍（最多列出 3-4 個可能意圖讓用戶選），再問開放式補充"
-
-checklist:
-  - "recall_executed: true（synapse_recall + cortex_recall 已並行執行）"
-  - "chief_complaint 已確認（用戶驗證需求摘要正確）"
-  - "需求類型已識別"
-  - "優先級已確認"
-  - "role_calibration 已計算（domain + ansuz_level + user_level → mode，存入 session context）"
-  - "interaction_style 已計算（explanation_depth + option_framing，存入 session context；user_profile 不存在時使用預設值）"
-  - "ddx_hypotheses: >=3 條競爭假說已列出 OR trivial_scope=true（COG-DDX-001 強制，無例外項目需標註 trivial_scope=true + 簡短理由）"
-
-context_hints:
-  input_from: "用戶需求"
-  key_data: null
-  output_to_downstream:
-    - "role_calibration → Phase 3 (rigor level), Phase 8 (autonomy level), Phase 11 (signal logging)"
-    - "interaction_style → Phase 3 (analysis depth), Phase 5 (option presentation), Phase 11 (adaptation effectiveness logging)"
-    - "interaction_style.adaptations_applied → Phase 11 (log which adaptations were active and whether user accepted suggestions without correction)"
-
-inject:
-  rules:
-    - cortex-memory-recall.yaml
-  specialist: []

package/core/dev/archive/ansuz/legacy/phases/phase_10.yaml

@@ -1,35 +0,0 @@
-phase: 10
-name: "Post-Complete"
-goal: "任務完成後的 archive + git 流程"
-
-tool: ".formation/tools/post-complete.js"
-
-actions:
-  - "node {CORE}/.formation/tools/post-complete.js --task=TASK_XXX [--project-path={PROJECT_PATH}]"
-  - "archive：舊任務 → archived/（保留最新 10 個）"
-  - "git：建立 task/task_xxx 分支 → stage + commit → merge 到用戶當前分支（❌ 不 merge main）"
-  - "更新 dev/pipeline/PROGRESS.md（僅 Core 專案）"
-
-cli_format: |
-  📦 Post-Complete
-  ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
-  ✓ Archive: {N} 個舊任務已封存
-  ✓ Git: task/task_xxx → {user_branch}
-  ✓ PROGRESS.md 已更新
-  ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
-
-interaction:
-  type: "auto"
-  instruction: "自動執行，結果併入 Phase 11 輸出"
-
-checklist:
-  - "post-complete.js 執行完成"
-  - "git branch 已建立並 merge 到用戶分支（非 main）"
-
-context_hints:
-  input_from: "phase_9"
-  key_data: ["completed_task_ids"]
-
-inject:
-  rules: []
-  specialist: []