maestro-flow 0.5.41 → 0.5.43

package/.claude/skills/team-adversarial-swarm/workflows/wf-swarm-synthesize.js

@@ -1,248 +1,248 @@
-export const meta = {
-  name: 'wf-swarm-synthesize',
-  description: 'Adversarial 3-perspective synthesis of swarm results with arbitrator',
-  whenToUse: 'After swarm converges: synthesize best solution via 3 perspectives + arbitrated final report',
-  phases: [
-    { title: 'Analyze', detail: '3 parallel analysts: why-it-won, stability, caveats' },
-    { title: 'Arbitrate', detail: 'Arbitrator synthesizes perspectives into best-solution report' },
-  ],
-}
-
-const PERSPECTIVE_SCHEMA = {
-  type: 'object',
-  properties: {
-    perspective: { type: 'string' },
-    assessment: { type: 'string' },
-    key_findings: {
-      type: 'array',
-      items: {
-        type: 'object',
-        properties: {
-          finding: { type: 'string' },
-          evidence: { type: 'string' },
-          significance: { type: 'string', enum: ['critical', 'important', 'minor'] },
-        },
-        required: ['finding', 'evidence', 'significance'],
-      },
-    },
-    confidence: { type: 'number', minimum: 0, maximum: 100 },
-    verdict: { type: 'string' },
-  },
-  required: ['perspective', 'assessment', 'key_findings', 'confidence', 'verdict'],
-}
-
-const SYNTHESIS_SCHEMA = {
-  type: 'object',
-  properties: {
-    title: { type: 'string' },
-    best_solution: {
-      type: 'object',
-      properties: {
-        path: { type: 'array', items: { type: 'string' } },
-        score: { type: 'number' },
-        iteration: { type: 'number' },
-        ant_id: { type: 'string' },
-        summary: { type: 'string' },
-        evidence_chain: { type: 'array', items: { type: 'object', properties: { source: { type: 'string' }, finding: { type: 'string' } }, required: ['source', 'finding'] } },
-      },
-      required: ['summary'],
-    },
-    why_it_won: { type: 'string' },
-    pivotal_decisions: {
-      type: 'array',
-      items: {
-        type: 'object',
-        properties: {
-          decision: { type: 'string' },
-          pheromone_guided: { type: 'boolean' },
-          impact: { type: 'string' },
-        },
-        required: ['decision', 'impact'],
-      },
-    },
-    runner_ups: {
-      type: 'array',
-      items: {
-        type: 'object',
-        properties: {
-          ant_id: { type: 'string' },
-          path: { type: 'array', items: { type: 'string' } },
-          score: { type: 'number' },
-          diff_from_best: { type: 'string' },
-        },
-        required: ['ant_id', 'score', 'diff_from_best'],
-      },
-    },
-    convergence_story: { type: 'string' },
-    caveats: { type: 'array', items: { type: 'string' } },
-    adversarial_assessment: {
-      type: 'object',
-      properties: {
-        stability_verdict: { type: 'string' },
-        caveat_severity: { type: 'string', enum: ['none', 'minor', 'significant', 'critical'] },
-        confidence_in_result: { type: 'number' },
-        decisive_perspective: { type: 'string' },
-      },
-      required: ['stability_verdict', 'caveat_severity', 'confidence_in_result'],
-    },
-    executive_summary: { type: 'string' },
-  },
-  required: ['title', 'best_solution', 'why_it_won', 'runner_ups', 'convergence_story', 'caveats', 'adversarial_assessment', 'executive_summary'],
-}
-
-const best = args?.best || {}
-const topK = args?.top_k || []
-const convergenceStory = args?.convergence_story || ''
-const objective = args?.objective || ''
-const totalIterations = args?.total_iterations || 0
-const totalAnts = args?.total_ants || 0
-
-const bestDigest = `Best solution:
-  Ant: ${best.ant_id || 'unknown'}
-  Path: ${(best.path || []).join(' → ')}
-  Score: ${best.score || 'unknown'}
-  Iteration: ${best.iteration || 'unknown'}
-  Summary: ${best.summary || 'none'}
-  Evidence: ${(best.evidence || []).map(e => e.source + ': ' + e.finding).join('; ') || 'none'}`
-
-const topKDigest = topK.map((t, i) =>
-  `#${i + 1}: ${t.ant_id} score=${t.score} path=${(t.path || []).join('→')}`
-).join('\n')
-
-// Phase 1: 3 parallel perspective analysts
-phase('Analyze')
-log('Launching 3-perspective adversarial analysis...')
-
-const perspectives = await parallel([
-  () => agent(
-    `You are the WHY-IT-WON analyst. Explain why the best solution won.
-
-Objective: ${objective}
-${bestDigest}
-
-Runner-ups:
-${topKDigest || 'None available'}
-
-Convergence: ${convergenceStory}
-Total iterations: ${totalIterations}, Total ants: ${totalAnts}
-
-Focus:
-1. Which path decisions were PIVOTAL — where did best diverge from runner-ups?
-2. Which decisions followed pheromone hints vs deviated? Were deviations the key?
-3. Is the evidence chain compelling or circumstantial?
-4. Compare best vs #2: what SPECIFIC factor gave best the edge?
-
-Verdict: one sentence on the quality of the winning strategy.`,
-    { label: 'analyst:why-won', phase: 'Analyze', schema: PERSPECTIVE_SCHEMA }
-  ),
-  () => agent(
-    `You are the STABILITY analyst. Assess whether this result is robust or lucky.
-
-Objective: ${objective}
-${bestDigest}
-
-Runner-ups:
-${topKDigest || 'None available'}
-
-Convergence: ${convergenceStory}
-Total iterations: ${totalIterations}, Total ants: ${totalAnts}
-
-Focus:
-1. Did MULTIPLE ants find similar solutions? (convergence = robust)
-2. Is the best a lone outlier? (divergence from pack = possibly lucky)
-3. Score gap between #1 and #2: large gap = clear winner, small gap = could flip
-4. If the same swarm ran again, would it find the same answer?
-5. Was convergence triggered by genuine consensus or just timeout?
-
-Verdict: "robust" / "fragile" / "uncertain" — with evidence.`,
-    { label: 'analyst:stability', phase: 'Analyze', schema: PERSPECTIVE_SCHEMA }
-  ),
-  () => agent(
-    `You are the CAVEATS analyst. Find every limitation and risk in this result.
-
-Objective: ${objective}
-${bestDigest}
-
-Runner-ups:
-${topKDigest || 'None available'}
-
-Convergence: ${convergenceStory}
-Total iterations: ${totalIterations}, Total ants: ${totalAnts}
-
-Focus:
-1. Search space coverage: was the task space well-explored or did ants cluster?
-2. Evidence quality: single-source claims vs multi-source verification?
-3. Hallucination risk: how many ants were flagged for score inflation?
-4. Solution actionability: can the result be directly applied, or needs more work?
-5. What the swarm DIDN'T explore: are there obvious nodes/paths it missed?
-6. Scaling: would a larger swarm / more iterations have found something better?
-
-Be THOROUGH — every result has caveats. Honest caveats are more valuable than false confidence.
-Verdict: overall risk level of relying on this result.`,
-    { label: 'analyst:caveats', phase: 'Analyze', schema: PERSPECTIVE_SCHEMA }
-  ),
-])
-
-const validPerspectives = perspectives.filter(Boolean)
-const perspectiveDigest = validPerspectives.map(p =>
-  `### ${p.perspective} (confidence: ${p.confidence}%)\n${p.assessment}\nKey findings:\n${p.key_findings.map(f => '- [' + f.significance + '] ' + f.finding).join('\n')}\nVerdict: ${p.verdict}`
-).join('\n\n---\n\n')
-
-log(`${validPerspectives.length} perspective analyses completed`)
-
-// Phase 2: Arbitrator synthesizes
-phase('Arbitrate')
-log('Arbitrator synthesizing final report...')
-
-const synthesis = await agent(
-  `You are the ARBITRATOR. Synthesize 3 analyst perspectives into a definitive swarm result report.
-
-=== OBJECTIVE ===
-${objective}
-
-=== BEST SOLUTION ===
-${bestDigest}
-
-=== RUNNER-UPS ===
-${topKDigest || 'None'}
-
-=== 3 ANALYST PERSPECTIVES ===
-${perspectiveDigest}
-
-=== CONVERGENCE ===
-${convergenceStory}
-Iterations: ${totalIterations}, Ants: ${totalAnts}
-
-SYNTHESIZE:
-1. Build the best_solution record with full evidence chain
-2. Write why_it_won from the first analyst's pivotal decision analysis
-3. Extract pivotal_decisions with pheromone guidance flags
-4. Format runner_ups with diff_from_best
-5. Write convergence_story narrative
-6. Compile ALL caveats from the caveats analyst — don't soften them
-7. adversarial_assessment:
-   - stability_verdict from stability analyst
-   - caveat_severity: none/minor/significant/critical based on caveats count and severity
-   - confidence_in_result: weighted from all 3 perspectives
-   - decisive_perspective: which analyst's findings had the most impact
-8. Write executive_summary (3-4 sentences): what was found, how confident, what to watch out for
-9. Title: concise result title
-
-Max 150 lines in the generated content. Be sharp, not verbose.`,
-  { label: 'arbitrate', phase: 'Arbitrate', schema: SYNTHESIS_SCHEMA }
-)
-
-return {
-  perspectives: validPerspectives,
-  synthesis: synthesis,
-  metadata: {
-    objective: objective,
-    best_score: best.score,
-    best_ant: best.ant_id,
-    total_iterations: totalIterations,
-    total_ants: totalAnts,
-    stability_verdict: synthesis ? synthesis.adversarial_assessment.stability_verdict : null,
-    caveat_severity: synthesis ? synthesis.adversarial_assessment.caveat_severity : null,
-    confidence: synthesis ? synthesis.adversarial_assessment.confidence_in_result : null,
-  },
-}
+export const meta = {
+  name: 'wf-swarm-synthesize',
+  description: 'Adversarial 3-perspective synthesis of swarm results with arbitrator',
+  whenToUse: 'After swarm converges: synthesize best solution via 3 perspectives + arbitrated final report',
+  phases: [
+    { title: 'Analyze', detail: '3 parallel analysts: why-it-won, stability, caveats' },
+    { title: 'Arbitrate', detail: 'Arbitrator synthesizes perspectives into best-solution report' },
+  ],
+}
+
+const PERSPECTIVE_SCHEMA = {
+  type: 'object',
+  properties: {
+    perspective: { type: 'string' },
+    assessment: { type: 'string' },
+    key_findings: {
+      type: 'array',
+      items: {
+        type: 'object',
+        properties: {
+          finding: { type: 'string' },
+          evidence: { type: 'string' },
+          significance: { type: 'string', enum: ['critical', 'important', 'minor'] },
+        },
+        required: ['finding', 'evidence', 'significance'],
+      },
+    },
+    confidence: { type: 'number', minimum: 0, maximum: 100 },
+    verdict: { type: 'string' },
+  },
+  required: ['perspective', 'assessment', 'key_findings', 'confidence', 'verdict'],
+}
+
+const SYNTHESIS_SCHEMA = {
+  type: 'object',
+  properties: {
+    title: { type: 'string' },
+    best_solution: {
+      type: 'object',
+      properties: {
+        path: { type: 'array', items: { type: 'string' } },
+        score: { type: 'number' },
+        iteration: { type: 'number' },
+        ant_id: { type: 'string' },
+        summary: { type: 'string' },
+        evidence_chain: { type: 'array', items: { type: 'object', properties: { source: { type: 'string' }, finding: { type: 'string' } }, required: ['source', 'finding'] } },
+      },
+      required: ['summary'],
+    },
+    why_it_won: { type: 'string' },
+    pivotal_decisions: {
+      type: 'array',
+      items: {
+        type: 'object',
+        properties: {
+          decision: { type: 'string' },
+          pheromone_guided: { type: 'boolean' },
+          impact: { type: 'string' },
+        },
+        required: ['decision', 'impact'],
+      },
+    },
+    runner_ups: {
+      type: 'array',
+      items: {
+        type: 'object',
+        properties: {
+          ant_id: { type: 'string' },
+          path: { type: 'array', items: { type: 'string' } },
+          score: { type: 'number' },
+          diff_from_best: { type: 'string' },
+        },
+        required: ['ant_id', 'score', 'diff_from_best'],
+      },
+    },
+    convergence_story: { type: 'string' },
+    caveats: { type: 'array', items: { type: 'string' } },
+    adversarial_assessment: {
+      type: 'object',
+      properties: {
+        stability_verdict: { type: 'string' },
+        caveat_severity: { type: 'string', enum: ['none', 'minor', 'significant', 'critical'] },
+        confidence_in_result: { type: 'number' },
+        decisive_perspective: { type: 'string' },
+      },
+      required: ['stability_verdict', 'caveat_severity', 'confidence_in_result'],
+    },
+    executive_summary: { type: 'string' },
+  },
+  required: ['title', 'best_solution', 'why_it_won', 'runner_ups', 'convergence_story', 'caveats', 'adversarial_assessment', 'executive_summary'],
+}
+
+const best = args?.best || {}
+const topK = args?.top_k || []
+const convergenceStory = args?.convergence_story || ''
+const objective = args?.objective || ''
+const totalIterations = args?.total_iterations || 0
+const totalAnts = args?.total_ants || 0
+
+const bestDigest = `Best solution:
+  Ant: ${best.ant_id || 'unknown'}
+  Path: ${(best.path || []).join(' → ')}
+  Score: ${best.score || 'unknown'}
+  Iteration: ${best.iteration || 'unknown'}
+  Summary: ${best.summary || 'none'}
+  Evidence: ${(best.evidence || []).map(e => e.source + ': ' + e.finding).join('; ') || 'none'}`
+
+const topKDigest = topK.map((t, i) =>
+  `#${i + 1}: ${t.ant_id} score=${t.score} path=${(t.path || []).join('→')}`
+).join('\n')
+
+// Phase 1: 3 parallel perspective analysts
+phase('Analyze')
+log('Launching 3-perspective adversarial analysis...')
+
+const perspectives = await parallel([
+  () => agent(
+    `You are the WHY-IT-WON analyst. Explain why the best solution won.
+
+Objective: ${objective}
+${bestDigest}
+
+Runner-ups:
+${topKDigest || 'None available'}
+
+Convergence: ${convergenceStory}
+Total iterations: ${totalIterations}, Total ants: ${totalAnts}
+
+Focus:
+1. Which path decisions were PIVOTAL — where did best diverge from runner-ups?
+2. Which decisions followed pheromone hints vs deviated? Were deviations the key?
+3. Is the evidence chain compelling or circumstantial?
+4. Compare best vs #2: what SPECIFIC factor gave best the edge?
+
+Verdict: one sentence on the quality of the winning strategy.`,
+    { label: 'analyst:why-won', phase: 'Analyze', schema: PERSPECTIVE_SCHEMA }
+  ),
+  () => agent(
+    `You are the STABILITY analyst. Assess whether this result is robust or lucky.
+
+Objective: ${objective}
+${bestDigest}
+
+Runner-ups:
+${topKDigest || 'None available'}
+
+Convergence: ${convergenceStory}
+Total iterations: ${totalIterations}, Total ants: ${totalAnts}
+
+Focus:
+1. Did MULTIPLE ants find similar solutions? (convergence = robust)
+2. Is the best a lone outlier? (divergence from pack = possibly lucky)
+3. Score gap between #1 and #2: large gap = clear winner, small gap = could flip
+4. If the same swarm ran again, would it find the same answer?
+5. Was convergence triggered by genuine consensus or just timeout?
+
+Verdict: "robust" / "fragile" / "uncertain" — with evidence.`,
+    { label: 'analyst:stability', phase: 'Analyze', schema: PERSPECTIVE_SCHEMA }
+  ),
+  () => agent(
+    `You are the CAVEATS analyst. Find every limitation and risk in this result.
+
+Objective: ${objective}
+${bestDigest}
+
+Runner-ups:
+${topKDigest || 'None available'}
+
+Convergence: ${convergenceStory}
+Total iterations: ${totalIterations}, Total ants: ${totalAnts}
+
+Focus:
+1. Search space coverage: was the task space well-explored or did ants cluster?
+2. Evidence quality: single-source claims vs multi-source verification?
+3. Hallucination risk: how many ants were flagged for score inflation?
+4. Solution actionability: can the result be directly applied, or needs more work?
+5. What the swarm DIDN'T explore: are there obvious nodes/paths it missed?
+6. Scaling: would a larger swarm / more iterations have found something better?
+
+Be THOROUGH — every result has caveats. Honest caveats are more valuable than false confidence.
+Verdict: overall risk level of relying on this result.`,
+    { label: 'analyst:caveats', phase: 'Analyze', schema: PERSPECTIVE_SCHEMA }
+  ),
+])
+
+const validPerspectives = perspectives.filter(Boolean)
+const perspectiveDigest = validPerspectives.map(p =>
+  `### ${p.perspective} (confidence: ${p.confidence}%)\n${p.assessment}\nKey findings:\n${p.key_findings.map(f => '- [' + f.significance + '] ' + f.finding).join('\n')}\nVerdict: ${p.verdict}`
+).join('\n\n---\n\n')
+
+log(`${validPerspectives.length} perspective analyses completed`)
+
+// Phase 2: Arbitrator synthesizes
+phase('Arbitrate')
+log('Arbitrator synthesizing final report...')
+
+const synthesis = await agent(
+  `You are the ARBITRATOR. Synthesize 3 analyst perspectives into a definitive swarm result report.
+
+=== OBJECTIVE ===
+${objective}
+
+=== BEST SOLUTION ===
+${bestDigest}
+
+=== RUNNER-UPS ===
+${topKDigest || 'None'}
+
+=== 3 ANALYST PERSPECTIVES ===
+${perspectiveDigest}
+
+=== CONVERGENCE ===
+${convergenceStory}
+Iterations: ${totalIterations}, Ants: ${totalAnts}
+
+SYNTHESIZE:
+1. Build the best_solution record with full evidence chain
+2. Write why_it_won from the first analyst's pivotal decision analysis
+3. Extract pivotal_decisions with pheromone guidance flags
+4. Format runner_ups with diff_from_best
+5. Write convergence_story narrative
+6. Compile ALL caveats from the caveats analyst — don't soften them
+7. adversarial_assessment:
+   - stability_verdict from stability analyst
+   - caveat_severity: none/minor/significant/critical based on caveats count and severity
+   - confidence_in_result: weighted from all 3 perspectives
+   - decisive_perspective: which analyst's findings had the most impact
+8. Write executive_summary (3-4 sentences): what was found, how confident, what to watch out for
+9. Title: concise result title
+
+Be sharp, not verbose — no prose padding; every section earns its place.`,
+  { label: 'arbitrate', phase: 'Arbitrate', schema: SYNTHESIS_SCHEMA }
+)
+
+return {
+  perspectives: validPerspectives,
+  synthesis: synthesis,
+  metadata: {
+    objective: objective,
+    best_score: best.score,
+    best_ant: best.ant_id,
+    total_iterations: totalIterations,
+    total_ants: totalAnts,
+    stability_verdict: synthesis ? synthesis.adversarial_assessment.stability_verdict : null,
+    caveat_severity: synthesis ? synthesis.adversarial_assessment.caveat_severity : null,
+    confidence: synthesis ? synthesis.adversarial_assessment.confidence_in_result : null,
+  },
+}