mdan-method 2.6.3

package/src/wizards/special/party-mode/wizard.md

@@ -0,0 +1,194 @@
+---
+name: party-mode
+description: 'Orchestrates group discussions between all installed MDAN agents, enabling natural multi-agent conversations. Use when user requests party mode.'
+---
+
+# Party Mode Workflow
+
+**Goal:** Orchestrates group discussions between all installed MDAN agents, enabling natural multi-agent conversations
+
+**Your Role:** You are a party mode facilitator and multi-agent conversation orchestrator. You bring together diverse MDAN agents for collaborative discussions, managing the flow of conversation while maintaining each agent's unique personality and expertise - while still utilizing the configured {communication_language}.
+
+---
+
+## WORKFLOW ARCHITECTURE
+
+This uses **micro-file architecture** with **sequential conversation orchestration**:
+
+- Step 01 loads agent manifest and initializes party mode
+- Step 02 orchestrates the ongoing multi-agent discussion
+- Step 03 handles graceful party mode exit
+- Conversation state tracked in frontmatter
+- Agent personalities maintained through merged manifest data
+
+---
+
+## INITIALIZATION
+
+### Configuration Loading
+
+Load config from `{project-root}/_.mdan/core/config.yaml` and resolve:
+
+- `project_name`, `output_folder`, `user_name`
+- `communication_language`, `document_output_language`, `user_skill_level`
+- `date` as a system-generated value
+- Agent manifest path: `{project-root}/_.mdan/_config/agent-manifest.csv`
+
+### Paths
+
+- `installed_path` = `{project-root}/_.mdan/core/workflows/party-mode`
+- `agent_manifest_path` = `{project-root}/_.mdan/_config/agent-manifest.csv`
+- `standalone_mode` = `true` (party mode is an interactive workflow)
+
+---
+
+## AGENT MANIFEST PROCESSING
+
+### Agent Data Extraction
+
+Parse CSV manifest to extract agent entries with complete information:
+
+- **name** (agent identifier)
+- **displayName** (agent's persona name)
+- **title** (formal position)
+- **icon** (visual identifier emoji)
+- **role** (capabilities summary)
+- **identity** (background/expertise)
+- **communicationStyle** (how they communicate)
+- **principles** (decision-making philosophy)
+- **module** (source module)
+- **path** (file location)
+
+### Agent Roster Building
+
+Build complete agent roster with merged personalities for conversation orchestration.
+
+---
+
+## EXECUTION
+
+Execute party mode activation and conversation orchestration:
+
+### Party Mode Activation
+
+**Your Role:** You are a party mode facilitator creating an engaging multi-agent conversation environment.
+
+**Welcome Activation:**
+
+"🎉 PARTY MODE ACTIVATED! 🎉
+
+Welcome {{user_name}}! All MDAN agents are here and ready for a dynamic group discussion. I've brought together our complete team of experts, each bringing their unique perspectives and capabilities.
+
+**Let me introduce our collaborating agents:**
+
+[Load agent roster and display 2-3 most diverse agents as examples]
+
+**What would you like to discuss with the team today?**"
+
+### Agent Selection Intelligence
+
+For each user message or topic:
+
+**Relevance Analysis:**
+
+- Analyze the user's message/question for domain and expertise requirements
+- Identify which agents would naturally contribute based on their role, capabilities, and principles
+- Consider conversation context and previous agent contributions
+- Select 2-3 most relevant agents for balanced perspective
+
+**Priority Handling:**
+
+- If user addresses specific agent by name, prioritize that agent + 1-2 complementary agents
+- Rotate agent selection to ensure diverse participation over time
+- Enable natural cross-talk and agent-to-agent interactions
+
+### Conversation Orchestration
+
+Load step: `./steps/step-02-discussion-orchestration.md`
+
+---
+
+## WORKFLOW STATES
+
+### Frontmatter Tracking
+
+```yaml
+---
+stepsCompleted: [1]
+workflowType: 'party-mode'
+user_name: '{{user_name}}'
+date: '{{date}}'
+agents_loaded: true
+party_active: true
+exit_triggers: ['*exit', 'goodbye', 'end party', 'quit']
+---
+```
+
+---
+
+## ROLE-PLAYING GUIDELINES
+
+### Character Consistency
+
+- Maintain strict in-character responses based on merged personality data
+- Use each agent's documented communication style consistently
+- Reference agent memories and context when relevant
+- Allow natural disagreements and different perspectives
+- Include personality-driven quirks and occasional humor
+
+### Conversation Flow
+
+- Enable agents to reference each other naturally by name or role
+- Maintain professional discourse while being engaging
+- Respect each agent's expertise boundaries
+- Allow cross-talk and building on previous points
+
+---
+
+## QUESTION HANDLING PROTOCOL
+
+### Direct Questions to User
+
+When an agent asks the user a specific question:
+
+- End that response round immediately after the question
+- Clearly highlight the questioning agent and their question
+- Wait for user response before any agent continues
+
+### Inter-Agent Questions
+
+Agents can question each other and respond naturally within the same round for dynamic conversation.
+
+---
+
+## EXIT CONDITIONS
+
+### Automatic Triggers
+
+Exit party mode when user message contains any exit triggers:
+
+- `*exit`, `goodbye`, `end party`, `quit`
+
+### Graceful Conclusion
+
+If conversation naturally concludes:
+
+- Ask user if they'd like to continue or end party mode
+- Exit gracefully when user indicates completion
+
+---
+
+## MODERATION NOTES
+
+**Quality Control:**
+
+- If discussion becomes circular, have mdan-master summarize and redirect
+- Balance fun and productivity based on conversation tone
+- Ensure all agents stay true to their merged personalities
+- Exit gracefully when user indicates completion
+
+**Conversation Management:**
+
+- Rotate agent participation to ensure inclusive discussion
+- Handle topic drift while maintaining productive conversation
+- Facilitate cross-agent collaboration and knowledge sharing

package/test/README.md

@@ -0,0 +1,295 @@
+# Agent Schema Validation Test Suite
+
+Comprehensive test coverage for the MDAN agent schema validation system.
+
+## Overview
+
+This test suite validates the Zod-based schema validator (`tools/schema/agent.js`) that ensures all `*.agent.yaml` files conform to the MDAN agent specification.
+
+## Test Statistics
+
+- **Total Test Fixtures**: 50
+- **Valid Test Cases**: 18
+- **Invalid Test Cases**: 32
+- **Code Coverage**: 100% all metrics (statements, branches, functions, lines)
+- **Exit Code Tests**: 4 CLI integration tests
+
+## Quick Start
+
+```bash
+# Run all tests
+npm test
+
+# Run with coverage report
+npm run test:coverage
+
+# Run CLI integration tests
+./test/test-cli-integration.sh
+
+# Validate actual agent files
+npm run validate:schemas
+```
+
+## Test Organization
+
+### Test Fixtures
+
+Located in `test/fixtures/agent-schema/`, organized by category:
+
+```
+test/fixtures/agent-schema/
+├── valid/                    # 15 fixtures that should pass
+│   ├── top-level/           # Basic structure tests
+│   ├── metadata/            # Metadata field tests
+│   ├── persona/             # Persona field tests
+│   ├── critical-actions/    # Critical actions tests
+│   ├── menu/                # Menu structure tests
+│   ├── menu-commands/       # Command target tests
+│   ├── menu-triggers/       # Trigger format tests
+│   └── prompts/             # Prompts field tests
+└── invalid/                  # 32 fixtures that should fail
+    ├── top-level/           # Structure errors
+    ├── metadata/            # Metadata validation errors
+    ├── persona/             # Persona validation errors
+    ├── critical-actions/    # Critical actions errors
+    ├── menu/                # Menu errors
+    ├── menu-commands/       # Command target errors
+    ├── menu-triggers/       # Trigger format errors
+    ├── prompts/             # Prompts errors
+    └── yaml-errors/         # YAML parsing errors
+```
+
+## Test Categories
+
+### 1. Top-Level Structure Tests (4 fixtures)
+
+Tests the root-level agent structure:
+
+- ✅ Valid: Minimal core agent with required fields
+- ❌ Invalid: Empty YAML file
+- ❌ Invalid: Missing `agent` key
+- ❌ Invalid: Extra top-level keys (strict mode)
+
+### 2. Metadata Field Tests (7 fixtures)
+
+Tests agent metadata validation:
+
+- ✅ Valid: Module agent with correct `module` field
+- ❌ Invalid: Missing required fields (`id`, `name`, `title`, `icon`)
+- ❌ Invalid: Empty strings in metadata
+- ❌ Invalid: Module agent missing `module` field
+- ❌ Invalid: Core agent with unexpected `module` field
+- ❌ Invalid: Wrong `module` value (doesn't match path)
+- ❌ Invalid: Extra unknown metadata fields
+
+### 3. Persona Field Tests (6 fixtures)
+
+Tests persona structure and validation:
+
+- ✅ Valid: Complete persona with all fields
+- ❌ Invalid: Missing required fields (`role`, `identity`, etc.)
+- ❌ Invalid: `principles` as string instead of array
+- ❌ Invalid: Empty `principles` array
+- ❌ Invalid: Empty strings in `principles` array
+- ❌ Invalid: Extra unknown persona fields
+
+### 4. Critical Actions Tests (5 fixtures)
+
+Tests optional `critical_actions` field:
+
+- ✅ Valid: No `critical_actions` field (optional)
+- ✅ Valid: Empty `critical_actions` array
+- ✅ Valid: Valid action strings
+- ❌ Invalid: Empty strings in actions
+- ❌ Invalid: Actions as non-array type
+
+### 5. Menu Field Tests (4 fixtures)
+
+Tests required menu structure:
+
+- ✅ Valid: Single menu item
+- ✅ Valid: Multiple menu items with different commands
+- ❌ Invalid: Missing `menu` field
+- ❌ Invalid: Empty `menu` array
+
+### 6. Menu Command Target Tests (4 fixtures)
+
+Tests menu item command targets:
+
+- ✅ Valid: All 6 command types (`workflow`, `validate-workflow`, `exec`, `action`, `tmpl`, `data`)
+- ✅ Valid: Multiple command targets in one menu item
+- ❌ Invalid: No command target fields
+- ❌ Invalid: Empty string command targets
+
+### 7. Menu Trigger Validation Tests (7 fixtures)
+
+Tests trigger format enforcement:
+
+- ✅ Valid: Kebab-case triggers (`help`, `list-tasks`, `multi-word-trigger`)
+- ❌ Invalid: Leading asterisk (`*help`)
+- ❌ Invalid: CamelCase (`listTasks`)
+- ❌ Invalid: Snake_case (`list_tasks`)
+- ❌ Invalid: Spaces (`list tasks`)
+- ❌ Invalid: Duplicate triggers within agent
+- ❌ Invalid: Empty trigger string
+
+### 8. Prompts Field Tests (8 fixtures)
+
+Tests optional `prompts` field:
+
+- ✅ Valid: No `prompts` field (optional)
+- ✅ Valid: Empty `prompts` array
+- ✅ Valid: Prompts with required `id` and `content`
+- ✅ Valid: Prompts with optional `description`
+- ❌ Invalid: Missing `id`
+- ❌ Invalid: Missing `content`
+- ❌ Invalid: Empty `content` string
+- ❌ Invalid: Extra unknown prompt fields
+
+### 9. YAML Parsing Tests (2 fixtures)
+
+Tests YAML parsing error handling:
+
+- ❌ Invalid: Malformed YAML syntax
+- ❌ Invalid: Invalid indentation
+
+## Test Scripts
+
+### Main Test Runner
+
+**File**: `test/test-agent-schema.js`
+
+Automated test runner that:
+
+- Loads all fixtures from `test/fixtures/agent-schema/`
+- Validates each against the schema
+- Compares results with expected outcomes (parsed from YAML comments)
+- Reports detailed results by category
+- Exits with code 0 (pass) or 1 (fail)
+
+**Usage**:
+
+```bash
+npm test
+# or
+node test/test-agent-schema.js
+```
+
+### Coverage Report
+
+**Command**: `npm run test:coverage`
+
+Generates code coverage report using c8:
+
+- Text output to console
+- HTML report in `coverage/` directory
+- Tracks statement, branch, function, and line coverage
+
+**Current Coverage**:
+
+- Statements: 100%
+- Branches: 100%
+- Functions: 100%
+- Lines: 100%
+
+### CLI Integration Tests
+
+**File**: `test/test-cli-integration.sh`
+
+Bash script that tests CLI behavior:
+
+1. Validates existing agent files
+2. Verifies test fixture validation
+3. Checks exit code 0 for valid files
+4. Verifies test runner output format
+
+**Usage**:
+
+```bash
+./test/test-cli-integration.sh
+```
+
+## Manual Testing
+
+See **[MANUAL-TESTING.md](./MANUAL-TESTING.md)** for detailed manual testing procedures, including:
+
+- Testing with invalid files
+- GitHub Actions workflow verification
+- Troubleshooting guide
+- PR merge blocking tests
+
+## Coverage Achievement
+
+**100% code coverage achieved!** All branches, statements, functions, and lines in the validation logic are tested.
+
+Edge cases covered include:
+
+- Malformed module paths (e.g., `src/bmm` without `/agents/`)
+- Empty module names in paths (e.g., `src/modules//agents/`)
+- Whitespace-only module field values
+- All validation error paths
+- All success paths for valid configurations
+
+## Adding New Tests
+
+To add new test cases:
+
+1. Create a new `.agent.yaml` file in the appropriate `valid/` or `invalid/` subdirectory
+2. Add comment metadata at the top:
+
+   ```yaml
+   # Test: Description of what this tests
+   # Expected: PASS (or FAIL - error description)
+   # Path context: src/bmm/agents/test.agent.yaml (if needed)
+   ```
+
+3. Run the test suite to verify: `npm test`
+
+## Integration with CI/CD
+
+The validation is integrated into the GitHub Actions workflow:
+
+**File**: `.github/workflows/lint.yaml`
+
+**Job**: `agent-schema`
+
+**Runs on**: All pull requests
+
+**Blocks merge if**: Validation fails
+
+## Files
+
+- `test/test-agent-schema.js` - Main test runner
+- `test/test-cli-integration.sh` - CLI integration tests
+- `test/MANUAL-TESTING.md` - Manual testing guide
+- `test/fixtures/agent-schema/` - Test fixtures (47 files)
+- `tools/schema/agent.js` - Validation logic (under test)
+- `tools/validate-agent-schema.js` - CLI wrapper
+
+## Dependencies
+
+- **zod**: Schema validation library
+- **yaml**: YAML parsing
+- **glob**: File pattern matching
+- **c8**: Code coverage reporting
+
+## Success Criteria
+
+All success criteria from the original task have been exceeded:
+
+- ✅ 50 test fixtures covering all validation rules (target: 47+)
+- ✅ Automated test runner with detailed reporting
+- ✅ CLI integration tests verifying exit codes and output
+- ✅ Manual testing documentation
+- ✅ **100% code coverage achieved** (target: 99%+)
+- ✅ Both positive and negative test cases
+- ✅ Clear and actionable error messages
+- ✅ GitHub Actions integration verified
+- ✅ Aggressive defensive assertions implemented
+
+## Resources
+
+- **Schema Documentation**: `schema-classification.md`
+- **Validator Implementation**: `tools/schema/agent.js`
+- **CLI Tool**: `tools/validate-agent-schema.js`
+- **Project Guidelines**: `CLAUDE.md`

package/test/adversarial-review-tests/README.md

@@ -0,0 +1,56 @@
+# Adversarial Review Test Suite
+
+Tests for the `also_consider` optional input in `review-adversarial-general.xml`.
+
+## Purpose
+
+Evaluate whether the `also_consider` input gently nudges the reviewer toward specific areas without overriding normal adversarial analysis.
+
+## Test Content
+
+All tests use `sample-content.md` - a deliberately imperfect User Authentication API doc with:
+
+- Vague error handling section
+- Missing rate limit details
+- No token expiration info
+- Password in plain text example
+- Missing authentication headers
+- No error response examples
+
+## Running Tests
+
+For each test case in `test-cases.yaml`, invoke the adversarial review task.
+
+### Manual Test Invocation
+
+```
+Review this content using the adversarial review task:
+
+<content>
+[paste sample-content.md]
+</content>
+
+<also_consider>
+[paste items from test case, or omit for TC01]
+</also_consider>
+```
+
+## Evaluation Criteria
+
+For each test, note:
+
+1. **Total findings** - Still hitting ~10 issues?
+2. **Distribution** - Are findings spread across concerns or clustered?
+3. **Relevance** - Do findings relate to `also_consider` items when provided?
+4. **Balance** - Are `also_consider` findings elevated over others, or naturally mixed?
+5. **Quality** - Are findings actionable regardless of source?
+
+## Expected Outcomes
+
+- **TC01 (baseline)**: Generic spread of findings
+- **TC02-TC05 (domain-focused)**: Some findings align with domain, others still organic
+- **TC06 (single item)**: Light influence, not dominant
+- **TC07 (vague items)**: Minimal change from baseline
+- **TC08 (specific items)**: Direct answers if gaps exist
+- **TC09 (mixed)**: Balanced across domains
+- **TC10 (contradictory)**: Graceful handling

package/test/adversarial-review-tests/sample-content.md

@@ -0,0 +1,46 @@
+# User Authentication API
+
+## Overview
+
+This API provides endpoints for user authentication and session management.
+
+## Endpoints
+
+### POST /api/auth/login
+
+Authenticates a user and returns a token.
+
+**Request Body:**
+```json
+{
+  "email": "user@example.com",
+  "password": "password123"
+}
+```
+
+**Response:**
+```json
+{
+  "token": "eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIs...",
+  "user": {
+    "id": 1,
+    "email": "user@example.com"
+  }
+}
+```
+
+### POST /api/auth/logout
+
+Logs out the current user.
+
+### GET /api/auth/me
+
+Returns the current user's profile.
+
+## Error Handling
+
+Errors return appropriate HTTP status codes.
+
+## Rate Limiting
+
+Rate limiting is applied to prevent abuse.

package/test/adversarial-review-tests/test-cases.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,103 @@
+# Test Cases for review-adversarial-general.xml with also_consider input
+#
+# Purpose: Evaluate how the optional also_consider input influences review findings
+# Content: All tests use sample-content.md (User Authentication API docs)
+#
+# To run: Manually invoke the task with each configuration and compare outputs
+
+test_cases:
+  # BASELINE - No also_consider
+  - id: TC01
+    name: "Baseline - no also_consider"
+    description: "Control test with no also_consider input"
+    also_consider: null
+    expected_behavior: "Generic adversarial findings across all aspects"
+
+  # DOCUMENTATION-FOCUSED
+  - id: TC02
+    name: "Documentation - reader confusion"
+    description: "Nudge toward documentation UX issues"
+    also_consider:
+      - What would confuse a first-time reader?
+      - What questions are left unanswered?
+      - What could be interpreted multiple ways?
+      - What jargon is unexplained?
+    expected_behavior: "More findings about clarity, completeness, reader experience"
+
+  - id: TC03
+    name: "Documentation - examples and usage"
+    description: "Nudge toward practical usage gaps"
+    also_consider:
+      - Missing code examples
+      - Unclear usage patterns
+      - Edge cases not documented
+    expected_behavior: "More findings about practical application gaps"
+
+  # SECURITY-FOCUSED
+  - id: TC04
+    name: "Security review"
+    description: "Nudge toward security concerns"
+    also_consider:
+      - Authentication vulnerabilities
+      - Token handling issues
+      - Input validation gaps
+      - Information disclosure risks
+    expected_behavior: "More security-related findings"
+
+  # API DESIGN-FOCUSED
+  - id: TC05
+    name: "API design"
+    description: "Nudge toward API design best practices"
+    also_consider:
+      - REST conventions not followed
+      - Inconsistent response formats
+      - Missing pagination or filtering
+      - Versioning concerns
+    expected_behavior: "More API design pattern findings"
+
+  # SINGLE ITEM
+  - id: TC06
+    name: "Single item - error handling"
+    description: "Test with just one also_consider item"
+    also_consider:
+      - Error handling completeness
+    expected_behavior: "Some emphasis on error handling while still covering other areas"
+
+  # BROAD/VAGUE
+  - id: TC07
+    name: "Broad items"
+    description: "Test with vague also_consider items"
+    also_consider:
+      - Quality issues
+      - Things that seem off
+    expected_behavior: "Minimal change from baseline - items too vague to steer"
+
+  # VERY SPECIFIC
+  - id: TC08
+    name: "Very specific items"
+    description: "Test with highly specific also_consider items"
+    also_consider:
+      - Is the JWT token expiration documented?
+      - Are refresh token mechanics explained?
+      - What happens on concurrent sessions?
+    expected_behavior: "Specific findings addressing these exact questions if gaps exist"
+
+  # MIXED DOMAINS
+  - id: TC09
+    name: "Mixed domain concerns"
+    description: "Test with items from different domains"
+    also_consider:
+      - Security vulnerabilities
+      - Reader confusion points
+      - API design inconsistencies
+      - Performance implications
+    expected_behavior: "Balanced findings across multiple domains"
+
+  # CONTRADICTORY/UNUSUAL
+  - id: TC10
+    name: "Contradictory items"
+    description: "Test resilience with odd inputs"
+    also_consider:
+      - Things that are too detailed
+      - Things that are not detailed enough
+    expected_behavior: "Reviewer handles gracefully, finds issues in both directions"