tribunal-kit 4.5.1 → 4.6.1

package/.agent/skills/agentic-patterns/SKILL.md

@@ -1,319 +1,315 @@
----
-name: agentic-patterns
-description: AI agent design principles. Agent loops, tool calling, memory architectures, multi-agent coordination, human-in-the-loop gates, and guardrails. Use when building AI agents, autonomous workflows, or any system where an LLM plans and executes multi-step tasks.
-allowed-tools: Read, Write, Edit, Glob, Grep
-version: 1.0.0
-last-updated: 2026-03-12
-applies-to-model: gemini-2.5-pro, claude-3-7-sonnet
----
-
-# Agentic Patterns
-
----
-
-## The Agent Loop
-
-Every AI agent follows this fundamental pattern:
-
-```
-PERCEIVE → PLAN → ACT → OBSERVE → (repeat or terminate)
-
-1. PERCEIVE   — What is the current state? What does the agent know?
-2. PLAN       — What action will move toward the goal?
-3. ACT        — Execute the tool, call the API, write the file
-4. OBSERVE    — What changed? Did the action succeed?
-5. EVALUATE   — Goal reached? Continue loop or return?
-```
-
-### When to Terminate
-
-```ts
-// The three termination conditions — always define all three
-type AgentResult = {
-  reason: 'goal_reached' | 'max_steps_exceeded' | 'human_escalation';
-  steps: number;
-  result: string;
-};
-
-const MAX_STEPS = 10;  // Hard cap — never let agents loop indefinitely
-```
-
----
-
-## Tool Calling Design
-
-Tools are the agent's interface to the real world. Design them defensively:
-
-```ts
-// Tool definition — what the LLM sees and how to call it
-const tools = [
-  {
-    type: 'function',
-    function: {
-      name: 'search_database',
-      description: 'Search the product database. Use this before creating a new record to avoid duplicates.',
-      parameters: {
-        type: 'object',
-        properties: {
-          query: {
-            type: 'string',
-            description: 'Search terms — be specific',
-          },
-          limit: {
-            type: 'number',
-            description: 'Max results to return. Default: 5, max: 20',
-          },
-        },
-        required: ['query'],
-      },
-    },
-  },
-];
-
-// Tool executor — validate before running
-async function executeTool(name: string, args: unknown): Promise<string> {
-  // Validate args before executing — never trust LLM output directly
-  const parsed = ToolArgsSchema.safeParse(args);
-  if (!parsed.success) {
-    return `Error: Invalid arguments — ${parsed.error.message}`;
-  }
-
-  // Scope check — is this tool allowed for this agent's role?
-  if (!agentPermissions.includes(name)) {
-    return `Error: Tool '${name}' is not permitted for this agent`;
-  }
-
-  try {
-    return await tools[name](parsed.data);
-  } catch (err) {
-    return `Error: Tool execution failed — ${(err as Error).message}`;
-  }
-}
-```
-
----
-
-## Memory Architecture
-
-Agents need different types of memory for different purposes:
-
-```
-IN-CONTEXT MEMORY (cheapest, shortest-lived):
-  → Current conversation + recent tool outputs
-  → Limited by context window (~100k tokens)
-  → Good for: current task context
-
-EXTERNAL SEMANTIC MEMORY (vector search):
-  → Long-term knowledge, past conversations
-  → Unlimited, but retrieval is approximate
-  → Good for: "What did we discuss about this topic before?"
-
-EPISODIC MEMORY (structured log):
-  → Exact record of past actions and outcomes
-  → Good for: learning from past mistakes, auditability
-
-PROCEDURAL MEMORY (system prompt + tools):
-  → How the agent knows to behave and what it can do
-  → Good for: skills, personas, behavior rules
-```
-
-```ts
-// External memory: retrieve relevant past context before each turn
-async function buildContext(userId: string, currentQuery: string) {
-  const queryEmbedding = await embed(currentQuery);
-
-  // Retrieve semantically relevant past interactions
-  const pastMemories = await vectorDB.search({
-    query: queryEmbedding,
-    filter: { userId },
-    limit: 5,
-  });
-
-  return [
-    { role: 'system', content: systemPrompt },
-    // Inject relevant past context — NOT entire history
-    { role: 'system', content: `Relevant past context:\n${pastMemories.map(m => m.content).join('\n')}` },
-    { role: 'user', content: currentQuery },
-  ];
-}
-```
-
----
-
-## Multi-Agent Coordination Patterns
-
-When a task requires multiple specialists:
-
-### Supervisor Pattern
-
-```
-Supervisor agent ─→ breaks task into subtasks
-    │
-    ├─→ Research agent   (reads, gathers information)
-    ├─→ Writer agent     (drafts based on research)
-    └─→ Reviewer agent   (critiques the draft)
-         │
-         └─→ Supervisor collects results, makes final decision
-```
-
-### Peer Review Pattern (Anti-Hallucination for Agents)
-
-```ts
-// Two independent agents answer the same question — supervisor resolves disagreement
-const [answerA, answerB] = await Promise.all([
-  agentA.complete(question),
-  agentB.complete(question),
-]);
-
-if (answerA.answer === answerB.answer) {
-  return answerA;  // Agreement — high confidence
-}
-
-// Disagreement — escalate to human or third tiebreaker
-return await supervisor.resolve(question, answerA, answerB);
-```
-
----
-
-## Human-in-the-Loop Gates
-
-The most important agentic pattern. Agents should request human approval before:
-- Deleting data
-- Sending external communications (emails, webhooks)
-- Spending real money (API calls with cost, purchases)
-- Making irreversible changes
-- Acting on low-confidence decisions
-
-```ts
-async function agentLoop(task: string) {
-  for (let step = 0; step < MAX_STEPS; step++) {
-    const planned = await llm.plan(task, history);
-
-    // ✅ Human gate before irreversible actions
-    if (planned.action.isIrreversible) {
-      const approved = await requestHumanApproval({
-        action: planned.action,
-        reason: planned.reasoning,
-        confidence: planned.confidence,
-      });
-      if (!approved) return { reason: 'human_rejected', step };
-    }
-
-    // ✅ Confidence gate — don't act when uncertain
-    if (planned.confidence < 0.7) {
-      return {
-        reason: 'human_escalation',
-        message: `Low confidence (${planned.confidence}) on: ${planned.action.description}`,
-      };
-    }
-
-    const result = await executeTool(planned.action.tool, planned.action.args);
-    history.push({ action: planned.action, result });
-
-    if (planned.goalReached) break;
-  }
-}
-```
-
----
-
-## Guardrails
-
-Every production agent needs:
-
-```ts
-const guardrails = {
-  // Input guardrails — reject bad prompts before they reach the agent
-  input: [
-    { check: 'no_prompt_injection', action: 'reject' },
-    { check: 'within_scope', action: 'reject' },    // Off-topic requests
-    { check: 'pii_detection', action: 'redact' },   // Redact before processing
-  ],
-
-  // Output guardrails — validate before returning
-  output: [
-    { check: 'no_hallucinated_citations', action: 'flag' },
-    { check: 'schema_valid', action: 'retry_once' },
-    { check: 'no_pii_leaked', action: 'reject' },
-  ],
-
-  // Resource guardrails — prevent runaway cost/loops
-  resource: [
-    { check: 'max_tokens_per_session', limit: 100_000 },
-    { check: 'max_tool_calls_per_session', limit: 50 },
-    { check: 'max_cost_per_session_usd', limit: 1.00 },
-  ],
-};
-```
-
----
-
-## Output Format
-
-When this skill completes a task, structure your output as:
-
-```
-━━━ Agentic Patterns Output ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
-Task:        [what was performed]
-Result:      [outcome summary — one line]
-─────────────────────────────────────────────────
-Checks:      ✅ [N passed] · ⚠️  [N warnings] · ❌ [N blocked]
-VBC status:  PENDING → VERIFIED
-Evidence:    [link to terminal output, test result, or file diff]
-```
-
----
-
-
----
-
-
-
-AI coding assistants often fall into specific bad habits when dealing with this domain. These are strictly forbidden:
-
-1. **Over-engineering:** Proposing complex abstractions or distributed systems when a simpler approach suffices.
-2. **Hallucinated Libraries/Methods:** Using non-existent methods or packages. Always `// VERIFY` or check `package.json` / `requirements.txt`.
-3. **Skipping Edge Cases:** Writing the "happy path" and ignoring error handling, timeouts, or data validation.
-4. **Context Amnesia:** Forgetting the user's constraints and offering generic advice instead of tailored solutions.
-5. **Silent Degradation:** Catching and suppressing errors without logging or re-raising.
-
----
-
-
-
-**Slash command: `/review` or `/tribunal-full`**
-**Active reviewers: `logic-reviewer` · `security-auditor`**
-
-### ❌ Forbidden AI Tropes
-
-1. **Blind Assumptions:** Never make an assumption without documenting it clearly with `// VERIFY: [reason]`.
-2. **Silent Degradation:** Catching and suppressing errors without logging or handling.
-3. **Context Amnesia:** Forgetting the user's constraints and offering generic advice instead of tailored solutions.
-
-
-
-Review these questions before confirming output:
-```
-✅ Did I rely ONLY on real, verified tools and methods?
-✅ Is this solution appropriately scoped to the user's constraints?
-✅ Did I handle potential failure modes and edge cases?
-✅ Have I avoided generic boilerplate that doesn't add value?
-```
-
-### 🛑 Verification-Before-Completion (VBC) Protocol
-
-**CRITICAL:** You must follow a strict "evidence-based closeout" state machine.
-- ❌ **Forbidden:** Declaring a task complete because the output "looks correct."
-- ✅ **Required:** You are explicitly forbidden from finalizing any task without providing **concrete evidence** (terminal output, passing tests, compile success, or equivalent proof) that your output works as intended.
-
-
-## Pre-Flight Checklist
-- [ ] Have I reviewed the user's specific constraints and requests?
-- [ ] Have I checked the environment for relevant existing implementations?
-
-## VBC Protocol (Verification-Before-Completion)
-You MUST verify existing code signatures and variables before attempting to modify or call them. No hallucination is permitted.
+---
+name: agentic-patterns
+description: AI agent design principles. Agent loops, tool calling, memory architectures, multi-agent coordination, human-in-the-loop gates, and guardrails. Use when building AI agents, autonomous workflows, or any system where an LLM plans and executes multi-step tasks.
+allowed-tools: Read, Write, Edit, Glob, Grep
+version: 1.0.0
+last-updated: 2026-03-12
+applies-to-model: gemini-2.5-pro, claude-3-7-sonnet
+routing:
+  domain: general
+  tier: basic
+---
+
+# Agentic Patterns
+
+---
+
+## The Agent Loop
+
+Every AI agent follows this fundamental pattern:
+
+```
+PERCEIVE → PLAN → ACT → OBSERVE → (repeat or terminate)
+
+1. PERCEIVE   — What is the current state? What does the agent know?
+2. PLAN       — What action will move toward the goal?
+3. ACT        — Execute the tool, call the API, write the file
+4. OBSERVE    — What changed? Did the action succeed?
+5. EVALUATE   — Goal reached? Continue loop or return?
+```
+
+### When to Terminate
+
+```ts
+// The three termination conditions — always define all three
+type AgentResult = {
+  reason: "goal_reached" | "max_steps_exceeded" | "human_escalation";
+  steps: number;
+  result: string;
+};
+
+const MAX_STEPS = 10; // Hard cap — never let agents loop indefinitely
+```
+
+---
+
+## Tool Calling Design
+
+Tools are the agent's interface to the real world. Design them defensively:
+
+```ts
+// Tool definition — what the LLM sees and how to call it
+const tools = [
+  {
+    type: "function",
+    function: {
+      name: "search_database",
+      description: "Search the product database. Use this before creating a new record to avoid duplicates.",
+      parameters: {
+        type: "object",
+        properties: {
+          query: {
+            type: "string",
+            description: "Search terms — be specific",
+          },
+          limit: {
+            type: "number",
+            description: "Max results to return. Default: 5, max: 20",
+          },
+        },
+        required: ["query"],
+      },
+    },
+  },
+];
+
+// Tool executor — validate before running
+async function executeTool(name: string, args: unknown): Promise<string> {
+  // Validate args before executing — never trust LLM output directly
+  const parsed = ToolArgsSchema.safeParse(args);
+  if (!parsed.success) {
+    return `Error: Invalid arguments — ${parsed.error.message}`;
+  }
+
+  // Scope check — is this tool allowed for this agent's role?
+  if (!agentPermissions.includes(name)) {
+    return `Error: Tool '${name}' is not permitted for this agent`;
+  }
+
+  try {
+    return await tools[name](parsed.data);
+  } catch (err) {
+    return `Error: Tool execution failed — ${(err as Error).message}`;
+  }
+}
+```
+
+---
+
+## Memory Architecture
+
+Agents need different types of memory for different purposes:
+
+```
+IN-CONTEXT MEMORY (cheapest, shortest-lived):
+  → Current conversation + recent tool outputs
+  → Limited by context window (~100k tokens)
+  → Good for: current task context
+
+EXTERNAL SEMANTIC MEMORY (vector search):
+  → Long-term knowledge, past conversations
+  → Unlimited, but retrieval is approximate
+  → Good for: "What did we discuss about this topic before?"
 
+EPISODIC MEMORY (structured log):
+  → Exact record of past actions and outcomes
+  → Good for: learning from past mistakes, auditability
+
+PROCEDURAL MEMORY (system prompt + tools):
+  → How the agent knows to behave and what it can do
+  → Good for: skills, personas, behavior rules
+```
+
+```ts
+// External memory: retrieve relevant past context before each turn
+async function buildContext(userId: string, currentQuery: string) {
+  const queryEmbedding = await embed(currentQuery);
+
+  // Retrieve semantically relevant past interactions
+  const pastMemories = await vectorDB.search({
+    query: queryEmbedding,
+    filter: { userId },
+    limit: 5,
+  });
+
+  return [
+    { role: "system", content: systemPrompt },
+    // Inject relevant past context — NOT entire history
+    { role: "system", content: `Relevant past context:\n${pastMemories.map((m) => m.content).join("\n")}` },
+    { role: "user", content: currentQuery },
+  ];
+}
+```
+
+---
+
+## Multi-Agent Coordination Patterns
+
+When a task requires multiple specialists:
+
+### Supervisor Pattern
+
+```
+Supervisor agent ─→ breaks task into subtasks
+    │
+    ├─→ Research agent   (reads, gathers information)
+    ├─→ Writer agent     (drafts based on research)
+    └─→ Reviewer agent   (critiques the draft)
+         │
+         └─→ Supervisor collects results, makes final decision
+```
+
+### Peer Review Pattern (Anti-Hallucination for Agents)
+
+```ts
+// Two independent agents answer the same question — supervisor resolves disagreement
+const [answerA, answerB] = await Promise.all([agentA.complete(question), agentB.complete(question)]);
+
+if (answerA.answer === answerB.answer) {
+  return answerA; // Agreement — high confidence
+}
+
+// Disagreement — escalate to human or third tiebreaker
+return await supervisor.resolve(question, answerA, answerB);
+```
+
+---
+
+## Human-in-the-Loop Gates
+
+The most important agentic pattern. Agents should request human approval before:
+
+- Deleting data
+- Sending external communications (emails, webhooks)
+- Spending real money (API calls with cost, purchases)
+- Making irreversible changes
+- Acting on low-confidence decisions
+
+```ts
+async function agentLoop(task: string) {
+  for (let step = 0; step < MAX_STEPS; step++) {
+    const planned = await llm.plan(task, history);
+
+    // ✅ Human gate before irreversible actions
+    if (planned.action.isIrreversible) {
+      const approved = await requestHumanApproval({
+        action: planned.action,
+        reason: planned.reasoning,
+        confidence: planned.confidence,
+      });
+      if (!approved) return { reason: "human_rejected", step };
+    }
+
+    // ✅ Confidence gate — don't act when uncertain
+    if (planned.confidence < 0.7) {
+      return {
+        reason: "human_escalation",
+        message: `Low confidence (${planned.confidence}) on: ${planned.action.description}`,
+      };
+    }
+
+    const result = await executeTool(planned.action.tool, planned.action.args);
+    history.push({ action: planned.action, result });
+
+    if (planned.goalReached) break;
+  }
+}
+```
+
+---
+
+## Guardrails
+
+Every production agent needs:
+
+```ts
+const guardrails = {
+  // Input guardrails — reject bad prompts before they reach the agent
+  input: [
+    { check: "no_prompt_injection", action: "reject" },
+    { check: "within_scope", action: "reject" }, // Off-topic requests
+    { check: "pii_detection", action: "redact" }, // Redact before processing
+  ],
+
+  // Output guardrails — validate before returning
+  output: [
+    { check: "no_hallucinated_citations", action: "flag" },
+    { check: "schema_valid", action: "retry_once" },
+    { check: "no_pii_leaked", action: "reject" },
+  ],
+
+  // Resource guardrails — prevent runaway cost/loops
+  resource: [
+    { check: "max_tokens_per_session", limit: 100_000 },
+    { check: "max_tool_calls_per_session", limit: 50 },
+    { check: "max_cost_per_session_usd", limit: 1.0 },
+  ],
+};
+```
+
+---
+
+## Output Format
+
+When this skill completes a task, structure your output as:
+
+```
+━━━ Agentic Patterns Output ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
+Task:        [what was performed]
+Result:      [outcome summary — one line]
+─────────────────────────────────────────────────
+Checks:      ✅ [N passed] · ⚠️  [N warnings] · ❌ [N blocked]
+VBC status:  PENDING → VERIFIED
+Evidence:    [link to terminal output, test result, or file diff]
+```
+
+---
+
+---
+
+AI coding assistants often fall into specific bad habits when dealing with this domain. These are strictly forbidden:
+
+1. **Over-engineering:** Proposing complex abstractions or distributed systems when a simpler approach suffices.
+2. **Hallucinated Libraries/Methods:** Using non-existent methods or packages. Always `// VERIFY` or check `package.json` / `requirements.txt`.
+3. **Skipping Edge Cases:** Writing the "happy path" and ignoring error handling, timeouts, or data validation.
+4. **Context Amnesia:** Forgetting the user's constraints and offering generic advice instead of tailored solutions.
+5. **Silent Degradation:** Catching and suppressing errors without logging or re-raising.
+
+---
+
+**Slash command: `/review` or `/tribunal-full`**
+**Active reviewers: `logic-reviewer` · `security-auditor`**
+
+### ❌ Forbidden AI Tropes
+
+1. **Blind Assumptions:** Never make an assumption without documenting it clearly with `// VERIFY: [reason]`.
+2. **Silent Degradation:** Catching and suppressing errors without logging or handling.
+3. **Context Amnesia:** Forgetting the user's constraints and offering generic advice instead of tailored solutions.
+
+Review these questions before confirming output:
+
+```
+✅ Did I rely ONLY on real, verified tools and methods?
+✅ Is this solution appropriately scoped to the user's constraints?
+✅ Did I handle potential failure modes and edge cases?
+✅ Have I avoided generic boilerplate that doesn't add value?
+```
+
+### 🛑 Verification-Before-Completion (VBC) Protocol
+
+**CRITICAL:** You must follow a strict "evidence-based closeout" state machine.
+
+- ❌ **Forbidden:** Declaring a task complete because the output "looks correct."
+- ✅ **Required:** You are explicitly forbidden from finalizing any task without providing **concrete evidence** (terminal output, passing tests, compile success, or equivalent proof) that your output works as intended.
+
+## Pre-Flight Checklist
+
+- [ ] Have I reviewed the user's specific constraints and requests?
+- [ ] Have I checked the environment for relevant existing implementations?
+
+## VBC Protocol (Verification-Before-Completion)
+
+You MUST verify existing code signatures and variables before attempting to modify or call them. No hallucination is permitted.
 
 ---
 
@@ -343,6 +339,7 @@ AI coding assistants often fall into specific bad habits when dealing with this
 ### ✅ Pre-Flight Self-Audit
 
 Review these questions before confirming output:
+
 ```
 ✅ Did I rely ONLY on real, verified tools and methods?
 ✅ Is this solution appropriately scoped to the user's constraints?
@@ -353,5 +350,6 @@ Review these questions before confirming output:
 ### 🛑 Verification-Before-Completion (VBC) Protocol
 
 **CRITICAL:** You must follow a strict "evidence-based closeout" state machine.
+
 - ❌ **Forbidden:** Declaring a task complete because the output "looks correct."
 - ✅ **Required:** You are explicitly forbidden from finalizing any task without providing **concrete evidence** (terminal output, passing tests, compile success, or equivalent proof) that your output works as intended.