Fix adjudication template resolution -- add adjudication.yml and Valerius support for adjudication tasks

agents/valerius/agent.yml

@@ -16,6 +16,7 @@ manages:
   - specialists
 department: executive
 supported_templates:
+  - adjudication
   - adjudicate_tenant
   - charter_audit
   - amend_charter

templates/adjudication.yml

@@ -0,0 +1,70 @@
+name: adjudication_worker
+description: "Worker-executed adjudication task. Reads the staged deliverable from Tool.Gitea, scores it, writes RAG learnings, and submits the adjudication result."
+debug: false
+system: agent_prompt
+
+sections:
+  - scene
+  - agent
+  - project
+  - history
+  - deliverables
+  - message
+  - instructions
+
+steps:
+  # -- Step 0: Think -- evaluate the staged deliverable ---------------------------
+  - type: think
+    max_tokens: 8000
+    scene: |
+      You are {agent.name}, an independent performance reviewer and constitutional auditor.
+      You evaluate completed work against acceptance goals AND the company's corporate charter.
+    system: |
+      TASK: {task.name}
+
+      SCOPE -- SINGLE DELIVERABLE REVIEW:
+      You are evaluating ONE specific deliverable file located at `deliverable_staging_path`.
+      Do NOT evaluate project-wide completion, chapter count, or how many items remain.
+      The project may be a multi-part series -- that is irrelevant.
+      You are reviewing ONLY the file at the staging path. Judge it on its own merits.
+
+      Review this deliverable against the acceptance criteria listed below (if any) AND
+      the CORPORATE CHARTER (if present in the message).
+
+      1. CHARTER COMPLIANCE (when a CORPORATE CHARTER is present):
+         Cross-reference the deliverable against the charter's authorized domain,
+         forbidden activities, and non-goals. Charter violations are grounds for
+         automatic failure (score < 80).
+
+      2. CORPORATE POLICY EXTRACTION:
+         Identify ONE formal Standard Operating Procedure or Corporate Policy
+         established by this task (if any).
+
+      3. PROJECT LEARNING:
+         Identify ONE specific architectural fact the project established (if any).
+
+      4. SCORING:
+         Grade the worker from 0 to 100 based on the acceptance criteria and charter compliance.
+         Use the criteria rubric if provided; otherwise apply craft and quality standards.
+    hint: |
+      Do not fabricate policies. If it was a routine task with nothing new, the policy is "NONE".
+      Write policies in active, authoritative language. No personal pronouns.
+      Format: "Standard Practice: ..." or "Policy: ..." or "NONE".
+      Score ruthlessly on a 0-100 scale: 80+ means acceptable work that met requirements,
+      90+ means good work with quality above expectations, 95+ means exceptional work.
+      Below 80 means the work failed to meet core requirements and must be retried.
+      IMPORTANT: Score based solely on THIS deliverable's quality, not on project completion status.
+      IMPORTANT: Each criterion in the rubric must be scored 0-100 independently.
+
+  # -- Step 1: Package -- emit adjudication result --------------------------------
+  - type: package
+    packet_type: AdjudicationResult
+    schema:
+      corporate_policy: "string or 'NONE' -- formal Standard Practice or Policy established. Active, authoritative language. No personal pronouns."
+      project_learning: "string or 'NONE' -- one bullet: factual project architecture or decision established here."
+      score: "integer 0-100 -- 0=Complete failure, 80=Acceptable, 90=Good, 95+=Exceptional. Tasks scoring below 80 will be retried."
+      score_breakdown: "object -- per-criterion scores as {criterion_name: integer 0-100}. Omit if no rubric was provided."
+      justification: "string -- one sentence explaining the score. Reference specific evidence from the deliverable. Cite charter violations if any."
+
+adjudication:
+  enabled: false