diff --git a/agents/valerius/agent.yml b/agents/valerius/agent.yml index 79c6652..01bcdae 100644 --- a/agents/valerius/agent.yml +++ b/agents/valerius/agent.yml @@ -16,6 +16,7 @@ manages: - specialists department: executive supported_templates: + - adjudication - adjudicate_tenant - charter_audit - amend_charter diff --git a/templates/adjudication.yml b/templates/adjudication.yml new file mode 100644 index 0000000..f6bdfd0 --- /dev/null +++ b/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