pae/crimson_leaf
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Actions Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

Cleaned

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
David Baity
2026-03-09 22:15:10 -04:00
parent c3a4d2f6f9
commit a07a372093
26 changed files with 0 additions and 1283 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

79
templates/bootstrap_company.yml
View File

@@ -1,79 +0,0 @@
name: bootstrap_company
description: "Convert approved company design into executable creation payloads — the final deployment step."
debug: true
system: agent_prompt
agent_prompt:
- "= identity.md"
sections:
- agent
- project
- history
- rag
- deliverables
- message
- instructions
steps:
- type: think
hint: |
You are converting the approved Company Design Specification into exact API payloads.
Read the COMPANY DESIGN SPECIFICATION from the deliverables above.
Verify it contains all required sections:
- Company name and slug
- Agent roster (4–8 agents with roles)
- Template procurement list
- Pipeline SOP
- Victor's GO decision
If any section is missing or the GO/NO-GO decision is not "GO", stop and explain why
this company cannot be bootstrapped. Do NOT proceed with a NO-GO design.
If everything is present and approved, prepare the following:
FOR EACH AGENT in the roster:
- name (lowercase, no spaces)
- role (CEO | Director | Specialist)
- title (human-readable job title)
- department (the department slug)
- manages (list of departments/roles this agent manages, empty for specialists)
- supported_templates (which templates from the procurement list this agent uses)
- seed_prompt (2–3 sentences describing this agent's core identity and directives)
FOR THE TEMPLATE LIST:
- Exact template names to procure from Global Core
FOR THE PIPELINE:
- The full SOP as a numbered list with task_type, assigned_agent, depends_on
Output your complete analysis, then state: PAYLOAD READY
- type: package
hint: |
Package the company creation payload. This will be intercepted by the system
to create the company, hire agents, and procure templates automatically.
schema:
create_company:
name: string
slug: string
business_plan: string
agents_to_hire:
- name: string
role: string
title: string
department: string
manages: list
supported_templates: list
seed_prompt: string
templates_to_procure:
- string
pipeline_sop:
- step: number
task_type: string
agent_name: string
depends_on: string
- type: close
rag_update: true

157
templates/company_design.yml
View File

@@ -1,157 +0,0 @@
name: company_design
description: "Boardroom deliberation — the full Crimson Leaf board debates and designs a new company."
debug: true
system: agent_prompt
participant_prompt:
- "= identity.md"
sections:
- agent
- project
- history
- participants
- participants_prompt
- rag
- deliverables
- message
- instructions
steps:
- type: think
rotate_participants: true
loop:
max_iterations: 3
hint: |
You are {agent.name}. This is round {task.iteration} of the Crimson Leaf boardroom.
You are in a room with {agent_roster}.
The board is designing a new autonomous company based on the Market Opportunity Pitch
in the deliverables above. Every voice matters — this is a real debate, not a presentation.
YOUR RESPONSIBILITIES BY ROLE:
- Sarah: Defend your research. Challenge assumptions about market size and demand.
Push back if the board drifts from what the data supports.
- Elena: Propose the agent roster (4–8 roles), chain of command, and pipeline SOP.
Specify exact task dependencies and execution order.
- Nolan: Map Elena's pipeline to concrete PAE templates and tools. Flag any step
that can't be executed with existing infrastructure. Propose procurement list.
- Victor: Challenge profitability. Ask hard questions about revenue model, cost
structure, and time to first deliverable. You have Go/No-Go authority.
Write YOUR perspective on this round's discussion. React to what others said.
Challenge what you disagree with. Build on what resonates.
THE DESIGN MUST INCLUDE (when consensus is reached):
1. Company name and slug
2. One-paragraph business plan
3. Agent roster: name, role, title, department, key responsibility (4–8 agents)
4. Template procurement list: which generic templates to import from Global
5. Pipeline SOP: numbered sequence of task types with dependencies
6. Revenue model and success metrics
When the group has genuinely reached consensus, include exactly:
"consensus_reached: true"
If debate should continue, do NOT include that line.
- type: think
agent: "Victor"
hint: |
You are Victor, CEO of Crimson Leaf LLC.
The boardroom debate is complete. Synthesize the full transcript into a
COMPANY DESIGN SPECIFICATION document with these exact sections:
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY — Company name, slug, one-paragraph mission
2. MARKET JUSTIFICATION — Why this company, why now (from Sarah's research)
3. AGENT ROSTER — Table: Name | Role | Title | Department | Responsibility
4. CHAIN OF COMMAND — Who manages whom, department structure
5. TEMPLATE STACK — Exact list of templates to procure (from Nolan's analysis)
6. PIPELINE SOP — Numbered steps with task_type, agent, dependencies (from Elena)
7. REVENUE MODEL — How the company makes money
8. SUCCESS METRICS — Measurable targets for the first 30/60/90 days
9. RISKS & MITIGATIONS — Top 3 risks with mitigation strategies
10. GO/NO-GO DECISION — Your final verdict with reasoning
Be precise. This document is the blueprint that bootstrap_company will execute.
- type: document
filename: "company-design-spec-{{task_name_slug}}"
- type: reply
target: discussion
style: |
Present the Company Design Specification to the operator. Highlight the key
decisions: company name, agent roster size, template stack, and revenue model.
End with: "Does this design align with your vision? Reply to approve or suggest changes."
- type: package
hint: |
The design specification is complete and presented to the operator.
Spawn a human approval gate — the review cycle will NOT start until
the operator confirms the design direction is correct.
schema:
design_spec: string
spawn:
- task_type: human_action
task_name: "Operator Review: Approve Design Direction — {task.message}"
agent_name: Victor
priority: 8
context:
design_spec: "{design_spec}"
gate_purpose: "Review company design spec, approve before review cycle begins"
- task_type: design_review
task_name: "Design Review (Victor): {task.message}"
agent_name: Victor
priority: 6
context:
design_spec: "{design_spec}"
review_focus: financial_viability
depends_on:
- "Operator Review: Approve Design Direction — {task.message}"
- task_type: design_review
task_name: "Design Review (Nolan): {task.message}"
agent_name: Nolan
priority: 6
context:
design_spec: "{design_spec}"
review_focus: technical_feasibility
depends_on:
- "Operator Review: Approve Design Direction — {task.message}"
- task_type: design_review
task_name: "Design Review (Sarah): {task.message}"
agent_name: Sarah
priority: 6
context:
design_spec: "{design_spec}"
review_focus: market_fit
depends_on:
- "Operator Review: Approve Design Direction — {task.message}"
- task_type: design_review
task_name: "Design Review (Elena): {task.message}"
agent_name: Elena
priority: 6
context:
design_spec: "{design_spec}"
review_focus: operational_completeness
depends_on:
- "Operator Review: Approve Design Direction — {task.message}"
- task_type: design_roundtable
task_name: "Design Roundtable: {task.message}"
agents: [Victor, Nolan, Sarah, Elena]
priority: 7
context:
design_spec: "{design_spec}"
depends_on:
- "Design Review (Victor): {task.message}"
- "Design Review (Nolan): {task.message}"
- "Design Review (Sarah): {task.message}"
- "Design Review (Elena): {task.message}"
- type: close
rag_update: true

94
templates/design_polish.yml
View File

@@ -1,94 +0,0 @@
name: design_polish
description: >
Refine the company design specification based on board review consensus.
Produces the final, bootstrap-ready design document.
debug: true
model: power
sections:
- agent
- project
- rag
- deliverables
- message
- instructions
steps:
- type: think
hint: |
You are Elena, Chief Operations Architect at Crimson Leaf LLC.
The board has completed their independent reviews and reached consensus
in the design roundtable. Your job is to produce the FINAL company design
specification incorporating all approved changes.
BOARD CONSENSUS:
{consensus_critique}
KEY CHANGES REQUIRED:
{key_changes}
DESIGN VERDICT: {design_verdict}
Victor (CEO): {victor_final}
Nolan (CTO): {nolan_final}
Sarah (Market Intelligence): {sarah_final}
ORIGINAL DESIGN SPECIFICATION:
{design_spec}
INSTRUCTIONS:
1. Address every item in KEY CHANGES REQUIRED. Do not skip any.
2. Preserve everything the board marked as STRENGTHS.
3. Do not add new agents, templates, or pipeline steps that weren't discussed.
4. If a change conflicts with another, follow Victor's direction (CEO authority).
5. The output must be a COMPLETE, self-contained design specification with
all sections present — not a diff or changelog.
OUTPUT FORMAT (exact sections required):
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY — Company name, slug, one-paragraph mission
2. MARKET JUSTIFICATION — Why this company, why now
3. AGENT ROSTER — Table: Name | Role | Title | Department | Responsibility
4. CHAIN OF COMMAND — Who manages whom
5. TEMPLATE STACK — Exact list of templates to procure
6. PIPELINE SOP — Numbered steps: task_type, agent, depends_on
7. REVENUE MODEL — How the company makes money
8. SUCCESS METRICS — 30/60/90 day targets
9. RISKS & MITIGATIONS — Top 3 risks with mitigations
10. BOARD APPROVAL — "APPROVED FOR BOOTSTRAP" with date
- type: document
filename: "company-design-final-{{task_name_slug}}"
- type: reply
target: discussion
style: |
Present the FINAL company design to the operator. This is the last gate before
a real company is created. Summarize: company name, agent count, template count,
revenue model, and the board's GO verdict. End with: "This will create a live
company with agents and templates. Reply 'approved' to proceed with bootstrap."
- type: package
hint: |
The polished design is complete and presented to the operator.
Spawn a human approval gate — bootstrap will NOT execute until
the operator explicitly greenlights the company creation.
schema:
design_approved: boolean
spawn:
- task_type: human_action
task_name: "Operator Approval: Green Light Bootstrap — {task.message}"
agent_name: Victor
priority: 9
context:
gate_purpose: "Final approval before company creation — this spawns real infrastructure"
- task_type: bootstrap_company
task_name: "Bootstrap: {task.message}"
agent_name: Nolan
priority: 8
depends_on:
- "Operator Approval: Green Light Bootstrap — {task.message}"
- type: close
rag_update: true

49
templates/design_review.yml
View File

@@ -1,49 +0,0 @@
name: design_review
description: >
Independent review of a company design specification. Each board member
critiques the design from their domain expertise.
debug: true
model: power
system: agent_prompt
agent_prompt:
- "= identity.md"
sections:
- agent
- project
- history
- rag
- deliverables
- message
- instructions
steps:
- type: think
hint: |
You are {agent.name}, {agent.title}.
You are reviewing a COMPANY DESIGN SPECIFICATION produced by the Crimson Leaf boardroom.
The full design document is in the deliverables above.
Your review focus area: {review_focus}
Examine every section of the design through the lens of YOUR expertise.
Be specific — reference exact sections, agent names, template names, or
pipeline steps where you see issues. Generic praise or vague concerns are useless.
The design has 10 sections: Executive Summary, Market Justification, Agent Roster,
Chain of Command, Template Stack, Pipeline SOP, Revenue Model, Success Metrics,
Risks & Mitigations, and Go/No-Go Decision.
Review ALL of them, but weight your critique toward your domain.
Structure your review as:
1. STRENGTHS — What is solid and well-designed (cite specifics)
2. CONCERNS — Issues ranked by severity (critical → minor)
3. SPECIFIC CHANGES — Exact modifications you would make, with reasoning
4. VERDICT — approve / revise / redesign — and why
- type: reply
target: discussion
style: structured_review

92
templates/design_roundtable.yml
View File

@@ -1,92 +0,0 @@
name: design_roundtable
description: >
The Crimson Leaf board debates their independent design reviews in 2–3
structured rounds, reaching consensus on required changes before polish.
debug: true
participant_prompt:
- "= identity.md"
sections:
- agent
- project
- history
- participants
- participants_prompt
- rag
- deliverables
- message
- instructions
steps:
- type: think
rotate_participants: true
loop:
max_iterations: 3
hint: |
You are {agent.name}.
{agent.identity}
You have the Company Design Specification and all independent reviews above.
COMPANY DESIGN UNDER REVIEW: {task.message}
Round {task.iteration} of the design review debate.
Respond to the other board members' most critical points:
- Where you agree, say so clearly and move on.
- Where you disagree, argue your position with specific evidence.
- If you've changed your mind based on someone's argument, say so.
Focus on ACTIONABLE changes. The output of this roundtable will be used
to polish the design specification before bootstrap.
The group must converge on:
1. Final verdict: GO (proceed to polish) or KILL (abandon this company)
2. If GO: the exact list of changes to make during polish
3. Any unresolved risks that must be accepted or mitigated
When the group has reached sufficient consensus for the polish step,
end your response with: consensus_reached: true
- type: think
agent: "Victor"
hint: |
You are Victor, CEO of Crimson Leaf LLC.
The design roundtable is complete. Synthesize the board's debate into a
structured consensus summary:
1. DESIGN VERDICT — GO or KILL, with Victor's final reasoning
2. KEY CHANGES — exact list of changes to apply during design_polish
3. CONSENSUS CRITIQUE — one paragraph summary of the board's unified position
4. VICTOR FINAL — Victor's closing statement
5. NOLAN FINAL — Nolan's final position summary
6. SARAH FINAL — Sarah's final position summary
7. ELENA FINAL — Elena's final position summary
- type: package
schema:
consensus_critique: string
design_verdict: string
victor_final: string
nolan_final: string
sarah_final: string
elena_final: string
key_changes: list
spawn:
- task_type: design_polish
task_name: "Polish Design: {task.message}"
agent_name: Elena
context:
design_spec: "{design_spec}"
consensus_critique: "{consensus_critique}"
key_changes: "{key_changes}"
design_verdict: "{design_verdict}"
victor_final: "{victor_final}"
nolan_final: "{nolan_final}"
sarah_final: "{sarah_final}"
elena_final: "{elena_final}"
- type: close
rag_update: true

108
templates/market_research.yml
View File

@@ -1,108 +0,0 @@
name: market_research
description: "Crimson Leaf market intelligence — web search, trend analysis, opportunity pitch for new business units."
debug: true
system: agent_prompt
agent_prompt:
- "= identity.md"
sections:
- agent
- project
- history
- rag
- prior_results
- message
- instructions
builders:
prior_results: |
*** WEB SEARCH RESULTS ***
{steps[1].text}
(If the above is empty, use your expert training knowledge to answer this question.)
steps:
- type: think
hint: |
You are Sarah, Head of Market Intelligence at Crimson Leaf LLC.
Your mission: identify the best search query to validate a business opportunity.
The project prompt above describes the industry or niche to explore.
Analyze the prompt and determine:
- What market or industry is being targeted?
- What specific data would prove or disprove demand?
- What competitors or existing solutions should we find?
Then on the last line write:
SEARCH QUERY: [your query here]
Query rules: 3–8 words. Specific. Think like a search engine.
Good: "AI content agency market size 2025 revenue"
Bad: "What is the market for AI content agencies?"
- type: tool
capability: Tool_WebSearcher
input_from: last_text
- type: think
hint: |
You have live search results above (in PRIOR RESULTS).
If the web search results are empty or unavailable, use your expert training knowledge.
Synthesize everything into a MARKET OPPORTUNITY PITCH for the Crimson Leaf board:
1. MARKET OVERVIEW — What is this industry? How big is it? Is it growing?
2. DEMAND SIGNALS — What evidence shows real demand? Trends, growth rates, pain points.
3. COMPETITIVE LANDSCAPE — Who already operates here? What are they doing well and poorly?
4. OPPORTUNITY GAP — Where is the market undersupplied? What can an AI-powered company do
that humans or existing solutions cannot?
5. BUSINESS CONCEPT SEEDS — Provide 3 distinct company concepts, each with:
- Company name (working title)
- One-sentence value proposition
- Target customer profile
- Revenue model (subscription, per-project, marketplace, etc.)
- Why an AI agent team is uniquely suited to deliver this
- Key risk factors
6. RECOMMENDATION — Rank the 3 concepts. Highlight the single best opportunity with
full justification. Be honest about risks.
7. SOURCES — Key URLs or references from search results.
- type: document
filename: "market-pitch-{{task_name_slug}}"
- type: reply
target: discussion
style: |
Present the Market Opportunity Pitch to the operator. Summarize the 3 business
concepts clearly with their rankings. End with: "Which concept should we design?
Reply with your choice or feedback."
- type: package
hint: |
The market research is complete and presented to the operator.
Spawn a human approval gate — the boardroom will NOT start until
the operator reviews the pitch and selects a concept.
schema:
market_pitch: string
spawn:
- task_type: human_action
task_name: "Operator Review: Select Business Concept — {task.message}"
agent_name: Victor
priority: 8
context:
market_pitch: "{market_pitch}"
gate_purpose: "Review market pitch, select which concept to design"
- task_type: company_design
task_name: "Company Design Boardroom: {task.message}"
agent_name: Victor
priority: 7
context:
market_pitch: "{market_pitch}"
depends_on:
- "Operator Review: Select Business Concept — {task.message}"
- type: close
rag_update: true