From c14d8ab697486df200e041872fe1918128f106b0 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Nova_2761 <davidb@crimsonleafllc.com>
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 2026 21:05:35 +0000
Subject: [PATCH] init: copy starter template adjudication.yml from core

---
 templates/adjudication.yml | 67 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 67 insertions(+)
 create mode 100644 templates/adjudication.yml

diff --git a/templates/adjudication.yml b/templates/adjudication.yml
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..1b22443
--- /dev/null
+++ b/templates/adjudication.yml
@@ -0,0 +1,67 @@
+name: adjudication_worker
+description: "Worker-executed adjudication task (Sprint 55a). Reads the staged deliverable from Tool.Gitea, scores it, writes RAG learnings, copies the file from staging to the permanent deliverables path, and submits the adjudication result."
+debug: true
+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: |
+      The context variable `deliverable_staging_path` contains the Gitea path where the
+      draft deliverable was stored by the worker.  The `original_task_id` identifies the
+      task that produced it.
+
+      Review the deliverable against the project objectives, acceptance criteria, and
+      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 Goals and charter compliance.
+    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: Each criterion in the rubric must be scored 0–100 independently.
+
+  # ── Step 1: Package — emit adjudication result, trigger GitCopyFile ──────────
+  - 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. Cite charter violations if any."
+      staging_path: "{ctx.deliverable_staging_path}"
+      original_task_id: "{ctx.original_task_id}"
+
+adjudication:
+  enabled: false