Compare commits
11 Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|
| e354fc4341 | |||
| 0e7e3ea44b | |||
| aa454c85dd | |||
| 6dd7d521be | |||
| 950dc056d8 | |||
| d360b85374 | |||
| 509dfad857 | |||
| 58b84e3b3c | |||
| f821ac99f4 | |||
| 4410afcd4a | |||
| a0e254a681 |
@@ -1,12 +0,0 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
"@united-workforce/agent-hermes": patch
|
||||
"@united-workforce/agent-claude-code": patch
|
||||
"@united-workforce/util-agent": patch
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
feat: inject thread progress into agent prompt (#127)
|
||||
|
||||
Agents now receive a "Thread Progress" section in their prompt showing the
|
||||
current step number and how many times the current role has spoken before.
|
||||
This eliminates the need for agents to make tool calls (terminal, delegate_task)
|
||||
just to count their own turn history.
|
||||
+124
-56
@@ -1,63 +1,131 @@
|
||||
name: "debate"
|
||||
description: "Structured debate between two sides. Tests cross-process session resume."
|
||||
name: debate
|
||||
description: "Multi-role structured debate with critical thinking framework and host summary."
|
||||
|
||||
# Shared frontmatter schema for debater roles (YAML anchor)
|
||||
x-debater-frontmatter: &debater-frontmatter
|
||||
type: object
|
||||
oneOf:
|
||||
- properties:
|
||||
$status: { const: speak }
|
||||
argument: { type: string }
|
||||
required: [$status, argument]
|
||||
- properties:
|
||||
$status: { const: conceded }
|
||||
reason: { type: string }
|
||||
required: [$status, reason]
|
||||
- properties:
|
||||
$status: { const: final }
|
||||
closing: { type: string }
|
||||
required: [$status, closing]
|
||||
|
||||
roles:
|
||||
against:
|
||||
description: "Argues against the proposition"
|
||||
goal: |
|
||||
You are a skilled debater arguing AGAINST the proposition.
|
||||
Be logical, cite evidence, and directly address your opponent's points.
|
||||
Keep each argument concise (under 200 words).
|
||||
capabilities:
|
||||
- argumentation
|
||||
- critical-thinking
|
||||
proponent:
|
||||
description: "Argues FOR the proposition"
|
||||
goal: "Build a compelling case for the proposition through logical reasoning and evidence"
|
||||
capabilities: []
|
||||
procedure: |
|
||||
1. If this is the opening, present your strongest argument against the proposition.
|
||||
2. If responding to the other side, directly counter their points with evidence and logic.
|
||||
3. If you find yourself genuinely convinced by the other side, you may concede.
|
||||
output: |
|
||||
Provide your argument in the frontmatter.
|
||||
Set status to "conceded" ONLY if you are genuinely convinced and wish to stop debating.
|
||||
Otherwise set status to "continue".
|
||||
You are an experienced scholar arguing FOR the proposition.
|
||||
|
||||
## Critical Thinking Framework (execute before every speech)
|
||||
|
||||
### A. Pre-speech reflection (internal, do not output)
|
||||
- Does every step in my argument chain hold? Any hidden assumptions or logical gaps?
|
||||
- If I were my opponent, how would I attack this? Where am I weakest?
|
||||
- Does my evidence actually support my claim, or could it backfire?
|
||||
- Should I go on offense or defense this round?
|
||||
|
||||
### B. Evidence discipline
|
||||
- Verify key numbers — watch for order-of-magnitude errors
|
||||
- Assess data freshness — fast-moving fields have short half-lives
|
||||
- Distinguish primary data from secondary citations, expert opinion, and common assumptions
|
||||
|
||||
### C. Anti-fragility
|
||||
- Anticipate counterarguments; preemptively strengthen or strategically abandon weak points
|
||||
- Catch logical gaps, data misuse, or outdated claims in your opponent's reasoning
|
||||
|
||||
## Rules
|
||||
1. Check Thread Progress to see how many times you have spoken.
|
||||
2. On your 3rd speech, you MUST output $status: final (closing statement).
|
||||
3. If genuinely convinced by the opponent, output $status: conceded.
|
||||
4. Otherwise output $status: speak and counter the opponent's points.
|
||||
5. Be rigorous, cite evidence, stay concise.
|
||||
output: "Debate argument"
|
||||
frontmatter: *debater-frontmatter
|
||||
|
||||
opponent:
|
||||
description: "Argues AGAINST the proposition"
|
||||
goal: "Build a compelling case against the proposition through logical reasoning and evidence"
|
||||
capabilities: []
|
||||
procedure: |
|
||||
You are an experienced scholar arguing AGAINST the proposition.
|
||||
|
||||
## Critical Thinking Framework (execute before every speech)
|
||||
|
||||
### A. Pre-speech reflection (internal, do not output)
|
||||
- Does every step in my argument chain hold? Any hidden assumptions or logical gaps?
|
||||
- If I were my opponent, how would I attack this? Where am I weakest?
|
||||
- Does my evidence actually support my claim, or could it backfire?
|
||||
- Should I go on offense or defense this round?
|
||||
|
||||
### B. Evidence discipline
|
||||
- Verify key numbers — watch for order-of-magnitude errors
|
||||
- Assess data freshness — fast-moving fields have short half-lives
|
||||
- Distinguish primary data from secondary citations, expert opinion, and common assumptions
|
||||
|
||||
### C. Anti-fragility
|
||||
- Anticipate counterarguments; preemptively strengthen or strategically abandon weak points
|
||||
- Catch logical gaps, data misuse, or outdated claims in your opponent's reasoning
|
||||
|
||||
## Rules
|
||||
1. Check Thread Progress to see how many times you have spoken.
|
||||
2. On your 3rd speech, or when the proponent has issued a final statement, you MUST output $status: final.
|
||||
3. If genuinely convinced by the proponent, output $status: conceded.
|
||||
4. Otherwise output $status: speak and counter the proponent's points.
|
||||
5. Be rigorous, cite evidence, stay concise.
|
||||
output: "Debate argument"
|
||||
frontmatter: *debater-frontmatter
|
||||
|
||||
host:
|
||||
description: "Debate moderator — delivers impartial summary and verdict"
|
||||
goal: "Objectively review the debate, analyze both sides, and deliver a verdict"
|
||||
capabilities: []
|
||||
procedure: |
|
||||
You are an experienced academic debate moderator.
|
||||
|
||||
## Task
|
||||
1. Outline each side's core arguments
|
||||
2. Evaluate reasoning quality and evidence use
|
||||
3. Highlight the most impactful exchanges
|
||||
4. Analyze the deeper significance of the topic
|
||||
5. Deliver an overall verdict
|
||||
|
||||
## Style
|
||||
- Impartial but with independent judgment
|
||||
- Substantive, not superficial
|
||||
output: "Debate summary report"
|
||||
frontmatter:
|
||||
type: object
|
||||
properties:
|
||||
$status:
|
||||
enum: ["continue", "conceded"]
|
||||
argument:
|
||||
type: string
|
||||
required: [$status, argument]
|
||||
for:
|
||||
description: "Argues for the proposition"
|
||||
goal: |
|
||||
You are a skilled debater arguing FOR the proposition.
|
||||
Be logical, cite evidence, and directly address your opponent's points.
|
||||
Keep each argument concise (under 200 words).
|
||||
capabilities:
|
||||
- argumentation
|
||||
- critical-thinking
|
||||
procedure: |
|
||||
1. Read the opposing side's latest argument carefully.
|
||||
2. Counter their points with evidence and logic.
|
||||
3. If you find yourself genuinely convinced by the other side, you may concede.
|
||||
output: |
|
||||
Provide your argument in the frontmatter.
|
||||
Set status to "conceded" ONLY if you are genuinely convinced and wish to stop debating.
|
||||
Otherwise set status to "continue".
|
||||
frontmatter:
|
||||
type: object
|
||||
properties:
|
||||
$status:
|
||||
enum: ["continue", "conceded"]
|
||||
argument:
|
||||
type: string
|
||||
required: [$status, argument]
|
||||
$status: { const: done }
|
||||
summary: { type: string }
|
||||
highlights: { type: string }
|
||||
verdict: { type: string }
|
||||
required: [$status, summary, highlights, verdict]
|
||||
|
||||
graph:
|
||||
$START:
|
||||
new: { role: "against", prompt: "Present your opening argument against the proposition." }
|
||||
resume: { role: "against", prompt: "Review the previous debate output and continue the argument against the proposition." }
|
||||
against:
|
||||
conceded: { role: "$END", prompt: "The against side conceded. Debate over." }
|
||||
continue: { role: "for", prompt: "Counter the opposing argument: {{{argument}}}" }
|
||||
for:
|
||||
conceded: { role: "$END", prompt: "The for side conceded. Debate over." }
|
||||
continue: { role: "against", prompt: "Counter the opposing argument: {{{argument}}}" }
|
||||
new: { role: proponent, prompt: "The debate begins. You are arguing FOR the proposition. Present your opening argument." }
|
||||
resume: { role: proponent, prompt: "The debate continues." }
|
||||
|
||||
proponent:
|
||||
speak: { role: opponent, prompt: "Proponent argues:\n\n{{{argument}}}\n\nYou are the opponent. Counter this argument." }
|
||||
conceded: { role: host, prompt: "The proponent conceded: {{{reason}}}\n\nPlease summarize the debate." }
|
||||
final: { role: opponent, prompt: "Proponent's closing statement:\n\n{{{closing}}}\n\nYou are the opponent. Deliver your final response." }
|
||||
|
||||
opponent:
|
||||
speak: { role: proponent, prompt: "Opponent argues:\n\n{{{argument}}}\n\nYou are the proponent. Counter this argument." }
|
||||
conceded: { role: host, prompt: "The opponent conceded: {{{reason}}}\n\nPlease summarize the debate." }
|
||||
final: { role: host, prompt: "Opponent's closing statement:\n\n{{{closing}}}\n\nThe debate is over. Please summarize." }
|
||||
|
||||
host:
|
||||
done: { role: "$END", prompt: "Summary complete." }
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
|
||||
{
|
||||
"name": "@united-workforce/agent-claude-code",
|
||||
"version": "0.1.2",
|
||||
"version": "0.1.3",
|
||||
"files": [
|
||||
"src",
|
||||
"dist",
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
|
||||
{
|
||||
"name": "@united-workforce/agent-hermes",
|
||||
"version": "0.1.3",
|
||||
"version": "0.1.4",
|
||||
"files": [
|
||||
"src",
|
||||
"dist",
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -12,7 +12,11 @@ const OWN_VERSION = (
|
||||
}
|
||||
).version;
|
||||
|
||||
const HERMES_COMMAND = "hermes";
|
||||
/** Resolve hermes binary: `UWF_HERMES_BIN` override → default `"hermes"` via PATH. */
|
||||
function resolveHermesCommand(): string {
|
||||
const override = process.env.UWF_HERMES_BIN;
|
||||
return override !== undefined && override !== "" ? override : "hermes";
|
||||
}
|
||||
const PROTOCOL_VERSION = 1;
|
||||
|
||||
type JsonRpcResponse = {
|
||||
@@ -271,7 +275,8 @@ export class HermesAcpClient {
|
||||
return;
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
const child = spawn(HERMES_COMMAND, ["acp"], {
|
||||
const hermesCommand = resolveHermesCommand();
|
||||
const child = spawn(hermesCommand, ["acp"], {
|
||||
env: process.env,
|
||||
shell: false,
|
||||
stdio: ["pipe", "pipe", "pipe"],
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
|
||||
{
|
||||
"name": "@united-workforce/eval",
|
||||
"version": "0.1.3",
|
||||
"version": "0.1.4",
|
||||
"private": false,
|
||||
"files": [
|
||||
"src",
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -6,7 +6,7 @@ import { formatList, selectEntries } from "./format.js";
|
||||
import { readEvalEntries } from "./read.js";
|
||||
|
||||
const log = createLogger({ sink: { kind: "stderr" } });
|
||||
const LOG_LIST = "L5KX9R2B";
|
||||
const LOG_LIST = "H5KX9R2B";
|
||||
|
||||
type ListCliOptions = {
|
||||
task: string | undefined;
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -225,4 +225,34 @@ describe("buildOutputFormatInstruction", () => {
|
||||
const result = buildOutputFormatInstruction({});
|
||||
expect(result).toContain("Focus exclusively on YOUR role");
|
||||
});
|
||||
|
||||
test("renders const value as literal in flat schema example", () => {
|
||||
const schema = {
|
||||
type: "object",
|
||||
properties: {
|
||||
$status: { type: "string", const: "greeted" },
|
||||
message: { type: "string" },
|
||||
},
|
||||
required: ["$status", "message"],
|
||||
};
|
||||
const result = buildOutputFormatInstruction(schema);
|
||||
expect(result).toContain("$status: greeted");
|
||||
expect(result).toContain("fixed value");
|
||||
expect(result).not.toContain("$status: <string>");
|
||||
});
|
||||
|
||||
test("renders const value for non-string types", () => {
|
||||
const schema = {
|
||||
type: "object",
|
||||
properties: {
|
||||
count: { type: "number", const: 42 },
|
||||
done: { type: "boolean", const: true },
|
||||
},
|
||||
required: ["count", "done"],
|
||||
};
|
||||
const result = buildOutputFormatInstruction(schema);
|
||||
expect(result).toContain("count: 42");
|
||||
expect(result).toContain("done: true");
|
||||
expect(result).toContain("fixed value");
|
||||
});
|
||||
});
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
|
||||
{
|
||||
"name": "@united-workforce/util-agent",
|
||||
"version": "0.1.0",
|
||||
"version": "0.1.1",
|
||||
"files": [
|
||||
"src",
|
||||
"dist",
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -74,6 +74,10 @@ function collectObjectSchemas(schema: JSONSchema): JSONSchema[] {
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
function resolvePropertySchema(prop: JSONSchema): JSONSchema {
|
||||
if (prop.const !== undefined) {
|
||||
return prop;
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
if (Array.isArray(prop.enum) && prop.enum.length > 0) {
|
||||
return prop;
|
||||
}
|
||||
@@ -113,6 +117,11 @@ function buildPropertyExampleLine(prop: SchemaProperty): string {
|
||||
commentParts.push("required");
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
if (resolved.const !== undefined) {
|
||||
commentParts.push("fixed value");
|
||||
return `${prop.name}: ${formatYamlScalar(resolved.const)}${buildPropertyComment(commentParts)}`;
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
if (Array.isArray(resolved.enum) && resolved.enum.length > 0) {
|
||||
const enumValues = resolved.enum.map((v) => String(v));
|
||||
commentParts.push(...enumValues);
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
|
||||
{
|
||||
"name": "@united-workforce/util",
|
||||
"version": "0.1.3",
|
||||
"version": "0.1.4",
|
||||
"files": [
|
||||
"src",
|
||||
"dist",
|
||||
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user