init: seed framework reference content from agent-runtimes main repo

workflows/comparative-plan.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,173 @@
+name: comparative-plan
+version: 1
+description: "3-way comparative planning: two models plan independently, cross-review, then synthesize"
+
+params:
+  required:
+    task_description:
+      type: string
+      description: "What to plan — the task or feature to design"
+    project_id:
+      type: string
+      description: "Target project identifier"
+  optional:
+    model_a:
+      type: string
+      default: null
+      description: "Override model A endpoint (auto-selected from registry if omitted)"
+    model_b:
+      type: string
+      default: null
+      description: "Override model B endpoint (auto-selected from registry if omitted)"
+    best_practices:
+      type: list
+      default:
+        - api-design
+        - spec-driven-development
+        - test-driven-development
+        - security-architecture
+      description: "Best practice topics to review against"
+    repo:
+      type: string
+      default: null
+      description: "Git repo URL to clone for context (optional)"
+
+nodes:
+  plan_a:
+    name: "Plan A"
+    prompt: |
+      Create a detailed implementation plan for the following task:
+
+      {{ task_description }}
+
+      ## Instructions
+      - Follow spec-driven development methodology
+      - Structure your plan with: Overview, Phases, Files to create/modify, Test strategy, Dependencies
+      - Be specific about data models, API contracts, and interfaces
+      - Consider security, error handling, and edge cases
+      - Write your final plan to /workspace/project/output.md
+    harness: planning/v1
+    requirements:
+      min_scores:
+        complexity: 7
+        spec_adherence: 8
+
+  plan_b:
+    name: "Plan B"
+    prompt: |
+      Create a detailed implementation plan for the following task:
+
+      {{ task_description }}
+
+      ## Instructions
+      - Follow spec-driven development methodology
+      - Structure your plan with: Overview, Phases, Files to create/modify, Test strategy, Dependencies
+      - Be specific about data models, API contracts, and interfaces
+      - Consider security, error handling, and edge cases
+      - Write your final plan to /workspace/project/output.md
+    harness: planning/v1
+    requirements:
+      min_scores:
+        complexity: 7
+        spec_adherence: 8
+
+  review_a_of_b:
+    name: "Review: A reviews B's plan"
+    depends_on: [plan_a, plan_b]
+    prompt: |
+      You are reviewing an implementation plan against best practices.
+
+      ## Best Practices to Check Against
+      Read and apply these best practice topics: {{ best_practices | join(', ') }}
+
+      ## Plan to Review
+      The following plan was produced by another model. Review it critically.
+
+      <<ARTIFACT:plan_b:output>>
+
+      ## Instructions
+      1. Read each relevant best practice file from /best-practices/
+      2. Check the plan against each practice
+      3. List specific, numbered improvement points
+      4. For each point, cite which best practice it violates or could better follow
+      5. Be concrete — say what should change, not just that something is wrong
+
+      Write your review to /workspace/project/output.md
+    harness: planning/v1
+    requirements:
+      min_scores:
+        spec_adherence: 8
+
+  review_b_of_a:
+    name: "Review: B reviews A's plan"
+    depends_on: [plan_a, plan_b]
+    prompt: |
+      You are reviewing an implementation plan against best practices.
+
+      ## Best Practices to Check Against
+      Read and apply these best practice topics: {{ best_practices | join(', ') }}
+
+      ## Plan to Review
+      The following plan was produced by another model. Review it critically.
+
+      <<ARTIFACT:plan_a:output>>
+
+      ## Instructions
+      1. Read each relevant best practice file from /best-practices/
+      2. Check the plan against each practice
+      3. List specific, numbered improvement points
+      4. For each point, cite which best practice it violates or could better follow
+      5. Be concrete — say what should change, not just that something is wrong
+
+      Write your review to /workspace/project/output.md
+    harness: planning/v1
+    requirements:
+      min_scores:
+        spec_adherence: 8
+
+  synthesize:
+    name: "Synthesize final plan"
+    depends_on: [review_a_of_b, review_b_of_a]
+    prompt: |
+      You are synthesizing a final implementation plan from two competing plans and their cross-reviews.
+
+      ## Original Task
+      {{ task_description }}
+
+      ## Plan A
+      <<ARTIFACT:plan_a:output>>
+
+      ## Plan B
+      <<ARTIFACT:plan_b:output>>
+
+      ## Review of Plan B (by the model that wrote Plan A)
+      <<ARTIFACT:review_a_of_b:output>>
+
+      ## Review of Plan A (by the model that wrote Plan B)
+      <<ARTIFACT:review_b_of_a:output>>
+
+      ## Instructions
+      1. Identify the strongest elements from each plan
+      2. Address all improvement points raised in both reviews
+      3. Synthesize a single, improved plan that combines the best of both
+      4. Structure: Overview, Phases, Files, Test strategy, Dependencies
+      5. Flag any unresolved disagreements between the reviews
+
+      Write the final synthesized plan to /workspace/project/output.md
+    harness: planning/v1
+    requirements:
+      min_scores:
+        complexity: 8
+        spec_adherence: 9
+        creativity: 7
+
+scoring:
+  type: comparative_review
+  reviews:
+    - review_node: review_a_of_b
+      scored_model_node: plan_b
+      dimension: spec_adherence
+    - review_node: review_b_of_a
+      scored_model_node: plan_a
+      dimension: spec_adherence
+  method: fewer_improvement_points_wins