zhongwei/gh-yaleh-meta-cc-claude
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Actions Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

Initial commit

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
Zhongwei Li
2025-11-30 09:07:22 +08:00
commit fab98d059b
179 changed files with 46209 additions and 0 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

334
skills/methodology-bootstrapping/reference/convergence-criteria.md Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,334 @@
# Convergence Criteria
**How to know when your methodology development is complete.**
## Standard Dual Convergence
The most common pattern (used in 6/8 experiments):
### Criteria
```
Converged when ALL of:
1. M_n == M_{n-1} (Meta-Agent stable)
2. A_n == A_{n-1} (Agent set stable)
3. V_instance(s_n) ≥ 0.80
4. V_meta(s_n) ≥ 0.80
5. Objectives complete
6. ΔV < 0.02 for 2+ iterations (diminishing returns)
```
### Example: Bootstrap-009 (Observability)
```
Iteration 6:
V_instance(s₆) = 0.87 (target: 0.80) ✅
V_meta(s₆) = 0.83 (target: 0.80) ✅
M₆ == M₅ ✅
A₆ == A₅ ✅
Objectives: All 3 pillars implemented ✅
ΔV: 0.01 (< 0.02) ✅
→ CONVERGED (Standard Dual Convergence)
```
**Use when**: Both task and methodology are equally important.
---
## Meta-Focused Convergence
Alternative pattern when methodology is primary goal (used in 1/8 experiments):
### Criteria
```
Converged when ALL of:
1. M_n == M_{n-1} (Meta-Agent stable)
2. A_n == A_{n-1} (Agent set stable)
3. V_meta(s_n) ≥ 0.80 (Methodology excellent)
4. V_instance(s_n) ≥ 0.55 (Instance practically sufficient)
5. Instance gap is infrastructure, NOT methodology
6. System stable for 2+ iterations
```
### Example: Bootstrap-011 (Knowledge Transfer)
```
Iteration 3:
V_instance(s₃) = 0.585 (practically sufficient)
V_meta(s₃) = 0.877 (excellent, +9.6% above target) ✅
M₃ == M₂ == M₁ ✅
A₃ == A₂ == A₁ ✅
Instance gap analysis:
- Missing: Knowledge graph, semantic search (infrastructure)
- Present: ALL 3 learning paths complete (methodology)
- Value: 3-8x onboarding speedup already achieved
Meta convergence:
- Completeness: 0.80 (all templates complete)
- Effectiveness: 0.95 (3-8x validated)
- Reusability: 0.88 (95%+ transferable)
→ CONVERGED (Meta-Focused Convergence)
```
**Use when**:
- Experiment explicitly prioritizes meta-objective
- Instance gap is tooling/infrastructure, not methodology
- Methodology has reached complete transferability (≥90%)
- Further instance work would not improve methodology quality
**Validation checklist**:
- [ ] Primary objective is methodology (stated in README)
- [ ] Instance gap is infrastructure (not methodology gaps)
- [ ] V_meta_reusability ≥ 0.90
- [ ] Practical value delivered (speedup demonstrated)
---
## Practical Convergence
Alternative pattern when quality exceeds metrics (used in 1/8 experiments):
### Criteria
```
Converged when ALL of:
1. M_n == M_{n-1} (Meta-Agent stable)
2. A_n == A_{n-1} (Agent set stable)
3. V_instance + V_meta ≥ 1.60 (combined threshold)
4. Quality evidence exceeds raw metric scores
5. Justified partial criteria
6. ΔV < 0.02 for 2+ iterations
```
### Example: Bootstrap-002 (Testing)
```
Iteration 5:
V_instance(s₅) = 0.848 (target: 0.80, +6% margin) ✅
V_meta(s₅) ≈ 0.85 (estimated)
Combined: 1.698 (> 1.60) ✅
Quality evidence:
- Coverage: 75% overall BUT 86-94% in core packages
- Sub-package excellence > aggregate metric
- Quality gates: 8/10 met consistently
- Test quality: Fixtures, mocks, zero flaky tests
- 15x speedup validated
- 89% methodology reusability
M₅ == M₄ ✅
A₅ == A₄ ✅
ΔV: 0.01 (< 0.02) ✅
→ CONVERGED (Practical Convergence)
```
**Use when**:
- Some components don't reach target but overall quality is excellent
- Sub-system excellence compensates for aggregate metrics
- Diminishing returns demonstrated
- Honest assessment shows methodology complete
**Validation checklist**:
- [ ] Combined V_instance + V_meta ≥ 1.60
- [ ] Quality evidence documented (not just metrics)
- [ ] Honest gap analysis (no inflation)
- [ ] Diminishing returns proven (ΔV trend)
---
## System Stability
All convergence patterns require system stability:
### Agent Set Stability (A_n == A_{n-1})
**Stable when**:
- Same agents used in iteration n and n-1
- No new specialized agents created
- No agent capabilities expanded
**Example**:
```
Iteration 5: {coder, doc-writer, data-analyst, log-analyzer}
Iteration 6: {coder, doc-writer, data-analyst, log-analyzer}
→ A₆ == A₅ ✅ STABLE
```
### Meta-Agent Stability (M_n == M_{n-1})
**Stable when**:
- Same 5 capabilities in iteration n and n-1
- No new coordination patterns
- No Meta-Agent prompt evolution
**Standard M₀ capabilities**:
1. observe - Pattern observation
2. plan - Iteration planning
3. execute - Agent orchestration
4. reflect - Value assessment
5. evolve - System evolution
**Finding**: M₀ was sufficient in ALL 8 experiments (no evolution needed)
---
## Diminishing Returns
**Definition**: ΔV < epsilon for k consecutive iterations
**Standard threshold**: epsilon = 0.02, k = 2
**Calculation**:
```
ΔV_n = |V_total(s_n) - V_total(s_{n-1})|
If ΔV_n < 0.02 AND ΔV_{n-1} < 0.02:
→ Diminishing returns detected
```
**Example**:
```
Iteration 4: V_total = 0.82, ΔV = 0.05 (significant)
Iteration 5: V_total = 0.84, ΔV = 0.02 (small)
Iteration 6: V_total = 0.85, ΔV = 0.01 (small)
→ Diminishing returns since Iteration 5
```
**Interpretation**:
- Large ΔV (>0.05): Significant progress, continue
- Medium ΔV (0.02-0.05): Steady progress, continue
- Small ΔV (<0.02): Diminishing returns, consider converging
---
## Decision Tree
```
Start with iteration n:
1. Calculate V_instance(s_n) and V_meta(s_n)
2. Check system stability:
M_n == M_{n-1}? → YES/NO
A_n == A_{n-1}? → YES/NO
If NO to either → Continue iteration n+1
3. Check convergence pattern:
Pattern A: Standard Dual Convergence
├─ V_instance ≥ 0.80? → YES
├─ V_meta ≥ 0.80? → YES
├─ Objectives complete? → YES
├─ ΔV < 0.02 for 2 iterations? → YES
└─→ CONVERGED ✅
Pattern B: Meta-Focused Convergence
├─ V_meta ≥ 0.80? → YES
├─ V_instance ≥ 0.55? → YES
├─ Primary objective is methodology? → YES
├─ Instance gap is infrastructure? → YES
├─ V_meta_reusability ≥ 0.90? → YES
└─→ CONVERGED ✅
Pattern C: Practical Convergence
├─ V_instance + V_meta ≥ 1.60? → YES
├─ Quality evidence strong? → YES
├─ Justified partial criteria? → YES
├─ ΔV < 0.02 for 2 iterations? → YES
└─→ CONVERGED ✅
4. If no pattern matches → Continue iteration n+1
```
---
## Common Mistakes
### Mistake 1: Premature Convergence
**Symptom**: Declaring convergence before system stable
**Example**:
```
Iteration 3:
V_instance = 0.82 ✅
V_meta = 0.81 ✅
BUT M₃ ≠ M₂ (new Meta-Agent capability added)
→ NOT CONVERGED (system unstable)
```
**Fix**: Wait until M_n == M_{n-1} and A_n == A_{n-1}
### Mistake 2: Inflated Values
**Symptom**: V scores mysteriously jump to exactly 0.80
**Example**:
```
Iteration 4: V_instance = 0.77
Iteration 5: V_instance = 0.80 (claimed)
BUT no substantial work done!
```
**Fix**: Honest assessment, gap enumeration, evidence-based scoring
### Mistake 3: Moving Goalposts
**Symptom**: Changing criteria mid-experiment
**Example**:
```
Initial plan: V_instance ≥ 0.80
Final state: V_instance = 0.65
Conclusion: "Actually, 0.65 is sufficient" ❌ WRONG
```
**Fix**: Either reach 0.80 OR use Meta-Focused/Practical with explicit justification
### Mistake 4: Ignoring System Instability
**Symptom**: Declaring convergence while agents still evolving
**Example**:
```
Iteration 5:
Both V scores ≥ 0.80 ✅
BUT new specialized agent created in Iteration 5
A₅ ≠ A₄
→ NOT CONVERGED (agent set unstable)
```
**Fix**: Run Iteration 6 to confirm A₆ == A₅
---
## Convergence Prediction
Based on 8 experiments, you can predict iteration count:
**Base estimate**: 5 iterations
**Adjustments**:
- Well-defined domain: -2 iterations
- Existing tools available: -1 iteration
- High interdependency: +2 iterations
- Novel patterns needed: +1 iteration
- Large codebase scope: +1 iteration
- Multiple competing goals: +1 iteration
**Examples**:
- Dependency Health: 5 - 2 - 1 = 2 → actual 3 ✓
- Observability: 5 + 0 + 1 = 6 → actual 6 ✓
- Cross-Cutting: 5 + 2 + 1 = 8 → actual 8 ✓
---
**Next**: Read [dual-value-functions.md](dual-value-functions.md) for V_instance and V_meta calculation.

962
skills/methodology-bootstrapping/reference/dual-value-functions.md Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,962 @@
---
name: value-optimization
description: Apply Value Space Optimization to software development using dual-layer value functions (instance + meta), treating development as optimization with Agents as gradients and Meta-Agents as Hessians
keywords: value-function, optimization, dual-layer, V-instance, V-meta, gradient, hessian, convergence, meta-agent, agent-training
category: methodology
version: 1.0.0
based_on: docs/methodology/value-space-optimization.md
transferability: 90%
effectiveness: 5-10x iteration efficiency
---
# Value Space Optimization
**Treat software development as optimization in high-dimensional value space, with Agents as gradients and Meta-Agents as Hessians.**
> Software development can be viewed as **optimization in high-dimensional value space**, where each commit is an iteration step, each Agent is a **first-order optimizer** (gradient), and each Meta-Agent is a **second-order optimizer** (Hessian).
---
## Core Insight
Traditional development is ad-hoc. **Value Space Optimization (VSO)** provides mathematical framework for:
1. **Quantifying project value** through dual-layer value functions
2. **Optimizing development** as trajectory in value space
3. **Training agents** from project history
4. **Converging efficiently** to high-value states
### Dual-Layer Value Functions
```
V_total(s) = V_instance(s) + V_meta(s)
where:
V_instance(s) = Domain-specific task quality
(e.g., code coverage, performance, features)
V_meta(s) = Methodology transferability quality
(e.g., reusability, documentation, patterns)
Goal: Maximize both layers simultaneously
```
**Key Insight**: Optimizing both layers creates compound value - not just good code, but reusable methodologies.
---
## Mathematical Framework
### Value Space S
A **project state** s ∈ S is a point in high-dimensional space:
```
s = (Code, Tests, Docs, Architecture, Dependencies, Metrics, ...)
Dimensions:
- Code: Source files, LOC, complexity
- Tests: Coverage, pass rate, quality
- Docs: Completeness, clarity, accessibility
- Architecture: Modularity, coupling, cohesion
- Dependencies: Security, freshness, compatibility
- Metrics: Build time, error rate, performance
Cardinality: |S| ≈ 10^1000+ (effectively infinite)
```
### Value Function V: S → ℝ
```
V(s) = value of project in state s
Properties:
1. V(s) ∈ ℝ (real-valued)
2. ∂V/∂s exists (differentiable)
3. V has local maxima (project-specific optima)
4. No global maximum (continuous improvement possible)
Composition:
V(s) = w₁·V_functionality(s) +
w₂·V_quality(s) +
w₃·V_maintainability(s) +
w₄·V_performance(s) +
...
where weights w₁, w₂, ... reflect project priorities
```
### Development Trajectory τ
```
τ = [s₀, s₁, s₂, ..., sₙ]
where:
s₀ = initial state (empty or previous version)
sₙ = final state (released version)
sᵢ → sᵢ₊₁ = commit transition
Trajectory value:
V(τ) = V(sₙ) - V(s₀) - Σᵢ cost(transition)
Goal: Find trajectory τ* that maximizes V(τ) with minimum cost
```
---
## Agent as Gradient, Meta-Agent as Hessian
### Agent A ≈ ∇V(s)
An **Agent** approximates the **gradient** of the value function:
```
A(s) ≈ ∇V(s) = direction of steepest ascent
Properties:
- A(s) points toward higher value
- |A(s)| indicates improvement potential
- Multiple agents for different dimensions
Update rule:
s_{i+1} = s_i + α·A(s_i)
where α is step size (commit size)
```
**Example Agents**:
- `coder`: Improves code functionality (∂V/∂code)
- `tester`: Improves test coverage (∂V/∂tests)
- `doc-writer`: Improves documentation (∂V/∂docs)
### Meta-Agent M ≈ ∇²V(s)
A **Meta-Agent** approximates the **Hessian** of the value function:
```
M(s, A) ≈ ∇²V(s) = curvature of value function
Properties:
- M selects optimal agent for context
- M estimates convergence rate
- M adapts to local topology
Agent selection:
A* = argmax_A [V(s + α·A(s))]
where M evaluates each agent's expected impact
```
**Meta-Agent Capabilities**:
- **observe**: Analyze current state s
- **plan**: Select optimal agent A*
- **execute**: Apply agent to produce s_{i+1}
- **reflect**: Calculate V(s_{i+1})
- **evolve**: Create new agents if needed
---
## Dual-Layer Value Functions
### Instance Layer: V_instance(s)
**Domain-specific task quality**
```
V_instance(s) = Σᵢ wᵢ·Vᵢ(s)
Components (example: Testing):
- V_coverage(s): Test coverage %
- V_quality(s): Test code quality
- V_stability(s): Pass rate, flakiness
- V_performance(s): Test execution time
Target: V_instance(s) ≥ 0.80 (project-defined threshold)
```
**Examples from experiments**:
| Experiment | V_instance Components | Target | Achieved |
|------------|----------------------|--------|----------|
| Testing | coverage, quality, stability, performance | 0.80 | 0.848 |
| Observability | coverage, actionability, performance, consistency | 0.80 | 0.87 |
| Dependency Health | security, freshness, license, stability | 0.80 | 0.92 |
### Meta Layer: V_meta(s)
**Methodology transferability quality**
```
V_meta(s) = Σᵢ wᵢ·Mᵢ(s)
Components (universal):
- V_completeness(s): Methodology documentation
- V_effectiveness(s): Efficiency improvement
- V_reusability(s): Cross-project transferability
- V_validation(s): Empirical validation
Target: V_meta(s) ≥ 0.80 (universal threshold)
```
**Examples from experiments**:
| Experiment | V_meta | Transferability | Effectiveness |
|------------|--------|----------------|---------------|
| Documentation | (TBD) | 85% | 5x |
| Testing | (TBD) | 89% | 15x |
| Observability | 0.83 | 90-95% | 23-46x |
| Dependency Health | 0.85 | 88% | 6x |
| Knowledge Transfer | 0.877 | 95%+ | 3-8x |
---
## Parameters
- **domain**: `code` | `testing` | `docs` | `architecture` | `custom` (default: `custom`)
- **V_instance_components**: List of instance-layer metrics (default: auto-detect)
- **V_meta_components**: List of meta-layer metrics (default: standard 4)
- **convergence_threshold**: Target value for convergence (default: 0.80)
- **max_iterations**: Maximum optimization iterations (default: 10)
---
## Execution Flow
### Phase 1: State Space Definition
```python
1. Define project state s
- Identify dimensions (code, tests, docs, ...)
- Define measurement functions
- Establish baseline state s₀
2. Measure baseline
- Calculate all dimensions
- Establish initial V_instance(s₀)
- Establish initial V_meta(s₀)
```
### Phase 2: Value Function Design
```python
3. Define V_instance(s)
- Identify domain-specific components
- Assign weights based on priorities
- Set component value functions
- Set convergence threshold (typically 0.80)
4. Define V_meta(s)
- Use standard components:
* V_completeness: Documentation complete?
* V_effectiveness: Efficiency gain?
* V_reusability: Cross-project applicable?
* V_validation: Empirically validated?
- Assign weights (typically equal)
- Set convergence threshold (typically 0.80)
5. Calculate baseline values
- V_instance(s₀)
- V_meta(s₀)
- Identify gaps to threshold
```
### Phase 3: Agent Definition
```python
6. Define agent set A
- Generic agents (coder, tester, doc-writer)
- Specialized agents (as needed)
- Agent capabilities (what they improve)
7. Estimate agent gradients
- For each agent A:
* Estimate ∂V/∂dimension
* Predict impact on V_instance
* Predict impact on V_meta
```
### Phase 4: Optimization Iteration
```python
8. Meta-Agent coordination
- Observe: Analyze current state s_i
- Plan: Select optimal agent A*
- Execute: Apply agent A* to produce s_{i+1}
- Reflect: Calculate V(s_{i+1})
9. State transition
- s_{i+1} = s_i + work_output(A*)
- Measure all dimensions
- Calculate ΔV = V(s_{i+1}) - V(s_i)
- Document changes
10. Agent evolution (if needed)
- If agent_insufficiency_detected:
* Create specialized agent
* Update agent set A
* Continue iteration
```
### Phase 5: Convergence Evaluation
```python
11. Check convergence criteria
- System stability: M_n == M_{n-1} && A_n == A_{n-1}
- Dual threshold: V_instance ≥ 0.80 && V_meta ≥ 0.80
- Objectives complete
- Diminishing returns: ΔV < epsilon
12. If converged:
- Generate results report
- Document final (O, Aₙ, Mₙ)
- Extract reusable artifacts
13. If not converged:
- Analyze gaps
- Plan next iteration
- Continue cycle
```
---
## Usage Examples
### Example 1: Testing Strategy Optimization
```bash
# User: "Optimize testing strategy using value functions"
value-optimization domain=testing
# Execution:
[State Space Definition]
✓ Defined dimensions:
- Code coverage: 75%
- Test quality: 0.72
- Test stability: 0.88 (pass rate)
- Test performance: 0.65 (execution time)
[Value Function Design]
✓ V_instance(s₀) = 0.75 (Target: 0.80)
Components:
- V_coverage: 0.75 (weight: 0.30)
- V_quality: 0.72 (weight: 0.30)
- V_stability: 0.88 (weight: 0.20)
- V_performance: 0.65 (weight: 0.20)
✓ V_meta(s₀) = 0.00 (Target: 0.80)
No methodology yet
[Agent Definition]
✓ Agent set A:
- coder: Writes test code
- tester: Improves test coverage
- doc-writer: Documents test patterns
[Iteration 1]
✓ Meta-Agent selects: tester
✓ Work: Add integration tests (gap closure)
✓ V_instance(s₁) = 0.81 (+0.06, CONVERGED)
- V_coverage: 0.82 (+0.07)
- V_quality: 0.78 (+0.06)
[Iteration 2]
✓ Meta-Agent selects: doc-writer
✓ Work: Document test strategy patterns
✓ V_meta(s₂) = 0.53 (+0.53)
- V_completeness: 0.60
- V_effectiveness: 0.40 (15x speedup documented)
[Iteration 3]
✓ Meta-Agent selects: tester
✓ Work: Optimize test performance
✓ V_instance(s₃) = 0.85 (+0.04)
- V_performance: 0.78 (+0.13)
[Iteration 4]
✓ Meta-Agent selects: doc-writer
✓ Work: Validate and complete methodology
✓ V_meta(s₄) = 0.81 (+0.28, CONVERGED)
✅ DUAL CONVERGENCE ACHIEVED
- V_instance: 0.85 (106% of target)
- V_meta: 0.81 (101% of target)
- Iterations: 4
- Efficiency: 15x vs ad-hoc
```
### Example 2: Documentation System Optimization
```bash
# User: "Optimize documentation using value space approach"
value-optimization domain=docs
# Execution:
[State Space Definition]
✓ Dimensions measured:
- Documentation completeness: 0.65
- Token efficiency: 0.42 (very poor)
- Accessibility: 0.78
- Freshness: 0.88
[Value Function Design]
✓ V_instance(s₀) = 0.59 (Target: 0.80, Gap: -0.21)
✓ V_meta(s₀) = 0.00 (No methodology)
[Iteration 1-3: Observe-Codify-Automate]
✓ Work: Role-based documentation methodology
✓ V_instance(s₃) = 0.81 (CONVERGED)
Key improvement: Token efficiency 0.42 → 0.89
✓ V_meta(s₃) = 0.83 (CONVERGED)
- Completeness: 0.90 (methodology documented)
- Effectiveness: 0.85 (47% token reduction)
- Reusability: 0.85 (85% transferable)
✅ Results:
- README.md: 1909 → 275 lines (-85%)
- CLAUDE.md: 607 → 278 lines (-54%)
- Total token cost: -47%
- Iterations: 3 (fast convergence)
```
### Example 3: Multi-Domain Optimization
```bash
# User: "Optimize entire project across all dimensions"
value-optimization domain=custom
# Execution:
[Define Custom Value Function]
✓ V_instance = 0.25·V_code + 0.25·V_tests +
0.25·V_docs + 0.25·V_architecture
[Baseline]
V_instance(s₀) = 0.68
- V_code: 0.75
- V_tests: 0.65
- V_docs: 0.59
- V_architecture: 0.72
[Optimization Strategy]
✓ Meta-Agent prioritizes lowest components:
1. docs (0.59) → Target: 0.80
2. tests (0.65) → Target: 0.80
3. architecture (0.72) → Target: 0.80
4. code (0.75) → Target: 0.85
[Iteration 1-10: Multi-phase]
✓ Phases 1-3: Documentation (V_docs: 0.59 → 0.81)
✓ Phases 4-7: Testing (V_tests: 0.65 → 0.85)
✓ Phases 8-9: Architecture (V_architecture: 0.72 → 0.82)
✓ Phase 10: Code polish (V_code: 0.75 → 0.88)
✅ Final State:
V_instance(s₁₀) = 0.84 (CONVERGED)
V_meta(s₁₀) = 0.82 (CONVERGED)
Compound value: Both task complete + methodology reusable
```
---
## Validated Outcomes
**From 8 experiments (Bootstrap-001 to -013)**:
### Convergence Rates
| Experiment | Iterations | V_instance | V_meta | Type |
|------------|-----------|-----------|--------|------|
| Documentation | 3 | 0.808 | (TBD) | Full |
| Testing | 5 | 0.848 | (TBD) | Practical |
| Error Recovery | 5 | ≥0.80 | (TBD) | Full |
| Observability | 7 | 0.87 | 0.83 | Full Dual |
| Dependency Health | 4 | 0.92 | 0.85 | Full Dual |
| Knowledge Transfer | 4 | 0.585 | 0.877 | Meta-Focused |
| Technical Debt | 4 | 0.805 | 0.855 | Full Dual |
| Cross-Cutting | (In progress) | - | - | - |
**Average**: 4.9 iterations to convergence, 9.1 hours total
### Value Improvements
| Experiment | ΔV_instance | ΔV_meta | Total Gain |
|------------|------------|---------|------------|
| Observability | +126% | +276% | +402% |
| Dependency Health | +119% | +∞ | +∞ |
| Knowledge Transfer | +119% | +139% | +258% |
| Technical Debt | +168% | +∞ | +∞ |
**Key Insight**: Dual-layer optimization creates compound value
---
## Transferability
**90% transferable** across domains:
### What Transfers (90%+)
- Dual-layer value function framework
- Agent-as-gradient, Meta-Agent-as-Hessian model
- Convergence criteria (system stability + thresholds)
- Iteration optimization process
- Value trajectory analysis
### What Needs Adaptation (10%)
- V_instance components (domain-specific)
- Component weights (project priorities)
- Convergence thresholds (can vary 0.75-0.90)
- Agent capabilities (task-specific)
### Adaptation Effort
- **Same domain**: 1-2 hours (copy V_instance definition)
- **New domain**: 4-8 hours (design V_instance from scratch)
- **Multi-domain**: 8-16 hours (complex V_instance)
---
## Theoretical Foundations
### Convergence Theorem
**Theorem**: For dual-layer value optimization with stable Meta-Agent M and sufficient agent set A:
```
If:
1. M_{n} = M_{n-1} (Meta-Agent stable)
2. A_{n} = A_{n-1} (Agent set stable)
3. V_instance(s_n) ≥ threshold
4. V_meta(s_n) ≥ threshold
5. ΔV < epsilon (diminishing returns)
Then:
System has converged to (O, Aₙ, Mₙ)
Where:
O = task output (reusable)
Aₙ = converged agents (reusable)
Mₙ = converged meta-agent (transferable)
```
**Empirical Validation**: 8/8 experiments converged (100% success rate)
### Extended Convergence Patterns
The standard dual-layer convergence theorem has been extended through empirical discovery in Bootstrap experiments. Two additional convergence patterns have been validated:
#### Pattern 1: Meta-Focused Convergence
**Discovered in**: Bootstrap-011 (Knowledge Transfer Methodology)
**Definition**:
```
Meta-Focused Convergence occurs when:
1. M_{n} = M_{n-1} (Meta-Agent stable)
2. A_{n} = A_{n-1} (Agent set stable)
3. V_meta(s_n) ≥ threshold (0.80)
4. V_instance(s_n) ≥ practical_sufficiency (0.55-0.65 range)
5. System stable for 2+ iterations
```
**When to Apply**:
This pattern applies when:
- Experiment explicitly prioritizes meta-objective as PRIMARY goal
- Instance layer gap is infrastructure/tooling, NOT methodology
- Methodology has reached complete transferability state (≥90%)
- Further instance work would not improve methodology quality
**Validation Criteria**:
Before declaring Meta-Focused Convergence, verify:
1. **Primary Objective Check**: Review experiment README for explicit statement that meta-objective is primary
```markdown
Example (Bootstrap-011 README):
"Meta-Objective (Meta-Agent Layer): Develop knowledge transfer methodology"
→ Meta work is PRIMARY
"Instance Objective (Agent Layer): Create onboarding materials for meta-cc"
→ Instance work is SECONDARY (vehicle for methodology development)
```
2. **Gap Nature Analysis**: Identify what prevents V_instance from reaching 0.80
```
Infrastructure gaps (ACCEPTABLE for Meta-Focused):
- Knowledge graph system not built
- Semantic search not implemented
- Automated freshness tracking missing
- Tooling for convenience
Methodology gaps (NOT ACCEPTABLE):
- Learning paths incomplete
- Validation checkpoints missing
- Core patterns not extracted
- Methodology not transferable
```
3. **Transferability Validation**: Test methodology transfer to different context
```
V_meta_reusability ≥ 0.90 required
Example: Knowledge transfer templates
- Day-1 path: 80% reusable (environment setup varies)
- Week-1 path: 75% reusable (architecture varies)
- Month-1 path: 85% reusable (domain framework universal)
- Overall: 95%+ transferable ✅
```
4. **Practical Value Delivered**: Confirm instance output provides real value
```
Bootstrap-011 delivered:
- 3 complete learning path templates
- 3-8x onboarding speedup (vs unstructured)
- Immediately usable by any project
- Infrastructure would add convenience, not fundamental value
```
**Example: Bootstrap-011**
```
Final State (Iteration 3):
V_instance(s₃) = 0.585 (practical sufficiency, +119% from baseline)
V_meta(s₃) = 0.877 (fully converged, +139% from baseline, 9.6% above target)
System Stability:
M₃ = M₂ = M₁ (stable for 3 iterations)
A₃ = A₂ = A₁ (stable for 3 iterations)
Instance Gap Analysis:
Missing: Knowledge graph, semantic search, freshness automation
Nature: Infrastructure for convenience
Impact: Would improve V_discoverability (0.58 → ~0.75)
Present: ALL 3 learning paths complete, validated, transferable
Nature: Complete methodology
Value: 3-8x onboarding speedup already achieved
Meta Convergence:
V_completeness = 0.80 (ALL templates complete)
V_effectiveness = 0.95 (3-8x speedup validated)
V_reusability = 0.88 (95%+ transferable)
Convergence Declaration: ✅ Meta-Focused Convergence
Primary objective (methodology) fully achieved
Secondary objective (instance) practically sufficient
System stable, no further evolution needed
```
**Trade-offs**:
Accepting Meta-Focused Convergence means:
✅ **Gains**:
- Methodology ready for immediate transfer
- Avoid over-engineering instance implementation
- Focus resources on next methodology domain
- Recognize when "good enough" is optimal
❌ **Costs**:
- Instance layer benefits not fully realized for current project
- Future work needed if instance gap becomes critical
- May need to revisit for production-grade instance tooling
**Precedent**: Bootstrap-002 established "Practical Convergence" with similar reasoning (quality > metrics, justified partial criteria).
#### Pattern 2: Practical Convergence
**Discovered in**: Bootstrap-002 (Test Strategy Development)
**Definition**:
```
Practical Convergence occurs when:
1. M_{n} = M_{n-1} (Meta-Agent stable)
2. A_{n} = A_{n-1} (Agent set stable)
3. V_instance(s_n) + V_meta(s_n) ≥ 1.60 (combined threshold)
4. Quality evidence exceeds raw metric scores
5. Justified partial criteria with honest assessment
6. ΔV < 0.02 for 2+ iterations (diminishing returns)
```
**When to Apply**:
This pattern applies when:
- Some components don't reach target but overall quality is excellent
- Sub-system excellence compensates for aggregate metrics
- Further iteration yields diminishing returns
- Honest assessment shows methodology complete
**Example: Bootstrap-002**
```
Final State (Iteration 4):
V_instance(s₄) = 0.848 (target: 0.80, +6% margin)
V_meta(s₄) = (not calculated, est. 0.85+)
Key Justification:
- Coverage: 75% overall BUT 86-94% in core packages
- Sub-package excellence > aggregate metric
- 15x speedup vs ad-hoc validated
- 89% methodology reusability
- Quality gates: 8/10 met consistently
Convergence Declaration: ✅ Practical Convergence
Quality exceeds metrics
Diminishing returns demonstrated
Methodology complete and transferable
```
#### Standard Dual Convergence (Original Pattern)
For completeness, the original pattern:
```
Standard Dual Convergence occurs when:
1. M_{n} = M_{n-1} (Meta-Agent stable)
2. A_{n} = A_{n-1} (Agent set stable)
3. V_instance(s_n) ≥ 0.80
4. V_meta(s_n) ≥ 0.80
5. ΔV_instance < 0.02 for 2+ iterations
6. ΔV_meta < 0.02 for 2+ iterations
```
**Examples**: Bootstrap-009 (Observability), Bootstrap-010 (Dependency Health), Bootstrap-012 (Technical Debt), Bootstrap-013 (Cross-Cutting Concerns)
---
### Gradient Descent Analogy
```
Traditional ML: Value Space Optimization:
------------------ ---------------------------
Loss function L(θ) → Value function V(s)
Parameters θ → Project state s
Gradient ∇L(θ) → Agent A(s)
SGD optimizer → Meta-Agent M(s, A)
Training data → Project history
Convergence → V(s) ≥ threshold
Learned model → (O, Aₙ, Mₙ)
```
**Key Difference**: We're optimizing project state, not model parameters
---
## Prerequisites
### Required
- **Value function design**: Ability to define V_instance for domain
- **Measurement**: Tools to calculate component values
- **Iteration framework**: System to execute agent work
- **Meta-Agent**: Coordination mechanism (iteration-executor)
### Recommended
- **Session analysis**: meta-cc or equivalent
- **Git history**: For trajectory reconstruction
- **Metrics tools**: Coverage, static analysis, etc.
- **Documentation**: To track V_meta progress
---
## Success Criteria
| Criterion | Target | Validation |
|-----------|--------|------------|
| **Convergence** | V ≥ 0.80 (both layers) | Measured values |
| **Efficiency** | <10 iterations | Iteration count |
| **Stability** | System stable ≥2 iterations | M_n == M_{n-1}, A_n == A_{n-1} |
| **Transferability** | ≥85% reusability | Cross-project validation |
| **Compound Value** | Both O and methodology | Dual deliverables |
---
## Relationship to Other Methodologies
**value-optimization provides the QUANTITATIVE FRAMEWORK** for measuring and validating methodology development.
### Relationship to bootstrapped-se (Mutual Support)
**value-optimization SUPPORTS bootstrapped-se** with quantification:
```
bootstrapped-se needs: value-optimization provides:
- Quality measurement → V_instance, V_meta functions
- Convergence detection → Formal criteria (system stable + thresholds)
- Evolution decisions → ΔV calculations, trajectories
- Success validation → Dual threshold (both ≥ 0.80)
- Cross-experiment compare → Universal value framework
```
**bootstrapped-se ENABLES value-optimization**:
```
value-optimization needs: bootstrapped-se provides:
- State transitions → OCA cycle iterations (s_i → s_{i+1})
- Instance improvements → Agent work outputs
- Meta improvements → Meta-Agent methodology work
- Optimization loop → Iteration framework
- Reusable artifacts → Three-tuple output (O, Aₙ, Mₙ)
```
**Integration Pattern**:
```
Every bootstrapped-se iteration:
1. Execute OCA cycle
- Observe: Collect data
- Codify: Extract patterns
- Automate: Build tools
2. Calculate V(s_n) using value-optimization ← THIS SKILL
- V_instance(s_n): Domain-specific task quality
- V_meta(s_n): Methodology quality
3. Check convergence using value-optimization criteria
- System stable? M_n == M_{n-1}, A_n == A_{n-1}
- Dual threshold? V_instance ≥ 0.80, V_meta ≥ 0.80
- Diminishing returns? ΔV < epsilon
4. Decide: Continue or converge
```
**When to use value-optimization**:
- **Always with bootstrapped-se** - Provides evaluation framework
- Calculate values at every iteration
- Make data-driven evolution decisions
- Enable cross-experiment comparison
### Relationship to empirical-methodology (Complementary)
**value-optimization QUANTIFIES empirical-methodology**:
```
empirical-methodology produces: value-optimization measures:
- Methodology documentation → V_meta_completeness score
- Efficiency improvements → V_meta_effectiveness (speedup)
- Transferability claims → V_meta_reusability percentage
- Task outputs → V_instance score
```
**empirical-methodology VALIDATES value-optimization**:
```
Empirical process: Value calculation:
Observe → Analyze
↓ V(s₀) baseline
Hypothesize
↓
Codify → Automate → Evolve
↓ V(s_n) current
Measure improvement
↓ ΔV = V(s_n) - V(s₀)
Validate effectiveness
```
**Synergy**:
- Empirical data feeds value calculations
- Value metrics validate empirical claims
- Both require honest, evidence-based assessment
**When to use together**:
- Empirical-methodology provides rigor
- Value-optimization provides measurement
- Together: Data-driven + Quantified
### Three-Methodology Integration
**Position in the stack**:
```
bootstrapped-se (Framework Layer)
↓ uses for quantification
value-optimization (Quantitative Layer) ← YOU ARE HERE
↓ validated by
empirical-methodology (Scientific Foundation)
```
**Unique contribution of value-optimization**:
1. **Dual-Layer Framework** - Separates task quality from methodology quality
2. **Mathematical Rigor** - Formal definitions, convergence proofs
3. **Optimization Perspective** - Development as value space traversal
4. **Agent Math Model** - Agent ≈ ∇V (gradient), Meta-Agent ≈ ∇²V (Hessian)
5. **Convergence Patterns** - Standard, Meta-Focused, Practical
6. **Universal Measurement** - Cross-experiment comparison enabled
**When to emphasize value-optimization**:
1. **Formal Validation**: Need mathematical convergence proofs
2. **Benchmarking**: Comparing multiple experiments or approaches
3. **Optimization**: Viewing development as state space optimization
4. **Research**: Publishing with quantitative validation
**When NOT to use alone**:
- value-optimization is a **measurement framework**, not an execution framework
- Always pair with bootstrapped-se for execution
- Add empirical-methodology for scientific rigor
**Complete Stack Usage** (recommended):
```
┌─ BAIME Framework ─────────────────────────┐
│ │
│ bootstrapped-se (execution) │
│ ↓ │
│ value-optimization (evaluation) ← YOU │
│ ↓ │
│ empirical-methodology (validation) │
│ │
└────────────────────────────────────────────┘
```
**Validated in**:
- All 8 Bootstrap experiments use this complete stack
- 100% convergence rate (8/8)
- Average 4.9 iterations to convergence
- 90-95% transferability across experiments
**Usage Recommendation**:
- **Learn evaluation**: Read value-optimization.md (this file)
- **Get execution framework**: Read bootstrapped-se.md
- **Add scientific rigor**: Read empirical-methodology.md
- **See integration**: Read bootstrapped-ai-methodology-engineering.md (BAIME framework)
---
## Related Skills
- **bootstrapped-ai-methodology-engineering**: Unified BAIME framework integrating all three methodologies
- **bootstrapped-se**: OCA framework (uses value-optimization for evaluation)
- **empirical-methodology**: Scientific foundation (validated by value-optimization)
- **iteration-executor**: Implementation agent (coordinates value calculation)
---
## Knowledge Base
### Source Documentation
- **Core methodology**: `docs/methodology/value-space-optimization.md`
- **Experiments**: `experiments/bootstrap-*/` (8 validated)
- **Meta-Agent**: `.claude/agents/iteration-executor.md`
### Key Concepts
- Dual-layer value functions (V_instance, V_meta)
- Agent as gradient (∇V)
- Meta-Agent as Hessian (∇²V)
- Convergence criteria
- Value trajectory
---
## Version History
- **v1.0.0** (2025-10-18): Initial release
- Based on 8 experiments (100% convergence rate)
- Dual-layer value function framework
- Agent-gradient, Meta-Agent-Hessian model
- Average 4.9 iterations, 9.1 hours to convergence
---
**Status**: ✅ Production-ready
**Validation**: 8 experiments, 100% convergence rate
**Effectiveness**: 5-10x iteration efficiency
**Transferability**: 90% (framework universal, components adaptable)

1234
skills/methodology-bootstrapping/reference/observe-codify-automate.md Normal file
View File

File diff suppressed because it is too large Load Diff

149
skills/methodology-bootstrapping/reference/overview.md Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,149 @@
# Methodology Bootstrapping - Overview
**Unified framework for developing software engineering methodologies through systematic observation, empirical validation, and automated enforcement.**
## Philosophy
> The best methodologies are not **designed** but **evolved** through systematic observation, codification, and automation of successful practices.
Traditional methodologies are:
- Theory-driven (based on principles, not data)
- Static (created once, rarely updated)
- Prescriptive (one-size-fits-all)
- Manual (require discipline, no automated validation)
**Methodology Bootstrapping** enables methodologies that are:
- Data-driven (based on empirical observation)
- Dynamic (continuously evolving)
- Adaptive (project-specific)
- Automated (enforced by CI/CD)
## Three-Layer Architecture
The framework integrates three complementary layers:
### Layer 1: Core Framework (OCA Cycle)
- **Observe**: Instrument and collect data
- **Codify**: Extract patterns and document
- **Automate**: Convert to automated checks
- **Evolve**: Apply methodology to itself
**Output**: Three-tuple (O, Aₙ, Mₙ)
- O = Task output (code, docs, system)
- Aₙ = Converged agent set (reusable)
- Mₙ = Converged meta-agent (transferable)
### Layer 2: Scientific Foundation
- Hypothesis formation
- Experimental validation
- Statistical analysis
- Pattern recognition
- Empirical evidence
### Layer 3: Quantitative Evaluation
- **V_instance(s)**: Domain-specific task quality
- **V_meta(s)**: Methodology transferability quality
- Convergence criteria
- Optimization mathematics
## Key Insights
### Insight 1: Dual-Layer Value Functions
Optimizing only task quality (V_instance) produces good code but no reusable methodology.
Optimizing both layers creates **compound value**: good code + transferable methodology.
### Insight 2: Self-Referential Feedback Loop
The methodology can improve itself:
1. Use tools to observe methodology development
2. Extract meta-patterns from methodology creation
3. Codify patterns as methodology improvements
4. Automate methodology validation
This creates **closed loop**: methodologies optimize methodologies.
### Insight 3: Convergence is Mathematical
Methodology is complete when:
- System stable (no agent evolution)
- Dual threshold met (V_instance ≥ 0.80, V_meta ≥ 0.80)
- Diminishing returns (ΔV < epsilon)
No guesswork - the math tells you when done.
### Insight 4: Agent Specialization Emerges
Don't predetermine agents. Let specialization emerge:
- Start with generic agents (coder, tester, doc-writer)
- Identify gaps during execution
- Create specialized agents only when needed
- 8 experiments: 0-5 specialized agents per experiment
### Insight 5: Meta-Agent M₀ is Sufficient
Across all 8 experiments, the base Meta-Agent (M₀) never needed evolution:
- M₀ capabilities: observe, plan, execute, reflect, evolve
- Sufficient for all domains tested
- Agent specialization handles domain gaps
- Meta-Agent handles coordination
## Validated Outcomes
**From 8 experiments** (testing, error recovery, CI/CD, observability, dependency health, knowledge transfer, technical debt, cross-cutting concerns):
- **Success rate**: 100% (8/8 converged)
- **Efficiency**: 4.9 avg iterations, 9.1 avg hours
- **Quality**: V_instance 0.784, V_meta 0.840
- **Transferability**: 70-95%
- **Speedup**: 3-46x vs ad-hoc
## When to Use
**Ideal conditions**:
- Recurring problem requiring systematic approach
- Methodology needs to be transferable
- Empirical data available for observation
- Automation infrastructure exists (CI/CD)
- Team values data-driven decisions
**Sub-optimal conditions**:
- One-time ad-hoc task
- Established industry standard fully applies
- No data available (greenfield)
- No automation infrastructure
- Team prefers intuition over data
## Prerequisites
**Tools**:
- Session analysis (meta-cc MCP server or equivalent)
- Git repository access
- Code metrics tools (coverage, linters)
- CI/CD platform (GitHub Actions, GitLab CI)
- Markdown editor
**Skills**:
- Basic data analysis (statistics, patterns)
- Software development experience
- Scientific method understanding
- Documentation writing
**Time investment**:
- Learning framework: 4-8 hours
- First experiment: 6-15 hours
- Subsequent experiments: 4-10 hours (with acceleration)
## Success Criteria
| Criterion | Target | Validation |
|-----------|--------|------------|
| Framework understanding | Can explain OCA cycle | Self-test |
| Dual-layer evaluation | Can calculate V_instance, V_meta | Practice |
| Convergence recognition | Can identify completion | Apply criteria |
| Methodology documentation | Complete docs | Peer review |
| Transferability | ≥85% reusability | Cross-project test |
---
**Next**: Read [observe-codify-automate.md](observe-codify-automate.md) for detailed OCA cycle explanation.

360
skills/methodology-bootstrapping/reference/quick-start-guide.md Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,360 @@
# BAIME Quick Start Guide
**Version**: 1.0
**Framework**: Bootstrapped AI Methodology Engineering
**Time to First Iteration**: 45-90 minutes
Quick start guide for applying BAIME to create project-specific methodologies.
---
## What is BAIME?
**BAIME** = Bootstrapped AI Methodology Engineering
A meta-framework for systematically developing project-specific development methodologies through Observe-Codify-Automate (OCA) cycles.
**Use when**: Creating testing strategy, CI/CD pipeline, error handling patterns, documentation systems, or any reusable development methodology.
---
## 30-Minute Quick Start
### Step 1: Define Objective (10 min)
**Template**:
```markdown
## Objective
Create [methodology name] for [project] to achieve [goals]
## Success Criteria (Dual-Layer)
**Instance Layer** (V_instance ≥ 0.80):
- Metric 1: [e.g., coverage ≥ 75%]
- Metric 2: [e.g., tests pass 100%]
**Meta Layer** (V_meta ≥ 0.80):
- Patterns documented: [target count]
- Tools created: [target count]
- Transferability: [≥ 85%]
```
**Example** (Testing Strategy):
```markdown
## Objective
Create systematic testing methodology for meta-cc to achieve 75%+ coverage
## Success Criteria
Instance: coverage ≥ 75%, 100% pass rate
Meta: 8 patterns documented, 3 tools created, 90% transferable
```
### Step 2: Iteration 0 - Observe (20 min)
**Actions**:
1. Analyze current state
2. Identify pain points
3. Measure baseline metrics
4. Document problems
**Commands**:
```bash
# Example: Testing
go test -cover ./... # Baseline coverage
grep -r "TODO.*test" . # Find gaps
# Example: CI/CD
cat .github/workflows/*.yml # Current pipeline
# Measure: build time, failure rate
```
**Output**: Baseline document with metrics and problems
### Step 3: Iteration 1 - Codify (30 min)
**Actions**:
1. Create 2-3 initial patterns
2. Document with examples
3. Apply to project
4. Measure improvement
**Template**:
```markdown
## Pattern 1: [Name]
**When**: [Use case]
**How**: [Steps]
**Example**: [Code snippet]
**Time**: [Minutes]
```
**Output**: Initial patterns document, applied examples
### Step 4: Iteration 2 - Automate (30 min)
**Actions**:
1. Identify repetitive tasks
2. Create automation scripts/tools
3. Measure speedup
4. Document tool usage
**Example**:
```bash
# Coverage gap analyzer
./scripts/analyze-coverage.sh coverage.out
# Test generator
./scripts/generate-test.sh FunctionName
```
**Output**: Working automation tools, usage docs
---
## Iteration Structure
### Standard Iteration (60-90 min)
```
ITERATION N:
├─ Observe (20 min)
│ ├─ Apply patterns from iteration N-1
│ ├─ Measure results
│ └─ Identify gaps
├─ Codify (25 min)
│ ├─ Refine existing patterns
│ ├─ Add new patterns for gaps
│ └─ Document improvements
└─ Automate (15 min)
├─ Create/improve tools
├─ Measure speedup
└─ Update documentation
```
### Convergence Criteria
**Instance Layer** (V_instance ≥ 0.80):
- Primary metrics met (e.g., coverage, quality)
- Stable across iterations
- No critical gaps
**Meta Layer** (V_meta ≥ 0.80):
- Patterns documented and validated
- Tools created and effective
- Transferability demonstrated
**Stop when**: Both layers ≥ 0.80 for 2 consecutive iterations
---
## Value Function Calculation
### V_instance (Instance Quality)
```
V_instance = weighted_average(metrics)
Example (Testing):
V_instance = 0.5 × (coverage/target) + 0.3 × (pass_rate) + 0.2 × (speed)
= 0.5 × (75/75) + 0.3 × (1.0) + 0.2 × (0.9)
= 0.5 + 0.3 + 0.18
= 0.98 ✓
```
### V_meta (Methodology Quality)
```
V_meta = 0.4 × completeness + 0.3 × reusability + 0.3 × automation
Where:
- completeness = patterns_documented / patterns_needed
- reusability = transferability_score (0-1)
- automation = time_saved / time_manual
Example:
V_meta = 0.4 × (8/8) + 0.3 × (0.90) + 0.3 × (0.75)
= 0.4 + 0.27 + 0.225
= 0.895 ✓
```
---
## Common Patterns
### Pattern 1: Gap Closure
**When**: Improving metrics systematically (coverage, quality, etc.)
**Steps**:
1. Measure baseline
2. Identify gaps (prioritized)
3. Create pattern to address top gap
4. Apply pattern
5. Re-measure
**Example**: Test coverage 60% → 75%
- Identify 10 uncovered functions
- Create table-driven test pattern
- Apply to top 5 functions
- Coverage increases to 68%
- Repeat
### Pattern 2: Problem-Pattern-Solution
**When**: Documenting reusable solutions
**Template**:
```markdown
## Problem
[What problem does this solve?]
## Context
[When does this problem occur?]
## Solution
[How to solve it?]
## Example
[Concrete code example]
## Results
[Measured improvements]
```
### Pattern 3: Automation-First
**When**: Task done >3 times
**Steps**:
1. Identify repetitive task
2. Measure time manually
3. Create script/tool
4. Measure time with automation
5. Calculate ROI = time_saved / time_invested
**Example**:
- Manual coverage analysis: 15 min
- Script creation: 30 min
- Script execution: 30 sec
- ROI: (15 min × 20 uses) / 30 min = 10x
---
## Rapid Convergence Tips
### Achieve 3-4 Iteration Convergence
**1. Strong Iteration 0**
- Comprehensive baseline analysis
- Clear problem taxonomy
- Initial pattern seeds
**2. Focus on High-Impact**
- Address top 20% problems (80% impact)
- Create patterns for frequent tasks
- Automate high-ROI tasks first
**3. Parallel Pattern Development**
- Work on 2-3 patterns simultaneously
- Test on multiple examples
- Iterate quickly
**4. Borrow from Prior Work**
- Reuse patterns from similar projects
- Adapt proven solutions
- 70-90% transferable
---
## Anti-Patterns
### ❌ Don't Do
1. **No baseline measurement**
- Can't measure progress without baseline
- Always start with Iteration 0
2. **Premature automation**
- Automate before understanding problem
- Manual first, automate once stable
3. **Pattern bloat**
- Too many patterns (>12)
- Keep it focused and actionable
4. **Ignoring transferability**
- Project-specific hacks
- Aim for 80%+ transferability
5. **Skipping validation**
- Patterns not tested on real examples
- Always validate with actual usage
### ✅ Do Instead
1. Start with baseline metrics
2. Manual → Pattern → Automate
3. 6-8 core patterns maximum
4. Design for reusability
5. Test patterns immediately
---
## Success Indicators
### After Iteration 1
- [ ] 2-3 patterns documented
- [ ] Baseline metrics improved 10-20%
- [ ] Patterns applied to 3+ examples
- [ ] Clear next steps identified
### After Iteration 3
- [ ] 6-8 patterns documented
- [ ] Instance metrics at 70-80% of target
- [ ] 1-2 automation tools created
- [ ] Patterns validated across contexts
### Convergence (Iteration 4-6)
- [ ] V_instance ≥ 0.80 (2 consecutive)
- [ ] V_meta ≥ 0.80 (2 consecutive)
- [ ] No critical gaps remaining
- [ ] Transferability ≥ 85%
---
## Examples by Domain
### Testing Methodology
- **Iterations**: 6
- **Patterns**: 8 (table-driven, fixture, CLI, etc.)
- **Tools**: 3 (coverage analyzer, test generator, guide)
- **Result**: 72.5% coverage, 5x speedup
### Error Recovery
- **Iterations**: 3
- **Patterns**: 13 error categories, 10 recovery patterns
- **Tools**: 3 (path validator, size checker, read-before-write)
- **Result**: 95.4% error classification, 23.7% automated prevention
### CI/CD Pipeline
- **Iterations**: 5
- **Patterns**: 7 pipeline stages, 4 optimization patterns
- **Tools**: 2 (pipeline analyzer, config generator)
- **Result**: Build time 8min → 3min, 100% reliability
---
## Getting Help
**Stuck on**:
- **Iteration 0**: Read baseline-quality-assessment skill
- **Slow convergence**: Read rapid-convergence skill
- **Validation**: Read retrospective-validation skill
- **Agent prompts**: Read agent-prompt-evolution skill
---
**Source**: BAIME Framework (Bootstrap experiments 001-013)
**Status**: Production-ready, validated across 13 methodologies
**Success Rate**: 100% convergence, 3.1x average speedup

1025
skills/methodology-bootstrapping/reference/scientific-foundation.md Normal file
View File

File diff suppressed because it is too large Load Diff

522
skills/methodology-bootstrapping/reference/three-layer-architecture.md Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,522 @@
# Three-Layer OCA Architecture
**Version**: 1.0
**Framework**: BAIME - Observe-Codify-Automate
**Layers**: 3 (Observe, Codify, Automate)
Complete architectural reference for the OCA cycle.
---
## Overview
The OCA (Observe-Codify-Automate) cycle is the core of BAIME, consisting of three iterative layers that transform ad-hoc development into systematic, reusable methodologies.
```
ITERATION N:
Observe → Codify → Automate → [Next Iteration]
↑ ↓
└──────────── Feedback ───────┘
```
---
## Layer 1: Observe
**Purpose**: Gather empirical data through hands-on work
**Duration**: 30-40% of iteration time (~20-30 min)
**Activities**:
1. **Apply** existing patterns/tools (if any)
2. **Execute** actual work on project
3. **Measure** results and effectiveness
4. **Identify** problems and gaps
5. **Document** observations
**Outputs**:
- Baseline metrics
- Problem list (prioritized)
- Pattern usage data
- Time measurements
- Quality metrics
**Example** (Testing Strategy, Iteration 1):
```markdown
## Observations
**Applied**:
- Wrote 5 unit tests manually
- Tried different test structures
**Measured**:
- Time per test: 15-20 min
- Coverage increase: +2.3%
- Tests passing: 5/5 (100%)
**Problems Identified**:
1. Setup code duplicated across tests
2. Unclear which functions to test first
3. No standard test structure
4. Coverage analysis manual and slow
**Time Spent**: 90 min (5 tests × 18 min avg)
```
### Observation Techniques
#### 1. Baseline Measurement
**What to measure**:
- Current state metrics (coverage, build time, error rate)
- Time spent on tasks
- Pain points and blockers
- Quality indicators
**Tools**:
```bash
# Testing
go test -cover ./...
go tool cover -func=coverage.out
# CI/CD
time make build
grep "FAIL" ci-logs.txt | wc -l
# Errors
grep "error" session.jsonl | wc -l
```
#### 2. Work Sampling
**Technique**: Track time on representative tasks
**Example**:
```markdown
Task: Write 5 unit tests
Sample 1: TestFunction1 - 18 min
Sample 2: TestFunction2 - 15 min
Sample 3: TestFunction3 - 22 min (complex)
Sample 4: TestFunction4 - 12 min (simple)
Sample 5: TestFunction5 - 16 min
Average: 16.6 min per test
Range: 12-22 min
Variance: High (complexity-dependent)
```
#### 3. Problem Taxonomy
**Classify problems**:
- **High frequency, high impact**: Urgent patterns needed
- **High frequency, low impact**: Automation candidates
- **Low frequency, high impact**: Document workarounds
- **Low frequency, low impact**: Ignore
---
## Layer 2: Codify
**Purpose**: Transform observations into documented patterns
**Duration**: 35-45% of iteration time (~25-35 min)
**Activities**:
1. **Analyze** observations for patterns
2. **Design** reusable solutions
3. **Document** patterns with examples
4. **Test** patterns on 2-3 cases
5. **Refine** based on feedback
**Outputs**:
- Pattern documents (problem-solution pairs)
- Code examples
- Usage guidelines
- Time/quality metrics per pattern
**Example** (Testing Strategy, Iteration 1):
```markdown
## Pattern: Table-Driven Tests
**Problem**: Writing multiple similar test cases is repetitive
**Solution**: Use table-driven pattern with test struct
**Structure**:
```go
func TestFunction(t *testing.T) {
tests := []struct {
name string
input Type
expected Type
}{
{"case1", input1, output1},
{"case2", input2, output2},
}
for _, tt := range tests {
t.Run(tt.name, func(t *testing.T) {
got := Function(tt.input)
assert.Equal(t, tt.expected, got)
})
}
}
```
**Time**: 12 min per test (vs 18 min manual)
**Savings**: 33% time reduction
**Validated**: 3 test functions, all passed
```
### Codification Techniques
#### 1. Pattern Template
```markdown
## Pattern: [Name]
**Category**: [Testing/CI/Error/etc.]
**Problem**:
[What problem does this solve?]
**Context**:
[When is this applicable?]
**Solution**:
[How to solve it? Step-by-step]
**Structure**:
[Code template or procedure]
**Example**:
[Real working example]
**Metrics**:
- Time: [X min]
- Quality: [metric]
- Reusability: [X%]
**Variations**:
[Alternative approaches]
**Anti-patterns**:
[Common mistakes]
```
#### 2. Pattern Hierarchy
**Level 1: Core Patterns** (6-8)
- Universal, high frequency
- Foundation for other patterns
- Example: Table-driven tests, Error classification
**Level 2: Composite Patterns** (2-4)
- Combine multiple core patterns
- Domain-specific
- Example: Coverage-driven gap closure (table-driven + prioritization)
**Level 3: Specialized Patterns** (0-2)
- Rare, specific use cases
- Optional extensions
- Example: Golden file testing for large outputs
#### 3. Progressive Refinement
**Iteration 0**: Observe only (no patterns yet)
**Iteration 1**: 2-3 core patterns (basics)
**Iteration 2**: 4-6 patterns (expanded)
**Iteration 3**: 6-8 patterns (refined)
**Iteration 4+**: Consolidate, no new patterns
---
## Layer 3: Automate
**Purpose**: Create tools to accelerate pattern application
**Duration**: 20-30% of iteration time (~15-20 min)
**Activities**:
1. **Identify** repetitive tasks (>3 times)
2. **Design** automation approach
3. **Implement** scripts/tools
4. **Test** on real examples
5. **Measure** speedup
**Outputs**:
- Automation scripts
- Tool documentation
- Speedup metrics (Nx faster)
- ROI calculations
**Example** (Testing Strategy, Iteration 2):
```markdown
## Tool: Coverage Gap Analyzer
**Purpose**: Identify which functions need tests (automated)
**Implementation**:
```bash
#!/bin/bash
# scripts/analyze-coverage-gaps.sh
go tool cover -func=coverage.out |
grep "0.0%" |
awk '{print $1, $2}' |
while read file func; do
# Categorize function type
if grep -q "Error\|Valid" <<< "$func"; then
echo "P1: $file:$func (error handling)"
elif grep -q "Parse\|Process" <<< "$func"; then
echo "P2: $file:$func (business logic)"
else
echo "P3: $file:$func (utility)"
fi
done | sort
```
**Speedup**: 15 min manual → 5 sec automated (180x)
**ROI**: 30 min investment, 10 uses = 150 min saved = 5x ROI
**Validated**: Used in iterations 2-4, always accurate
```
### Automation Techniques
#### 1. ROI Calculation
```
ROI = (time_saved × uses) / time_invested
Example:
- Manual task: 10 min
- Automation time: 1 hour
- Break-even: 6 uses
- Expected uses: 20
- ROI = (10 × 20) / 60 = 3.3x
```
**Rules**:
- ROI < 2x: Don't automate (not worth it)
- ROI 2-5x: Automate if frequently used
- ROI > 5x: Always automate
#### 2. Automation Tiers
**Tier 1: Simple Scripts** (15-30 min)
- Bash/Python scripts
- Parse existing tool output
- Generate boilerplate
- Example: Coverage gap analyzer
**Tier 2: Workflow Tools** (1-2 hours)
- Multi-step automation
- Integrate multiple tools
- Smart suggestions
- Example: Test generator with pattern detection
**Tier 3: Full Integration** (>2 hours)
- IDE/editor plugins
- CI/CD integration
- Pre-commit hooks
- Example: Automated methodology guide
**Start with Tier 1**, only progress to Tier 2/3 if ROI justifies
#### 3. Incremental Automation
**Phase 1**: Manual process documented
**Phase 2**: Script to assist (not fully automated)
**Phase 3**: Fully automated with validation
**Phase 4**: Integrated into workflow (hooks, CI)
**Example** (Test generation):
```
Phase 1: Copy-paste test template manually
Phase 2: Script generates template, manual fill-in
Phase 3: Script generates with smart defaults
Phase 4: Pre-commit hook suggests tests for new functions
```
---
## Dual-Layer Value Functions
### V_instance (Instance Quality)
**Measures**: Quality of work produced using methodology
**Formula**:
```
V_instance = Σ(w_i × metric_i)
Where:
- w_i = weight for metric i
- metric_i = normalized metric value (0-1)
- Σw_i = 1.0
```
**Example** (Testing):
```
V_instance = 0.5 × (coverage/target) +
0.3 × (pass_rate) +
0.2 × (maintainability)
Target: V_instance ≥ 0.80
```
**Convergence**: Stable for 2 consecutive iterations
### V_meta (Methodology Quality)
**Measures**: Quality and reusability of methodology itself
**Formula**:
```
V_meta = 0.4 × completeness +
0.3 × transferability +
0.3 × automation_effectiveness
Where:
- completeness = patterns_documented / patterns_needed
- transferability = cross_project_reuse_score (0-1)
- automation_effectiveness = time_with_tools / time_manual
```
**Example** (Testing):
```
V_meta = 0.4 × (8/8) +
0.3 × (0.90) +
0.3 × (4min/20min)
= 0.4 + 0.27 + 0.06
= 0.73
Target: V_meta ≥ 0.80
```
**Convergence**: Stable for 2 consecutive iterations
### Dual Convergence Criteria
**Both must be met**:
1. V_instance ≥ 0.80 for 2 consecutive iterations
2. V_meta ≥ 0.80 for 2 consecutive iterations
**Why dual-layer?**:
- V_instance alone: Could be good results with bad process
- V_meta alone: Could be great methodology with poor results
- Both together: Good results + reusable methodology
---
## Iteration Coordination
### Standard Flow
```
ITERATION N:
├─ Start (5 min)
│ ├─ Review previous iteration results
│ ├─ Set goals for this iteration
│ └─ Load context (patterns, tools, metrics)
│
├─ Observe (25 min)
│ ├─ Apply existing patterns
│ ├─ Work on project tasks
│ ├─ Measure results
│ └─ Document problems
│
├─ Codify (30 min)
│ ├─ Analyze observations
│ ├─ Create/refine patterns
│ ├─ Document with examples
│ └─ Validate on 2-3 cases
│
├─ Automate (20 min)
│ ├─ Identify automation opportunities
│ ├─ Create/improve tools
│ ├─ Measure speedup
│ └─ Calculate ROI
│
└─ Close (10 min)
├─ Calculate V_instance and V_meta
├─ Check convergence criteria
├─ Document iteration summary
└─ Plan next iteration (if needed)
```
### Convergence Detection
```python
def check_convergence(history):
if len(history) < 2:
return False
# Check last 2 iterations
last_two = history[-2:]
# Both V_instance and V_meta must be ≥ 0.80
instance_converged = all(v.instance >= 0.80 for v in last_two)
meta_converged = all(v.meta >= 0.80 for v in last_two)
# No significant gaps remaining
no_critical_gaps = last_two[-1].critical_gaps == 0
return instance_converged and meta_converged and no_critical_gaps
```
---
## Best Practices
### Do's
✅ **Start with Observe** - Don't skip baseline
✅ **Validate patterns** - Test on 2-3 real examples
✅ **Measure everything** - Time, quality, speedup
✅ **Iterate quickly** - 60-90 min per iteration
✅ **Focus on ROI** - Automate high-value tasks
✅ **Document continuously** - Don't wait until end
### Don'ts
❌ **Don't skip Observe** - Patterns without data are guesses
❌ **Don't over-codify** - 6-8 patterns maximum
❌ **Don't premature automation** - Understand problem first
❌ **Don't ignore transferability** - Aim for 80%+ reuse
❌ **Don't continue past convergence** - Stop at dual 0.80
---
## Architecture Variations
### Rapid Convergence (3-4 iterations)
**Modifications**:
- Strong Iteration 0 (comprehensive baseline)
- Borrow patterns from similar projects (70-90% reuse)
- Parallel pattern development
- Focus on high-impact only
### Slow Convergence (>6 iterations)
**Causes**:
- Weak Iteration 0 (insufficient baseline)
- Too many patterns (>10)
- Complex domain
- Insufficient automation
**Fixes**:
- Strengthen baseline analysis
- Consolidate patterns
- Increase automation investment
- Focus on critical paths only
---
**Source**: BAIME Framework
**Status**: Production-ready, validated across 13 methodologies
**Convergence Rate**: 100% (all experiments converged)
**Average Iterations**: 4.9 (median 5)