12 KiB

Raw Blame History

Quality Report Generation Command

Generate comprehensive quality reports with visualizations and strategic insights using ReAct reasoning.

Syntax

/quality-report <output_dir> [wave_number]

Parameters:

output_dir: Directory containing iterations and evaluations
wave_number: Optional - Generate report for specific wave (infinite mode)

Examples:

/quality-report output/
/quality-report output/ 3

Execution Process

THOUGHT Phase: Reasoning About Reporting

Before generating report, reason about:

What is the purpose of this report?
- Provide quality overview at a glance
- Identify trends and patterns
- Guide strategic decisions for next wave
- Document quality evolution
Who is the audience?
- Primary: The orchestrator AI planning next wave
- Secondary: Human users reviewing quality
- Format should serve both audiences
What insights matter most?
- Overall quality trajectory
- Dimension-specific patterns
- Trade-offs and correlations
- Actionable improvement opportunities
How can I visualize quality effectively?
- Text-based charts and distributions
- Ranking tables
- Trend indicators
- Quality quadrant mappings

ACTION Phase: Generate Report

Aggregate All Evaluation Data
- Load all evaluations from {output_dir}/quality_reports/evaluations/
- Load ranking data from {output_dir}/quality_reports/rankings/
- Compile statistics across all iterations
- Identify data completeness and gaps

Calculate Comprehensive Statistics

Overall Metrics:

- Total iterations
- Mean/median/mode for all dimensions
- Standard deviations
- Min/max/range
- Quartile distributions
- Coefficient of variation (CV = std/mean)

Correlations:

- Technical vs Creativity correlation
- Creativity vs Compliance correlation
- Technical vs Compliance correlation
- Identify trade-off patterns

Quality Progression:

- Score trend over iteration sequence
- Wave-over-wave improvement (infinite mode)
- Improvement rate
- Quality plateau detection

Generate Visualizations (Text-Based)

Score Distribution Chart:

Composite Score Distribution

90-100 ████                     (2)  10%
80-89  ████████████             (6)  30%
70-79  ████████████████         (8)  40%
60-69  ████████                 (4)  20%
50-59                           (0)   0%
Below 50                        (0)   0%

Distribution: Right-skewed, most iterations in 70-79 range

Quality Quadrant Map:

Technical vs Creativity Quadrant

High Tech
High Creative   Low Tech
                High Creative

    ┌─────────────────┐
  C │  7,12,3  │  11  │  High Creativity
  r │─────────────────│  (> 75)
  e │  9,18,15 │  1,5 │  Low Creativity
  a │─────────────────│  (< 75)
  t └─────────────────┘
    Low Tech   High Tech
    (< 75)     (> 75)

Insight: Most iterations cluster in high-tech, high-creative quadrant

Dimension Radar Chart:

Mean Scores by Dimension

        Technical (74.2)
              ╱ ╲
             ╱   ╲
            ╱     ╲
 Compliance ───────── Creativity
   (67.3)            (75.8)

Pattern: Creativity strongest, Compliance weakest

Quality Timeline:

Score Progression Over Iterations

100 │
 90 │           ●
 80 │     ●   ● │ ●     ●
 70 │   ● │ ●   │   ● ● │ ●
 60 │ ●   │     │     ●   │
 50 │     │     │         │
    └─────┴─────┴─────────┴─────
     1-5  6-10  11-15  16-20

Trend: Upward through iteration 12, then slight decline

Identify Key Insights

Use ReAct reasoning to discover:

A. Surprising Patterns
- Unexpected correlations
- Counterintuitive rankings
- Outliers that defy expectations
B. Quality Drivers
- What makes top iterations succeed?
- Common characteristics of high scorers
- Success factor analysis
C. Quality Inhibitors
- What causes low scores?
- Common weaknesses across iterations
- Failure pattern analysis
D. Trade-off Analysis
- Which dimensions compete?
- Which dimensions synergize?
- Optimal balance points
E. Improvement Opportunities
- Easiest wins (high impact, low effort)
- Strategic pivots needed
- Dimension-specific focus areas
Generate Strategic Recommendations

Based on observations, create actionable recommendations:

For Next Wave:
- Specific creative directions to try
- Quality targets for each dimension
- Techniques to amplify from top iterations
- Pitfalls to avoid from low iterations
For Spec Refinement:
- Clarity improvements needed
- Missing quality criteria
- Ambiguous requirements to clarify
For Evaluation System:
- Criteria adjustments
- Weight rebalancing
- New evaluation dimensions to consider

OBSERVATION Phase: Reflect on Report Quality

After generating report, reason about:

Is this report actionable?
- Can recommendations be directly implemented?
- Are insights specific enough?
- Does it guide next wave effectively?
Is this report honest?
- Does it acknowledge weaknesses?
- Are improvements realistic?
- Does it avoid artificial positivity?
Is this report comprehensive?
- Covers all quality dimensions?
- Addresses all iterations?
- Provides both overview and detail?
What meta-insights emerge?
- How is the quality system itself performing?
- Are we learning and improving?
- Is the evaluation process working?

Report Template Structure

# Quality Evaluation Report

**Generated**: {timestamp}
**Directory**: {output_dir}
**Wave**: {wave_number} (if applicable)
**Iterations Evaluated**: {count}

---

## Executive Summary

### Overall Quality Assessment
{1-2 paragraph summary of overall quality state}

### Key Findings
1. {Most important insight}
2. {Second most important insight}
3. {Third most important insight}

### Strategic Recommendation
{Single most important action for next wave}

---

## Quality Metrics Overview

### Composite Scores
- **Mean**: {mean} / 100
- **Median**: {median} / 100
- **Std Dev**: {std}
- **Range**: {min} - {max}
- **Top Score**: {max} (iteration_{X})
- **Quality Spread**: {range} points

### Dimensional Breakdown

**Technical Quality**
- Mean: {tech_mean} / 100
- Range: {tech_min} - {tech_max}
- Top: iteration_{X} ({tech_max})
- Distribution: {description}

**Creativity Score**
- Mean: {creative_mean} / 100
- Range: {creative_min} - {creative_max}
- Top: iteration_{X} ({creative_max})
- Distribution: {description}

**Spec Compliance**
- Mean: {compliance_mean} / 100
- Range: {compliance_min} - {compliance_max}
- Top: iteration_{X} ({compliance_max})
- Distribution: {description}

---

## Visualizations

### Score Distribution
{Text-based histogram}

### Quality Quadrants
{Text-based quadrant map}

### Dimensional Radar
{Text-based radar chart}

### Score Progression
{Text-based timeline}

---

## Rankings Summary

### Top 5 Iterations
1. iteration_{X} - {score} - {profile} - {key_strength}
2. iteration_{Y} - {score} - {profile} - {key_strength}
3. iteration_{Z} - {score} - {profile} - {key_strength}
4. iteration_{A} - {score} - {profile} - {key_strength}
5. iteration_{B} - {score} - {profile} - {key_strength}

### Quality Segments
- **Exemplary (Top 20%)**: {count} iterations, avg {avg}
- **Proficient (30-50%)**: {count} iterations, avg {avg}
- **Adequate (50-80%)**: {count} iterations, avg {avg}
- **Developing (Bottom 20%)**: {count} iterations, avg {avg}

---

## Deep Analysis

### Quality Patterns

**Pattern 1: {Pattern Name}**
- Observations: {observations}
- Iterations: {affected_iterations}
- Impact: {quality_impact}
- Insight: {strategic_insight}

**Pattern 2: {Pattern Name}**
[... repeat ...]

### Quality Trade-offs

**Trade-off 1: {Dimension A} vs {Dimension B}**
- Correlation: {correlation_coefficient}
- Pattern: {description}
- Iterations Affected: {list}
- Strategic Implication: {insight}

**Trade-off 2: {Dimension A} vs {Dimension B}**
[... repeat ...]

### Quality Drivers

**What Makes Iterations Succeed:**
1. {Success factor 1} - Evidence: {iterations}
2. {Success factor 2} - Evidence: {iterations}
3. {Success factor 3} - Evidence: {iterations}

**What Causes Lower Scores:**
1. {Failure factor 1} - Evidence: {iterations}
2. {Failure factor 2} - Evidence: {iterations}
3. {Failure factor 3} - Evidence: {iterations}

---

## Strategic Insights

### Insight 1: {Insight Title}
**Observation**: {What we see in the data}
**Analysis**: {Why this matters}
**Implication**: {What this means for strategy}
**Action**: {What to do about it}

### Insight 2: {Insight Title}
[... repeat ...]

---

## Recommendations for Next Wave

### Priority 1: {Recommendation Title}
**Rationale**: {Why this matters}
**Action**: {Specific steps}
**Expected Impact**: {Quality improvement anticipated}
**Dimensions Affected**: {Which dimensions benefit}

### Priority 2: {Recommendation Title}
[... repeat ...]

### Creative Directions to Explore
1. {Direction 1} - Based on success of iteration_{X}
2. {Direction 2} - To address gap in {dimension}
3. {Direction 3} - To push frontier of {aspect}

### Quality Targets for Next Wave
- Technical Quality: Target mean of {target} (current: {current})
- Creativity Score: Target mean of {target} (current: {current})
- Spec Compliance: Target mean of {target} (current: {current})
- Composite: Target mean of {target} (current: {current})

---

## Quality System Performance

### Evaluation System Assessment
- **Differentiation**: {How well scores separate quality levels}
- **Consistency**: {How reliably criteria are applied}
- **Fairness**: {Whether scoring feels balanced}
- **Actionability**: {Whether results guide improvement}

### Recommended System Adjustments
1. {Adjustment 1}
2. {Adjustment 2}
3. {Adjustment 3}

---

## Appendix: Detailed Iteration Data

### Complete Rankings
{Full ranking table with all iterations}

### Evaluation Details
{Summary of each iteration's evaluation}

---

## Meta-Reflection: Quality of Quality Assessment

**Self-Evaluation of This Report:**
- Actionability: {assessment}
- Comprehensiveness: {assessment}
- Honesty: {assessment}
- Usefulness: {assessment}

**Report Limitations:**
- {Limitation 1}
- {Limitation 2}

**Confidence Level**: {High/Medium/Low} - {Reasoning}

---

*This report generated using ReAct pattern: Reasoning → Action → Observation*
*All insights derived from evidence-based analysis of evaluation data*

Output Storage

Reports are stored in:

{output_dir}/quality_reports/reports/wave_{N}_report.md
{output_dir}/quality_reports/reports/wave_{N}_data.json

Success Criteria

A successful quality report demonstrates:

Clear, actionable insights
Evidence-based recommendations
Comprehensive coverage of all quality dimensions
Honest assessment of strengths and weaknesses
Strategic guidance for improvement
ReAct-style reasoning throughout
Self-awareness about report quality

Remember: A quality report is only valuable if it drives improvement. Make every insight actionable, every observation meaningful, and every recommendation strategic.

12 KiB Raw Blame History Unescape Escape