jeffemmett
/
infinite-agents-public
mirror of https://github.com/Jeff-Emmett/infinite-agents-public.git
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity
infinite-agents-public/infinite_variants/infinite_variant_4/README.md

569 lines
17 KiB
Markdown
Raw Blame History

This file contains ambiguous Unicode characters

This file contains Unicode characters that might be confused with other characters. If you think that this is intentional, you can safely ignore this warning. Use the Escape button to reveal them.

# Infinite Loop Variant 4: Quality Evaluation & Ranking System
## Overview
This variant enhances the infinite agentic loop pattern with **automated quality evaluation and ranking** using the **ReAct pattern** (Reasoning + Acting + Observation). Instead of just generating iterations, this system evaluates, scores, ranks, and learns from quality patterns to drive continuous improvement.
## Key Innovation: ReAct-Driven Quality Assessment
### What is ReAct?
ReAct is a pattern that interleaves **Reasoning**, **Acting**, and **Observation** in a continuous cycle:
1. **THOUGHT**: Reason about quality dimensions, evaluation strategy, and improvement opportunities
2. **ACTION**: Execute evaluations, generate content, score iterations
3. **OBSERVATION**: Analyze results, identify patterns, adapt strategy
This creates a feedback loop where quality assessment informs generation strategy, and generation outcomes inform quality assessment refinement.
### How We Apply ReAct
**Before Generation (THOUGHT)**:
- Analyze specification to identify quality criteria
- Reason about evaluation strategy
- Plan quality-driven creative directions
**During Generation (ACTION)**:
- Launch sub-agents with quality targets
- Generate iterations with self-assessment
- Apply evaluation pipeline to all outputs
**After Generation (OBSERVATION)**:
- Score and rank all iterations
- Identify quality patterns and trade-offs
- Extract insights for improvement
**Continuous Loop (Infinite Mode)**:
- Learn from top performers
- Address quality gaps
- Adjust strategy based on observations
- Launch next wave with refined approach
## Features
### Multi-Dimensional Quality Evaluation
Every iteration is scored across **three dimensions**:
1. **Technical Quality (35%)**: Code quality, architecture, performance, robustness
2. **Creativity Score (35%)**: Originality, innovation, uniqueness, aesthetic
3. **Spec Compliance (30%)**: Requirements met, naming, structure, standards
Each dimension has **4 sub-dimensions** scored 0-25 points, totaling 100 points per dimension.
**Composite Score** = (Technical × 0.35) + (Creativity × 0.35) + (Compliance × 0.30)
### Automated Ranking System
After each wave, iterations are:
- **Sorted** by composite score
- **Segmented** into quality tiers (Exemplary, Proficient, Adequate, Developing)
- **Analyzed** for patterns and trade-offs
- **Compared** to identify success factors
### Comprehensive Quality Reports
Generated reports include:
- Summary statistics (mean, median, std dev, range)
- Complete rankings with scores and profiles
- Quality distribution visualizations (text-based)
- Pattern analysis and insights
- Strategic recommendations for next wave
- Evidence-based improvement suggestions
### Configurable Scoring Weights
Customize evaluation priorities:
- Adjust dimension weights (technical/creative/compliance)
- Choose from preset profiles (technical-focus, creative-focus, etc.)
- Set minimum score requirements
- Enable bonus multipliers for excellence
### Quality-Driven Iteration Strategy
In infinite mode:
- **Early waves**: Establish baseline quality, explore diversity
- **Mid waves**: Learn from top performers, address quality gaps
- **Late waves**: Push quality frontiers, optimize composite scores
- **Continuous**: Monitor quality trends, adapt strategy dynamically
## Commands
### Main Command: `/project:infinite-quality`
Generate iterations with automated quality evaluation and ranking.
**Syntax**:
```bash
/project:infinite-quality <spec_path> <output_dir> <count|infinite> [quality_config]
```
**Parameters**:
- `spec_path`: Path to specification file (must include quality criteria)
- `output_dir`: Directory for generated iterations
- `count`: Number of iterations (1-50) or "infinite" for continuous mode
- `quality_config`: Optional path to custom scoring weights config
**Examples**:
```bash
# Generate 5 iterations with quality evaluation
/project:infinite-quality specs/example_spec.md output/ 5
# Generate 20 iterations with custom scoring weights
/project:infinite-quality specs/example_spec.md output/ 20 config/scoring_weights.json
# Infinite mode with continuous quality improvement
/project:infinite-quality specs/example_spec.md output/ infinite
# Infinite mode with technical-focused scoring
/project:infinite-quality specs/example_spec.md output/ infinite config/technical_focus.json
```
### Evaluation Command: `/evaluate`
Evaluate a single iteration on specific quality dimensions.
**Syntax**:
```bash
/evaluate <dimension> <iteration_path> [spec_path]
```
**Dimensions**: `technical`, `creativity`, `compliance`, or `all`
**Examples**:
```bash
# Evaluate technical quality
/evaluate technical output/iteration_001.html
# Evaluate creativity
/evaluate creativity output/iteration_005.html
# Evaluate spec compliance
/evaluate compliance output/iteration_003.html specs/example_spec.md
# Evaluate all dimensions
/evaluate all output/iteration_002.html specs/example_spec.md
```
**Output**: Detailed evaluation with scores, breakdown, strengths, weaknesses, and evidence.
### Ranking Command: `/rank`
Rank all iterations in a directory by quality scores.
**Syntax**:
```bash
/rank <output_dir> [dimension]
```
**Examples**:
```bash
# Rank by composite score
/rank output/
# Rank by specific dimension
/rank output/ creativity
/rank output/ technical
```
**Output**: Complete rankings with statistics, quality segments, patterns, and strategic insights.
### Quality Report Command: `/quality-report`
Generate comprehensive quality report with visualizations and recommendations.
**Syntax**:
```bash
/quality-report <output_dir> [wave_number]
```
**Examples**:
```bash
# Generate report for all iterations
/quality-report output/
# Generate report for specific wave (infinite mode)
/quality-report output/ 3
```
**Output**: Full report with statistics, visualizations, patterns, insights, and recommendations.
## Directory Structure
```
infinite_variant_4/
├── .claude/
│ ├── commands/
│ │ ├── infinite-quality.md # Main orchestrator command
│ │ ├── evaluate.md # Evaluation utility
│ │ ├── rank.md # Ranking utility
│ │ └── quality-report.md # Report generation
│ └── settings.json # Permissions config
├── specs/
│ ├── example_spec.md # Example specification with quality criteria
│ └── quality_standards.md # Default quality evaluation standards
├── evaluators/
│ ├── technical_quality.md # Technical evaluation logic
│ ├── creativity_score.md # Creativity scoring logic
│ └── spec_compliance.md # Compliance checking logic
├── templates/
│ └── quality_report.md # Quality report template
├── config/
│ └── scoring_weights.json # Configurable scoring weights
├── README.md # This file
└── CLAUDE.md # Claude Code project instructions
```
## Workflow
### Single Batch Mode (count: 1-50)
1. **THOUGHT Phase**: Analyze spec, reason about quality, plan evaluation
2. **ACTION Phase**: Generate iterations with quality targets
3. **EVALUATE Phase**: Score all iterations on all dimensions
4. **RANK Phase**: Sort and segment by quality
5. **REPORT Phase**: Generate comprehensive quality report
6. **OBSERVATION Phase**: Analyze patterns and insights
### Infinite Mode
**Wave 1 (Foundation)**:
- Generate initial batch (6-8 iterations)
- Establish baseline quality metrics
- Identify initial patterns
**Wave 2+ (Progressive Improvement)**:
- **THOUGHT**: Reason about previous wave results
- What made top iterations succeed?
- What quality gaps need addressing?
- How can we push quality higher?
- **ACTION**: Generate next wave with refined strategy
- Incorporate lessons from top performers
- Target underrepresented quality dimensions
- Increase challenge based on strengths
- **OBSERVATION**: Evaluate and analyze
- Score new iterations
- Update rankings across all iterations
- Generate wave-specific quality report
- Extract insights for next wave
**Continuous Loop**: Repeat THOUGHT → ACTION → OBSERVATION until context limits
## Quality Evaluation Details
### Technical Quality (35% weight)
**Code Quality (25 points)**:
- Readability and formatting
- Comments and documentation
- Naming conventions
- DRY principle adherence
**Architecture (25 points)**:
- Modularity
- Separation of concerns
- Reusability
- Scalability
**Performance (25 points)**:
- Initial render speed
- Animation smoothness (fps)
- Algorithm efficiency
- DOM optimization
**Robustness (25 points)**:
- Input validation
- Error handling
- Edge case coverage
- Cross-browser compatibility
### Creativity Score (35% weight)
**Originality (25 points)**:
- Conceptual novelty
- Visual freshness
- Interaction innovation
**Innovation (25 points)**:
- Technical creativity
- Feature combinations
- Design problem-solving
**Uniqueness (25 points)**:
- Visual distinctiveness
- Thematic uniqueness
- Interaction differentiation
**Aesthetic (25 points)**:
- Visual appeal
- Color harmony
- Typography
- Polish and refinement
### Spec Compliance (30% weight)
**Requirements Met (40 points)**:
- Functional requirements
- Technical requirements
- Design requirements
**Naming Conventions (20 points)**:
- Pattern adherence
- Naming quality
**Structure Adherence (20 points)**:
- File structure
- Code organization
**Quality Standards (20 points)**:
- Code quality baseline
- Accessibility baseline
- Performance baseline
## Scoring Examples
### Exceptional (90-100)
```
iteration_012.html - Score: 92/100
Technical: 94 | Creativity: 96 | Compliance: 85
Profile: Triple Threat - Excellence in all dimensions
Strengths:
+ Groundbreaking interactive data sonification
+ Flawless code quality and architecture
+ Innovative Web Audio API integration
+ Stunning visual aesthetic with perfect accessibility
Minor Areas for Growth:
- Could add more documentation for complex audio algorithms
```
### Excellent (80-89)
```
iteration_007.html - Score: 86/100
Technical: 88 | Creativity: 89 | Compliance: 81
Profile: Technical Innovator - Strong tech + creativity
Strengths:
+ Creative force-directed graph visualization
+ Clean, well-architected code
+ Novel interaction patterns
+ Good spec compliance
Areas for Growth:
- Some performance optimization opportunities
- Could strengthen accessibility features
```
### Good (70-79)
```
iteration_015.html - Score: 74/100
Technical: 77 | Creativity: 72 | Compliance: 73
Profile: Balanced Generalist - Even across dimensions
Strengths:
+ Solid technical implementation
+ Pleasant visual design
+ Meets all core requirements
Areas for Growth:
- Limited creative innovation
- Could push boundaries more
- Some minor spec compliance gaps
```
## Configuration
### Default Weights
```json
{
"composite_weights": {
"technical_quality": 0.35,
"creativity_score": 0.35,
"spec_compliance": 0.30
}
}
```
### Alternative Profiles
**Technical Focus**:
- Technical: 50%, Creativity: 25%, Compliance: 25%
- Use for: Production code, reliability-critical projects
**Creative Focus**:
- Technical: 25%, Creativity: 50%, Compliance: 25%
- Use for: Exploratory projects, innovation sprints
**Compliance Focus**:
- Technical: 30%, Creativity: 25%, Compliance: 45%
- Use for: Standardization, regulatory projects
**Innovation Priority**:
- Technical: 20%, Creativity: 60%, Compliance: 20%
- Use for: Research, experimental work
## Key Insights from ReAct Pattern
### 1. Reasoning Improves Evaluation Quality
By explicitly reasoning before scoring, evaluations are:
- More thoughtful and fair
- Better documented
- More consistent across iterations
- Less prone to bias
### 2. Action-Observation Loops Enable Learning
Each wave learns from previous observations:
- Top performers reveal success patterns
- Low scores identify improvement opportunities
- Quality trends inform strategic adjustments
- Continuous improvement through feedback
### 3. Multi-Dimensional Quality Requires Balance
Quality is not uni-dimensional:
- High technical quality alone is insufficient
- Pure creativity without compliance is problematic
- Excellence requires balance across dimensions
- Trade-offs exist and should be managed
### 4. Quality Assessment is Itself a Quality Process
The evaluation system should be:
- Transparent in reasoning
- Consistent in application
- Fair across all iterations
- Self-aware of its limitations
- Continuously improving
## Success Metrics
A successful quality evaluation system demonstrates:
1. **Meaningful Differentiation**: Scores separate quality levels clearly
2. **Correlation with Actual Quality**: High scores = genuinely high quality
3. **Actionable Insights**: Reports drive concrete improvements
4. **Visible Improvement**: Quality increases over waves in infinite mode
5. **Transparent Reasoning**: Every score is justified with evidence
6. **Fair and Consistent**: Same criteria applied to all iterations
## Example Use Cases
### Use Case 1: Exploratory Creative Batch
Generate 10 creative iterations and identify the most innovative:
```bash
/project:infinite-quality specs/creative_spec.md explorations/ 10 config/creative_focus.json
```
Review quality report to find top creative performers, then study their techniques.
### Use Case 2: Production-Ready Component Development
Generate iterations prioritizing technical quality and compliance:
```bash
/project:infinite-quality specs/component_spec.md components/ 20 config/production_ready.json
```
Use rankings to select most reliable implementations for production use.
### Use Case 3: Continuous Quality Improvement
Run infinite mode to progressively improve quality:
```bash
/project:infinite-quality specs/ui_spec.md iterations/ infinite
```
Monitor wave-over-wave improvement, targeting 5-point increase per wave.
### Use Case 4: Quality Benchmark Establishment
Generate baseline iterations then establish quality standards:
```bash
/project:infinite-quality specs/benchmark_spec.md baseline/ 15
/quality-report baseline/
```
Use report insights to refine spec quality criteria and scoring weights.
## Limitations & Considerations
### Subjectivity in Creativity Assessment
- Creativity scoring has inherent subjectivity
- Evaluator attempts objectivity through evidence
- Different evaluators may score differently
- Patterns are more reliable than absolute scores
### Context-Dependent Quality
- Quality depends on project context and goals
- Adjust weights based on priorities
- No single "correct" quality profile
- Different projects require different trade-offs
### Evaluation as Approximation
- Automated evaluation approximates human judgment
- Not a replacement for expert review
- Best used as guidance, not absolute truth
- Combine with human assessment for critical decisions
### Computation and Context Costs
- Comprehensive evaluation requires significant context
- Quality reports are verbose
- Infinite mode can reach context limits
- Balance thoroughness with resource constraints
## Future Enhancements
Potential extensions to this variant:
1. **Automated Testing Integration**: Run actual performance tests, accessibility audits
2. **Comparative Analysis**: Compare across multiple spec variations
3. **Quality Prediction**: Predict iteration quality before full evaluation
4. **Automated Improvement**: Generate improved versions of low-scoring iterations
5. **User Feedback Integration**: Incorporate human quality judgments
6. **Visual Quality Reports**: Generate actual charts and graphs
7. **Historical Tracking**: Track quality evolution across sessions
8. **Meta-Learning**: Improve evaluation criteria based on outcomes
## Contributing
To extend this quality evaluation system:
1. Add new evaluation dimensions in `evaluators/`
2. Create custom scoring profiles in `config/`
3. Extend report templates in `templates/`
4. Refine quality standards in `specs/quality_standards.md`
5. Enhance command logic in `.claude/commands/`
## References
### ReAct Pattern
- Source: [Prompting Guide - ReAct](https://www.promptingguide.ai/techniques/react)
- Key Concept: Interleaving reasoning and acting for improved problem-solving
- Application: Quality evaluation with explicit reasoning at every step
### Quality Dimensions
- Based on software engineering best practices
- Informed by web development standards
- Adapted for creative AI-generated content
### Infinite Agentic Loop Pattern
- Foundation: Original infinite loop orchestration
- Enhancement: Quality-driven iteration strategy
- Innovation: ReAct-powered continuous improvement
---
**Version**: 1.0
**Created**: 2025-10-10
**Pattern**: Infinite Agentic Loop + ReAct Reasoning
**License**: MIT (example - adjust as needed)
Reference in New Issue View Git Blame Copy Permalink