toolkit-evolution

name: toolkit-evolution description: "Closed-loop toolkit self-improvement: discover gaps, diagnose, propose, critique, build, test, evolve." user-invocable: true argument-hint: "<optional: focus area like 'routing' or 'hooks'>" command: evolve context: fork allowed-tools:

• Read
• Write
• Edit
• Bash
• Glob
• Grep
• Agent
• Skill routing: triggers:
  • "evolve toolkit"
  • "improve the system"
  • "self-improve"
  • "toolkit evolution"
  • "what should we improve"
  • "find improvement opportunities"
  • "discover skill gaps"
  • "what skills are missing"
  • "systematic improvement" pairs_with:
  • multi-persona-critique
  • skill-eval complexity: Complex category: meta-tooling

Toolkit Evolution

Schedulable (nightly) or manually-invoked 7-phase pipeline for continuous toolkit self-improvement. Discovers gaps, diagnoses problems from evidence, proposes solutions, critiques via multi-persona review, builds winners on isolated branches, A/B tests, and promotes via PR.

Nightly sibling of auto-dream (2:07 AM consolidates memories; 3:07 AM this skill diagnoses and builds). They feed each other: dream's graduated learnings inform evolution's diagnosis; evolution's results become dream's next input.

Invoke: /evolve, /evolve routing, /evolve hooks, /evolve --discover. Cron setup in references/evolve-preferred-patterns.md § Scheduling.

Reference Loading Table

Instructions

Phase 0: DISCOVER -- Find what's missing

Goal: Identify skills, agents, or capability categories the toolkit should have but doesn't. While later phases improve existing components, this phase finds entirely new capabilities the toolkit is missing.

Frequency: Monthly, not every run. The DISCOVER phase only executes if:

• --discover flag is passed explicitly, OR
• It has been 30+ days since the last discovery run

Check the last discovery run date using the frequency check command from references/diagnose-scripts.md § Discovery Frequency Check.

If neither condition is met, skip directly to Phase 1.

Step 1: Gather briefing data

Collect current toolkit state using the briefing data commands from references/diagnose-scripts.md § DISCOVER Step 1. Brief all 5 perspective agents with the same baseline.

Step 2: Dispatch 5 perspective agents in parallel

See references/evolve-preferred-patterns.md § Phase 0 DISCOVER for the full agent table and proposal format. Dispatch all 5 simultaneously.

Step 3: Deduplicate and filter -- remove duplicates of existing skills (check skills/INDEX.json), remove proposals with no evidence (require at least one concrete data point), group similar proposals and note convergent evidence.

Step 4: Feed into DIAGNOSE -- append surviving proposals to the Phase 1 opportunity list with source tagged [DISCOVER].

Step 5: Save discovery report to evolution-reports/discovery-{YYYY-MM-DD}.md (run mkdir -p evolution-reports first). Include briefing data, all proposals, filtering rationale, forwarded proposals, and date stamp.

Gate: Discovery report saved. Proposals forwarded to Phase 1. Proceed to DIAGNOSE.

Phase 1: DIAGNOSE -- Find improvement opportunities

Goal: Identify 5-10 evidence-backed improvement opportunities from multiple data sources.

Step 1: Query the learning database for recent failures and routing mismatches

Run the 4 search queries from references/diagnose-scripts.md § DIAGNOSE Step 1.

Look for: routing decision patterns, recurring routing failures and mismatches, skills that consistently underperform, error patterns without automated fixes.

Step 2: Scan recent git history for patterns

Run the git history commands from references/diagnose-scripts.md § DIAGNOSE Step 2.

Step 3: Check auto-dream reports for accumulated insights

Run the dream report check from references/diagnose-scripts.md § DIAGNOSE Step 3, then read the most recent dream-analysis file.

Step 3b: Cross-validate dream insights against current state

Before treating any dream insight as a proposal signal, verify it still reflects the current repo. Use the cross-validation commands from references/diagnose-scripts.md § DIAGNOSE Step 3b.

Mark an insight as STALE if: (a) it names a file that no longer exists, OR (b) it claims recent activity but git log shows nothing in the past 7 days.

Step 4: Check routing-table drift

Skills present in skills/INDEX.json but absent from the routing manifest represent a documentation gap. Run the routing-drift check from references/diagnose-scripts.md § DIAGNOSE Step 4.

Step 4b: Check for orphaned ADR session files

Run the orphaned session check from references/diagnose-scripts.md § DIAGNOSE Step 4b. Flag any found -- do not remove automatically.

Step 4c: Scan for registered stub hooks

Run the stub hook audit from references/diagnose-scripts.md § DIAGNOSE Step 4c. Flag any stub hook as a cleanup opportunity.

Step 4d: Check usage and governance signals

Run the usage and governance commands from references/diagnose-scripts.md § DIAGNOSE Step 4d. Feed dormant skills/agents into gap discovery (tag [USAGE]) and cluster unresolved governance events into the "what's failing" diagnosis (tag [GOVERNANCE]).

Step 4e: Run the skill sprawl audit

python3 scripts/skill-sprawl-audit.py

Reads skills/INDEX.json and reports prompt-budget cost, over-long descriptions, and near-duplicate skill bodies. Suggest-first: it never edits. Feed over-budget, over-long, and duplicate findings into the opportunity list (tag [SPRAWL]).

Step 5: Dedup against prior proposals

Load references/evolution-history.md. Check each opportunity against: (a) Rejected Proposals -- do not re-propose unless the reopen condition is met, (b) Shelved Proposals -- re-propose only if the reactivation condition is now satisfied, (c) Distilled Lessons -- apply the learned criteria to filter weak proposals early.

Step 6: Narrow by focus area (if provided)

If the user specified a focus area (e.g., "routing", "hooks", "agents"), filter all findings to that domain.

Step 7: Compile opportunity list

Output a numbered list of 5-10 improvement opportunities. Each entry must include:

• What: One-sentence description of the problem or gap
• Evidence: Which data source surfaced it (learning DB entry, git churn, dream report)
• Impact: Estimated user impact (High/Medium/Low)

Gate: At least 3 evidence-backed opportunities identified. If fewer than 3, expand the time window or broaden the data sources. Do not proceed with speculative opportunities that lack evidence.

Phase 2: PROPOSE -- Generate concrete solutions

Goal: Transform opportunities into actionable proposals with clear scope.

Step 1: Generate proposals

For each opportunity from Phase 1, propose 1-2 concrete solutions. Each proposal must be actionable:

• "Add failure mode X to agent Y's prompt" (not "improve agent Y")
• "Create a reference file for Z in skill W" (not "enhance skill W")
• "Modify Phase 3 of skill V to include check for Q" (not "make skill V better")

Step 2: Estimate effort

Step 3: Check for duplicates

cat skills/INDEX.json | python3 -c "import sys,json; idx=json.load(sys.stdin); [print(k,'-',v.get('description','')) for k,v in idx.get('skills',{}).items()]" 2>/dev/null || echo "INDEX.json parse failed -- check manually"

Drop any proposal that duplicates an existing skill or capability.

Step 4: Rank proposals

Rank by: (Impact score) x (1 / Effort score), where High=3, Medium=2, Low=1 and Small=1, Medium=2, Large=3.

Output: ranked list of 5-10 proposals, each with proposal description, scope, effort, and expected outcome.

Gate: All proposals are concrete (specific files/skills named), non-duplicative (verified against INDEX.json), and ranked. Proceed with the top 5.

Phase 3: CRITIQUE -- Multi-persona evaluation

Goal: Evaluate proposals from multiple perspectives to surface blind spots.

Step 1: Check for multi-persona-critique skill

test -f skills/research/multi-persona-critique/SKILL.md && echo "AVAILABLE" || echo "NOT AVAILABLE"

Step 2a: If multi-persona-critique is available

Skill(skill="multi-persona-critique", args="Evaluate these toolkit improvement proposals: {proposals}")

Step 2b: If NOT available -- use inline fallback

See references/evolve-preferred-patterns.md § Phase 3 Inline Critique Fallback for the 3-agent dispatch prompts and scoring table.

Step 3: Synthesize consensus

For each proposal, average persona scores (STRONG=3, MODERATE=2, WEAK=1):

• Score >= 2.5 = STRONG consensus
• Score 1.5-2.4 = MODERATE consensus
• Score < 1.5 = WEAK consensus (shelve)

Gate: All personas have reported. Synthesis complete. At least 1 proposal rated STRONG. If no STRONG proposals, revisit Phase 2 with the critique feedback, or report to user that no high-confidence improvements were found this cycle.

On early exit (no STRONG proposals): always record to the learning DB before stopping. See references/evolve-scripts.md § Early Exit Record for the learning-db command template.

Phase 4: BUILD -- Implement winners

Goal: Implement the top 1-3 STRONG-rated proposals on isolated feature branches.

Constraint: Maximum 3 implementations per cycle. Focus over breadth.

Step 1: Select winners

Take the top 1-3 proposals rated STRONG by consensus. Do not pad with MODERATE proposals.

Step 2: Dispatch implementation agents

For each winner, dispatch an implementation agent in an isolated context. See references/evolve-scripts.md § Build Dispatch for the proposal-type to implementation-approach table.

Each implementation must create a feature branch feat/evolve-{proposal-slug} and commit with a descriptive message.

Step 3: Validate -- run python3 -m scripts.skill_eval.quick_validate skills/{skill-name}, python3 -m py_compile {script}, and bash -n {script} on each implementation.

Gate: All implementations committed on feature branches. Basic validation passed. Proceed to testing.

Phase 5: VALIDATE -- A/B test implementations

Goal: Empirically verify that each implementation improves outcomes vs baseline.

Step 1: Create test cases

For each implementation, create 3-5 realistic test prompts that exercise the changed behavior.

Step 2: Run comparisons

See references/evolve-scripts.md § Validate Run for the skill-eval command and manual fallback pattern.

Step 3: Evaluate results

Win condition for each implementation:

• 60%+ of test cases show improvement on at least one dimension
• No dimension regressed by more than 1 point (on a 5-point scale)
• No new failures introduced

Gate: All implementations tested. Win/loss determined for each. Evidence recorded.

Phase 6: EVOLVE -- Promote winners and record learnings

Goal: Ship winners via PR, record all outcomes in the learning database.

Step 1: Handle winners (WIN status)

For each winning implementation, create a PR using the template from references/evolve-scripts.md § Step 1, then merge. After creating the PR, run pr-review to validate, then merge.

The multi-persona critique + A/B testing gate is the review. Auto-merge is safe because the validation happened before this step.

Step 1b: Clean up the feature branch after merge

Use the cleanup commands from references/evolve-scripts.md § Step 1b.

Step 2: Handle losers (LOSS status)

Record what was tried and why it failed using the failure template from references/evolve-scripts.md § Step 2.

Step 3: Record the full cycle

Record using the full cycle template from references/evolve-scripts.md § Step 3.

Step 4: Write evolution report

Write the dated report to evolution-reports/evolution-report-{YYYY-MM-DD}.md using the template in references/evolution-report-template.md. See setup command in references/evolve-scripts.md § Step 4.

Gate: Winners merged. Learnings recorded for all proposals (wins and losses). Evolution report written. Cycle complete.

Reference Loading

References

• references/evolution-report-template.md -- Template for the evolution report
• references/diagnose-scripts.md -- Phase 0 and Phase 1 bash/Python commands
• references/evolve-scripts.md -- Phase 6 PR, merge, cleanup, and learning DB commands
• references/evolve-preferred-patterns.md -- Failure modes, error handling, cost, critique fallback, scheduling
• references/evolution-history.md -- Graduated proposal ledger, shelved conditions, rejected proposals, cycle summaries
• skills/meta/auto-dream/SKILL.md -- Nightly sibling: memory consolidation and learning graduation
• skills/meta/skill-eval/SKILL.md -- Skill testing and benchmarking
• skills/research/multi-persona-critique/SKILL.md -- Multi-persona evaluation (may not exist yet; inline fallback in references)
• skills/meta/skill-creator/SKILL.md -- Skill creation methodology
• skills/meta/agent-comparison/SKILL.md -- A/B testing methodology
• skills/infrastructure/headless-cron-creator/SKILL.md -- Cron job creation patterns