think-mcp

{"testId":"trace-basic-001","tool":"trace","testType":"basic","input":{"thought":"Breaking down a complex software architecture decision","thoughtNumber":1,"totalThoughts":5,"nextThoughtNeeded":true},"output":{"thought":"Breaking down a complex software architecture decision","thoughtNumber":1,"totalThoughts":5,"nextThoughtNeeded":true},"timestamp":"2024-12-28T17:30:00.000Z","durationMs":185,"status":"success","outputKeys":["thought","thoughtNumber","totalThoughts","nextThoughtNeeded"],"qualityScore":{"structure":true,"completeness":true,"coherence":true},"performanceFlag":"normal","coherenceScore":0.85,"usefulnessScore":0.8,"factualEquivalence":"equivalent","judgeReasoning":"Output correctly echoes input showing thought progression structure. Demonstrates sequential tracking (1/5) and continuation signal. However, lacks actual reasoning steps or assumption identification expected in full trace usage. Structurally sound but minimal content."} {"testId":"trace-edge-001","tool":"trace","testType":"edge","input":{"thought":"Revising earlier assumption","thoughtNumber":3,"totalThoughts":5,"nextThoughtNeeded":true,"isRevision":true,"revisesThought":1},"output":{"thought":"Revising earlier assumption","thoughtNumber":3,"totalThoughts":5,"nextThoughtNeeded":true,"isRevision":true,"revisesThought":1},"timestamp":"2024-12-28T17:30:01.000Z","durationMs":178,"status":"success","outputKeys":["thought","thoughtNumber","totalThoughts","nextThoughtNeeded","isRevision","revisesThought"],"qualityScore":{"structure":true,"completeness":true,"coherence":true},"performanceFlag":"normal","coherenceScore":0.9,"usefulnessScore":0.85,"factualEquivalence":"equivalent","judgeReasoning":"Excellent demonstration of trace's revision capability. Correctly links back to thought #1 with isRevision flag. Shows logical progression allowing course correction - a key trace feature. Properly maintains sequence context (3/5). Structurally complete for revision tracking."} {"testId":"trace-edge-002","tool":"trace","testType":"edge","input":{"thought":"Branching to explore alternative","thoughtNumber":4,"totalThoughts":6,"nextThoughtNeeded":true,"branchFromThought":2,"branchId":"alt-approach-1"},"output":{"thought":"Branching to explore alternative","thoughtNumber":4,"totalThoughts":6,"nextThoughtNeeded":true,"branchFromThought":2,"branchId":"alt-approach-1"},"timestamp":"2024-12-28T17:30:02.000Z","durationMs":182,"status":"success","outputKeys":["thought","thoughtNumber","totalThoughts","nextThoughtNeeded","branchFromThought","branchId"],"qualityScore":{"structure":true,"completeness":true,"coherence":true},"performanceFlag":"normal","coherenceScore":0.95,"usefulnessScore":0.9,"factualEquivalence":"equivalent","judgeReasoning":"Outstanding trace feature - demonstrates branching reasoning paths. Creates labeled alternative exploration from thought #2. This enables parallel hypothesis testing - core to sophisticated reasoning. All metadata properly structured. Highly useful for complex decision trees."} {"testId":"trace-edge-003","tool":"trace","testType":"edge","input":{"thought":"Final conclusion","thoughtNumber":5,"totalThoughts":5,"nextThoughtNeeded":false},"output":{"thought":"Final conclusion","thoughtNumber":5,"totalThoughts":5,"nextThoughtNeeded":false},"timestamp":"2024-12-28T17:30:03.000Z","durationMs":176,"status":"success","outputKeys":["thought","thoughtNumber","totalThoughts","nextThoughtNeeded"],"qualityScore":{"structure":true,"completeness":true,"coherence":true},"performanceFlag":"normal","coherenceScore":0.9,"usefulnessScore":0.85,"factualEquivalence":"equivalent","judgeReasoning":"Proper sequence termination (5/5) with nextThoughtNeeded=false. Shows trace conclusion semantics. Coherent flow control. Would be more useful with actual conclusion content, but structurally demonstrates thought chain completion correctly."} {"testId":"trace-error-001","tool":"trace","testType":"error","input":{"thought":"Testing negative thought number","thoughtNumber":-1,"totalThoughts":3,"nextThoughtNeeded":false},"output":{"thought":"Testing negative thought number","thoughtNumber":-1,"totalThoughts":3,"nextThoughtNeeded":false},"timestamp":"2024-12-28T17:30:04.000Z","durationMs":165,"status":"success","notes":"Lenient validation - accepts negative thoughtNumber","outputKeys":["thought","thoughtNumber","totalThoughts","nextThoughtNeeded"],"qualityScore":{"structure":true,"completeness":true,"coherence":true},"performanceFlag":"normal","coherenceScore":0.6,"usefulnessScore":0.5,"factualEquivalence":"equivalent","judgeReasoning":"Lenient validation may allow illogical sequences. Negative thought numbers break coherent progression semantics. While technically functional, this reduces reasoning clarity. Should ideally enforce positive integers for thought ordering. Lower usefulness due to potential confusion."} {"testId":"model-basic-001","tool":"model","testType":"basic","input":{"modelName":"first_principles","problem":"Designing scalable microservices"},"output":{"modelName":"first_principles","status":"success","hasSteps":true,"hasConclusion":true},"timestamp":"2024-12-28T17:30:05.000Z","durationMs":203,"status":"success","outputKeys":["modelName","status","hasSteps","hasConclusion"],"qualityScore":{"structure":true,"completeness":true,"coherence":true},"performanceFlag":"normal","coherenceScore":0.85,"usefulnessScore":0.9,"factualEquivalence":"superset","judgeReasoning":"First principles is ideal for microservices design - breaking down to fundamental truths (service boundaries, data ownership, communication). Output confirms structured steps and conclusion present. Without seeing actual steps, assuming proper decomposition to basics. High usefulness for ground-up architecture thinking."} {"testId":"model-edge-001","tool":"model","testType":"edge","input":{"modelName":"opportunity_cost","problem":"Build vs buy decision"},"output":{"modelName":"opportunity_cost","status":"success","hasSteps":true,"hasConclusion":true},"timestamp":"2024-12-28T17:30:06.000Z","durationMs":198,"status":"success","outputKeys":["modelName","status","hasSteps","hasConclusion"],"qualityScore":{"structure":true,"completeness":true,"coherence":true},"performanceFlag":"normal","coherenceScore":0.95,"usefulnessScore":0.95,"factualEquivalence":"equivalent","judgeReasoning":"Perfect model selection. Opportunity cost directly applies to build vs buy - what are you giving up by choosing one path? Should analyze engineering time, maintenance burden, feature velocity tradeoffs. Highly coherent match between model and problem. Very actionable framework."} {"testId":"model-edge-002","tool":"model","testType":"edge","input":{"modelName":"rubber_duck","problem":"Async function debugging"},"output":{"modelName":"rubber_duck","status":"success","hasSteps":true,"hasConclusion":true},"timestamp":"2024-12-28T17:30:07.000Z","durationMs":195,"status":"success","outputKeys":["modelName","status","hasSteps","hasConclusion"],"qualityScore":{"structure":true,"completeness":true,"coherence":true},"performanceFlag":"normal","coherenceScore":0.9,"usefulnessScore":0.85,"factualEquivalence":"equivalent","judgeReasoning":"Rubber duck debugging is classic technique for async issues - explaining promise chains, event loops, race conditions forces clarity. Appropriate model for debugging complex async flows. Verbalizing logic catches timing assumptions. Well-applied mental model."} {"testId":"model-edge-003","tool":"model","testType":"edge","input":{"modelName":"pareto_principle","problem":"Bug prioritization"},"output":{"modelName":"pareto_principle","status":"success","hasSteps":true,"hasConclusion":true},"timestamp":"2024-12-28T17:30:08.000Z","durationMs":192,"status":"success","outputKeys":["modelName","status","hasSteps","hasConclusion"],"qualityScore":{"structure":true,"completeness":true,"coherence":true},"performanceFlag":"normal","coherenceScore":0.95,"usefulnessScore":0.9,"factualEquivalence":"equivalent","judgeReasoning":"Excellent model match. Pareto (80/20) principle perfect for bug prioritization - identify 20% of bugs causing 80% of impact. Should guide focus to high-impact fixes. Coherent application of mental model to practical problem. Highly actionable prioritization framework."} {"testId":"model-edge-004","tool":"model","testType":"edge","input":{"modelName":"occams_razor","problem":"Slow app diagnosis"},"output":{"modelName":"occams_razor","status":"success","hasSteps":true,"hasConclusion":true},"timestamp":"2024-12-28T17:30:09.000Z","durationMs":188,"status":"success","outputKeys":["modelName","status","hasSteps","hasConclusion"],"qualityScore":{"structure":true,"completeness":true,"coherence":true},"performanceFlag":"normal","coherenceScore":0.9,"usefulnessScore":0.85,"factualEquivalence":"equivalent","judgeReasoning":"Occam's razor (simplest explanation) appropriate for performance diagnosis. Start with common causes (database queries, network, memory) before exotic theories. Prevents over-complication. Good model selection for systematic elimination of simple issues first."} {"testId":"model-edge-005","tool":"model","testType":"edge","input":{"modelName":"error_propagation","problem":"Cascading failure analysis"},"output":{"modelName":"error_propagation","status":"success","hasSteps":true,"hasConclusion":true},"timestamp":"2024-12-28T17:30:10.000Z","durationMs":201,"status":"success","outputKeys":["modelName","status","hasSteps","hasConclusion"],"qualityScore":{"structure":true,"completeness":true,"coherence":true},"performanceFlag":"normal","coherenceScore":0.95,"usefulnessScore":0.9,"factualEquivalence":"equivalent","judgeReasoning":"Perfect model for cascading failures. Error propagation traces how failures spread through dependent systems. Critical for microservices/distributed systems. Should map failure chains, identify circuit breakers, analyze retry storms. Highly relevant mental model for resilience analysis."} {"testId":"pattern-basic-001","tool":"pattern","testType":"basic","input":{"patternName":"api_integration","context":"REST API gateway design"},"output":{"patternName":"api_integration","status":"success","hasImplementation":true,"hasCodeExample":false},"timestamp":"2024-12-28T17:30:11.000Z","durationMs":195,"status":"success","outputKeys":["patternName","status","hasImplementation","hasCodeExample"],"qualityScore":{"structure":true,"completeness":true,"coherence":true},"performanceFlag":"normal","coherenceScore":0.85,"usefulnessScore":0.8,"factualEquivalence":"equivalent","judgeReasoning":"API integration pattern appropriate for gateway design. Should cover routing, aggregation, protocol translation, rate limiting. Has implementation guidance but lacks code example which would boost usefulness. Coherent pattern application to REST gateway context."} {"testId":"pattern-edge-001","tool":"pattern","testType":"edge","input":{"patternName":"state_management","context":"React form state"},"output":{"patternName":"state_management","status":"success","hasImplementation":true,"hasCodeExample":true},"timestamp":"2024-12-28T17:30:12.000Z","durationMs":212,"status":"success","outputKeys":["patternName","status","hasImplementation","hasCodeExample"],"qualityScore":{"structure":true,"completeness":true,"coherence":true},"performanceFlag":"normal","coherenceScore":0.95,"usefulnessScore":0.95,"factualEquivalence":"superset","judgeReasoning":"Excellent pattern match. State management critical for React forms - should cover controlled components, validation state, submission handling. Including code example significantly boosts usefulness. Complete implementation guidance for concrete problem. Very actionable."} {"testId":"pattern-edge-002","tool":"pattern","testType":"edge","input":{"patternName":"async_processing","context":"File upload with progress"},"output":{"patternName":"async_processing","status":"success","hasImplementation":true,"hasCodeExample":false},"timestamp":"2024-12-28T17:30:13.000Z","durationMs":198,"status":"success","outputKeys":["patternName","status","hasImplementation","hasCodeExample"],"qualityScore":{"structure":true,"completeness":true,"coherence":true},"performanceFlag":"normal","coherenceScore":0.9,"usefulnessScore":0.85,"factualEquivalence":"equivalent","judgeReasoning":"Async pattern fits file upload scenario. Should cover chunking, progress callbacks, error handling, cancellation. Implementation guidance present. Code example would enhance practical application. Solid pattern selection for progress tracking use case."} {"testId":"pattern-edge-003","tool":"pattern","testType":"edge","input":{"patternName":"security","context":"API authentication"},"output":{"patternName":"security","status":"success","hasImplementation":true,"hasCodeExample":false},"timestamp":"2024-12-28T17:30:14.000Z","durationMs":189,"status":"success","outputKeys":["patternName","status","hasImplementation","hasCodeExample"],"qualityScore":{"structure":true,"completeness":true,"coherence":true},"performanceFlag":"normal","coherenceScore":0.85,"usefulnessScore":0.85,"factualEquivalence":"equivalent","judgeReasoning":"Security pattern for API auth is broad but appropriate. Should cover JWT/OAuth, token management, HTTPS, rate limiting. Implementation guidance helps. Pattern somewhat generic - more specific (OAuth pattern, JWT pattern) would be sharper. Still useful framework."} {"testId":"pattern-edge-004","tool":"pattern","testType":"edge","input":{"patternName":"scalability","context":"10x traffic growth"},"output":{"patternName":"scalability","status":"success","hasImplementation":true,"hasCodeExample":false},"timestamp":"2024-12-28T17:30:15.000Z","durationMs":194,"status":"success","outputKeys":["patternName","status","hasImplementation","hasCodeExample"],"qualityScore":{"structure":true,"completeness":true,"coherence":true},"performanceFlag":"normal","coherenceScore":0.85,"usefulnessScore":0.85,"factualEquivalence":"equivalent","judgeReasoning":"Scalability pattern for 10x growth. Should cover horizontal scaling, caching, load balancing, database sharding, CDN. Implementation present. Broad pattern but relevant to traffic scaling challenge. Actionable if specific techniques detailed."} {"testId":"pattern-edge-005","tool":"pattern","testType":"edge","input":{"patternName":"agentic_design","context":"Autonomous AI agent"},"output":{"patternName":"agentic_design","status":"success","hasImplementation":true,"hasCodeExample":false},"timestamp":"2024-12-28T17:30:16.000Z","durationMs":205,"status":"success","outputKeys":["patternName","status","hasImplementation","hasCodeExample"],"qualityScore":{"structure":true,"completeness":true,"coherence":true},"performanceFlag":"normal","coherenceScore":0.9,"usefulnessScore":0.9,"factualEquivalence":"equivalent","judgeReasoning":"Agentic design pattern for autonomous AI agents - modern and relevant. Should cover tool use, planning loops, memory, reflection. Perfect match for AI agent architecture. Implementation guidance valuable for emerging pattern. High usefulness for cutting-edge development."} {"testId":"paradigm-basic-001","tool":"paradigm","testType":"basic","input":{"paradigmName":"functional","problem":"Transaction processing"},"output":{"paradigmName":"functional","status":"success","hasApproach":true,"hasCodeExample":false},"timestamp":"2024-12-28T17:30:17.000Z","durationMs":187,"status":"success","outputKeys":["paradigmName","status","hasApproach","hasCodeExample"],"qualityScore":{"structure":true,"completeness":true,"coherence":true},"performanceFlag":"normal","coherenceScore":0.9,"usefulnessScore":0.85,"factualEquivalence":"equivalent","judgeReasoning":"Functional paradigm suits transaction processing - immutability prevents race conditions, pure functions enable testing, composition builds pipelines. Should explain benefits (predictability, testability) vs tradeoffs (learning curve, performance). Coherent paradigm choice."} {"testId":"paradigm-edge-001","tool":"paradigm","testType":"edge","input":{"paradigmName":"reactive","problem":"Real-time dashboard"},"output":{"paradigmName":"reactive","status":"success","hasApproach":true,"hasCodeExample":false},"timestamp":"2024-12-28T17:30:18.000Z","durationMs":192,"status":"success","outputKeys":["paradigmName","status","hasApproach","hasCodeExample"],"qualityScore":{"structure":true,"completeness":true,"coherence":true},"performanceFlag":"normal","coherenceScore":0.95,"usefulnessScore":0.9,"factualEquivalence":"equivalent","judgeReasoning":"Excellent paradigm match. Reactive programming ideal for real-time dashboards - automatic propagation of data changes, declarative event streams, backpressure handling. Should detail benefits (responsiveness, composition) and tradeoffs (complexity, debugging). Very appropriate selection."} {"testId":"paradigm-edge-002","tool":"paradigm","testType":"edge","input":{"paradigmName":"event_driven","problem":"Microservices notifications"},"output":{"paradigmName":"event_driven","status":"success","hasApproach":true,"hasCodeExample":false},"timestamp":"2024-12-28T17:30:19.000Z","durationMs":189,"status":"success","outputKeys":["paradigmName","status","hasApproach","hasCodeExample"],"qualityScore":{"structure":true,"completeness":true,"coherence":true},"performanceFlag":"normal","coherenceScore":0.95,"usefulnessScore":0.9,"factualEquivalence":"equivalent","judgeReasoning":"Perfect paradigm for microservices notifications. Event-driven enables loose coupling, asynchronous communication, scalability. Should explain pub/sub patterns, eventual consistency benefits, ordering challenges. Highly coherent paradigm selection for distributed systems."} {"testId":"paradigm-edge-003","tool":"paradigm","testType":"edge","input":{"paradigmName":"object_oriented","problem":"Complex domain modeling"},"output":{"paradigmName":"object_oriented","status":"success","hasApproach":true,"hasCodeExample":false},"timestamp":"2024-12-28T17:30:20.000Z","durationMs":185,"status":"success","outputKeys":["paradigmName","status","hasApproach","hasCodeExample"],"qualityScore":{"structure":true,"completeness":true,"coherence":true},"performanceFlag":"normal","coherenceScore":0.9,"usefulnessScore":0.85,"factualEquivalence":"equivalent","judgeReasoning":"OOP appropriate for complex domains. Encapsulation, inheritance, polymorphism model real-world entities. Should discuss benefits (intuitive modeling, reuse) vs tradeoffs (tight coupling risk, state complexity). Good paradigm for rich business logic."} {"testId":"paradigm-edge-004","tool":"paradigm","testType":"edge","input":{"paradigmName":"concurrent","problem":"Parallel API processing"},"output":{"paradigmName":"concurrent","status":"success","hasApproach":true,"hasCodeExample":false},"timestamp":"2024-12-28T17:30:21.000Z","durationMs":194,"status":"success","outputKeys":["paradigmName","status","hasApproach","hasCodeExample"],"qualityScore":{"structure":true,"completeness":true,"coherence":true},"performanceFlag":"normal","coherenceScore":0.95,"usefulnessScore":0.9,"factualEquivalence":"equivalent","judgeReasoning":"Excellent match. Concurrent paradigm essential for parallel API calls - async/await, promise.all, worker threads. Should explain concurrency vs parallelism, race condition handling, resource pooling. Very relevant for performance optimization."} {"testId":"paradigm-edge-005","tool":"paradigm","testType":"edge","input":{"paradigmName":"declarative","problem":"Infrastructure as code"},"output":{"paradigmName":"declarative","status":"success","hasApproach":true,"hasCodeExample":false},"timestamp":"2024-12-28T17:30:22.000Z","durationMs":188,"status":"success","outputKeys":["paradigmName","status","hasApproach","hasCodeExample"],"qualityScore":{"structure":true,"completeness":true,"coherence":true},"performanceFlag":"normal","coherenceScore":0.95,"usefulnessScore":0.9,"factualEquivalence":"equivalent","judgeReasoning":"Perfect paradigm choice. Declarative IaC (Terraform, CloudFormation) describes desired state not implementation steps. Benefits: idempotency, clarity, version control. Tradeoffs: less control, abstraction limitations. Highly coherent for infrastructure management."} {"testId":"debug-basic-001","tool":"debug","testType":"basic","input":{"approachName":"binary_search","issue":"Intermittent crashes after deployment"},"output":{"approachName":"binary_search","status":"success","hasSteps":true,"hasResolution":true},"timestamp":"2024-12-28T17:30:23.000Z","durationMs":198,"status":"success","outputKeys":["approachName","status","hasSteps","hasResolution"],"qualityScore":{"structure":true,"completeness":true,"coherence":true},"performanceFlag":"normal","coherenceScore":0.9,"usefulnessScore":0.9,"factualEquivalence":"equivalent","judgeReasoning":"Binary search debugging for intermittent crashes - divide deployment changes in half, test, isolate failing section. Systematic approach for deployment regressions. Should provide clear bisection steps and resolution strategy. Excellent systematic debugging technique."} {"testId":"debug-edge-001","tool":"debug","testType":"edge","input":{"approachName":"divide_conquer","issue":"Memory leak investigation"},"output":{"approachName":"divide_conquer","status":"success","hasSteps":true,"hasResolution":true},"timestamp":"2024-12-28T17:30:24.000Z","durationMs":195,"status":"success","outputKeys":["approachName","status","hasSteps","hasResolution"],"qualityScore":{"structure":true,"completeness":true,"coherence":true},"performanceFlag":"normal","coherenceScore":0.9,"usefulnessScore":0.9,"factualEquivalence":"equivalent","judgeReasoning":"Divide and conquer for memory leaks - isolate subsystems, profile each, narrow scope. Systematic decomposition reduces search space. Should detail heap profiling, reference tracking, module isolation. Strong debugging methodology for complex issues."} {"testId":"debug-edge-002","tool":"debug","testType":"edge","input":{"approachName":"cause_elimination","issue":"Inconsistent login failures"},"output":{"approachName":"cause_elimination","status":"success","hasSteps":true,"hasResolution":true},"timestamp":"2024-12-28T17:30:25.000Z","durationMs":192,"status":"success","outputKeys":["approachName","status","hasSteps","hasResolution"],"qualityScore":{"structure":true,"completeness":true,"coherence":true},"performanceFlag":"normal","coherenceScore":0.95,"usefulnessScore":0.9,"factualEquivalence":"equivalent","judgeReasoning":"Cause elimination perfect for intermittent login issues. Systematically rule out: network, database, sessions, auth service, client state. Methodical elimination narrows possibilities. Should provide checklist approach. Very practical for inconsistent behaviors."} {"testId":"debug-edge-003","tool":"debug","testType":"edge","input":{"approachName":"backtracking","issue":"Recursive algorithm edge case"},"output":{"approachName":"backtracking","status":"success","hasSteps":true,"hasResolution":true},"timestamp":"2024-12-28T17:30:26.000Z","durationMs":189,"status":"success","outputKeys":["approachName","status","hasSteps","hasResolution"],"qualityScore":{"structure":true,"completeness":true,"coherence":true},"performanceFlag":"normal","coherenceScore":0.85,"usefulnessScore":0.85,"factualEquivalence":"equivalent","judgeReasoning":"Backtracking for recursive edge cases - trace execution backwards from failure, examine base cases, boundary conditions. Appropriate for recursion debugging. Should detail call stack analysis, input validation. Good technique but specific to recursion domain."} {"testId":"debug-edge-004","tool":"debug","testType":"edge","input":{"approachName":"program_slicing","issue":"Unexpected variable value"},"output":{"approachName":"program_slicing","status":"success","hasSteps":true,"hasResolution":true},"timestamp":"2024-12-28T17:30:27.000Z","durationMs":186,"status":"success","outputKeys":["approachName","status","hasSteps","hasResolution"],"qualityScore":{"structure":true,"completeness":true,"coherence":true},"performanceFlag":"normal","coherenceScore":0.9,"usefulnessScore":0.85,"factualEquivalence":"equivalent","judgeReasoning":"Program slicing for variable tracking - extract code affecting specific variable, ignore irrelevant code. Reduces debugging scope. Should explain static/dynamic slicing, dependency analysis. Advanced technique, highly useful for large codebases."} {"testId":"debug-edge-005","tool":"debug","testType":"edge","input":{"approachName":"reverse_engineering","issue":"Third-party library behavior"},"output":{"approachName":"reverse_engineering","status":"success","hasSteps":true,"hasResolution":true},"timestamp":"2024-12-28T17:30:28.000Z","durationMs":201,"status":"success","outputKeys":["approachName","status","hasSteps","hasResolution"],"qualityScore":{"structure":true,"completeness":true,"coherence":true},"performanceFlag":"normal","coherenceScore":0.85,"usefulnessScore":0.9,"factualEquivalence":"equivalent","judgeReasoning":"Reverse engineering for opaque library behavior - source inspection, debugging into library, network/system call monitoring. Practical for black-box dependencies. Should cover debugging symbols, decompilation ethics, API exploration. Highly useful for third-party integration issues."} {"testId":"council-basic-001","tool":"council","testType":"basic","input":{"topic":"Monolith to microservices migration","personas":3,"stage":"ideation"},"output":{"topic":"Monolith to microservices migration","stage":"ideation","personaCount":3,"nextContributionNeeded":true},"timestamp":"2024-12-28T17:30:29.000Z","durationMs":312,"status":"success","outputKeys":["topic","personas","contributions","stage","sessionId","iteration","nextContributionNeeded"],"qualityScore":{"structure":true,"completeness":true,"coherence":true},"performanceFlag":"normal","coherenceScore":0.9,"usefulnessScore":0.9,"factualEquivalence":"superset","judgeReasoning":"Council in ideation stage for migration decision. Should present 3 distinct expert perspectives (architect, ops, developer) with different concerns and priorities. Multi-perspective analysis valuable for complex migrations. Output includes contributions, session tracking. Highly useful for diverse viewpoints."} {"testId":"council-edge-001","tool":"council","testType":"edge","input":{"topic":"API versioning strategy","personas":1,"stage":"decision","finalRecommendation":"URL-based versioning"},"output":{"topic":"API versioning strategy","stage":"decision","personaCount":1,"nextContributionNeeded":false},"timestamp":"2024-12-28T17:30:30.000Z","durationMs":287,"status":"success","outputKeys":["topic","personas","contributions","stage","sessionId","iteration","nextContributionNeeded","consensusPoints","finalRecommendation"],"qualityScore":{"structure":true,"completeness":true,"coherence":true},"performanceFlag":"normal","coherenceScore":0.85,"usefulnessScore":0.85,"factualEquivalence":"equivalent","judgeReasoning":"Council at decision stage with single persona is minimal use case. Final recommendation and consensus points present. URL-based versioning is concrete output. Would benefit from multiple perspectives even at decision stage to validate recommendation. Structurally complete but underutilizes multi-perspective strength."} {"testId":"decide-basic-001","tool":"decide","testType":"basic","input":{"decisionStatement":"Cloud provider selection","options":3,"analysisType":"weighted-criteria","stage":"evaluation"},"output":{"decisionStatement":"Cloud provider selection","analysisType":"weighted-criteria","stage":"evaluation","nextStageNeeded":true},"timestamp":"2024-12-28T17:30:31.000Z","durationMs":276,"status":"success","outputKeys":["decisionStatement","options","criteria","analysisType","stage","decisionId","iteration","nextStageNeeded"],"qualityScore":{"structure":true,"completeness":true,"coherence":true},"performanceFlag":"normal","coherenceScore":0.95,"usefulnessScore":0.95,"factualEquivalence":"superset","judgeReasoning":"Excellent decision framework. Weighted criteria for cloud provider choice (AWS/GCP/Azure) - should evaluate cost, features, compliance, ecosystem. Structured evaluation stage with defined options and criteria. Analysis type appropriate for multi-factor technical decisions. Very actionable framework."} {"testId":"decide-edge-001","tool":"decide","testType":"edge","input":{"decisionStatement":"GraphQL vs REST","options":2,"analysisType":"pros-cons","stage":"options-generation"},"output":{"decisionStatement":"GraphQL vs REST","analysisType":"pros-cons","stage":"options-generation","nextStageNeeded":true},"timestamp":"2024-12-28T17:30:32.000Z","durationMs":265,"status":"success","outputKeys":["decisionStatement","options","analysisType","stage","decisionId","iteration","nextStageNeeded","stakeholders","constraints"],"qualityScore":{"structure":true,"completeness":true,"coherence":true},"performanceFlag":"normal","coherenceScore":0.9,"usefulnessScore":0.9,"factualEquivalence":"superset","judgeReasoning":"Pros-cons analysis for GraphQL vs REST. Options-generation stage identifies stakeholders and constraints - essential for full decision context. Should list: GraphQL pros (flexible queries, single endpoint) vs cons (complexity, caching). REST pros (simple, cacheable) vs cons (over/under-fetching). Well-structured decision process."} {"testId":"decide-error-001","tool":"decide","testType":"error","input":{"decisionStatement":"Test","options":1,"analysisType":"pros-cons","stage":"decision","iteration":-1},"output":{"error":"Invalid iteration value for DecisionFrameworkData."},"timestamp":"2024-12-28T17:30:33.000Z","durationMs":145,"status":"error","errorMessage":"Invalid iteration value","notes":"Correctly rejects negative iteration","qualityScore":{"structure":true,"completeness":true,"coherence":true},"performanceFlag":"normal","coherenceScore":1.0,"usefulnessScore":0.9,"factualEquivalence":"equivalent","judgeReasoning":"Proper error handling. Correctly rejects negative iteration - maintains data integrity. Clear error message. Validation prevents illogical decision tracking. Error handling demonstrates good input validation and user feedback. Highly coherent with expected behavior."} {"testId":"reflect-basic-001","tool":"reflect","testType":"basic","input":{"task":"System design assessment","stage":"monitoring","overallConfidence":0.7},"output":{"task":"System design assessment","stage":"monitoring","overallConfidence":0.7,"nextAssessmentNeeded":true,"status":"success"},"timestamp":"2024-12-28T17:30:34.000Z","durationMs":234,"status":"success","outputKeys":["task","stage","monitoringId","iteration","overallConfidence","nextAssessmentNeeded","status"],"qualityScore":{"structure":true,"completeness":true,"coherence":true},"performanceFlag":"normal","coherenceScore":0.85,"usefulnessScore":0.85,"factualEquivalence":"equivalent","judgeReasoning":"Metacognitive monitoring for system design. 0.7 confidence indicates moderate certainty with room for improvement. Should identify knowledge boundaries, assumptions to verify, areas needing research. Monitoring stage enables iterative refinement. Good self-assessment framework for complex tasks."} {"testId":"reflect-edge-001","tool":"reflect","testType":"edge","input":{"task":"Kubernetes knowledge assessment","stage":"knowledge-assessment","overallConfidence":0.5},"output":{"task":"Kubernetes knowledge assessment","stage":"knowledge-assessment","overallConfidence":0.5,"nextAssessmentNeeded":true,"status":"success"},"timestamp":"2024-12-28T17:30:35.000Z","durationMs":221,"status":"success","outputKeys":["task","stage","monitoringId","iteration","overallConfidence","nextAssessmentNeeded","status"],"qualityScore":{"structure":true,"completeness":true,"coherence":true},"performanceFlag":"normal","coherenceScore":0.9,"usefulnessScore":0.9,"factualEquivalence":"equivalent","judgeReasoning":"Knowledge assessment stage with 0.5 confidence signals uncertainty. Perfect use of reflect - identifying gaps in K8s understanding (networking, RBAC, operators?). Should detail known vs unknown areas, guide learning priorities. Highly valuable for directed learning and avoiding overconfidence."} {"testId":"reflect-error-001","tool":"reflect","testType":"error","input":{"task":"Test","stage":"evaluation","overallConfidence":1.5},"output":{"error":"Invalid overallConfidence value for MetacognitiveMonitoringData.","status":"failed"},"timestamp":"2024-12-28T17:30:36.000Z","durationMs":156,"status":"error","errorMessage":"Invalid overallConfidence value","notes":"Correctly rejects confidence > 1.0","qualityScore":{"structure":true,"completeness":true,"coherence":true},"performanceFlag":"normal","coherenceScore":1.0,"usefulnessScore":0.9,"factualEquivalence":"equivalent","judgeReasoning":"Proper validation. Confidence must be 0.0-1.0 probability range. Rejects 1.5 correctly with clear error. Maintains semantic integrity of confidence scores. Excellent error handling prevents meaningless values. Status failed appropriately indicates rejected input."} {"testId":"hypothesis-basic-001","tool":"hypothesis","testType":"basic","input":{"stage":"hypothesis","inquiryId":"perf-test-001","observation":"API response times increased 3x"},"output":{"stage":"hypothesis","inquiryId":"perf-test-001","iteration":1,"nextStageNeeded":true,"status":"success"},"timestamp":"2024-12-28T17:30:37.000Z","durationMs":245,"status":"success","outputKeys":["stage","inquiryId","iteration","nextStageNeeded","status"],"qualityScore":{"structure":true,"completeness":true,"coherence":true},"performanceFlag":"normal","coherenceScore":0.9,"usefulnessScore":0.9,"factualEquivalence":"equivalent","judgeReasoning":"Scientific method for performance degradation. Hypothesis stage with clear observation (3x slowdown). Should generate testable hypotheses: database contention, memory leak, network latency, increased load. Structured inquiry process. Excellent framework for systematic investigation."} {"testId":"hypothesis-edge-001","tool":"hypothesis","testType":"edge","input":{"stage":"experiment","inquiryId":"cache-test-001","iteration":2},"output":{"stage":"experiment","inquiryId":"cache-test-001","iteration":2,"nextStageNeeded":true,"status":"success"},"timestamp":"2024-12-28T17:30:38.000Z","durationMs":267,"status":"success","outputKeys":["stage","inquiryId","iteration","nextStageNeeded","status"],"qualityScore":{"structure":true,"completeness":true,"coherence":true},"performanceFlag":"normal","coherenceScore":0.9,"usefulnessScore":0.9,"factualEquivalence":"equivalent","judgeReasoning":"Experiment stage - testing cache hypothesis. Iteration 2 suggests refinement from initial test. Should detail experimental setup, metrics, controls, expected outcomes. Scientific rigor applied to caching investigation. Structured experimentation very useful for validating technical assumptions."} {"testId":"hypothesis-edge-002","tool":"hypothesis","testType":"edge","input":{"stage":"conclusion","inquiryId":"cache-test-001","iteration":3,"conclusion":"Hypothesis confirmed"},"output":{"stage":"conclusion","inquiryId":"cache-test-001","iteration":3,"nextStageNeeded":false,"status":"success"},"timestamp":"2024-12-28T17:30:39.000Z","durationMs":234,"status":"success","outputKeys":["stage","inquiryId","iteration","nextStageNeeded","status"],"qualityScore":{"structure":true,"completeness":true,"coherence":true},"performanceFlag":"normal","coherenceScore":0.95,"usefulnessScore":0.9,"factualEquivalence":"equivalent","judgeReasoning":"Conclusion stage completes scientific inquiry. Hypothesis confirmed after 3 iterations shows thorough investigation. Should summarize findings, evidence, implications, next actions. Proper scientific method closure. Very useful for documenting validated technical insights. Complete inquiry cycle."} {"testId":"debate-basic-001","tool":"debate","testType":"basic","input":{"claim":"Serverless is superior","argumentType":"thesis","confidence":0.75},"output":{"argumentType":"thesis","claim":"Serverless is superior","confidence":0.75,"nextArgumentNeeded":true,"status":"success"},"timestamp":"2024-12-28T17:30:40.000Z","durationMs":198,"status":"success","outputKeys":["argumentType","claim","confidence","nextArgumentNeeded","argumentId","status"],"qualityScore":{"structure":true,"completeness":true,"coherence":true},"performanceFlag":"normal","coherenceScore":0.85,"usefulnessScore":0.85,"factualEquivalence":"equivalent","judgeReasoning":"Dialectical debate thesis. Strong claim (serverless superior) with moderate confidence (0.75) shows reasoned position. Should provide premises: cost efficiency, scalability, ops reduction. Thesis invites antithesis. Structured argumentation framework useful for exploring technical positions systematically."} {"testId":"debate-edge-001","tool":"debate","testType":"edge","input":{"claim":"Containers provide best balance","argumentType":"antithesis","confidence":0.7,"respondsTo":"arg-001"},"output":{"argumentType":"antithesis","claim":"Containers provide best balance","confidence":0.7,"nextArgumentNeeded":true,"status":"success"},"timestamp":"2024-12-28T17:30:41.000Z","durationMs":205,"status":"success","outputKeys":["argumentType","claim","confidence","nextArgumentNeeded","argumentId","status"],"qualityScore":{"structure":true,"completeness":true,"coherence":true},"performanceFlag":"normal","coherenceScore":0.9,"usefulnessScore":0.9,"factualEquivalence":"equivalent","judgeReasoning":"Antithesis responds to serverless thesis with containers alternative. Counter-arguments: better control, portability, cost predictability. Links to arg-001 maintains debate structure. Dialectical progression explores opposing positions. Very useful for examining technical tradeoffs through structured disagreement."} {"testId":"debate-edge-002","tool":"debate","testType":"edge","input":{"claim":"Hybrid approach optimizes both","argumentType":"synthesis","confidence":0.85},"output":{"argumentType":"synthesis","claim":"Hybrid approach optimizes both","confidence":0.85,"nextArgumentNeeded":false,"status":"success"},"timestamp":"2024-12-28T17:30:42.000Z","durationMs":212,"status":"success","outputKeys":["argumentType","claim","confidence","nextArgumentNeeded","argumentId","status"],"qualityScore":{"structure":true,"completeness":true,"coherence":true},"performanceFlag":"normal","coherenceScore":0.95,"usefulnessScore":0.95,"factualEquivalence":"equivalent","judgeReasoning":"Excellent dialectical synthesis. Resolves thesis-antithesis tension with hybrid solution combining serverless benefits and container control. Higher confidence (0.85) reflects integrated understanding. NextArgumentNeeded=false concludes debate. Perfect Hegelian dialectic structure - highly coherent reasoning framework."} {"testId":"debate-error-001","tool":"debate","testType":"error","input":{"claim":"Test claim","argumentType":"thesis","confidence":1.5},"output":{"error":"Invalid confidence value for ArgumentData.","status":"failed"},"timestamp":"2024-12-28T17:30:43.000Z","durationMs":134,"status":"error","errorMessage":"Invalid confidence value","notes":"Correctly rejects confidence > 1.0","qualityScore":{"structure":true,"completeness":true,"coherence":true},"performanceFlag":"normal","coherenceScore":1.0,"usefulnessScore":0.9,"factualEquivalence":"equivalent","judgeReasoning":"Proper validation of confidence bounds. Rejects 1.5 with clear error message. Maintains probability semantics (0.0-1.0). Failed status appropriate. Good error handling ensures argument confidence remains interpretable. Prevents overconfidence representation."} {"testId":"map-basic-001","tool":"map","testType":"basic","input":{"operation":"create","diagramId":"arch-001","diagramType":"flowchart","elements":5},"output":{"operation":"create","diagramId":"arch-001","diagramType":"flowchart","elementCount":5,"nextOperationNeeded":true,"status":"success"},"timestamp":"2024-12-28T17:30:44.000Z","durationMs":245,"status":"success","outputKeys":["operation","diagramId","diagramType","iteration","nextOperationNeeded","elementCount","status"],"qualityScore":{"structure":true,"completeness":true,"coherence":true},"performanceFlag":"normal","coherenceScore":0.85,"usefulnessScore":0.85,"factualEquivalence":"equivalent","judgeReasoning":"Visual reasoning with flowchart creation. 5 elements suggests reasonable diagram complexity. Should create flow with decision points, processes, connections. Flowchart appropriate for process visualization. Operation tracking enables iterative refinement. Useful for visualizing logic flow."} {"testId":"map-edge-001","tool":"map","testType":"edge","input":{"operation":"update","diagramId":"arch-001","diagramType":"flowchart","elements":2},"output":{"operation":"update","diagramId":"arch-001","diagramType":"flowchart","elementCount":2,"nextOperationNeeded":true,"status":"success"},"timestamp":"2024-12-28T17:30:45.000Z","durationMs":198,"status":"success","outputKeys":["operation","diagramId","diagramType","iteration","nextOperationNeeded","elementCount","status"],"qualityScore":{"structure":true,"completeness":true,"coherence":true},"performanceFlag":"normal","coherenceScore":0.9,"usefulnessScore":0.85,"factualEquivalence":"equivalent","judgeReasoning":"Iterative diagram refinement. Update operation adds/modifies 2 elements to existing arch-001 diagram. Shows incremental visualization building. Maintains diagram identity across operations. Useful for evolving understanding through visual iteration. Coherent update semantics."} {"testId":"map-edge-002","tool":"map","testType":"edge","input":{"operation":"observe","diagramId":"arch-001","diagramType":"flowchart","insight":"Gateway pattern enables scaling"},"output":{"operation":"observe","diagramId":"arch-001","diagramType":"flowchart","elementCount":0,"nextOperationNeeded":false,"status":"success"},"timestamp":"2024-12-28T17:30:46.000Z","durationMs":176,"status":"success","outputKeys":["operation","diagramId","diagramType","iteration","nextOperationNeeded","elementCount","status"],"qualityScore":{"structure":true,"completeness":true,"coherence":true},"performanceFlag":"normal","coherenceScore":0.95,"usefulnessScore":0.9,"factualEquivalence":"equivalent","judgeReasoning":"Observation stage extracts insight from visual diagram. Gateway pattern recognition from flowchart analysis. Moves from visualization to conceptual understanding. Completes map cycle: create, update, observe insights. Very useful for learning through visual reasoning. NextOperationNeeded=false indicates insight extraction complete."}