AGI Capabilities

// Pattern Learning Example
{
  pattern: "Always read file before modifying",
  domain: "file_operations",
  confidence: 0.95,
  successRate: 0.92,
  evidence: [
    "Task-123: Read before write prevented overwrite",
    "Task-145: Direct write caused data loss"
  ],
  applicableContexts: ["code_modification", "refactoring"]
}

// Synthesized Pattern Example
{
  theme: "API Error Handling",
  pattern: "Wrap API calls in try-catch with specific error types",
  confidence: 0.88,
  occurrences: 15,
  domains: ["api", "error_handling", "typescript"],
  evidence: [
    "Successful in 12 of 15 API implementation tasks",
    "Prevented production errors in 3 deployments"
  ]
}

// Knowledge Lifecycle Example
{
  knowledge: "Use async/await for database operations",
  confidence: 0.85,
  created: "2024-01-15",
  lastUsed: "2024-03-20",
  timesApplied: 45,
  successRate: 0.91,
  contradictions: 0,
  status: "validated"
}

// Confidence Threshold Guide
confidence >= 0.90: Execute autonomously
confidence >= 0.70: Execute with notification
confidence >= 0.50: Request confirmation
confidence <  0.50: Request detailed approval

Task: "Add input validation to user registration form"

1. Analyze Requirements (confidence: 0.92)
   - Similar to Task-234 (success)
   - Pattern match: "form_validation"
   - Low risk: Adding code only

2. Execute Autonomously
   - Read existing form component
   - Add validation schema
   - Update error handling
   - Write tests

3. Verify Changes
   - Syntax check: PASS
   - Type check: PASS
   - Tests: PASS
   - Mark complete

Learning: Pattern "form_validation" reinforced (+0.03 confidence)

// Verification Report Example
{
  overallConfidence: 0.88,
  stages: [
    { stage: "syntax", status: "pass", confidence: 1.0 },
    { stage: "lint", status: "pass", confidence: 0.95 },
    { stage: "types", status: "pass", confidence: 0.90 },
    { stage: "tests", status: "pass", confidence: 0.85, coverage: 0.92 },
    { stage: "security", status: "pass", confidence: 0.80 }
  ],
  issues: [],
  autoFixable: true,
  suggestions: ["Consider adding edge case tests"]
}

// Stuck State Example
{
  taskId: "task-789",
  phase: "implementation",
  stuck: true,
  reason: "repeated_failures",
  attempts: 5,
  lastProgress: "2024-03-20T10:15:00Z",
  timeSinceProgress: "15 minutes",
  suggestedAction: "switch_strategy"
}

// Research Flow Example
Query: "How to implement rate limiting in Express.js?"

1. Search Stack Overflow
   - Found 15 relevant questions
   - Top answer has 245 upvotes
   - Extract code example

2. Search GitHub
   - Found 8 popular libraries
   - express-rate-limit: 2.3k stars
   - Review implementation

3. Search Documentation
   - Express.js middleware docs
   - Rate limiting best practices

4. Generate Report
   Confidence: 0.89
   Recommendations:
   - Use express-rate-limit package
   - Configure per-route limits
   - Add Redis for distributed systems
   Code examples: [3 examples provided]

// Tracked Documentation by Language
{
  "JavaScript": [
    "MDN Web Docs",
    "Node.js Documentation",
    "React Documentation"
  ],
  "Python": [
    "Python.org Docs",
    "Django Documentation",
    "Flask Documentation"
  ],
  "TypeScript": [
    "TypeScript Handbook",
    "DefinitelyTyped"
  ]
  // ... 40+ languages supported
}

// Example: "Build user authentication system"

Problem Decomposition:
{
  mainProblem: "User authentication system",
  complexity: "high",
  estimatedTime: "6-8 hours",

  subProblems: [
    {
      id: "sub-1",
      description: "Design database schema",
      complexity: "medium",
      dependencies: [],
      estimatedTime: "1 hour"
    },
    {
      id: "sub-2",
      description: "Implement user model",
      complexity: "low",
      dependencies: ["sub-1"],
      estimatedTime: "30 minutes"
    },
    {
      id: "sub-3",
      description: "Create registration endpoint",
      complexity: "medium",
      dependencies: ["sub-2"],
      estimatedTime: "1.5 hours"
    },
    {
      id: "sub-4",
      description: "Create login endpoint",
      complexity: "medium",
      dependencies: ["sub-2"],
      estimatedTime: "1.5 hours"
    },
    {
      id: "sub-5",
      description: "Implement JWT token generation",
      complexity: "medium",
      dependencies: ["sub-4"],
      estimatedTime: "1 hour"
    },
    {
      id: "sub-6",
      description: "Add authentication middleware",
      complexity: "low",
      dependencies: ["sub-5"],
      estimatedTime: "30 minutes"
    },
    {
      id: "sub-7",
      description: "Write tests",
      complexity: "medium",
      dependencies: ["sub-3", "sub-4", "sub-5", "sub-6"],
      estimatedTime: "2 hours"
    }
  ],

  executionOrder: ["sub-1", "sub-2", "sub-3", "sub-4", "sub-5", "sub-6", "sub-7"],
  parallelizable: [["sub-3", "sub-4"]]
}

// Example: "Optimize database query performance"

Solution Synthesis:
{
  problem: "Slow database queries",
  approaches: [
    {
      approach: "Add database indexes",
      reliability: 0.95,
      complexity: "low",
      impact: "high",
      timeToImplement: "30 minutes",
      risks: ["Increased write time", "Storage overhead"]
    },
    {
      approach: "Implement query caching",
      reliability: 0.88,
      complexity: "medium",
      impact: "very_high",
      timeToImplement: "2 hours",
      risks: ["Cache invalidation complexity", "Memory usage"]
    },
    {
      approach: "Optimize query structure",
      reliability: 0.90,
      complexity: "medium",
      impact: "high",
      timeToImplement: "1 hour",
      risks: ["May require schema changes"]
    },
    {
      approach: "Database replication",
      reliability: 0.85,
      complexity: "high",
      impact: "very_high",
      timeToImplement: "4+ hours",
      risks: ["Infrastructure costs", "Replication lag"]
    }
  ],

  recommendedStrategy: {
    primary: "Add database indexes",
    secondary: "Optimize query structure",
    futureConsideration: "Implement query caching",
    rationale: "Start with low-complexity, high-impact changes. Indexes provide immediate improvement with minimal risk. Query optimization addresses root cause. Caching can be added later if needed."
  },

  implementationPlan: [
    "Analyze slow queries using EXPLAIN",
    "Identify missing indexes",
    "Create indexes on foreign keys and frequently filtered columns",
    "Rewrite queries to use proper JOINs",
    "Test performance improvements",
    "Monitor for new bottlenecks"
  ],

  successCriteria: [
    "Query time < 100ms for 95th percentile",
    "No regression in write performance",
    "Reduced database CPU usage"
  ]
}

// Self-Assessment Example
{
  domains: {
    "typescript": {
      proficiency: 0.92,
      taskCount: 450,
      successRate: 0.91,
      avgConfidence: 0.88,
      strengths: [
        "Type system understanding",
        "Generic programming",
        "Async patterns"
      ],
      weaknesses: [
        "Advanced decorator patterns",
        "Complex type inference"
      ],
      improving: true,
      trendDirection: "up"
    },
    "react": {
      proficiency: 0.85,
      taskCount: 320,
      successRate: 0.87,
      avgConfidence: 0.82,
      strengths: [
        "Component composition",
        "Hooks usage",
        "State management"
      ],
      weaknesses: [
        "Performance optimization",
        "Server components"
      ],
      improving: true,
      trendDirection: "stable"
    },
    // ... other domains
  }
}

// Help Request Example
{
  task: "Implement OAuth2 flow with PKCE",
  selfAssessment: {
    domain: "authentication",
    proficiency: 0.65,
    confidence: 0.58,
    reasoning: "Limited experience with PKCE extension"
  },

  capabilityGap: {
    missing: [
      "PKCE code verifier generation",
      "Code challenge creation",
      "Token exchange flow"
    ],
    unclear: [
      "State parameter handling",
      "Redirect URI validation"
    ]
  },

  helpRequest: {
    urgency: "medium",
    type: "guidance",
    specificQuestions: [
      "What library should I use for PKCE implementation?",
      "How to securely store code verifier?",
      "Best practices for state parameter?"
    ],
    preferredResources: [
      "Official OAuth 2.0 spec",
      "Security best practices guide"
    ],
    estimatedLearningTime: "1-2 hours",
    canProceedWithGuidance: true
  },

  fallbackStrategy: {
    option1: "Research and implement with web search",
    option2: "Use well-tested OAuth library",
    option3: "Request human code review before deployment"
  }
}

// Strategy Library
{
  strategies: [
    {
      name: "Test-Driven Development (TDD)",
      applicableWhen: [
        "Clear requirements",
        "Well-defined interfaces",
        "Business logic implementation"
      ],
      successRate: 0.89,
      domains: ["backend", "api", "business_logic"],
      timeOverhead: "20-30%",
      benefits: ["Better design", "Built-in tests", "Fewer bugs"]
    },
    {
      name: "Incremental Implementation",
      applicableWhen: [
        "Large features",
        "Uncertain requirements",
        "Need early feedback"
      ],
      successRate: 0.92,
      domains: ["frontend", "ui", "features"],
      timeOverhead: "10-15%",
      benefits: ["Early validation", "Easier debugging", "Flexible adaptation"]
    },
    {
      name: "Research-First Approach",
      applicableWhen: [
        "Unfamiliar technology",
        "Complex algorithms",
        "Performance-critical code"
      ],
      successRate: 0.85,
      domains: ["algorithms", "optimization", "new_tech"],
      timeOverhead: "30-50%",
      benefits: ["Better solutions", "Avoid pitfalls", "Learn best practices"]
    },
    {
      name: "Spike Solution",
      applicableWhen: [
        "Proof of concept needed",
        "High uncertainty",
        "Exploring feasibility"
      ],
      successRate: 0.78,
      domains: ["exploration", "prototyping"],
      timeOverhead: "Variable",
      benefits: ["Fast learning", "Risk reduction", "Informed decisions"]
    },
    {
      name: "Refactor Then Extend",
      applicableWhen: [
        "Legacy code modification",
        "Technical debt present",
        "Code quality issues"
      ],
      successRate: 0.87,
      domains: ["maintenance", "refactoring", "legacy"],
      timeOverhead: "40-60%",
      benefits: ["Cleaner code", "Easier extension", "Fewer side effects"]
    }
  ]
}

Task: "Add real-time notifications to chat application"

Context Analysis:
- Domain: frontend, real-time
- Technology: WebSockets (somewhat familiar)
- Complexity: Medium-high
- Existing code quality: Good
- Requirements clarity: High
- Time constraints: Moderate

Strategy Selection:
Primary: Incremental Implementation (confidence: 0.88)
- Start with basic WebSocket connection
- Add message handling
- Implement UI updates
- Add error handling
- Optimize performance

Secondary: Research-First (if blocked)
- Research WebSocket libraries
- Study real-time best practices
- Review similar implementations

Rationale: Incremental approach allows early testing and feedback.
Familiar with basics but may need research for edge cases.

// Example: User says "Fix the login"

Goal Reasoning Analysis:
{
  surfaceRequest: "Fix the login",

  implicitRequirements: [
    "Login functionality is broken",
    "User authentication should work",
    "Existing users should be able to access system",
    "Security should not be compromised"
  ],

  ambiguities: [
    "What specifically is broken?",
    "Login form? Backend validation? Session handling?",
    "Does it affect all users or specific cases?",
    "Are there error messages?"
  ],

  inferredIntent: {
    primary: "Restore login functionality to working state",
    secondary: [
      "Ensure user data is secure",
      "Minimize downtime",
      "Prevent future similar issues"
    ]
  },

  clarificationQuestions: [
    {
      question: "What happens when you try to login?",
      purpose: "Identify specific failure point",
      priority: "high"
    },
    {
      question: "Did this start after a recent change?",
      purpose: "Narrow down root cause",
      priority: "medium"
    },
    {
      question: "Are there any error messages?",
      purpose: "Get diagnostic information",
      priority: "high"
    }
  ],

  alternativeInterpretations: [
    "Improve login UX/UI",
    "Add forgotten password feature",
    "Implement OAuth login"
  ],

  recommendedApproach: "Ask clarification questions before proceeding"
}

// Example: Testing a validation function

Generated Test Suite:
{
  function: "validateEmail(email: string): boolean",
  framework: "jest",

  tests: {
    happyPath: [
      {
        name: "should accept valid email",
        input: "user@example.com",
        expected: true
      },
      {
        name: "should accept email with subdomain",
        input: "user@mail.example.com",
        expected: true
      }
    ],

    edgeCases: [
      {
        name: "should accept email with plus sign",
        input: "user+tag@example.com",
        expected: true
      },
      {
        name: "should handle single character local part",
        input: "a@example.com",
        expected: true
      },
      {
        name: "should accept numeric TLD",
        input: "user@example.123",
        expected: true
      }
    ],

    errorHandling: [
      {
        name: "should reject email without @",
        input: "userexample.com",
        expected: false
      },
      {
        name: "should reject email without domain",
        input: "user@",
        expected: false
      },
      {
        name: "should reject email without local part",
        input: "@example.com",
        expected: false
      }
    ],

    boundary: [
      {
        name: "should reject empty string",
        input: "",
        expected: false
      },
      {
        name: "should handle very long email (254 chars)",
        input: "a".repeat(243) + "@example.com",
        expected: true
      },
      {
        name: "should reject too long email (>254 chars)",
        input: "a".repeat(244) + "@example.com",
        expected: false
      }
    ],

    mutationTests: [
      {
        name: "should catch regex change",
        description: "Verify @ symbol check is working",
        input: "user.example.com",
        expected: false
      }
    ]
  },

  coverage: {
    statements: 100,
    branches: 100,
    functions: 100,
    lines: 100
  },

  estimatedRunTime: "< 50ms"
}

// Analysis Example
{
  file: "src/services/orderProcessor.ts",

  complexityMetrics: {
    cyclomaticComplexity: 15,
    cyclomaticComplexityGrade: "C",
    cognitiveComplexity: 22,
    cognitiveComplexityGrade: "D",
    halsteadVolume: 1234,
    maintainabilityIndex: 58
  },

  codeSmells: [
    {
      type: "long_function",
      severity: "medium",
      location: "processOrder (line 45-180)",
      description: "Function has 135 lines, recommended max is 50",
      suggestion: "Extract order validation, payment processing, and notification logic into separate functions"
    },
    {
      type: "deep_nesting",
      severity: "high",
      location: "validateOrderItems (line 92-115)",
      description: "Nesting depth of 6 levels",
      suggestion: "Use early returns or extract validation logic"
    },
    {
      type: "duplicate_code",
      severity: "low",
      locations: ["line 150-155", "line 210-215"],
      description: "Similar error handling code appears twice",
      suggestion: "Extract common error handling into utility function"
    }
  ],

  qualityGrade: "C",
  technicalDebt: "2.5 hours",

  recommendations: [
    {
      priority: "high",
      action: "Refactor processOrder function",
      impact: "Improves maintainability by 30%",
      effort: "1 hour"
    },
    {
      priority: "high",
      action: "Reduce nesting in validateOrderItems",
      impact: "Reduces cognitive load significantly",
      effort: "30 minutes"
    },
    {
      priority: "medium",
      action: "Extract duplicate error handling",
      impact: "Improves consistency",
      effort: "15 minutes"
    }
  ]
}

// Example: Changing API response format

Impact Analysis:
{
  change: "Modify User API response structure",
  file: "src/api/users.ts",
  changeType: "modify",

  blastRadius: {
    directlyAffected: [
      "src/api/users.ts",
      "src/models/User.ts"
    ],
    indirectlyAffected: [
      "src/components/UserProfile.tsx",
      "src/components/UserList.tsx",
      "src/services/userService.ts",
      "src/hooks/useUser.ts",
      "tests/api/users.test.ts",
      "tests/components/UserProfile.test.tsx"
    ],
    potentiallyAffected: [
      "src/components/Dashboard.tsx",
      "src/pages/AdminPanel.tsx"
    ]
  },

  riskLevel: "HIGH",
  riskFactors: [
    "API contract change affects 15+ files",
    "No API versioning in place",
    "Changes to public interface",
    "Potential breaking change for API consumers"
  ],

  recommendations: [
    {
      priority: "critical",
      action: "Implement API versioning",
      rationale: "Allows gradual migration",
      effort: "2 hours"
    },
    {
      priority: "high",
      action: "Update all consuming components in same PR",
      rationale: "Maintains consistency",
      effort: "3 hours"
    },
    {
      priority: "high",
      action: "Add deprecation warnings",
      rationale: "Gives time for external consumers to adapt",
      effort: "30 minutes"
    },
    {
      priority: "medium",
      action: "Update API documentation",
      rationale: "Communicates changes",
      effort: "1 hour"
    }
  ],

  rollbackPlan: {
    difficulty: "medium",
    steps: [
      "Revert API changes",
      "Revert consuming component changes",
      "Run regression tests",
      "Verify backward compatibility"
    ],
    estimatedTime: "30 minutes"
  },

  testingStrategy: [
    "Update existing API tests",
    "Add integration tests for new format",
    "Test all consuming components",
    "Perform manual smoke test",
    "Consider backward compatibility tests"
  ],

  deploymentConsiderations: [
    "Deploy during low-traffic period",
    "Monitor error rates closely",
    "Have rollback plan ready",
    "Consider feature flag"
  ]
}

// Recovery Example
{
  failure: "Test generation failed due to missing type definitions",

  analysisPhase: {
    errorType: "type_error",
    rootCause: "Missing @types package",
    severity: "medium",
    recoverable: true
  },

  recoveryStrategies: [
    {
      strategy: "install_missing_types",
      confidence: 0.90,
      steps: [
        "Detect missing package name from error",
        "Run: npm install --save-dev @types/package-name",
        "Retry test generation"
      ],
      estimatedTime: "2 minutes",
      successProbability: 0.92
    },
    {
      strategy: "use_any_types",
      confidence: 0.70,
      steps: [
        "Add type: any for problematic imports",
        "Generate tests with relaxed types",
        "Add TODO comment to fix types later"
      ],
      estimatedTime: "1 minute",
      successProbability: 0.95,
      tradeoffs: ["Loses type safety", "Technical debt"]
    },
    {
      strategy: "skip_typed_tests",
      confidence: 0.60,
      steps: [
        "Generate tests without type checking",
        "Use JavaScript test format instead",
        "Add note about type limitations"
      ],
      estimatedTime: "2 minutes",
      successProbability: 0.85,
      tradeoffs: ["Incomplete tests", "May miss type errors"]
    }
  ],

  selectedStrategy: "install_missing_types",
  selectionReason: "Highest confidence, best long-term solution, acceptable time cost",

  executionResult: {
    success: true,
    recoveryTime: "1.8 minutes",
    lessonsLearned: [
      "Always check for @types packages when working with TypeScript",
      "Add type dependency checking to project setup"
    ]
  }
}

1. Goal Reasoning
   - Understands intent and identifies requirements

2. Self-Awareness System
   - Assesses capability: "High confidence in auth, medium in security best practices"

3. Strategy Selector
   - Chooses: "Research-First + Incremental Implementation"

4. Web Search Engine + Documentation Crawler
   - Researches auth best practices, security considerations

5. Problem Decomposer
   - Breaks into: User model -> Registration -> Login -> JWT -> Middleware -> Tests

6. Solution Synthesizer
   - Combines research into implementation plan

7. Autonomous Executor
   - Begins implementation with high confidence tasks

8. Verification Engine
   - Validates each step: syntax -> types -> tests -> security

9. Execution Monitor
   - Tracks progress, detects if stuck

10. Self-Healing System (if needed)
    - Recovers from errors automatically

11. Code Quality Analyzer
    - Assesses implementation quality

12. Test Generation Engine
    - Generates comprehensive test suite

13. Impact Analyzer
    - Assesses change impact before completion

14. Learning Engine
    - Extracts patterns and knowledge from successful implementation

15. Knowledge Evolution
    - Updates knowledge base with new learnings

{
  period: "Last 30 days",

  taskMetrics: {
    totalTasks: 328,
    completed: 312,
    failed: 16,
    successRate: 0.951,
    avgCompletionTime: "12.5 minutes",
    autonomousCompletions: 245,
    assistanceRequired: 67
  },

  learningMetrics: {
    patternsLearned: 45,
    knowledgeItems: 234,
    strategiesRefined: 8,
    confidenceCalibration: 0.91
  },

  qualityMetrics: {
    avgCodeQuality: "B+",
    testCoverageAchieved: 0.87,
    bugsIntroduced: 3,
    bugsFixed: 47
  },

  improvements: [
    {
      area: "TypeScript refactoring",
      before: 0.75,
      after: 0.88,
      improvement: "+17%"
    },
    {
      area: "Error handling",
      before: 0.82,
      after: 0.91,
      improvement: "+11%"
    }
  ]
}

// Autonomous Execution Configuration
const config = {
  enabled: true,
  confidenceThreshold: 0.80,  // 0.0-1.0
  maxIterations: 5,
  autoTest: true,
  autoFix: true,
  requireHumanReview: false
}

// Verification Strategy
const verificationStrategy = {
  requireTests: true,
  requireLinting: true,
  requireSecurity: false,
  testCoverage: 70,  // 0-100%
  maxComplexity: 15,
  autoFix: true
}

// Learning Parameters
MIN_CONFIDENCE = 0.3           // 30% minimum confidence
CONFIDENCE_DECAY_RATE = 0.95   // 5% decay per month
SUCCESS_BOOST = 0.1            // +10% on success
FAILURE_PENALTY = 0.05         // -5% on failure
STALE_THRESHOLD_DAYS = 90      // 3 months without use