agents.py

#!/usr/bin/env python
"""The DIY Creator team (#17 of the 30-in-15) — three role-specialized agents that hand off to

each other to produce a vetted build guide.



    🔍 Researcher  topic            -> a structured brief (materials, tools, steps, safety, pitfalls)

    ✍️  Writer      topic + brief    -> a clean step-by-step DIY guide (markdown)

    🧐 Critic      topic + guide    -> a scored verdict + concrete issues (the "diamond": an

                                        INDEPENDENT reviewer, ideally a different model)

    ✍️  Writer      + critique       -> a revised guide addressing every issue



The lesson is multi-agent orchestration: specialized roles, explicit handoffs, and a

critique -> revise LOOP that keeps going until the critic passes (or we hit the round cap).

Same idea as a real editorial team — nobody ships their own first draft.

"""
import json

import llm

PASS_SCORE = 7           # critic score (0-10) at or above which the guide ships
MAX_REVISIONS = 2        # how many times the writer may revise before we ship the best we have

# ---- role system prompts -------------------------------------------------------------------

RESEARCHER_SYS = (
    "You are the RESEARCHER on a DIY build team. Given a project the user wants to make, produce a "
    "concise, PRACTICAL research brief the writer will turn into a guide. Draw on real maker knowledge: "
    "correct materials with rough quantities, the actual tools needed, the core techniques, honest "
    "difficulty and time, a rough cost range, the SAFETY hazards that genuinely apply, and the mistakes "
    "beginners really make. Be specific and grounded — no filler. "
    'Reply ONLY JSON: {"project":"...","difficulty":"beginner|intermediate|advanced",'
    '"time_estimate":"...","cost_estimate":"...","materials":["qty + item", ...],"tools":["...", ...],'
    '"techniques":["...", ...],"safety":["...", ...],"common_mistakes":["...", ...],'
    '"key_considerations":["...", ...]}'
)

WRITER_SYS = (
    "You are the WRITER on a DIY build team. Using the RESEARCH BRIEF, write a clear, encouraging, "
    "start-to-finish build guide a motivated beginner could actually follow. Use this markdown structure:\n"
    "## Overview  (1-2 sentences: what they'll build and why it's worth it)\n"
    "**Difficulty:** … · **Time:** … · **Cost:** …\n"
    "## Materials  (bullet list, with quantities)\n"
    "## Tools  (bullet list)\n"
    "## Steps  (numbered; each step is a concrete action with the how, not just the what; fold the "
    "relevant safety note INTO the step it applies to)\n"
    "## Tips & Common Mistakes  (bullets)\n"
    "Ground everything in the brief; do not invent materials or tools that weren't researched. Write the "
    "guide itself — no preamble, no 'here is your guide'. Output MARKDOWN only."
)

CRITIC_SYS = (
    "You are the CRITIC on a DIY build team — an INDEPENDENT reviewer, not the author. Your job is to catch "
    "what would make a beginner fail, get hurt, or give up. Review the GUIDE against the RESEARCH BRIEF and "
    "real-world build sense. Look hard for: missing or out-of-order steps, materials/tools used in a step but "
    "not listed, unsafe or missing safety guidance, vague instructions, and skipped prep or cleanup. "
    "Be strict but fair; do not invent problems, and do NOT flag mere style or nice-to-haves as serious. "
    "Tag every issue by severity, using these definitions precisely:\n"
    "  • HIGH   = would cause injury or a failed/unsafe build (missing critical safety gear, a structural "
    "mistake, or a genuinely missing essential step)\n"
    "  • MEDIUM = would actually block or seriously confuse a beginner (an essential measurement, material, "
    "or tool that a step needs but isn't given)\n"
    "  • LOW    = polish only (a helpful diagram, extra clarity, a nice-to-have) — the build still succeeds "
    "without it\n"
    "A guide PASSES when a beginner could build it safely and successfully — i.e. no HIGH or MEDIUM issues "
    "remain. LOW issues are fine to ship with. Prefer LOW unless an issue truly blocks or endangers the build. "
    'Reply ONLY JSON: {"score":0-10,"pass":true/false,"summary":"one honest sentence",'
    '"issues":[{"severity":"high|medium|low","issue":"what is wrong and the fix"}, ...]}'
)

REVISER_SYS = (
    "You are the WRITER revising your DIY guide after an INDEPENDENT critic reviewed it. Produce an improved "
    "guide that fixes EVERY issue raised — add missing steps, list every material/tool a step uses, work in "
    "the safety guidance, and clarify vague instructions — while keeping the same clean markdown structure "
    "(Overview / Difficulty·Time·Cost / Materials / Tools / Steps / Tips & Common Mistakes). Keep what already "
    "worked; change what the critique flagged. Output the full revised guide as MARKDOWN only — no commentary."
)


# ---- the four handoffs ---------------------------------------------------------------------

def research(topic: str) -> dict:
    prompt = f"Project the user wants to build: {topic}"
    # generous token budget so the full JSON brief isn't truncated (truncation -> parse fail -> empty brief)
    brief = llm.json_call(RESEARCHER_SYS, prompt, role="researcher", max_tokens=1800)
    if not (isinstance(brief, dict) and brief.get("materials")):
        brief = llm.json_call(RESEARCHER_SYS, prompt, role="researcher", max_tokens=1800, temperature=0.35)
    if not isinstance(brief, dict):
        brief = {"project": topic, "_note": "researcher returned unstructured output"}
    for k in ("materials", "tools", "techniques", "safety", "common_mistakes", "key_considerations"):
        brief.setdefault(k, [])
    return brief


def write(topic: str, brief: dict) -> str:
    user = f"PROJECT: {topic}\n\nRESEARCH BRIEF:\n{json.dumps(brief, indent=2)}\n\nWrite the build guide."
    return llm.chat(WRITER_SYS, user, role="writer", temperature=0.55, max_tokens=1700)


def critique(topic: str, brief: dict, guide: str) -> dict:
    user = (f"PROJECT: {topic}\n\nRESEARCH BRIEF:\n{json.dumps(brief, indent=2)}\n\n"
            f"GUIDE TO REVIEW:\n{guide}")
    verdict = llm.json_call(CRITIC_SYS, user, role="critic", max_tokens=1100)
    if not isinstance(verdict, dict):
        verdict = {"summary": "critic returned unstructured output", "issues": []}
    issues = verdict.get("issues") if isinstance(verdict.get("issues"), list) else []
    verdict["issues"] = [i for i in issues if isinstance(i, dict) and i.get("issue")]
    # The GATE is deterministic from the issues the critic found — not the model's own number, which
    # small models score inconsistently. Score follows severity; a guide only PASSES with no high/medium.
    highs = sum(1 for i in verdict["issues"] if i.get("severity") == "high")
    meds  = sum(1 for i in verdict["issues"] if i.get("severity") == "medium")
    lows  = sum(1 for i in verdict["issues"] if i.get("severity") == "low")
    if highs:
        score = max(2, 4 - (highs - 1))
    elif meds:
        score = max(5, 6 - (meds - 1))
    elif lows:
        score = 7 if lows > 2 else 8
    else:
        score = 10
    verdict["score"] = float(score)
    verdict["pass"] = (highs == 0 and meds == 0)
    verdict["counts"] = {"high": highs, "medium": meds, "low": lows}
    return verdict


def revise(topic: str, brief: dict, guide: str, verdict: dict) -> str:
    issues = "\n".join(f"- [{i.get('severity','?')}] {i.get('issue','')}" for i in verdict.get("issues", []))
    user = (f"PROJECT: {topic}\n\nRESEARCH BRIEF:\n{json.dumps(brief, indent=2)}\n\n"
            f"YOUR PREVIOUS GUIDE:\n{guide}\n\nCRITIC SCORE: {verdict.get('score')}/10 — {verdict.get('summary','')}\n"
            f"ISSUES TO FIX:\n{issues or '(none listed)'}\n\nRewrite the guide fixing every issue.")
    return llm.chat(REVISER_SYS, user, role="writer", temperature=0.5, max_tokens=1800)


# ---- CLI orchestrator (for local testing; the web app drives the same steps step-by-step) --

def run(topic: str, verbose: bool = True):
    def say(*a):
        if verbose:
            print(*a)

    say(f"\n=== DIY CREATOR TEAM ===\nPROJECT: {topic}\n")
    say("🔍 Researcher — gathering the brief …")
    brief = research(topic)
    say(f"   materials: {len(brief.get('materials', []))} · tools: {len(brief.get('tools', []))} · "
        f"safety: {len(brief.get('safety', []))} · difficulty: {brief.get('difficulty','?')}")

    say("✍️  Writer — drafting the guide …")
    guide = write(topic, brief)
    rounds = []
    for r in range(1, MAX_REVISIONS + 1):
        say(f"🧐 Critic — reviewing (round {r}) …")
        verdict = critique(topic, brief, guide)
        rounds.append(verdict)
        say(f"   score {verdict['score']:.1f}/10 — {'PASS' if verdict['pass'] else 'REVISE'} — "
            f"{verdict.get('summary','')}")
        for i in verdict.get("issues", [])[:6]:
            say(f"     · [{i.get('severity','?')}] {i.get('issue','')[:90]}")
        if verdict["pass"]:
            break
        if r < MAX_REVISIONS:
            say("✍️  Writer — revising to address the critique …")
            guide = revise(topic, brief, guide, verdict)

    say("\n=== FINAL GUIDE ===\n")
    say(guide)
    return {"brief": brief, "guide": guide, "rounds": rounds}


if __name__ == "__main__":
    import sys
    try:
        sys.stdout.reconfigure(encoding="utf-8")   # so the emoji role labels print on any console
    except Exception:
        pass
    topic = " ".join(sys.argv[1:]) or "a simple wooden phone stand"
    run(topic)