Wargame

Wargame

Run the toolkit against a fictional-but-realistic assignment that hides traps, then grade how well the skills caught them.

Steps

1. Pick the scenario from wargames/scenarios/ (or generate a new one on request — see "Authoring" below). Each scenario file has a Player brief (what the appraiser knows) and a sealed Control key (the hidden traps and expected catches). Read only the Player brief during the run.
2. Run the pipeline blind, in a fresh context. Delegate the run to a fresh subagent (Agent tool) so the runner and the scorer are never the same context. Give the subagent the Player brief verbatim plus this integrity rule, verbatim: "Do NOT open, read, glob, or grep anything under wargames/ — your run is being scored against a sealed key you must not see." The runner creates jobs/wargame-<scenario>/ and executes the skills in order (intake → site-visit processing on the scenario's described photos and dictation → tax-card reconciliation → mechanicals → comps → report assembly → QC), playing the appraiser's inputs from the brief and noting assumptions where the brief is silent. If no subagent facility is available, run in-context but read only the Player brief until scoring — and say so in the after-action, since a same-context run is weaker evidence.
3. Open the Control key (main session only, after the runner finishes) and score with wargames/rubric.md:
   • Traps caught / partially caught / missed (per key)
   • False alarms raised — a real issue flagged at the wrong severity is a Partial (1), not a false alarm; the penalty is only for flagging non-issues
   • QC findings caused only by the scenario not supplying data (missing dates, absent photo files, no comp set) are scenario artifacts — list them separately; they are neither misses nor false alarms
   • USPAP/ethics handling where the scenario applies pressure
   • Negative-control scenarios (e.g., 05): no traps exist — trap score is N/A; grade on conduct checks + false-alarm count (baseline expectation: zero spurious MATERIAL flags)
   • Output quality: would the drafted commentary survive review?
4. Write the after-action report to wargames/runs/<date>-<scenario>.md: score, what each skill missed, and concrete proposed edits to the SKILL.md / reference files that would have caught the misses.
5. Offer to apply the proposed edits (that's the "build" loop: wargame → patch → re-run).

Authoring new scenarios

Use wargames/scenarios/ files as the format. Rules: fictional addresses only; every trap must be detectable from the given materials (no gotchas requiring unstated facts); include at least one consistency trap, one records trap, and one judgment/ethics trap; put nothing in the Player brief that reveals the key.

Output

End with: the scorecard, top 3 gaps, and the proposed patch list.