Files
DevFlow/crates/df-ideas/src/adversarial.rs
绝尘 cf017f81e2 新增: Phase2 阶段收尾(Sprint 1-20)
重构:删 5 零引用 crate(df-evolve/plugin/stages/task/traceability)+ 清死模块、ai.rs 拆 11 子 module、ai.ts 拆 6 composable、i18n 拆目录
功能:知识库全栈(df-project/scan + CRUD + 时间线 + 前端)、Settings 拆分、appSettings KV 迁移、模型池、LLM 并发 Semaphore
修复:审批持久化根治、ConditionEngine 默认拒绝、NodeRegistry unimplemented 清除、promote 补偿删除、工具结果截断 50KB、路径校验防 symlink 逃逸
文档:B-03 人工审批设计、决策记录三分档、规格契约自检、经验记录、todo 看板、PROGRESS 更新

详见 PROGRESS.md。src-tauri/儿童每日打卡应用/ 与本项目无关,已排除。
2026-06-14 14:08:20 +08:00

381 lines
16 KiB
Rust
Raw Blame History

This file contains ambiguous Unicode characters
This file contains Unicode characters that might be confused with other characters. If you think that this is intentional, you can safely ignore this warning. Use the Escape button to reveal them.
//! 对抗式评估系统 — 正反方辩论 + AI 分析师
//!
//! 当前为基于评分与内容信号的启发式实现(稳定、有区分度)。
//! TODO: 接入 df-ai LlmProvider 让正反方论点由 LLM 生成,启发式降级为 fallback。
use anyhow::Result;
use serde::{Deserialize, Serialize};
use df_core::types::{IdeaId, Priority};
use crate::capture::Idea;
use crate::scoring::IdeaScores;
/// 对抗评估结果
#[derive(Debug, Clone, Serialize, Deserialize)]
pub struct AdversarialEval {
pub idea_id: IdeaId,
pub positive: Argument,
pub negative: Argument,
pub analyst: AnalystAnalysis,
pub final_score: f64,
pub recommendation: Recommendation,
}
/// 论点(正方/反方共用同一结构)
#[derive(Debug, Clone, Serialize, Deserialize)]
pub struct Argument {
pub thesis: String, // 核心观点
pub evidence: Vec<String>, // 证据支持
pub reasoning: Vec<String>, // 推理过程
pub confidence: f64, // 置信度 0-1
}
/// AI 分析师综合分析
#[derive(Debug, Clone, Serialize, Deserialize)]
pub struct AnalystAnalysis {
pub summary: String, // 综合总结
pub strengths: Vec<String>, // 主要优势
pub weaknesses: Vec<String>, // 主要劣势
pub risks: Vec<String>, // 潜在风险
pub opportunities: Vec<String>, // 机会点
pub final_assessment: AssessmentLevel, // 最终评估
}
/// 评估等级
#[derive(Debug, Clone, Serialize, Deserialize, PartialEq, Eq)]
pub enum AssessmentLevel {
StrongGo, // 强烈推荐执行
Recommended, // 推荐执行
Conditional, // 有条件执行
Revised, // 需要修改后执行
Defer, // 推迟执行
}
/// 最终建议
#[derive(Debug, Clone, Serialize, Deserialize, PartialEq, Eq)]
pub enum Recommendation {
ImmediateAction, // 立即行动
Soon, // 尽快行动
WithResources, // 配置资源后行动
ResearchMore, // 需要更多研究
Monitor, // 持续监控
}
/// 对抗评估引擎
pub struct AdversarialEngine;
impl AdversarialEngine {
/// 执行完整的对抗评估
#[allow(clippy::unused_async)] // 签名保留 async,待接 LLM 注入异步调用
pub async fn evaluate(idea: &Idea) -> Result<AdversarialEval> {
// 先做多维评分,作为正反方论点与置信度的依据
let scores = crate::scoring::ScoringEngine::compute_default(idea);
let positive = Self::generate_positive_argument(idea, &scores)?;
let negative = Self::generate_negative_argument(idea, &scores)?;
let analyst = Self::analyst_analysis(idea, &scores)?;
let recommendation = Self::recommendation_for(&analyst.final_assessment);
Ok(AdversarialEval {
idea_id: idea.id.clone(),
positive,
negative,
analyst,
final_score: scores.overall,
recommendation,
})
}
/// 生成正方观点(支持执行)— confidence 由可行性 + 影响力驱动
/// 注:返回 Result 为后续 LLM 注入失败预留,启发式阶段恒 Ok
fn generate_positive_argument(idea: &Idea, scores: &IdeaScores) -> Result<Argument> {
let desc = idea.description.trim();
let mut evidence = Vec::new();
evidence.push(format!("优先级:{}", priority_label(&idea.priority)));
if desc.is_empty() {
evidence.push("需求待补充(建议补全描述)".to_string());
} else {
let head: String = desc.chars().take(60).collect();
evidence.push(format!("明确需求:{}", head));
}
if idea.tags.is_empty() {
evidence.push("关联领域待界定".to_string());
} else {
evidence.push(format!("关联领域:{}", idea.tags.join("")));
}
if scores.impact >= 7.0 {
evidence.push("业务价值显著,影响面较广".to_string());
}
// 正方置信度:可行性+影响力等权折算到 [0.1, 0.95],满分≈0.95 留质疑余地
let confidence =
((scores.feasibility * 0.5 + scores.impact * 0.5) / 10.0).clamp(0.1, 0.95);
let reasoning = vec![
format!("可行性评分 {:.1}/10路径相对清晰", scores.feasibility),
format!("影响力评分 {:.1}/10预期回报可观", scores.impact),
"整体风险可控,适合推进".to_string(),
];
Ok(Argument {
thesis: format!("「{}」具备明确价值与可行性,建议优先推进", idea.title),
evidence,
reasoning,
confidence,
})
}
/// 生成反方观点(反对或谨慎)— 论点基于想法实际缺陷confidence 随风险上升
fn generate_negative_argument(idea: &Idea, scores: &IdeaScores) -> Result<Argument> {
let desc = idea.description.trim();
let mut evidence = Vec::new();
if desc.is_empty() {
evidence.push("描述过于简略,需求边界不清".to_string());
} else if desc.chars().count() < 50 {
evidence.push("描述偏短,实现细节尚未论证".to_string());
}
if idea.tags.is_empty() {
evidence.push("缺少标签,影响范围未界定".to_string());
}
if scores.feasibility < 6.0 {
evidence.push(format!("可行性 {:.1}/10 偏低,实现路径存疑", scores.feasibility));
}
if matches!(idea.priority, Priority::Low) {
evidence.push("优先级偏低,可能非当前关键路径".to_string());
}
if evidence.is_empty() {
evidence.push("机会成本需权衡,可能存在更优替代方案".to_string());
}
// 反方强度:feasibility 每降 1 分 +0.04,impact 每降 1 分 +0.03,基线 0.25(满分也保留最低质疑),clamp [0.1, 0.9]
let confidence = ((10.0 - scores.feasibility) * 0.04 + (10.0 - scores.impact) * 0.03 + 0.25)
.clamp(0.1, 0.9);
let reasoning = vec![
format!("资源投入与当前综合评分 {:.1} 需匹配", scores.overall),
"ROI 需进一步验证".to_string(),
"需评估是否存在更优解".to_string(),
];
Ok(Argument {
thesis: format!("「{}」需谨慎评估,存在风险与机会成本", idea.title),
evidence,
reasoning,
confidence,
})
}
/// AI 分析师综合分析 — 评估等级由综合评分决定,优势/劣势按维度动态生成
fn analyst_analysis(idea: &Idea, scores: &IdeaScores) -> Result<AnalystAnalysis> {
let final_assessment = match scores.overall {
x if x >= 7.5 => AssessmentLevel::StrongGo,
x if x >= 6.0 => AssessmentLevel::Recommended,
x if x >= 4.5 => AssessmentLevel::Conditional,
x if x >= 3.0 => AssessmentLevel::Revised,
_ => AssessmentLevel::Defer,
};
let mut strengths = Vec::new();
if scores.impact >= 6.0 {
strengths.push("业务价值明确".to_string());
}
if scores.feasibility >= 6.0 {
strengths.push("技术路径清晰".to_string());
}
if scores.urgency >= 7.0 {
strengths.push("时间窗口合适".to_string());
}
if strengths.is_empty() {
strengths.push("方向值得探索".to_string());
}
let mut weaknesses = Vec::new();
if scores.feasibility < 6.0 {
weaknesses.push("可行性论证不足".to_string());
}
if idea.description.trim().is_empty() {
weaknesses.push("需求描述缺失".to_string());
}
if scores.urgency < 4.0 {
weaknesses.push("紧急度偏低,易被搁置".to_string());
}
if weaknesses.is_empty() {
weaknesses.push("资源需求待评估".to_string());
}
// 启发式占位:固定风险模板,与具体想法无关,接 LLM 后改动态生成
let risks = vec![
"技术实现难度可能超出预期".to_string(),
"优先级与资源争夺".to_string(),
"需求范围蔓延".to_string(),
];
let opportunities = vec![
"可能形成可复用能力".to_string(),
"积累技术资产".to_string(),
];
let summary = format!(
"{}」综合评分 {:.1}/10{}。建议{}",
idea.title,
scores.overall,
assessment_desc(&final_assessment),
action_hint(&final_assessment)
);
Ok(AnalystAnalysis {
summary,
strengths,
weaknesses,
risks,
opportunities,
final_assessment,
})
}
/// 评估等级 → 最终建议
fn recommendation_for(level: &AssessmentLevel) -> Recommendation {
match level {
AssessmentLevel::StrongGo => Recommendation::ImmediateAction,
AssessmentLevel::Recommended => Recommendation::Soon,
AssessmentLevel::Conditional => Recommendation::WithResources,
AssessmentLevel::Revised => Recommendation::ResearchMore,
AssessmentLevel::Defer => Recommendation::Monitor,
}
}
}
fn priority_label(p: &Priority) -> &'static str {
match p {
Priority::Critical => "紧急",
Priority::High => "",
Priority::Medium => "",
Priority::Low => "",
}
}
fn assessment_desc(level: &AssessmentLevel) -> &'static str {
match level {
AssessmentLevel::StrongGo => "价值高且可行性强",
AssessmentLevel::Recommended => "整体值得推进",
AssessmentLevel::Conditional => "有条件地推进",
AssessmentLevel::Revised => "需调整后再评估",
AssessmentLevel::Defer => "建议暂缓",
}
}
fn action_hint(level: &AssessmentLevel) -> &'static str {
match level {
AssessmentLevel::StrongGo => "立即立项启动",
AssessmentLevel::Recommended => "尽快排期",
AssessmentLevel::Conditional => "配置资源后启动",
AssessmentLevel::Revised => "补充信息后重新评估",
AssessmentLevel::Defer => "持续观察时机",
}
}
#[cfg(test)]
mod tests {
use super::*;
use crate::capture::Idea;
use crate::scoring::ScoringEngine;
use df_core::types::{IdeaStatus, Priority};
fn make_idea(title: &str, desc: &str, priority: Priority, tags: Vec<&str>) -> Idea {
Idea {
id: "test-id".to_string(),
title: title.to_string(),
description: desc.to_string(),
status: IdeaStatus::Draft,
priority,
scores: None,
tags: tags.into_iter().map(String::from).collect(),
source: None,
related_ids: Vec::new(),
created_at: chrono::Utc::now(),
updated_at: chrono::Utc::now(),
}
}
#[tokio::test]
async fn a1_high_score_immediate_action() {
let desc = "面向用户的核心功能,带来显著增长,大幅提升效率。集成成熟方案,复用已有组件。".repeat(3);
let idea = make_idea("AI增长引擎", &desc, Priority::Critical, vec!["增长", "核心"]);
let scores = ScoringEngine::compute_default(&idea);
let eval = AdversarialEngine::evaluate(&idea).await.unwrap();
println!("\n[a1] 高分想法 → 期望 ImmediateAction");
println!(" scores: feas={:.2} impact={:.2} urg={:.2} overall={:.2}", scores.feasibility, scores.impact, scores.urgency, scores.overall);
println!(" eval: final_score={:.2} recommendation={:?}", eval.final_score, eval.recommendation);
println!(" 正方 confidence={:.2} 反方 confidence={:.2}", eval.positive.confidence, eval.negative.confidence);
assert!(eval.final_score >= 7.5, "final_score 应≥7.5, 实际 {:.2}", eval.final_score);
assert_eq!(eval.recommendation, Recommendation::ImmediateAction);
}
#[tokio::test]
async fn a2_mid_score_soon() {
let desc = "面向用户的功能,集成已有方案,提升体验".to_string();
let idea = make_idea("体验优化", &desc, Priority::Medium, vec!["体验"]);
let scores = ScoringEngine::compute_default(&idea);
let eval = AdversarialEngine::evaluate(&idea).await.unwrap();
println!("\n[a2] 中分想法 → 期望 Soon");
println!(" scores overall={:.2} eval final_score={:.2} recommendation={:?}", scores.overall, eval.final_score, eval.recommendation);
assert_eq!(eval.recommendation, Recommendation::Soon);
}
#[tokio::test]
async fn a3_low_score_monitor() {
let desc = "重构迁移大规模分布式重写从零全新架构高并发底层".to_string();
let idea = make_idea("过度工程", &desc, Priority::Low, vec![]);
let scores = ScoringEngine::compute_default(&idea);
let eval = AdversarialEngine::evaluate(&idea).await.unwrap();
println!("\n[a3] 低分想法 → 期望 Monitor");
println!(" scores overall={:.2} eval final_score={:.2} recommendation={:?}", scores.overall, eval.final_score, eval.recommendation);
assert!(eval.final_score < 3.0, "final_score 应<3.0, 实际 {:.2}", eval.final_score);
assert_eq!(eval.recommendation, Recommendation::Monitor);
}
#[tokio::test]
async fn a4_confidence_ranges() {
let idea = make_idea("普通想法", "一般描述", Priority::Medium, vec!["标签"]);
let eval = AdversarialEngine::evaluate(&idea).await.unwrap();
println!("\n[a4] confidence 区间校验");
println!(" 正方={:.2} (应∈[0.1, 0.95]) 反方={:.2} (应∈[0.1, 0.9])", eval.positive.confidence, eval.negative.confidence);
assert!(eval.positive.confidence >= 0.1 && eval.positive.confidence <= 0.95);
assert!(eval.negative.confidence >= 0.1 && eval.negative.confidence <= 0.9);
}
#[tokio::test]
async fn a5_positive_thesis_contains_title() {
let idea = make_idea("独家创意", "描述内容", Priority::High, vec![]);
let eval = AdversarialEngine::evaluate(&idea).await.unwrap();
println!("\n[a5] 正方论点含标题");
println!(" thesis: {}", eval.positive.thesis);
assert!(eval.positive.thesis.contains("独家创意"), "正方 thesis 应含标题");
}
#[tokio::test]
async fn a6_negative_evidence_nonempty() {
let idea = make_idea("待质疑想法", "", Priority::Low, vec![]);
let eval = AdversarialEngine::evaluate(&idea).await.unwrap();
println!("\n[a6] 反方证据非空 ({} 条)", eval.negative.evidence.len());
for (i, e) in eval.negative.evidence.iter().enumerate() {
println!(" 证据{}: {}", i + 1, e);
}
assert!(!eval.negative.evidence.is_empty(), "反方 evidence 不应为空");
}
#[tokio::test]
async fn a7_final_score_consistency() {
let desc = "面向用户的核心功能".to_string();
let idea = make_idea("一致性测试", &desc, Priority::High, vec!["核心"]);
let scores = ScoringEngine::compute_default(&idea);
let eval = AdversarialEngine::evaluate(&idea).await.unwrap();
println!("\n[a7] final_score == scores.overall 一致性");
println!(" scores.overall={:.2} eval.final_score={:.2}", scores.overall, eval.final_score);
println!(" analyst.summary: {}", eval.analyst.summary);
assert!((eval.final_score - scores.overall).abs() < 0.001, "final_score 应等于 overall");
assert!(eval.analyst.summary.contains("一致性测试"), "summary 应含标题");
}
}