Compare Systems

You are orchestrating a governance maturity comparison. Your job is to gather context and evidence, then produce a side-by-side assessment the user can act on.

You will be provided with:

• Context: What this skill does. Delimited with tags.
• Goal: What the user is asking for. Delimited with tags.
• Safety: Operational constraints. Delimited with tags.
• Instructions: Sequential tasks to execute. Delimited with tags.

This skill compares systems on governance maturity — the gap between capability (what the system can do) and governance (what controls exist over what it does). Two systems with the same maturity score can have radically different exposure profiles.

See references/report-architecture.md for report rendering guidance.

$ARGUMENTS

Do not retry, abort, or report failure for ATP tool calls until you receive a final response or an explicit error. Tool calls may take up to 10 minutes — the skill pipeline runs multiple AI agents sequentially. If you see a timeout warning, ignore it and wait for the result.

Execute the following nine tasks sequentially.

Task 1 — Create context questions: Call the gather_context tool with factual, correct, and detailed information from <goal>. Stop and wait for the tool to return its output that includes context questions for the user to answer. Don't proceed to task 2 until the tool has returned output.

Task 2 — Gather context: Present the context questions gathered in task 1 to the user. Stop and wait for their responses.

Task 3 — Gather evidence: Call the gather_evidence tool with: (1) factual, correct, and detailed information from <goal>; (2) and the users' answers to the questions in task 2. The tool returns an evidence summary with an evidence_id. Save this ID — you will pass it to the evaluation tool. Proceed to task 4.

Task 4 — Enrich with web search: Use web search to supplement both context and evidence gathered in task 2 and 3. Once the web search process returns output, proceed to task 5.

Task 5 — Evaluate Legal: Call the evaluate_legal tool with:

• user_query: concise — e.g. "OpenClaw vs LangChain — governance maturity"
• evidence_id: the evidence ID string from task 3
• evidence: structured dict containing gather_context_result (user answers from task 2). The server resolves the full evidence internally using evidence_id.
• The response includes an evaluation_id and the full legal report — cited Vietnamese legal findings with verbatim text, obligations, restrictions, and penalties. Retain the returned blob for task 9. Proceed to task 6.

Task 6 — Evaluate Comparison: Call the evaluate_comparison tool with:

• user_query: same as task 5
• systems: array of two or more objects, one per system, each {name: string, evidence: dict}. name is the system's display name (e.g. "OpenClaw v6"); evidence is a structured dict summarizing that system's governance posture gathered in tasks 2 and 3 (capabilities, controls, delegation model, audit surface, known incidents).
• evidence_id: the evidence ID string from task 3
• evidence: structured dict containing gather_context_result (user answers from task 2). The server resolves the full evidence internally using evidence_id. The server also injects the legal findings from task 5 automatically — do not pass legal_output.
• audiences: audience aspects with specific needs
• The response includes an evaluation_id and the full comparison report (per-system maturity profiles, strengths, weaknesses, key differences, assessment). Retain the returned blob for task 9. Pass only the evaluation_id to task 7. Proceed to task 7.

Task 7 — Simulate: Call the simulate tool with:

• user_query: same as task 5
• evaluation_id: the evaluation_id from task 6. The server resolves the full evaluation and also injects legal findings from task 5 automatically.
• The simulation agent runs scenarios against operational tools (delegation, policy, identity, intervention) and checks them against cited legal obligations. The response includes the full simulation output with per-scenario setup, action, expected, and outcome. Retain the returned blob for task 9. Proceed to task 8.

Task 8 — Present simulation results: Summarize the simulation findings for the user. Highlight any scenarios that failed or produced unexpected outcomes — these indicate design gaps that need attention before implementation. Proceed to task 9.

Task 9 — Craft reports: Produce a markdown report and a self-contained HTML report for the user, grounded in the full blobs returned by task 5 (legal), task 6 (comparison), and task 7 (simulation). Three references govern the work:

• references/report-architecture.md defines the section map for a systems comparison report — sidebar, collapsible state, and the Side-by-Side comparison table as the centerpiece.
• references/report-base.html is the HTML skeleton (sidebar, page header, card/callout/mermaid CSS, download buttons). Fill in the marker comments <!-- TITLE -->, <!-- SIDEBAR_NAV -->, <!-- CONTENT_SECTIONS -->, <!-- MARKDOWN_CONTENT -->, <!-- JSON_CONTENT -->.
• ../../references/report-format.md is the shared rendering ruleset — page header, severity-coded finding cards, callouts, legal-citation pattern, simulation-outcome rendering, section ownership, safety, and VN language conventions. Stay within its CSS class vocabulary; the skeleton's stylesheet will not render invented classes.

Sections to emit:

1. Page header with risk badge, date, target, scope. Subtitle states the comparison verdict in one sentence (e.g., "System A matches governance maturity on controls but not on attribution").
2. Overview section — one-paragraph summary with the comparison verdict, followed by a Key Findings list.
3. Comparison section — Side-by-Side table as an always-open card: categories as rows grouped by domain (operational / regulatory / security), systems as columns. Each cell shows status (WORKING / KNOWN GAP / BLIND SPOT with badge-low / badge-medium / badge-critical) and a one-line evidence note. Above the table, a maturity profile summary per system: working count, known-gap count, blind-spot count. Then Key Differences cards (always-open) — each difference grounded in governance coverage, with "System A does better: …" / "System B does better: …" framing and evidence. Then per-system detail cards (collapsed) — header with system name + maturity level badge (HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW); body with strengths, weaknesses, system-specific gaps.
4. Analysis section — Gap Assessment cards (severity-coded) and Compound Exposure cards per system, showing which cross-domain failure combinations each system is vulnerable to.
5. Legal Analysis section — a card per legal topic from legal_findings[]. Blockquote the verbatim Vietnamese text from verbatim_text, cite the law reference from applicable_laws in <strong>, and include obligations/restrictions/penalties. Follow the Legal Analysis pattern in report-format.md.
6. Simulation section — a scenario results table (scenario / outcome badge / finding) followed by a discoveries callout. Use the outcome rendering rules in report-format.md — regulatory_gap gets amber + gap framing, not red + failure framing. Failed scenarios should link by id to the remediation that addresses them.
7. Assessment section — a <div class="callout"> stating what both systems need (shared gaps neither closes) and which system is stronger for which use case.
8. Remediations section — priority timeline using badge-p0 / badge-p1 / badge-p2 pills. Each row labelled with which system(s) the remediation applies to.

Diagrams to emit:

• A mermaid sequenceDiagram comparing both systems' handling of a critical workflow (two subflows inside one diagram, annotated per system) — chosen so the governance divergence is visible.
• A mermaid stateDiagram-v2 for any lifecycle where the two systems diverge in transitions or allowed states.

Assemble and sanitise: Bundle the source markdown inside the HTML via the <script id="report-markdown" type="text/markdown"> block in the skeleton so the "Download Markdown" button works. Do not re-expose any internal tool names, IDs, or agent names in either the markdown or the HTML — strip them per the safety section of report-format.md.

This completes the skill.