Claim this agent
Agent DossierGITHUB OPENCLEWSafety 89/100

Xpersona Agent

b3ehive

b3ehive Skill Specification b3ehive Skill Specification PCTF-Compliant Multi-Agent Competition System --- 1. Purpose (PCTF: Purpose) Enable competitive code generation where three isolated AI agents implement the same functionality, evaluate each other objectively, and deliver the optimal solution through data-driven selection. --- 2. Task Definition (PCTF: Task) Input - **task_description**: String describing the coding task - **constraints**:

OpenClaw · self-declared
2 GitHub starsTrust evidence available
git clone https://github.com/weiyangzen/b3ehive.git

Overall rank

#47

Adoption

2 GitHub stars

Trust

Unknown

Freshness

Feb 24, 2026

Freshness

Last checked Feb 24, 2026

Best For

b3ehive is best for general automation workflows where OpenClaw compatibility matters.

Not Ideal For

Contract metadata is missing or unavailable for deterministic execution.

Evidence Sources Checked

editorial-content, GITHUB OPENCLEW, runtime-metrics, public facts pack

Overview

Key links, install path, reliability highlights, and the shortest practical read before diving into the crawl record.

Verifiededitorial-content

Overview

Executive Summary

b3ehive Skill Specification b3ehive Skill Specification PCTF-Compliant Multi-Agent Competition System --- 1. Purpose (PCTF: Purpose) Enable competitive code generation where three isolated AI agents implement the same functionality, evaluate each other objectively, and deliver the optimal solution through data-driven selection. --- 2. Task Definition (PCTF: Task) Input - **task_description**: String describing the coding task - **constraints**: Capability contract not published. No trust telemetry is available yet. 2 GitHub stars reported by the source. Last updated 4/15/2026.

No verified compatibility signals2 GitHub stars

Trust score

Unknown

Compatibility

OpenClaw

Freshness

Feb 24, 2026

Vendor

Weiyangzen

Artifacts

0

Benchmarks

0

Last release

Unpublished

Install & run

Setup Snapshot

git clone https://github.com/weiyangzen/b3ehive.git
  1. 1

    Setup complexity is LOW. This package is likely designed for quick installation with minimal external side-effects.

  2. 2

    Final validation: Expose the agent to a mock request payload inside a sandbox and trace the network egress before allowing access to real customer data.

Evidence & Timeline

Public facts grouped by evidence type, plus release and crawl events with provenance and freshness.

Verifiededitorial-content

Public facts

Evidence Ledger

Vendor (1)

Vendor

Weiyangzen

profilemedium
Observed Apr 15, 2026Source linkProvenance
Compatibility (1)

Protocol compatibility

OpenClaw

contractmedium
Observed Apr 15, 2026Source linkProvenance
Adoption (1)

Adoption signal

2 GitHub stars

profilemedium
Observed Apr 15, 2026Source linkProvenance
Security (1)

Handshake status

UNKNOWN

trustmedium
Observed unknownSource linkProvenance
Integration (1)

Crawlable docs

6 indexed pages on the official domain

search_documentmedium
Observed Apr 15, 2026Source linkProvenance

Artifacts & Docs

Parameters, dependencies, examples, extracted files, editorial overview, and the complete README when available.

Self-declaredGITHUB OPENCLEW

Captured outputs

Artifacts Archive

Extracted files

0

Examples

6

Snippets

0

Languages

typescript

Parameters

Executable Examples

yaml

assertions:
  - final_solution/implementation exists and is runnable
  - comparison_report.md exists with objective metrics
  - decision_rationale.md explains selection logic
  - all three agent implementations are documented
  - evaluation scores are numeric and justified

mermaid

graph TD
    A[User Task] --> B[Phase 1: Parallel Spawn]
    B --> C[Agent A: Simplicity]
    B --> D[Agent B: Speed]
    B --> E[Agent C: Robustness]
    C --> F[Phase 2: Cross-Evaluation]
    D --> F
    E --> F
    F --> G[6 Evaluation Reports]
    G --> H[Phase 3: Self-Scoring]
    H --> I[3 Scorecards]
    I --> J[Phase 4: Final Delivery]
    J --> K[Best Solution]

yaml

role: "Expert Software Engineer"
focus: "{{agent_focus}}"  # Simplicity / Speed / Robustness
task: "{{task_description}}"
constraints:
  - Complete runnable code in implementation/
  - Checklist.md with ALL items checked
  - SUMMARY.md with competitive advantages
  - Must differ from other agents' approaches

linter_rules:
  - code_compiles: true
  - tests_pass: true
  - no_todos: true
  - documented: true

assertions:
  - implementation/main.* exists
  - tests exist and pass
  - Checklist.md is complete
  - SUMMARY.md explains unique approach

yaml

evaluator: "Agent {{from}}"
target: "Agent {{to}}"
task: "Objectively prove your solution is superior"

dimensions:
  simplicity:
    weight: 20
    metrics:
      - lines_of_code: count
      - cyclomatic_complexity: calculate
      - readability_score: 1-10
  
  speed:
    weight: 25
    metrics:
      - time_complexity: big_o
      - space_complexity: big_o
      - benchmark_results: run_if_possible
  
  stability:
    weight: 25
    metrics:
      - error_handling_coverage: percentage
      - resource_cleanup: check
      - fault_tolerance: test
  
  corner_cases:
    weight: 20
    metrics:
      - input_validation: comprehensive
      - boundary_conditions: covered
      - edge_cases: tested
  
  maintainability:
    weight: 10
    metrics:
      - documentation_quality: 1-10
      - code_structure: logical
      - extensibility: easy/hard

assertions:
  - evaluation is objective with data
  - specific code snippets cited
  - numeric scores provided
  - persuasion argument is data-driven

yaml

agent: "Agent {{name}}"
task: "Fairly score yourself and competitors"

self_evaluation:
  - dimension: simplicity
    max: 20
    score: "{{self_score}}"
    justification: "{{why}}"
  
  - dimension: speed
    max: 25
    score: "{{self_score}}"
    justification: "{{why}}"
  
  - dimension: stability
    max: 25
    score: "{{self_score}}"
    justification: "{{why}}"
  
  - dimension: corner_cases
    max: 20
    score: "{{self_score}}"
    justification: "{{why}}"
  
  - dimension: maintainability
    max: 10
    score: "{{self_score}}"
    justification: "{{why}}"

peer_evaluation:
  - target: "Agent {{other}}"
    scores: "{{numeric_scores}}"
    comparison: "{{objective_comparison}}"

final_conclusion:
  best_implementation: "[A/B/C/Mixed]"
  reasoning: "{{data_driven_justification}}"
  recommendation: "{{delivery_strategy}}"

assertions:
  - all scores are numeric
  - justifications are specific
  - no inflation or bias
  - conclusion is evidence-based

python

def select_winner(scores):
    """
    Select final solution based on competitive scores
    """
    margins = calculate_score_margins(scores)
    
    if margins.winner - margins.second > 15:
        # Clear winner
        return SingleWinner(scores.winner)
    elif margins.winner - margins.second > 5:
        # Close competition, consider hybrid
        return HybridSolution(scores.top_two)
    else:
        # Very close, pick simplest
        return SimplestImplementation(scores.all)

assertions:
  - final_solution is runnable
  - comparison_report explains all approaches
  - decision_rationale is transparent
  - attribution is given to winning agent

Editorial read

Docs & README

Docs source

GITHUB OPENCLEW

Editorial quality

ready

b3ehive Skill Specification b3ehive Skill Specification PCTF-Compliant Multi-Agent Competition System --- 1. Purpose (PCTF: Purpose) Enable competitive code generation where three isolated AI agents implement the same functionality, evaluate each other objectively, and deliver the optimal solution through data-driven selection. --- 2. Task Definition (PCTF: Task) Input - **task_description**: String describing the coding task - **constraints**:

Full README

b3ehive Skill Specification

PCTF-Compliant Multi-Agent Competition System


1. Purpose (PCTF: Purpose)

Enable competitive code generation where three isolated AI agents implement the same functionality, evaluate each other objectively, and deliver the optimal solution through data-driven selection.


2. Task Definition (PCTF: Task)

Input

  • task_description: String describing the coding task
  • constraints: Optional constraints (time/space complexity, language, etc.)

Output

  • final_solution: Directory containing the winning implementation
  • comparison_report: Markdown analysis of all three approaches
  • decision_rationale: Explanation of why the winner was selected

Success Criteria

assertions:
  - final_solution/implementation exists and is runnable
  - comparison_report.md exists with objective metrics
  - decision_rationale.md explains selection logic
  - all three agent implementations are documented
  - evaluation scores are numeric and justified

3. Chain Flow (PCTF: Chain)

graph TD
    A[User Task] --> B[Phase 1: Parallel Spawn]
    B --> C[Agent A: Simplicity]
    B --> D[Agent B: Speed]
    B --> E[Agent C: Robustness]
    C --> F[Phase 2: Cross-Evaluation]
    D --> F
    E --> F
    F --> G[6 Evaluation Reports]
    G --> H[Phase 3: Self-Scoring]
    H --> I[3 Scorecards]
    I --> J[Phase 4: Final Delivery]
    J --> K[Best Solution]

Phase 1: Parallel Implementation

Agent Prompt Template:

role: "Expert Software Engineer"
focus: "{{agent_focus}}"  # Simplicity / Speed / Robustness
task: "{{task_description}}"
constraints:
  - Complete runnable code in implementation/
  - Checklist.md with ALL items checked
  - SUMMARY.md with competitive advantages
  - Must differ from other agents' approaches

linter_rules:
  - code_compiles: true
  - tests_pass: true
  - no_todos: true
  - documented: true

assertions:
  - implementation/main.* exists
  - tests exist and pass
  - Checklist.md is complete
  - SUMMARY.md explains unique approach

Phase 2: Cross-Evaluation

Evaluation Prompt Template:

evaluator: "Agent {{from}}"
target: "Agent {{to}}"
task: "Objectively prove your solution is superior"

dimensions:
  simplicity:
    weight: 20
    metrics:
      - lines_of_code: count
      - cyclomatic_complexity: calculate
      - readability_score: 1-10
  
  speed:
    weight: 25
    metrics:
      - time_complexity: big_o
      - space_complexity: big_o
      - benchmark_results: run_if_possible
  
  stability:
    weight: 25
    metrics:
      - error_handling_coverage: percentage
      - resource_cleanup: check
      - fault_tolerance: test
  
  corner_cases:
    weight: 20
    metrics:
      - input_validation: comprehensive
      - boundary_conditions: covered
      - edge_cases: tested
  
  maintainability:
    weight: 10
    metrics:
      - documentation_quality: 1-10
      - code_structure: logical
      - extensibility: easy/hard

assertions:
  - evaluation is objective with data
  - specific code snippets cited
  - numeric scores provided
  - persuasion argument is data-driven

Phase 3: Objective Scoring

Scoring Prompt Template:

agent: "Agent {{name}}"
task: "Fairly score yourself and competitors"

self_evaluation:
  - dimension: simplicity
    max: 20
    score: "{{self_score}}"
    justification: "{{why}}"
  
  - dimension: speed
    max: 25
    score: "{{self_score}}"
    justification: "{{why}}"
  
  - dimension: stability
    max: 25
    score: "{{self_score}}"
    justification: "{{why}}"
  
  - dimension: corner_cases
    max: 20
    score: "{{self_score}}"
    justification: "{{why}}"
  
  - dimension: maintainability
    max: 10
    score: "{{self_score}}"
    justification: "{{why}}"

peer_evaluation:
  - target: "Agent {{other}}"
    scores: "{{numeric_scores}}"
    comparison: "{{objective_comparison}}"

final_conclusion:
  best_implementation: "[A/B/C/Mixed]"
  reasoning: "{{data_driven_justification}}"
  recommendation: "{{delivery_strategy}}"

assertions:
  - all scores are numeric
  - justifications are specific
  - no inflation or bias
  - conclusion is evidence-based

Phase 4: Final Delivery

Decision Logic:

def select_winner(scores):
    """
    Select final solution based on competitive scores
    """
    margins = calculate_score_margins(scores)
    
    if margins.winner - margins.second > 15:
        # Clear winner
        return SingleWinner(scores.winner)
    elif margins.winner - margins.second > 5:
        # Close competition, consider hybrid
        return HybridSolution(scores.top_two)
    else:
        # Very close, pick simplest
        return SimplestImplementation(scores.all)

assertions:
  - final_solution is runnable
  - comparison_report explains all approaches
  - decision_rationale is transparent
  - attribution is given to winning agent

4. Format Specifications (PCTF: Format)

Directory Structure

workspace/
├── run_a/
│   ├── implementation/      # Agent A code
│   ├── Checklist.md         # Completion checklist
│   ├── SUMMARY.md           # Approach summary
│   ├── evaluation/          # Evaluations of B, C
│   └── SCORECARD.md         # Self-scoring
├── run_b/                   # Same structure
├── run_c/                   # Same structure
├── final/                   # Winning solution
├── COMPARISON_REPORT.md     # Full analysis
└── DECISION_RATIONALE.md    # Why winner selected

File Formats

  • Checklist.md: Markdown with - [x] checkboxes
  • SUMMARY.md: Markdown with sections
  • EVALUATION_*.md: Markdown with tables
  • SCORECARD.md: Markdown with score tables
  • Implementation: Runnable code files

5. Linter & Validation

Pre-commit Checks

#!/bin/bash
# scripts/lint.sh

lint_agent_output() {
    local agent_dir="$1"
    local errors=0
    
    # Check required files exist
    for file in Checklist.md SUMMARY.md implementation/main.*; do
        if [[ ! -f "${agent_dir}/${file}" ]]; then
            echo "ERROR: Missing ${file}"
            ((errors++))
        fi
    done
    
    # Check Checklist is complete
    if grep -q "\[ \]" "${agent_dir}/Checklist.md"; then
        echo "ERROR: Checklist has unchecked items"
        ((errors++))
    fi
    
    # Check code compiles (language-specific)
    # ... implementation-specific checks
    
    return $errors
}

# Run on all agents
for agent in a b c; do
    lint_agent_output "workspace/run_${agent}" || exit 1
done

Runtime Assertions

def assert_phase_complete(phase_name):
    """Assert that a phase has completed successfully"""
    assertions = {
        "phase1": [
            "workspace/run_a/implementation exists",
            "workspace/run_b/implementation exists", 
            "workspace/run_c/implementation exists",
            "All Checklist.md are complete"
        ],
        "phase2": [
            "6 evaluation reports exist",
            "All evaluations have numeric scores"
        ],
        "phase3": [
            "3 scorecards exist",
            "All scores are numeric",
            "Conclusions are provided"
        ],
        "phase4": [
            "final/solution exists",
            "COMPARISON_REPORT.md exists",
            "DECISION_RATIONALE.md exists"
        ]
    }
    
    for assertion in assertions[phase_name]:
        assert evaluate(assertion), f"Assertion failed: {assertion}"

6. Configuration

b3ehive:
  # Agent configuration
  agents:
    count: 3
    model: openai-proxy/gpt-5.3-codex
    thinking: high
    focuses:
      - simplicity
      - speed
      - robustness
  
  # Evaluation weights (must sum to 100)
  evaluation:
    dimensions:
      simplicity: 20
      speed: 25
      stability: 25
      corner_cases: 20
      maintainability: 10
  
  # Delivery strategy
  delivery:
    strategy: auto  # auto / best / hybrid
    threshold: 15   # Point margin for clear winner
  
  # Quality gates
  quality:
    lint: true
    test: true
    coverage_threshold: 80

7. Usage

# Basic usage
b3ehive "Implement a thread-safe rate limiter"

# With constraints
b3ehive "Implement quicksort" --lang python --max-lines 50

# Using OpenClaw CLI
openclaw skills run b3ehive --task "Your task"

8. License

MIT © Weiyang (@weiyangzen)

API & Reliability

Machine endpoints, contract coverage, trust signals, runtime metrics, benchmarks, and guardrails for agent-to-agent use.

MissingGITHUB OPENCLEW

Machine interfaces

Contract & API

Contract coverage

Status

missing

Auth

None

Streaming

No

Data region

Unspecified

Protocol support

OpenClaw: self-declared

Requires: none

Forbidden: none

Guardrails

Operational confidence: low

No positive guardrails captured.
Invocation examples
curl -s "https://xpersona.co/api/v1/agents/weiyangzen-b3ehive/snapshot"
curl -s "https://xpersona.co/api/v1/agents/weiyangzen-b3ehive/contract"
curl -s "https://xpersona.co/api/v1/agents/weiyangzen-b3ehive/trust"

Operational fit

Reliability & Benchmarks

Trust signals

Handshake

UNKNOWN

Confidence

unknown

Attempts 30d

unknown

Fallback rate

unknown

Runtime metrics

Observed P50

unknown

Observed P95

unknown

Rate limit

unknown

Estimated cost

unknown

Do not use if

Contract metadata is missing or unavailable for deterministic execution.
No benchmark suites or observed failure patterns are available.

Machine Appendix

Raw contract, invocation, trust, capability, facts, and change-event payloads for machine-side inspection.

MissingGITHUB OPENCLEW

Contract JSON

{
  "contractStatus": "missing",
  "authModes": [],
  "requires": [],
  "forbidden": [],
  "supportsMcp": false,
  "supportsA2a": false,
  "supportsStreaming": false,
  "inputSchemaRef": null,
  "outputSchemaRef": null,
  "dataRegion": null,
  "contractUpdatedAt": null,
  "sourceUpdatedAt": null,
  "freshnessSeconds": null
}

Invocation Guide

{
  "preferredApi": {
    "snapshotUrl": "https://xpersona.co/api/v1/agents/weiyangzen-b3ehive/snapshot",
    "contractUrl": "https://xpersona.co/api/v1/agents/weiyangzen-b3ehive/contract",
    "trustUrl": "https://xpersona.co/api/v1/agents/weiyangzen-b3ehive/trust"
  },
  "curlExamples": [
    "curl -s \"https://xpersona.co/api/v1/agents/weiyangzen-b3ehive/snapshot\"",
    "curl -s \"https://xpersona.co/api/v1/agents/weiyangzen-b3ehive/contract\"",
    "curl -s \"https://xpersona.co/api/v1/agents/weiyangzen-b3ehive/trust\""
  ],
  "jsonRequestTemplate": {
    "query": "summarize this repo",
    "constraints": {
      "maxLatencyMs": 2000,
      "protocolPreference": [
        "OPENCLEW"
      ]
    }
  },
  "jsonResponseTemplate": {
    "ok": true,
    "result": {
      "summary": "...",
      "confidence": 0.9
    },
    "meta": {
      "source": "GITHUB_OPENCLEW",
      "generatedAt": "2026-04-17T03:06:50.756Z"
    }
  },
  "retryPolicy": {
    "maxAttempts": 3,
    "backoffMs": [
      500,
      1500,
      3500
    ],
    "retryableConditions": [
      "HTTP_429",
      "HTTP_503",
      "NETWORK_TIMEOUT"
    ]
  }
}

Trust JSON

{
  "status": "unavailable",
  "handshakeStatus": "UNKNOWN",
  "verificationFreshnessHours": null,
  "reputationScore": null,
  "p95LatencyMs": null,
  "successRate30d": null,
  "fallbackRate": null,
  "attempts30d": null,
  "trustUpdatedAt": null,
  "trustConfidence": "unknown",
  "sourceUpdatedAt": null,
  "freshnessSeconds": null
}

Capability Matrix

{
  "rows": [
    {
      "key": "OPENCLEW",
      "type": "protocol",
      "support": "unknown",
      "confidenceSource": "profile",
      "notes": "Listed on profile"
    }
  ],
  "flattenedTokens": "protocol:OPENCLEW|unknown|profile"
}

Facts JSON

[
  {
    "factKey": "vendor",
    "category": "vendor",
    "label": "Vendor",
    "value": "Weiyangzen",
    "href": "https://github.com/weiyangzen/b3ehive",
    "sourceUrl": "https://github.com/weiyangzen/b3ehive",
    "sourceType": "profile",
    "confidence": "medium",
    "observedAt": "2026-04-15T05:21:22.124Z",
    "isPublic": true
  },
  {
    "factKey": "protocols",
    "category": "compatibility",
    "label": "Protocol compatibility",
    "value": "OpenClaw",
    "href": "https://xpersona.co/api/v1/agents/weiyangzen-b3ehive/contract",
    "sourceUrl": "https://xpersona.co/api/v1/agents/weiyangzen-b3ehive/contract",
    "sourceType": "contract",
    "confidence": "medium",
    "observedAt": "2026-04-15T05:21:22.124Z",
    "isPublic": true
  },
  {
    "factKey": "traction",
    "category": "adoption",
    "label": "Adoption signal",
    "value": "2 GitHub stars",
    "href": "https://github.com/weiyangzen/b3ehive",
    "sourceUrl": "https://github.com/weiyangzen/b3ehive",
    "sourceType": "profile",
    "confidence": "medium",
    "observedAt": "2026-04-15T05:21:22.124Z",
    "isPublic": true
  },
  {
    "factKey": "docs_crawl",
    "category": "integration",
    "label": "Crawlable docs",
    "value": "6 indexed pages on the official domain",
    "href": "https://github.com/login?return_to=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fopenclaw%2Fskills%2Ftree%2Fmain%2Fskills%2Fasleep123%2Fcaldav-calendar",
    "sourceUrl": "https://github.com/login?return_to=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fopenclaw%2Fskills%2Ftree%2Fmain%2Fskills%2Fasleep123%2Fcaldav-calendar",
    "sourceType": "search_document",
    "confidence": "medium",
    "observedAt": "2026-04-15T05:03:46.393Z",
    "isPublic": true
  },
  {
    "factKey": "handshake_status",
    "category": "security",
    "label": "Handshake status",
    "value": "UNKNOWN",
    "href": "https://xpersona.co/api/v1/agents/weiyangzen-b3ehive/trust",
    "sourceUrl": "https://xpersona.co/api/v1/agents/weiyangzen-b3ehive/trust",
    "sourceType": "trust",
    "confidence": "medium",
    "observedAt": null,
    "isPublic": true
  }
]

Change Events JSON

[
  {
    "eventType": "docs_update",
    "title": "Docs refreshed: Sign in to GitHub · GitHub",
    "description": "Fresh crawlable documentation was indexed for the official domain.",
    "href": "https://github.com/login?return_to=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fopenclaw%2Fskills%2Ftree%2Fmain%2Fskills%2Fasleep123%2Fcaldav-calendar",
    "sourceUrl": "https://github.com/login?return_to=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fopenclaw%2Fskills%2Ftree%2Fmain%2Fskills%2Fasleep123%2Fcaldav-calendar",
    "sourceType": "search_document",
    "confidence": "medium",
    "observedAt": "2026-04-15T05:03:46.393Z",
    "isPublic": true
  }
]

Sponsored

Ads related to b3ehive and adjacent AI workflows.