README

🏠 Home
Home / SIMULATION / EXAMPLES / prk_surgery

Gemini CLI Bridge Architecture Simulator

🎯 Why This Project Exists

The Original Problem

After PRK surgery, I needed to reduce eye strain while coding but still leverage Google's Gemini CLI as an agentic code mentor. The terminal interface was creating too much context switching and strain. I wanted to work entirely within VSCode - writing prompts in one file, getting responses in another - both in a comfortable, readable format.

The Meta-Problem

Instead of immediately building a solution, I decided to simulate different architectural approaches to find the optimal path. This project applies LLM-based simulation techniques to real-world technical decision-making.

🧠 The Simulation Strategy

Why Multi-Agent Architecture?

Single LLM queries tend to produce 1-2 obvious solutions. A multi-agent system with specialized roles generates diverse options and systematic evaluation:

Why CrewAI Over Alternatives?

💰 Economic Design Decisions

Budget Constraint: $30 for simulation

Cost vs Insight Trade-off

📋 Architecture Decisions Log

Framework Selection Matrix

Framework Complexity Speed Cost Fit for Solo Dev
CrewAI Low High Low ✅ Perfect
LangGraph High Med Med ❌ Overkill
AutoGen Med Low High ❌ Too chatty

Agent Role Design

SolutionArchitect (Gemini Pro): - Temperature: 0.7 (creative but focused) - Task: Generate diverse architectural patterns - Backstory: Pragmatic architect who thinks beyond obvious solutions

TechnicalCritic (Gemini Pro): - Temperature: 0.7 (detailed reasoning needed) - Task: Identify maintenance nightmares and deployment complexity - Backstory: Battle-tested senior dev who's seen clever solutions fail

ProfileAlignment (Gemini Flash): - Temperature: 0.3 (consistent scoring) - Task: Score against quantified developer profile - Backstory: Embodies my specific technical preferences

Developer Profile Quantification

{
  "language:python": 1.0,        // Strong preference
  "language:javascript": -0.6,   // Functional but reluctant
  "maintenance:predictable_5min": 0.8,  // Acceptable
  "maintenance:unpredictable_1hour": -1.0,  // Deal-breaker
  "deployment:one_click": 1.0,   // Strongly preferred
  "ui:terminal_based": -0.9      // Major friction point
}

🔍 Enhanced Data Capture Rationale

Why Four Output Files?

  1. results.md: Clean recommendations for decision-making
  2. execution.json: Raw data for programmatic analysis
  3. interactions.md: Agent reasoning chains for validation
  4. debug.txt: Complete troubleshooting information

Transparency Requirements

DataCollector Class Design

class DataCollector:
    # execution_log: Step-by-step process tracking
    # agent_outputs: Individual agent results
    # task_results: Task completion data  
    # agent_conversations: Inter-agent communication
    # errors: Failure modes and recovery
    # metadata: Timing, token usage, configuration

🎛️ Configuration and Customization

Key Adjustable Parameters

Problem Statement (PROBLEM_STATEMENT): - Modify this to simulate different technical problems - Keep specific constraints and success criteria

Developer Profile (DEVELOPER_PROFILE): - Add/remove preference dimensions - Adjust weights based on personal priorities - Use negative values for strong dislikes

Agent Configuration:

# Creativity vs Cost trade-off
temperature=0.7    # Higher = more creative, more tokens
temperature=0.3    # Lower = consistent, cheaper

# Model selection for different tasks
gemini_pro   # Creative generation, complex reasoning
gemini_flash # Classification, scoring, simple extraction

Solution Generation Scope:

# Modify generation task to explore specific paradigms:
# - File watching approaches
# - UI/UX alternatives  
# - Deployment strategies
# - Integration patterns

🚀 Usage Instructions

Quick Start (5 minutes)

# 1. Install dependencies
pip install crewai langchain-google-genai python-dotenv

# 2. Set API key
export GOOGLE_API_KEY="your_gemini_api_key"

# 3. Run simulation
python enhanced_gemini_simulator.py

Expected Output Timeline

Interpreting Results

In results.md, look for: - Solutions scoring 4.0+ (high alignment with your profile) - Critics flagging "unpredictable maintenance" (deal-breakers) - Architecture patterns you hadn't considered

In execution.json, analyze: - Token usage by agent (cost optimization insights) - Agent reasoning patterns (validation of approach) - Error patterns (simulation reliability)

🐛 Debugging Guide

Common Issues

"No solutions generated" - Check GOOGLE_API_KEY environment variable - Verify Gemini API quota/billing - Check execution.json for API errors

"All solutions score poorly"
- Review DEVELOPER_PROFILE weights - Check if problem constraints are too restrictive - Examine agent_outputs in JSON for reasoning

"Simulation incomplete" - Check debug.txt for execution trace - Look for agent errors in execution log - Verify all dependencies installed

Performance Tuning

Reduce Cost: - Lower temperature values (0.3 → 0.1) - Use Gemini Flash for more agents - Reduce solution count in generation task

Improve Quality: - Increase temperature for SolutionArchitect (0.7 → 0.9) - Add more specific constraints to problem statement - Refine agent backstories for better role-playing

Speed Up Execution: - Use Gemini Flash for all agents (quality trade-off) - Reduce expected_output length requirements - Simplify critique criteria

📈 Future Enhancements

Planned Improvements

Extensibility Points

📚 Learning Resources

Core Concepts Applied

🎯 Success Metrics

Simulation Quality

Business Value

Technical Achievement

Remember: This isn't just about the Gemini CLI Bridge - it's a reusable framework for making better technical decisions through structured LLM simulation. The enhanced data capture ensures you can always understand and validate the reasoning behind recommendations.

Next Steps: Run the simulation, analyze results, implement the top-scored solution, then use this framework for your next architectural decision.

Generated on 2025-08-30 08:39:24