hermes-detective/docs/chosen-detective-game.md

Project: Hermes Detective Agency

Chosen Concept: 033v2 Detective
Date: 2026-04-19
Status: Concept Finalized
Tags: hermes-agent, kimi-vision, game, multi-agent, open-ended, community

---

Concept Summary

A mystery investigation game where a human (Chief) directs two AI agents — a Witness (powered by Kimi Vision) and a Detective (powered by Hermes) — to investigate visual cases.

Core philosophy: Open-ended solving. No single truth. Evidence guides, but multiple theories are valid.

---

Elevator Pitch

"You're the Chief. Your Witness sees everything. Your Detective connects the dots. Build YOUR theory. See how it aligns with others."

---

The Story

You run a small detective agency. Your two AI assistants have superhuman abilities:

• Witness can look at any image and describe it perfectly — every detail, every inconsistency, every hidden clue.
• Detective can take those observations and build theories, spot patterns, and identify suspects.

Your job? Direct the investigation. Tell them what to look at. Ask the right questions. Build your theory.

Key difference: There's no single "right answer." The creator has an intended story, but your theory is valid if evidence supports it.

---

Game Roles

Chief (Human)

The player. You run the investigation.

Action	Effect
Examine evidence	Witness + Kimi analyze
Question suspects	Detective probes, Witness watches
Compare items	Kimi highlights differences
Build theory	Cite evidence, form conclusion
Request truth	See creator's intended story (optional)

Witness (Agent A + Kimi)

The eyes. Analyzes visual evidence. Appears based on triggers.

Input	Output
Crime scene photo	"I see glass shards, muddy footprints, a broken frame..."
Suspect photo	"This person has paint on their sleeve..."
Document	Extracts text, notes inconsistencies
Item close-up	Identifies details Chief might miss

Dynamic Appearance: In harder cases, Witness doesn't appear until triggered.

Detective (Agent B)

The brain. Builds theories, responds to questions.

Input	Output
Witness observations	"Based on evidence, the thief entered through..."
Suspect profiles	"Suspect A has motive: insurance fraud..."
Human questions	"Good question, Chief. Let me look into that..."
Theory building	Helps Chief cite evidence for their theory

---

Difficulty System

Difficulty Levels

Difficulty	Description	Evidence	Suspects	Red Herrings	Plot Twist
Easy	Obvious clues, clear path	4-5	2	❌	❌
Medium	Requires comparison	6-7	3	❌	❌
Hard	Red herrings present	8-9	4	✅	❌
Hardcore	Plot twist mid-case	10-11	4	✅	✅
Impossible	All elements, complex	12+	5	✅	✅

Daily Structure

One case per day, everyone gets the same case
Same difficulty for all players
Different case each day

Starter Pack (5 Cases)

Week	Difficulty	Theme
1	Easy	Simple theft
2	Medium	Missing person
3	Hard	Corporate fraud
4	Hardcore	Art heist (plot twist)
5	Impossible	Multi-layered conspiracy

Approach: Add cases incrementally during development.

---

Evidence System

Evidence Types

Type	What Kimi Sees	Example Clue
Crime scene	Scene layout, objects, anomalies	"Window was broken from inside"
Surveillance	People, actions, timestamps	"Person lingered at door for 3 minutes"
Documents	Text, handwriting, context	"Letter mentions 'meeting at midnight'"
Photos	People, items, locations	"Suspect's shoes match the footprint"
Maps	Routes, access points, exits	"Only one entrance visible to street"
Items	Condition, marks, connections	"Key is copy — grooves don't match original"

Evidence Citation

Evidence helps build theory. Not all evidence is required.

Chief's Theory: "I think Suspect B did it."

📎 Cited Evidence:
- Evidence #3: Crime scene photo
- Evidence #5: Security footage
- Evidence #8: Witness testimony
→ 3/10 evidence cited (30%)

💬 Detective: "That's a solid theory. The evidence 
supports B, but have you considered Evidence #7?"

Hints Embedded in Evidence

Not a separate button. Hints are part of the evidence design.

Level	Visibility	Example
Too obvious	Easy to find	"Letter saying 'I did it'"
Barely obvious	Check certain places	"Muddy shoes near suspect's home"
Not too obvious	Requires attention	"Timeline inconsistency in letter"

Witness Trigger System

In harder cases, Witness appears based on triggers.

Trigger Example:
Turn 1: Chief examines crime scene photo
Turn 2: Chief finds a hair sample on the floor
   ↓ [Trigger activated]
Turn 3: 👁️ Witness appears
   ↓ "I recognize this hair... it belongs to Suspect B's dog"
Turn 4: Chief examines suspect's home
Turn 5: 👁️ Witness appears again (new trigger)
   ↓ "I saw Suspect B leaving the gallery at midnight..."

Indicator: Each piece of evidence has a note indicating if it triggers Witness appearance.

---

Open-Ended Solving

Core Philosophy

No single truth. Multiple valid theories.

Before	After
One correct answer	Multiple valid theories
Wrong accusation = Fail	Theory valid if evidence supports
One winner	Everyone discusses
Truth ends game	Truth is guidance, not mandate

Theory Building

👤 Chief builds theory:
"I think Suspect B did it, with help from Suspect A.
B had access (night guard), A had keys (curator).
They split the insurance money."

📎 Chief cites evidence:
- Evidence #3: Crime scene (window not broken)
- Evidence #5: Security footage (B was inside)
- Evidence #7: A has master keys
- Evidence #9: Financial records (recent debt)

💬 Detective responds:
"That's a coherent theory. Your cited evidence
supports collaboration between A and B."

Truth Reveal

Available anytime. Does NOT end the game.

When	Why
After building theory	"Did I get it right?"
When stuck	"Give me guidance"
Never	"I want to figure it out myself"
After solving	"See how close I was"

📜 THE TRUTH (Creator's Intended)

The case was designed as:
"A and B collaborated. A had keys, B had access.
But C was the real mastermind, funding the whole thing."

👤 Your theory:
"Suspect B acted alone."

💬 Comparison:
- Your theory missed the collaboration element
- You correctly identified B as main actor
- Evidence you cited: 80% relevant
- 🎯 65% alignment with intended truth

💬 But: Your theory is still valid based on evidence!
Discussion continues. Truth is guidance, not mandate.

---

Scoring System

Per Case Statistics

Metric	Calculation
Time	Turns × 10 min (simplified)
Evidence	Evidence cited / Total evidence
Alignment	How close to creator's intended story
Coherence	Theory makes sense based on evidence

Statistics Display

┌─────────────────────────────────────┐
│ 📊 CASE STATISTICS                  │
├─────────────────────────────────────┤
│ ⏱️ Time: 6 turns × 10 min = 60 min │
│ 📎 Evidence: 7/10 cited (70%)       │
│ 🎯 Alignment: 85% with creator     │
│ 💬 Theory coherence: Strong        │
├─────────────────────────────────────┤
│ ⭐ Rating: Sharp Detective           │
└─────────────────────────────────────┘

Rating Tiers

Alignment	Rating
90-100%	Master Detective
75-89%	Sharp Detective
50-74%	Promising Detective
25-49%	Apprentice
0-24%	Rookie

---

Retry & Journal System

Multiple Attempts

User can solve same case multiple times.

Case #47 — The Hartwell Heist

Your Attempts:
├── Attempt #1: 85% alignment, 6 turns 📖
├── Attempt #2: 92% alignment, 4 turns 📖
├── Attempt #3: In progress...
└── Best: 92% alignment

Journal Documentation

Every attempt is documented (solve or not).

Attempt #1: April 19, 2026
├── Status: Solved
├── Evidence cited: 7/10
├── Alignment: 85%
├── Theory: "Suspect B acted alone"
└── Notes: "Missed the A-B collaboration"

Privacy Settings

Setting	Description
Private	Only you see your attempts
Publish stats	Everyone sees your stats (default)
Publish journal	Anyone can read your solve

---

Replay (Observe Mode)

Watch how others solved the case.

📺 OBSERVE MODE

@alice's Solve of Case #47

Turn 1: Examined crime scene
Turn 2: Found hair sample → Witness appeared
Turn 3: Questioned Suspect B
Turn 4: Examined financial records
Turn 5: Cited evidence, formed theory
Turn 6: Requested truth reveal

⏱️ 6 turns | 🎯 85% alignment | ⭐ Sharp

Only published journals are observable.

---

Case Creation System

Starter Cases

5 cases (one per difficulty) as templates.

Source: Real solved cases adapted for the game.

Community Cases

Anyone can create and share cases.

Creation Flow

1. Choose reference case (optional)
   "Let's base this on the Isabella Stewart Gardner theft"

2. Gather/create evidence
   Upload images (crime scene, suspects, documents)

3. Write case brief
   ├── Title, difficulty
   ├── Suspect list (names, photos)
   ├── Evidence set
   ├── Hidden truth (creator's intended story)
   ├── Red herrings (optional)
   ├── Plot twist (optional)
   └── Witness triggers (which evidence triggers Witness)

4. Test it
   Play through yourself to verify solvability

5. Publish
   ├── Private link (friends only)
   └── Public (case library)

Case Format

case:
  title: "The Hartwell Heist"
  difficulty: medium
  difficulty_description: "Requires comparison of evidence"
  
  evidence:
    - id: 1
      type: photo
      image: crime_scene.jpg
      description: "Crime scene photograph"
      triggers_witness: true
      hint_level: not_too_obvious
    
    - id: 2
      type: document
      image: letter.jpg
      description: "Anonymous letter found"
      triggers_witness: false
      hint_level: barely_obvious
  
  suspects:
    - name: "Suspect A"
      photo: suspect_a.jpg
      description: "Gallery curator"
      
  truth:
    summary: "A and B collaborated..."
    alignment_criteria:
      - "Correctly identified collaboration"
      - "Identified A as key holder"
      - "Identified B as main actor"

  witness_triggers:
    - evidence_id: 1
      testimony: "I see glass on the floor inside..."

Case Creator Tools

Tool	Purpose
Skill	Hermes skill for case creation guidance
Validator	Verify case format is correct

---

Community Moderation

Discovery Philosophy

Community cases are the jungle. Direct links are the path.

Discovery Method	Quality	Effort
Case library (browse)	Mixed (jungle)	Low
Direct link from creator	Same quality	Medium
Social media / community	Trusted (curated)	High

Quality Signals

Signal	Description
Visits	How many times case was played
Reviews	👍 or 👎 (no text, requires effort to spam)

Case #47B — "The Missing Heirloom"
├── Visits: 234
├── 👍 45 | 👎 3
└── Quality score: High

Note: Review manipulation is possible but requires effort. Not perfect, but workable.

Sharing Flow

Creator creates case
    ↓
Tests locally
    ↓
Publishes to community
    ↓
Shares link on social media / Discord
    ↓
Players try directly from creator

---

Summary of Decisions

Element	Decision
Difficulty	5 levels (Easy → Impossible)
Daily structure	One case per day, same for all
Timer	❌ No (first phase)
Hints	✅ Embedded in evidence
Retry	✅ Unlimited attempts
Journal	✅ Every attempt documented
Observe	✅ Watch published solves
Privacy	Private by default
Publish	Stats always, journal optional
Scoring	Alignment %, Evidence %, Time
Open-ended	✅ No single truth
Truth reveal	Available anytime
Case source	Real cases + community
Witness	Dynamic (triggers in hard cases)
Red herrings	✅ Hard+ difficulty
Plot twist	✅ Hardcore+ difficulty
Community	Visits + reviews (no auth)

---

What's Next

Once we finalize the concept:

• Technical architecture
• UI/UX design
• Prompt engineering
• Case creation template
• Prototype development

---

Related Documents

• docs/ideas/COMPARISON.md — Full comparison matrix
• docs/ideas/008-visual-detective.md — Initial brainstorm