Commit Graph
4 Commits
Author SHA1 Message Date
dongarandClaude Opus 5.5 1ad0b2147d Retire the old build spec, and point every reference at the architecture (M0.1)
CI / checks (push) Skipped
CI / checks (pull_request) Successful in 1m22s
Development Plan M0.1. Every section reference in code, tests, specs/,
the example config, the tuning guide, and the CLAUDE.md and README files
now cites docs/Architecture.md (P, L, D, O, X, Q) instead of the old
spec's A-H, and docs/Architecture-Build-Spec.md is deleted (git keeps
it). The plan's old-to-new table goes with it.

Mostly mechanical, with a per-site choice where one old section split:
A4 became L2 where it meant stop/abandon/the loop and L3 where it meant
approvals; A10 became L6 in the context-budget code and L7 elsewhere; B2
became D4 for outbound Gitea and publishing and D5 for review intake;
'A3 step N' became the matching step of L8's boot sequence. Comments
describing behaviour the architecture drops (planning always escalating,
thresholds tuned at an old build step) now describe the current code and
point at the Development Plan.

docs/Architecture.md gains one line the rewrite missed: intake outages
delay but never fail work (old B2), now in L5, where the poller and
Matrix code cite it.

Comments and docs only; no behaviour change.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01PPQ14L3LikyefCMFBqEbKE
2026-10-01 00:17:48 +00:00
dongarandClaude Opus 5.5 97863c1939 Bind approvals and feedback to the revision they were about
CI / checks (push) Skipped
CI / checks (pull_request) Successful in 1m16s
Fixes counterexamples 1-4 from specs/orchestrator.qnt: a repeated
'approve', 'approve rev-1' meant for the architecture, approving on both
channels, and 'approve' plus an afterthought all landed on the next
plan, one the operator had not seen.

- Revisions are numbered across the work item (A4 already required
  monotonic tags; the code numbered per gate), so rev-N names one plan.
- Each reply is stamped on arrival with the revision that was up: in
  Matrix the one whose approval request had been sent (a plain value
  the transport thread reads, restored on boot), in Gitea the latest
  plan comment older than the reply (board.posts).
- Gate.evaluate applies a reply that names no revision only if its stamp
  is the current revision. Otherwise an approval is not applied and
  feedback rejects nothing (it is still in the transcript), and the
  agent says which revision is up. 'approve rev-N' binds by its number.
- Spec A4 states both rules. The model applies them; scenarios 1-4 now
  expect the properties to hold, and both held over 200,000 random
  traces and Apalache's exhaustive check to depth 8.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01PPQ14L3LikyefCMFBqEbKE
2026-09-29 19:13:20 +00:00
dongarandClaude Opus 5.5 6afd0cc914 Match approvals and commands regardless of case and trailing punctuation
CI / checks (push) Skipped
CI / checks (pull_request) Successful in 1m15s
A phone keyboard's "Approve" did not match the approval pattern, so it
counted as rejection feedback and threw the plan away; "Stop" did not
reach the cancel flag; other capitalised commands got a hint instead of
acting.

gates.command_form() is how a message reads as a command: case,
surrounding whitespace, inner runs of whitespace and a trailing '.' or
'!' do not matter. The approval gate and every command match in the
orchestrator (stop, status, abandon, use, start milestone, next
milestone, project complete, the restart choices) use it. Only matching
changes: the project name in 'use <name>' keeps its case, and feedback
and answers are recorded and passed on as written. A stale revision is
still refused, and approval still needs the whole message to be the
command.

Closes #64.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01PPQ14L3LikyefCMFBqEbKE
2026-09-29 17:57:34 +00:00
dongarandClaude Fable 5 a251104a44 Add control loop, gating primitives, and transport interface (A4/B1)
CI / checks (push) Successful in 9s
CI / checks (pull_request) Successful in 9s
Step-2 PR A: the approval loop end to end with a stub agent, no LLM
and no network.

- transport.py: Transport interface per A1 (send_message,
  send_approval_request, ask_question, on_message) with an
  InMemoryTransport; no platform SDK outside an implementation
- gates.py: PlanRevision with monotonic rev-N tags; Gate.evaluate
  enforces revision binding (stale tags refused with a notice),
  operator allowlisting, and approve-word-only semantics; any other
  reply is rejection feedback. Channel seam ready for Gitea/Vikunja
  approval sources
- control.py: B1 state machine subset with structural gating — the
  agent's only actions are SubmitPlan (ends its turn) and AskHuman;
  no proceed tool exists. Gate state, revision counters, task_id,
  and pending questions checkpoint through StateStore, and boot
  resumes an open gate or gates to AWAIT_INPUT, never blind-resumes
- gate.open/approve/reject A9 events complete the log taxonomy
- CLAUDE.md: record the plan-first working convention
- Tests: 15 unit (gates + orchestrator flows), 2 integration
  (mid-gate restart with revisions intact; unresolved intents gate
  the whole boot)

Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-09-05 21:28:07 +00:00