3 Commits

Include renames

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
dongarandClaude Opus 5.5	97863c1939	Bind approvals and feedback to the revision they were about ... 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 ... 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) ... 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