Commit Graph
1 Commits
Author SHA1 Message Date
dongarandClaude Opus 5.5 d79e399933 Model the orchestrator in Quint, and reproduce its counterexamples
CI / checks (push) Skipped
CI / checks (pull_request) Successful in 1m14s
specs/orchestrator.qnt models control.py: states, gate, pending
questions, comment cursors, publish intents and the worker queue, with
operator messages, Gitea comments, work outcomes (exceptions included)
and a crash at any point interleaving freely. Eight properties.

Seven counterexamples, each written out as a trace in
specs/orchestrator_scenarios.qnt and reproduced against the real code in
nisse-dev/tests/test_quint_counterexamples.py (xfail, strict, until
fixed):

1-4 an approval or feedback lands on a plan the operator had not seen:
    a double 'approve', 'approve rev-1' meant for the architecture,
    approving on both channels, and 'approve' plus an afterthought;
5   a crash after the PR opens but before PR_OPEN publishes again and
    cannot get back to PR_OPEN;
6   a crash while answering a review comment loses it silently;
7   'project complete' leaves the plan issue open.

no_stranding, await_input_has_a_question and execution_needs_approval
held over 200,000 random traces of 40 steps, and under Apalache's
exhaustive check to depth 8, which does find counterexample 1 at that
depth. No behaviour changes here.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01PPQ14L3LikyefCMFBqEbKE
2026-09-29 18:51:59 +00:00