3 Commits

Include renames

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
dongarandClaude Opus 5.5	b0c5f48be4	Handle leading mentions in Matrix messages ... Clients put the addressee's name in front of a message that mentions it ("Nisse Dev Testing: re-plan"), and the transport passed that text on whole, so no command matched: the live run's re-plan was asked again, and an addressed 'approve' would have counted as rejection feedback. - A leading mention of the agent (an HTML pill, its user ID, or its display name followed by ':') is removed before commands are matched. The display name is learnt from the agent's own member event. - A message whose leading mention is someone else is skipped: in a shared room it is addressed to another agent or person. - Only the start counts; a mention later in the text is left alone. - The transcript records the message as sent (InboundMessage.original). The sender is unaffected: it still comes from the event's homeserver-set sender field, never from the text. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>	2026-09-29 15:59:27 +00:00
dongarandClaude Opus 5.5	e5450e3e77	Keep a pending question across restarts, and make the restart question answerable ... A restart in AWAIT_INPUT replaced the saved pending item with a generic "continue or re-plan?" whose answer nothing handled: the reply cleared it and left the agent in AWAIT_INPUT with nothing to resume, where 'use' was refused too. The first live run hit this after a planning failure and could not be moved by any message. - Waiting on the operator is a committed state (A3 step 8): on boot, ask the saved question again instead of replacing it. _await_input keeps the prompt with the pending item for this. - The restart question (A3 step 7) records the state it interrupted, and 'continue' / 're-plan' now do what they offer: re-run the interrupted planning turn, or return an interrupted milestone to its approved plan. Any other reply asks again rather than being swallowed. - With nothing pending, 'use <project>' starts over, as the reply already advised. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>	2026-09-29 15:03:37 +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