Compare commits
75
Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|
 zhuyongxin
|
83193bdf4a | ||
|
zhuyongxin
|
de56551fea | ||
|
zhuyongxin
|
da18fdf4e1 | ||
|
aruo
|
e1b8d1fb2c | ||
|
zhuyongxin
|
074d1aa5a9 | ||
|
zhuyongxin
|
f26d395650 | ||
|
zhuyongxin
|
ff0752a16c | ||
|
zhuyongxin
|
7844bcea40 | ||
|
wdm1802
|
e564863c43 | ||
|
wdm1802
|
d084202166 | ||
|
zhuyongxin
|
5b2fb985d9 | ||
|
zhuyongxin
|
b39a625e5b | ||
|
zhuyongxin
|
e9f1c48d34 | ||
|
zhuyongxin
|
3a7eee8af4 | ||
|
zhuyongxin
|
584639fa2a | ||
|
zhuyongxin
|
bdac35567c | ||
|
zhuyongxin
|
7ae9707a3b | ||
|
zhuyongxin
|
2f40536248 | ||
|
zhuyongxin
|
729cd3544a | ||
|
zhuyongxin
|
1e532fb851 | ||
|
zhuyongxin
|
38f781b157 | ||
|
zhuyongxin
|
5c369f3b6c | ||
|
zhuyongxin
|
f035538531 | ||
|
zhuyongxin
|
376ad0c241 | ||
|
zhuyongxin
|
ac1f831903 | ||
|
zhuyongxin
|
99d4f6f216 | ||
|
aruo
|
edb6153fd6 | ||
|
aruo
|
d0452184ee | ||
|
zhuyongxin
|
de5a5b09d9 | ||
|
zhuyongxin
|
e47f2dead0 | ||
|
zhuyongxin
|
49180abccf | ||
|
zhuyongxin
|
529f4ff43b | ||
|
zhuyongxin
|
75fa154a0a | ||
|
zhuyongxin
|
8300435a63 | ||
|
zhuyongxin
|
e20249c5d9 | ||
|
zhuyongxin
|
8fbc443f76 | ||
|
zhuyongxin
|
8ee7cc0b70 | ||
|
zhuyongxin
|
bc36248cd8 | ||
|
zhuyongxin
|
f8809cb7dd | ||
|
zhuyongxin
|
ee0949d464 | ||
|
zhuyongxin
|
2362665519 | ||
|
zhuyongxin
|
85029d96a7 | ||
|
zhuyongxin
|
3e602781d6 | ||
|
zhuyongxin
|
0dbdd7d8d3 | ||
|
zhuyongxin
|
6b74990f86 | ||
|
zhuyongxin
|
4274f3350b | ||
|
zhuyongxin
|
58c39107c5 | ||
|
zhuyongxin
|
30d3296043 | ||
|
zhuyongxin
|
3578709896 | ||
|
zhuyongxin
|
f9df94377b | ||
|
zhuyongxin
|
78c1477198 | ||
|
zhuyongxin
|
d928a1968a | ||
|
zhuyongxin
|
027aed1eeb | ||
|
zhuyongxin
|
26d5529280 | ||
|
zhuyongxin
|
6fdbd34bab | ||
|
zhuyongxin
|
52bf0302c6 | ||
|
zhuyongxin
|
841437fa06 | ||
|
zhuyongxin
|
9c9a0024d4 | ||
|
zhuyongxin
|
a6c2d4459c | ||
|
zhuyongxin
|
da45fa3fb0 | ||
|
aruo
|
db0f229285 | ||
|
aruo
|
a77c947cd4 | ||
|
aruo
|
9a84b3de34 | ||
|
aruo
|
7b8c75e571 | ||
|
aruo
|
a08672b31e | ||
|
aruo
|
6015bcbf6f | ||
|
aruo
|
a5b4502c72 | ||
|
aruo
|
39c0c5f8be | ||
|
aruo
|
1b31e78be5 | ||
|
aruo
|
c5e496e715 | ||
|
aruo
|
050cbc8fee | ||
|
zhuyongxin
|
a6afbfaa9d | ||
|
zhuyongxin
|
0ee27eb523 | ||
|
zhuyongxin
|
3b62a8940c | ||
|
zhuyongxin
|
04eb50e2b4 |
@@ -0,0 +1,259 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
name: essence
|
||||
description: Invoke when a project is too large or you only want the core design insights. Extracts 1-2 standout design patterns with deep analysis, lens-guided perspectives, and migration examples. Not for full project analysis or quick lookups.
|
||||
metadata:
|
||||
version: "0.5.0"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Essence: Extract Core Design Patterns
|
||||
|
||||
Prefix your first line with 🥷 inline, not as its own paragraph.
|
||||
|
||||
You are a jewel inspector. A project has thousands of files — your job is to find the one or two brilliant ideas worth stealing.
|
||||
|
||||
**This is NOT a lite version of `/explore`.** `/explore` reads the whole project and summarizes at the end. `/essence` goes deep on one thing and ignores everything else.
|
||||
|
||||
## Mode Selection
|
||||
|
||||
First, check whether an `/explore` result exists:
|
||||
|
||||
- `/explore` report exists → it already identified 2-3 core designs, default to **User-directed**. Ask the user which design to deep-dive, or whether to switch mode.
|
||||
- No `/explore` result → this is an independent launch, default to **Auto-detect**.
|
||||
|
||||
Always confirm before proceeding:
|
||||
|
||||
| Mode | When | Entry |
|
||||
|---|---|---|
|
||||
| **User-directed** | Already have a design target from `/explore`, or know exactly which design to investigate | User tells you what to look for |
|
||||
| **Auto-detect** | Independent launch, project is large, want the AI to find the standout design | You find the standout design |
|
||||
| **Lens-guided** | "Analyze this from a [mechanical/intentional/evolution] perspective" | Apply a specific analytical lens |
|
||||
|
||||
### Lens definitions
|
||||
|
||||
| Lens | Core question | Guided behavior |
|
||||
|---|---|---|
|
||||
| **Mechanical** (default) | How does it work? | Read source code, trace call chains, examine interfaces |
|
||||
| **Intentional** | Why this way? | Read design docs/RFCs/PRs, extract decision rationale and tradeoffs |
|
||||
| **Evolution** | How did it get here? | Read git history/changelog, compare before/after, identify migration drivers |
|
||||
|
||||
A lens shapes which sources to read and how to frame the output, but does not add separate phases.
|
||||
|
||||
### Auto-detect signals
|
||||
|
||||
A design is "essence" if it passes 2 or more of these signals:
|
||||
|
||||
| Signal | Evidence |
|
||||
|---|---|
|
||||
| README highlights it prominently | "Built on a plugin architecture" as a headline feature |
|
||||
| Has standalone architecture docs | ARCHITECTURE.md, docs/design/, blog post by author |
|
||||
| Heavily discussed in Issues/PRs | Design decisions debated by community |
|
||||
| Unique among similar projects | Competitors don't do it this way |
|
||||
| Rich design comments in code | JSDoc/TSDoc explaining why, not what |
|
||||
| Cross-module contract | A type, interface, or protocol imported across module boundaries (not just files). Go: most-implemented interface. Python: most-subclassed abstract base. Rust: most-implemented trait. These define subsystem relationships. |
|
||||
| File size anomaly | One file is disproportionately large or small for its responsibility — signals non-trivial logic |
|
||||
| Dedicated test coverage | Tests specifically validate this design's behavior, not just happy paths |
|
||||
|
||||
**"Clean code" is NOT a signal.** A well-written utility function is not essence. An architecture decision that shapes the entire project is.
|
||||
|
||||
If no design passes 2+ signals, tell the user: "This project has no standout design. Try `/explore` for a full analysis instead."
|
||||
|
||||
## Phase 1: Locate
|
||||
|
||||
**User-directed mode:**
|
||||
- Go directly to the directory or file the user names.
|
||||
- If the directory doesn't exist, stop and tell the user. Do NOT invent an alternative.
|
||||
|
||||
**Auto-detect mode:**
|
||||
- Scan README, AGENTS.md, and top-level docs for architecture claims.
|
||||
- Identify 1-2 standout design directions.
|
||||
- Present to the user: "The standout designs appear to be: A) {design A}, B) {design B}. Which should we dive into?"
|
||||
- If user doesn't choose, pick the strongest one and state why.
|
||||
|
||||
**Lens-guided mode:**
|
||||
- Confirm the lens with the user (Mechanical/Intentional/Evolution).
|
||||
- Frame the search in terms of the lens.
|
||||
- Example: "You want the Mechanical view — I'll trace the core implementation and extract the pattern."
|
||||
|
||||
**Output:** 1-2 design directions to analyze + lens confirmation.
|
||||
|
||||
**Stall signal:** Cannot identify any standout design → the project may be a conventional CRUD app or wrapper. Stop and recommend `/explore` or a different project.
|
||||
|
||||
## Phase 2: Deep Dive
|
||||
|
||||
Read the core files related to the chosen design. Maximum 10 files. Let the lens guide source selection: Mechanical → source code and type definitions; Intentional → design docs, RFCs, PR discussions; Evolution → git history, changelog, migration guides.
|
||||
|
||||
**For each file:**
|
||||
- What role does it play in this design?
|
||||
- What interfaces does it expose?
|
||||
- How does it connect to other parts of the system?
|
||||
|
||||
**Trace the call chain:**
|
||||
- Start from the entry point that uses this design.
|
||||
- Follow the flow until you understand the full pattern.
|
||||
- Stop when you hit boilerplate, config, or test files.
|
||||
|
||||
**Output:** Core file list (≤10) + call chain + lens-specific annotations.
|
||||
|
||||
**Stall signal:** The design spans more than 10 files and you can't find the boundary → the design is probably the project's core architecture. Switch to `/explore` for a full analysis instead.
|
||||
|
||||
## Phase 3: Extract Pattern
|
||||
|
||||
Analyze the design at a higher level. Let the lens shape the analysis angle:
|
||||
- **Mechanical** → emphasize structure, interfaces, data flow — produce a pattern diagram + interface contracts
|
||||
- **Intentional** → emphasize decision rationale, tradeoffs — produce a decision record (context → options → rationale)
|
||||
- **Evolution** → emphasize before/after comparison, migration drivers — produce a timeline + catalyst events
|
||||
|
||||
**Universal analysis dimensions** (all lenses):
|
||||
|
||||
- **Problem:** What specific problem does this design solve? What was the pain before?
|
||||
- **Pattern:** What's the name of this pattern? (Named: MVC, Observer, Plugin, Middleware. Custom: describe it in one sentence.)
|
||||
- **Alternatives:** What simpler or more complex approaches could solve the same problem?
|
||||
- **Tradeoffs:** Why did the author choose this? What does it give up?
|
||||
- **Evidence:** What in the code proves this analysis is correct? (Specific files, functions, comments.)
|
||||
|
||||
**Output:** Design pattern card (lens-framed).
|
||||
|
||||
**Stall signal:** Cannot explain why the author chose this design over alternatives → read commit messages and PR discussions for design rationale. If unavailable, state "author's reasoning unknown" in the report.
|
||||
|
||||
## Phase 4: Migrate
|
||||
|
||||
Make the learning actionable. Let the lens tailor the output:
|
||||
- **Mechanical** → copy-paste code skeleton (≤20 lines with TODOs)
|
||||
- **Intentional** → decision framework (checklist for evaluating tradeoffs)
|
||||
- **Evolution** → migration path (step-by-step refactor plan)
|
||||
|
||||
**Universal deliverables** (all lenses):
|
||||
|
||||
- **Can you use this?** Is the design applicable to the user's own projects? If not, why?
|
||||
- **Steal-it example:** A simplified version (under 20 lines) that captures the core idea. Not production code — a teaching example.
|
||||
- **Pitfalls:** What context does this design depend on? What would break if you copy it blindly?
|
||||
|
||||
**Output:** Migration example + pitfall list (lens-tailored).
|
||||
|
||||
**Stall signal:** The design depends on framework internals, language features, or ecosystem the user doesn't have → explain the core idea abstractly instead of providing code.
|
||||
|
||||
## Phase 5: Self-review
|
||||
|
||||
Check the report is honest:
|
||||
|
||||
**All modes:**
|
||||
- [ ] The design is real (not inferred, not imagined). Evidence: specific files cited.
|
||||
- [ ] The analysis is deep enough that you could explain it out loud.
|
||||
- [ ] The migration example captures the core idea, not surface syntax.
|
||||
- [ ] Pitfalls are specific, not vague ("needs X version" not "may not work everywhere").
|
||||
|
||||
**Stall signals (any one → return to relevant phase):**
|
||||
- Cannot name a file that proves the pattern → back to Phase 2
|
||||
- Cannot explain why it's better than alternatives → back to Phase 3
|
||||
- Migration example is over 20 lines → simplify, back to Phase 4
|
||||
- Lens-specific check failed (e.g., Mechanical missing end-to-end call chain, Intentional missing decision rationale, Evolution missing timeline) → back to relevant phase
|
||||
|
||||
**Output:** Essence report with lens annotation.
|
||||
|
||||
## Optional: HTML Card
|
||||
|
||||
**Only when the user explicitly requests it.**
|
||||
|
||||
Generate an HTML visualization card as a shareable deliverable.
|
||||
|
||||
### HTML Card Structure (Glassmorphism 2.0 - Essence Variant)
|
||||
|
||||
```html
|
||||
<!DOCTYPE html>
|
||||
<html lang="zh-CN">
|
||||
<head>
|
||||
<meta charset="UTF-8">
|
||||
<title>{Project Name} - Essence Report</title>
|
||||
<script src="https://cdn.tailwindcss.com"></script>
|
||||
<script src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/npm/mermaid/dist/mermaid.min.js"></script>
|
||||
<style>
|
||||
/* Same glassmorphism styles as /explore */
|
||||
:root { --glass-bg: rgba(255,255,255,0.4); --primary: #8b5cf6; }
|
||||
[data-theme="dark"] { --glass-bg: rgba(15,23,42,0.6); --primary: #a78bfa; }
|
||||
.glass-panel { backdrop-filter: blur(12px); border-radius: 1rem; }
|
||||
.pattern-diagram { font-family: monospace; background: rgba(0,0,0,0.03); }
|
||||
</style>
|
||||
</head>
|
||||
<body class="p-8">
|
||||
<nav class="fixed top-4 left-1/2 -translate-x-1/2 w-[90%] max-w-4xl glass-panel z-50 px-6 py-3">
|
||||
<span class="font-bold text-xl">💎 {Project Name} 精华</span>
|
||||
<span class="text-sm opacity-70">Lens: {lens} | Pattern: {pattern_name}</span>
|
||||
</nav>
|
||||
|
||||
<main class="max-w-4xl mx-auto mt-24 space-y-6">
|
||||
<section class="glass-panel p-6">
|
||||
<h2 class="text-xl font-bold mb-4">🎯 Design Analyzed</h2>
|
||||
<p>{one-line description}</p>
|
||||
</section>
|
||||
|
||||
<section class="glass-panel p-6">
|
||||
<h2 class="text-xl font-bold mb-4">🔷 Pattern ({lens})</h2>
|
||||
<!-- Lens-framed pattern card -->
|
||||
</section>
|
||||
|
||||
<section class="glass-panel p-6">
|
||||
<h2 class="text-xl font-bold mb-4">🔗 Call Chain</h2>
|
||||
<pre class="mermaid">{diagram}</pre>
|
||||
</section>
|
||||
|
||||
<section class="glass-panel p-6">
|
||||
<h2 class="text-xl font-bold mb-4">📦 Migration Example</h2>
|
||||
<pre class="pattern-diagram"><code>{code_example}</code></pre>
|
||||
<p class="text-sm opacity-70 mt-2">Pitfalls: {pitfalls}</p>
|
||||
</section>
|
||||
</main>
|
||||
|
||||
<script>mermaid.initialize({ startOnLoad: true });</script>
|
||||
</body>
|
||||
</html>
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
### Output Format
|
||||
|
||||
```markdown
|
||||
### HTML Card Generated
|
||||
|
||||
- **Path:** `outputs/{project}-essence.html`
|
||||
- **Theme:** {modern/ink}
|
||||
- **Accent Color:** Purple (essence = jewel)
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
**When to skip:** Skip HTML generation unless the user requests it or the analysis is production-critical. When HTML generation fails, deliver a plain-text report instead.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Hard Rules
|
||||
|
||||
- **No code evidence = no conclusion.** Every claim about a design must cite a specific file, function, or comment.
|
||||
- **Under 20 lines for migration examples.** If you can't explain the idea in 20 lines, you don't understand it well enough.
|
||||
- **Stop after the report.** Do not modify the user's project or the target project.
|
||||
- **HTML is optional.** Do not block analysis on HTML generation.
|
||||
|
||||
## Gotchas
|
||||
|
||||
| What happened | Rule |
|
||||
|---|---|
|
||||
| 提取的"精华"是 AI 脑补的 | 必须有代码证据（文件 + 行号），不写空泛结论 |
|
||||
| 用户指定方向但该模块不存在 | 停止并告知用户，不编造替代方向 |
|
||||
| 项目没有 standout 设计（胶水代码） | 标记"无可提取精华"，建议改用 `/explore` |
|
||||
| Phase 4 迁移示例超过 20 行 | 简化到核心思路，不是复制生产代码 |
|
||||
| 分析了一个小工具函数 | 工具函数不是设计。设计影响整个架构，工具只解决一个问题 |
|
||||
| 从 commit message 推断作者意图但没有代码佐证 | Commit message 是辅助证据，必须有代码结构本身的支持 |
|
||||
| 透镜模式选错导致输出不符预期 | Phase 1 先确认透镜，Mechanical 读代码、Intentional 读文档、Evolution 读历史 |
|
||||
| 透镜分析流于表面 | 每个透镜有特定输出格式：Mechanical→图 + 接口，Intentional→决策记录，Evolution→时间线 |
|
||||
| HTML 卡片生成失败 | 降级到纯文本报告，不阻塞分析交付 |
|
||||
|
||||
## Outcome
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
Essence Report: {project name}
|
||||
Lens: mechanical / intentional / evolution
|
||||
Design analyzed: {one-line description}
|
||||
Files examined: {count}
|
||||
Pattern: {pattern name or custom description}
|
||||
Migration: {steal-it example, ≤20 lines}
|
||||
HTML generated: yes / no
|
||||
Status: complete
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
After the report, stop. No modifications. No follow-ups.
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,79 @@
|
||||
# Essence Detection Signals
|
||||
|
||||
How to identify the standout design in a project when the user doesn't specify a direction.
|
||||
|
||||
## Signal Strength
|
||||
|
||||
A design passes the "essence" threshold if it scores 2+ signals.
|
||||
|
||||
### Strong Signals (score = 1 each)
|
||||
|
||||
| Signal | How to detect | Example |
|
||||
|---|---|---|
|
||||
| **README headline** | Project name is followed by a design claim | "Vite — Next generation frontend tooling with **ESM-first architecture**" |
|
||||
| **Architecture docs** | Standalone design document exists | `ARCHITECTURE.md`, `docs/design/`, `docs/architecture/` |
|
||||
| **Official blog post** | Author wrote about the design on their blog | tw93.fun, Vite blog, React blog posts |
|
||||
| **Community discussion** | Issues/PRs debate the design decision | "Why we chose X over Y" discussions with many comments |
|
||||
| **Rich code comments** | JSDoc/TSDoc explaining WHY, not WHAT | "We use this pattern because..." with detailed reasoning |
|
||||
|
||||
### Objective Signals (score = 1 each, no subjective judgment needed)
|
||||
|
||||
| Signal | How to detect | Example |
|
||||
|---|---|---|
|
||||
| **Cross-module contract** | A type, interface, or protocol imported across module boundaries (not just files). Go: most-implemented interface. Python: most-subclassed abstract base. Rust: most-implemented trait. | `Plugin` interface implemented by 8 subsystems, each in its own package |
|
||||
| **File size anomaly** | One file's line count is ≥3× the median for its category (handlers, utils, etc.) | Average handler: 50 lines. One handler: 800 lines with state machine logic |
|
||||
| **Dedicated test coverage** | Tests exist specifically for this design's edge cases, not just happy paths | `plugin.test.ts` tests plugin resolution, fallback, lifecycle — not just "it loads" |
|
||||
|
||||
### Weak Signals (score = 0.5 each)
|
||||
|
||||
| Signal | How to detect | Example |
|
||||
|---|---|---|
|
||||
| **Unique among competitors** | Same category, different architecture | Next.js uses SSR, Remix uses nested routes — that difference IS the essence |
|
||||
| **Most-starred files** | GitHub shows stars/bookmarks on specific files | "This file has 200+ stars on GitHub" |
|
||||
| **Core algorithm** | One file contains non-trivial logic that drives the project | Diff algorithm, compiler pass, state machine |
|
||||
| **API design** | The public API is notably elegant or unusual | `create()` returns a builder chain, not an object |
|
||||
|
||||
## Not Signals
|
||||
|
||||
These do NOT count as essence:
|
||||
|
||||
- "Clean code" or "well organized" — that's quality, not design
|
||||
- "Uses TypeScript" — that's a language choice, not architecture
|
||||
- "Has good tests" — that's engineering discipline, not design
|
||||
- "Many stars on the repo" — popularity ≠ design quality
|
||||
- "Uses the latest framework" — following trends ≠ standing out
|
||||
- Utility functions — even well-written ones are tools, not designs
|
||||
|
||||
## Auto-detect Procedure
|
||||
|
||||
When the user says "find the essence":
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Read README fully.** What is the #1 feature the author leads with? That's a candidate.
|
||||
2. **Check for design docs.** Is there `ARCHITECTURE.md` or equivalent? That's a candidate.
|
||||
3. **Scan the import graph.** Which file is imported by the most other files? Use `grep -r "import.*from" src/ | sort | uniq -c | sort -rn` or equivalent. The top result is likely the core.
|
||||
4. **Check file sizes.** Are any files disproportionately large or small for their apparent role? That signals hidden complexity.
|
||||
5. **Check uniqueness.** Compare with 1-2 well-known alternatives. What does this project do differently?
|
||||
6. **Present 1-2 candidates** to the user with evidence. Let them choose or auto-select the strongest.
|
||||
|
||||
### Example Output Format
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
Standout designs in {project}:
|
||||
|
||||
A) {Design A name} — evidenced by {README claim / file / doc}
|
||||
What it does: {one sentence}
|
||||
|
||||
B) {Design B name} — evidenced by {code comment / unique feature / community discussion}
|
||||
What it does: {one sentence}
|
||||
|
||||
Which should we dive into? (or I can pick the strongest)
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
## Failure Modes
|
||||
|
||||
| Situation | Response |
|
||||
|---|---|
|
||||
| No signal passes 2+ threshold | "This project uses conventional architecture. Try `/explore` for a full analysis, or pick a more architecturally interesting project." |
|
||||
| User-specified module doesn't exist | Stop. Do NOT suggest an alternative. Tell the user the path doesn't exist. |
|
||||
| Project is a wrapper (thin layer over another tool) | "This project is primarily a wrapper around {X}. The design is in {X}, not here. Try analyzing {X} instead." |
|
||||
| Project is configuration-only (just JSON/YAML files) | "This project has no code architecture. It's configuration-driven. Try `/explore` for a full overview instead." |
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,87 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
name: explore
|
||||
description: Invoke when you need project-level understanding and an onboarding path. Produces a project learning report for code and non-code repositories with fixed phases for positioning, structure, flow, start path, and core designs. Not for deep code extraction or interactive teaching.
|
||||
metadata:
|
||||
version: "0.5.0"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Explore: Project Understanding and Onboarding
|
||||
|
||||
Prefix your first line with 🥷 inline, not as its own paragraph.
|
||||
|
||||
You are a project cartographer. Your job is to help the user understand what a project is, why it is worth studying, how it is organized, and where to start.
|
||||
|
||||
`/explore` is the entry point for first contact with a repository or project-like artifact. It builds global understanding. It does not perform code-level essence extraction and it does not run interactive teaching.
|
||||
|
||||
## Project Type Detection
|
||||
|
||||
After the initial scan, classify the target before continuing:
|
||||
|
||||
| Type | Signals | What changes |
|
||||
|---|---|---|
|
||||
| **Code repository** | `go.mod`, `pyproject.toml`, `Cargo.toml`, source directories, executable entrypoints | Run all 4 phases |
|
||||
| **Skill / docs / knowledge repository** | `SKILL.md`, mostly Markdown, docs-first structure, no runnable application entrypoint | Skip Phase 2 (Flow) and Phase 3 (Start Path) |
|
||||
| **Template / scaffold repository** | Starter files, minimal logic, setup-first repo | Phase 2 may stay structural and Phase 3 may be minimal |
|
||||
|
||||
State the detected type before proceeding. If uncertain, say what evidence is missing and continue with the closest matching type.
|
||||
|
||||
## Phase 1: Positioning & Structure
|
||||
- What this project is, why it is worth studying, and who it is for.
|
||||
- Top-level structure: main modules, documents, directories, and the likely learning entry area.
|
||||
- Tradeoffs vs alternatives when evidence exists.
|
||||
|
||||
## Phase 2: Flow
|
||||
**Code repositories only.**
|
||||
- Skip for non-code and template repositories.
|
||||
- Trace the main runtime or request flow.
|
||||
- Produce at least one architecture or core-flow diagram.
|
||||
- Keep the trace focused on the golden path rather than exhaustive coverage.
|
||||
|
||||
## Phase 3: Start Path
|
||||
**Code repositories only when runnable or meaningfully inspectable.**
|
||||
- Provide the minimal path to start learning or running the project.
|
||||
- Give the first command or first inspection step.
|
||||
- Suggest one safe first modification or observation point when appropriate.
|
||||
|
||||
## Phase 4: Core Designs
|
||||
- Summarize 2-3 core implementations or ideas.
|
||||
- Keep this at overview depth.
|
||||
- For each item, include what it is, where it lives, and why it matters.
|
||||
|
||||
## Minimum Deliverables
|
||||
|
||||
The final `/explore` report must include:
|
||||
- Project positioning
|
||||
- Why it is worth studying
|
||||
- 2-3 core implementations or core ideas
|
||||
- Tradeoffs or comparisons when applicable
|
||||
- At least 1 diagram:
|
||||
- code repository → architecture diagram or core flow diagram
|
||||
- non-code repository → structure diagram, idea map, or workflow diagram
|
||||
|
||||
## Boundary Rules
|
||||
|
||||
`/explore` may:
|
||||
- scan structure
|
||||
- explain the main flow
|
||||
- provide a minimal start path
|
||||
- summarize 2-3 core designs
|
||||
|
||||
`/explore` must not:
|
||||
- perform `/essence`-level deep extraction
|
||||
- act as `/follow`-style guided teaching
|
||||
- include Verify, Deep Fission, or HTML Output phases
|
||||
- preserve no retired lightweight fallback behavior
|
||||
|
||||
## Outcome
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
Explore Report: {project name}
|
||||
Project type: code / skill-docs / template
|
||||
Phases completed: 4/4 (or note skipped code-only phases)
|
||||
Diagram included: yes / no
|
||||
Core designs: 2-3
|
||||
Status: complete
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
After the report, stop. Do not proceed to `/essence` or `/follow` automatically.
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,98 @@
|
||||
# Project Analysis Methods
|
||||
|
||||
How to read and understand an unfamiliar code project.
|
||||
|
||||
## 1. Identify the Entry Point
|
||||
|
||||
Every project has a door. Find it first.
|
||||
|
||||
### By Language
|
||||
|
||||
| Language | Look for |
|
||||
|---|---|
|
||||
| **JavaScript/TypeScript** | `package.json` → `main` / `bin` / `scripts.dev` |
|
||||
| **Python** | `setup.py` → `entry_points`, `pyproject.toml` → `[project.scripts]`, or top-level `app.py` / `main.py` / `__main__.py` |
|
||||
| **Go** | `package main` in any file, conventionally `main.go` or `cmd/*/main.go` |
|
||||
| **Rust** | `src/main.rs` or `src/bin/*.rs` |
|
||||
| **Java** | Class with `public static void main(String[] args)` |
|
||||
| **C/C++** | `main()` function, conventionally in `src/main.c` |
|
||||
| **Swift** | `main.swift` or file with `@main` attribute |
|
||||
|
||||
### In Frameworks
|
||||
|
||||
| Framework | Entry point |
|
||||
|---|---|
|
||||
| Next.js | `app/` or `pages/` directory, `next.config.js` |
|
||||
| React (Vite) | `src/main.tsx` or `src/main.jsx` |
|
||||
| Vue (Vite) | `src/main.ts` or `src/main.js` |
|
||||
| Express | File that calls `app.listen()` |
|
||||
| FastAPI | File that creates `FastAPI()` instance |
|
||||
| Django | `manage.py`, then project name directory with `urls.py` / `wsgi.py` |
|
||||
| Flask | `app.py` or `app/__init__.py` |
|
||||
| Spring Boot | `*Application.java` with `@SpringBootApplication` |
|
||||
|
||||
## 2. Judge Project Complexity
|
||||
|
||||
Don't over-engineer simple projects. Don't under-analyze complex ones.
|
||||
|
||||
### Simple (<50 files, single language)
|
||||
- Read every source file.
|
||||
- No need for flow diagrams beyond a simple sequence.
|
||||
- A light `/explore` pass is probably enough.
|
||||
|
||||
### Standard (50-500 files, 1-2 languages)
|
||||
- Read entry point + core modules + 1-2 feature files.
|
||||
- Build 1-2 flow diagrams.
|
||||
- `/explore` is the right level.
|
||||
|
||||
### Complex (>500 files, multi-language, monorepo)
|
||||
- Read entry point + architecture docs + one representative module.
|
||||
- Use `/essence` to find standout designs, or `/explore` for one package at a time.
|
||||
- Do NOT try to understand the whole project in one pass.
|
||||
|
||||
## 3. Separate Core Code from Scaffolding
|
||||
|
||||
Not all files are worth reading.
|
||||
|
||||
### Ignore (scaffolding)
|
||||
- `*.config.js`, `*.config.ts` — configuration, not logic
|
||||
- `dist/`, `build/`, `out/` — generated output
|
||||
- `node_modules/`, `vendor/`, `.venv/` — dependencies
|
||||
- `*.lock`, `yarn.lock`, `go.sum` — lock files
|
||||
- `LICENSE`, `CODEOWNERS`, `.editorconfig` — project meta
|
||||
- `test/fixtures/`, `test/data/` — test data
|
||||
|
||||
### Read (core)
|
||||
- Entry point file
|
||||
- Router/middleware/config handlers
|
||||
- Model/entity/schema definitions
|
||||
- Core algorithm or business logic files
|
||||
- Files referenced most in imports
|
||||
|
||||
### Hint: Follow imports
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
entry file → import A → import B → core logic
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
Each import is a dependency. Follow the chain until you hit a file that doesn't import anything else — that's usually the core.
|
||||
|
||||
## 4. Read Unfamiliar Framework Code
|
||||
|
||||
You don't know every framework. That's fine.
|
||||
|
||||
### Strategy
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Find the routing layer first.** Every framework has a way to map URLs or events to handlers. Find it. It tells you the project's capabilities.
|
||||
|
||||
2. **Follow ONE request end-to-end.** Don't try to understand all routes. Pick the simplest one (often "health check" or "get by ID") and trace it from entry to response.
|
||||
|
||||
3. **Identify the framework's conventions.** Most frameworks follow a pattern:
|
||||
- MVC: Controller → Model → View
|
||||
- Middleware: Request → Middleware chain → Handler → Response
|
||||
- Component: Parent renders children, props flow down, events flow up
|
||||
- Plugin: Core calls hooks, plugins register handlers
|
||||
|
||||
4. **Don't fight the framework's abstraction.** If the project uses ORM, don't look for raw SQL. If it uses dependency injection, don't look for `new()` calls. Understand what abstraction layer they chose.
|
||||
|
||||
5. **Use the framework's own docs.** If stuck on "how does this framework work?", check the official docs. Don't reverse-engineer what's documented.
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,173 @@
|
||||
# Flow Pattern Library
|
||||
|
||||
Common architecture patterns and how to identify them in code.
|
||||
|
||||
## MVC / MVVM / MVX
|
||||
|
||||
### What it is
|
||||
Separation of data (Model), UI/presentation (View), and coordination logic (Controller/ViewModel).
|
||||
|
||||
### File signatures
|
||||
| Pattern | Directories/Files |
|
||||
|---|---|
|
||||
| **MVC** | `controllers/`, `models/`, `views/` |
|
||||
| **MVVM** | `viewmodels/`, `views/`, `models/` |
|
||||
| **Layered** | `app/`, `domain/`, `infrastructure/` (Clean/Hexagonal) |
|
||||
|
||||
### Flow
|
||||
```
|
||||
Request → Controller → Model (data) → View (render) → Response
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
### Key question
|
||||
"Does the file handle data, display, or coordination?" If yes → MVC-family.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Middleware Chain
|
||||
|
||||
### What it is
|
||||
Each handler processes the request and passes it to the next. Like an assembly line.
|
||||
|
||||
### File signatures
|
||||
| Framework | Indicator |
|
||||
|---|---|---|
|
||||
| **Express/Koa** | `app.use(...)`, `app.get('/', handler)` |
|
||||
| **FastAPI** | `@app.middleware("http")`, `Depends()` |
|
||||
| **Next.js** | `middleware.ts` at root or in `app/` |
|
||||
| **Gin (Go)** | `router.Use(middleware1, middleware2)` |
|
||||
| **Koa** | `app.use(async (ctx, next) => { ... })` |
|
||||
|
||||
### Flow
|
||||
```
|
||||
Request → Middleware A → Middleware B → Handler → Response
|
||||
↓ ↓
|
||||
auth check log request
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
### Key question
|
||||
"Does this function call `next()` or pass control to something else?" If yes → middleware.
|
||||
|
||||
### Common middleware order
|
||||
```
|
||||
1. CORS / Security headers
|
||||
2. Logging / Request ID
|
||||
3. Authentication / Authorization
|
||||
4. Body parsing / Validation
|
||||
5. Rate limiting
|
||||
6. Route handler
|
||||
7. Error handler (catches everything above)
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Plugin / Extension System
|
||||
|
||||
### What it is
|
||||
Core provides hooks or interfaces. External code registers handlers. The core doesn't know about specific plugins.
|
||||
|
||||
### File signatures
|
||||
| Pattern | Indicator |
|
||||
|---|---|
|
||||
| **Hook-based** | `registerHook('eventName', handler)`, `hooks.on('event', fn)` |
|
||||
| **Interface-based** | Abstract class or interface that plugins implement |
|
||||
| **Discovery-based** | Directory scan (`plugins/`), import all, register by convention |
|
||||
| **VSCode-style** | `contributes` in `package.json`, activation events |
|
||||
|
||||
### Flow
|
||||
```
|
||||
Core starts
|
||||
↓
|
||||
Scans for plugins
|
||||
↓
|
||||
Each plugin registers itself
|
||||
↓
|
||||
Core fires hooks → plugins respond
|
||||
↓
|
||||
Core runs with extended capabilities
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
### Key question
|
||||
"Can I add functionality without modifying core code?" If yes → plugin architecture.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Event-Driven
|
||||
|
||||
### What it is
|
||||
Components communicate through events, not direct calls. Publishers emit, subscribers listen.
|
||||
|
||||
### File signatures
|
||||
| Pattern | Indicator |
|
||||
|---|---|
|
||||
| **Node EventEmitter** | `eventEmitter.on('event', handler)`, `eventEmitter.emit('event', data)` |
|
||||
| **Pub/Sub** | `pubsub.subscribe('channel', handler)`, `pubsub.publish('channel', data)` |
|
||||
| **Redux-style** | `dispatch(action)`, `reducer(state, action) → newState` |
|
||||
| **Observable** | `observable.subscribe(fn)`, `pipe(map, filter)` |
|
||||
| **Signals (Python)** | `@signal.connect`, `signal.send()` |
|
||||
|
||||
### Flow
|
||||
```
|
||||
Component A emits "user.created"
|
||||
↓
|
||||
Listener B hears it → sends welcome email
|
||||
Listener C hears it → creates default settings
|
||||
Listener D hears it → logs analytics
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
### Key question
|
||||
"Does code communicate without importing or calling each other directly?" If yes → event-driven.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## State Management
|
||||
|
||||
### What it is
|
||||
Centralized storage for application state. Components read and update through defined interfaces.
|
||||
|
||||
### File signatures
|
||||
| Pattern | Indicator |
|
||||
|---|---|
|
||||
| **Redux** | `createStore()`, `dispatch()`, `useSelector()`, `@reduxjs/toolkit` |
|
||||
| **Zustand** | `create((set) => ({ ... }))` |
|
||||
| **Jotai** | `atom(value)`, `useAtom(atom)` |
|
||||
| **MobX** | `@observable`, `@action`, `@computed` |
|
||||
| **React Context** | `createContext()`, `useContext()`, `Provider` |
|
||||
| **Pinia (Vue)** | `defineStore()`, `state`, `actions` |
|
||||
|
||||
### Flow
|
||||
```
|
||||
Component dispatches action
|
||||
↓
|
||||
Reducer processes action + current state
|
||||
↓
|
||||
New state emitted
|
||||
↓
|
||||
Subscribed components re-render
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
### Key question
|
||||
"Where does the app store data that multiple components need?" If it's a single store → state management pattern.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Pipeline / Chain of Responsibility
|
||||
|
||||
### What it is
|
||||
Data flows through a series of processors. Each processor transforms the data and passes it on.
|
||||
|
||||
### File signatures
|
||||
| Pattern | Indicator |
|
||||
|---|---|
|
||||
| **Stream processing** | `.pipe(transform1).pipe(transform2)` |
|
||||
| **Compiler/lexer** | Source → Tokenize → Parse → Transform → Generate |
|
||||
| **Data pipeline** | `input → transform → validate → output` |
|
||||
| **Makefile** | Target depends on prerequisites, each is a step |
|
||||
|
||||
### Flow
|
||||
```
|
||||
Raw input → Tokenizer → Parser → Transformer → Generator → Output
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
### Key question
|
||||
"Does data get progressively transformed through a fixed sequence of steps?" If yes → pipeline.
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,101 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
name: follow
|
||||
description: Invoke when the user wants an interactive learning session based on an existing `/explore` or `/essence` report. Guides runnable or reader-style follow-along sessions. Not for fresh project analysis or pattern-only extraction.
|
||||
metadata:
|
||||
version: "0.5.0"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Follow: Guided Learning Session
|
||||
|
||||
Prefix your first line with 🥷 inline, not as its own paragraph.
|
||||
|
||||
You are a guide. The user wants to learn from a project step by step with help, context, and correction. You guide the learning process, but you do not replace it.
|
||||
|
||||
`/follow` is not a fresh project analyzer. It only works from an existing `/explore` or `/essence` result.
|
||||
|
||||
## Pre-check
|
||||
|
||||
`/follow` only works when there is already an `/explore` report or an `/essence` report.
|
||||
|
||||
- `/explore` report exists → use it as the main learning path
|
||||
- `/essence` report exists → use it for design-focused guided study
|
||||
- Neither exists → refuse clearly
|
||||
|
||||
Refusal behavior:
|
||||
"I need an existing `/explore` or `/essence` result before I can guide a follow-along session. Please run `/explore` for project understanding or `/essence` for a focused deep dive first."
|
||||
|
||||
Load the existing report before continuing.
|
||||
|
||||
## Mode Selection
|
||||
|
||||
After the pre-check, select one mode based on the prerequisite report:
|
||||
|
||||
- From `/explore` + code repository → default **Runnable**
|
||||
- From `/explore` + non-code repository → force **Reader**
|
||||
- From `/essence` → default **Reader** (user is in design-analysis state)
|
||||
|
||||
| Mode | When | Entry |
|
||||
|---|---|---|
|
||||
| **Runnable** | Report confirms the project is a runnable code repository and the user wants to learn by running and changing it | Start from environment and first execution |
|
||||
| **Reader** | Project has no runtime, or the user is studying design/architecture, or the prerequisite report is from `/essence` | Start from guided reading |
|
||||
|
||||
State the selected mode before proceeding. Do not re-scan the project — use the prerequisite report to decide.
|
||||
|
||||
## Teaching Interaction Rules
|
||||
|
||||
`/follow` must teach by guidance, not by dumping answers:
|
||||
- explain the purpose of the current step first
|
||||
- give the user an observation point or action point
|
||||
- ask the user to predict, try, or explain before revealing the answer
|
||||
- then reveal, correct, or deepen the explanation
|
||||
- never say "go read the code" as a standalone instruction. When referencing code, always start with: what design idea this code embodies, why it matters in the overall architecture, and what the user should pay attention to
|
||||
|
||||
## Runnable Check
|
||||
|
||||
Before Runnable mode, confirm from the **prerequisite report** (do not re-scan the project):
|
||||
- If the report identified the target as a code repository with a recognized runtime (`go.mod`, `pyproject.toml`, `Cargo.toml`, `Makefile`, `build.gradle`, `pom.xml`, `CMakeLists.txt`, etc.), proceed with Runnable.
|
||||
- If the report classified it as non-code, or no runtime entrypoint was found, switch to Reader and explain why.
|
||||
- If the prerequisite is `/essence`, confirm with the user: essence is design-focused, Reader is the natural fit. Allow Runnable only if the user explicitly insists.
|
||||
- Do not introduce a third mode.
|
||||
|
||||
## Runnable Mode Flow
|
||||
1. Confirm environment and prerequisites.
|
||||
2. Let the user run the project.
|
||||
3. Let the user make one safe change.
|
||||
4. Walk the main flow together.
|
||||
5. Give one small exercise.
|
||||
6. Review what they learned.
|
||||
|
||||
## Reader Mode Flow
|
||||
1. Frame the learning goal around a core design or architectural idea, not a single file.
|
||||
2. Walk through the design concept layer by layer: problem → approach → implementation → tradeoff.
|
||||
3. Ask the user questions that probe understanding ("Why did the author choose this approach over a simpler one?"), not just prediction ("What happens next?").
|
||||
4. Use diagrams or structured summaries to connect the dots between files and design ideas.
|
||||
5. Give one reasoning exercise that tests whether the user can apply the design pattern elsewhere.
|
||||
6. Review what they learned.
|
||||
|
||||
## Boundary Rules
|
||||
|
||||
`/follow` must:
|
||||
- depend on `/explore` or `/essence`
|
||||
- guide the user interactively
|
||||
- adapt between code and non-code repositories through Runnable or Reader emphasis
|
||||
|
||||
`/follow` must not:
|
||||
- rescan the whole project as a new analyzer
|
||||
- reference retired skills as prerequisites
|
||||
- add any third learning mode
|
||||
- execute commands or write code for the user
|
||||
|
||||
## Outcome
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
Follow Session: {project name}
|
||||
Mode: runnable / reader
|
||||
Prerequisite report: /explore or /essence
|
||||
Exercise result: completed / partial / too hard
|
||||
Next direction: {suggested follow-up}
|
||||
Status: complete
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
After the review, stop. Ask whether the user wants another exercise or wants to end the session.
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,113 @@
|
||||
# Environment Detection Rules
|
||||
|
||||
How to detect the runtime environment and guide the user through setup in `/follow`.
|
||||
|
||||
## Language Detection from Config
|
||||
|
||||
Check these files in order. The first match is the primary language.
|
||||
|
||||
| Config file | Language | Runtime check | Install command |
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|
|
||||
| `package.json` | JavaScript/TypeScript | `node --version` | nvm or official installer |
|
||||
| `pyproject.toml` | Python | `python --version` | pyenv or python.org |
|
||||
| `go.mod` | Go | `go version` | golang.org/dl |
|
||||
| `Cargo.toml` | Rust | `rustc --version` | rustup |
|
||||
| `pom.xml` | Java | `java -version` | SDKMAN or official |
|
||||
| `build.gradle` / `build.gradle.kts` | Java/Kotlin | `java -version` | SDKMAN |
|
||||
| `Gemfile` | Ruby | `ruby --version` | rvm or rbenv |
|
||||
| `*.csproj` | C#/.NET | `dotnet --version` | .NET SDK |
|
||||
| `CMakeLists.txt` | C/C++ | `gcc --version` or `clang --version` | System package manager |
|
||||
| `swift package.json` | Swift | `swift --version` | Xcode or swift.org |
|
||||
|
||||
## Dependency Installation
|
||||
|
||||
Once language is detected, guide the user:
|
||||
|
||||
### JavaScript/TypeScript
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
# Check which package manager is used
|
||||
if [ -f "yarn.lock" ]; then yarn install
|
||||
elif [ -f "pnpm-lock.yaml" ]; then pnpm install
|
||||
elif [ -f "bun.lockb" ] || [ -f "bun.lock" ]; then bun install
|
||||
else npm install
|
||||
fi
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
### Python
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
# Modern Python projects
|
||||
pip install -e .
|
||||
# Or with requirements
|
||||
pip install -r requirements.txt
|
||||
# Or with poetry
|
||||
poetry install
|
||||
# Or with uv
|
||||
uv pip install -r requirements.txt
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
### Go
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
go mod download
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
### Rust
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
cargo build
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
### Java (Maven)
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
mvn install
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
### Java (Gradle)
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
./gradlew build
|
||||
# or
|
||||
gradle build
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
## Run Command Detection
|
||||
|
||||
How to start the project:
|
||||
|
||||
| Source | Command |
|
||||
|---|---|
|
||||
| `package.json` → `scripts.dev` | `npm run dev` |
|
||||
| `package.json` → `scripts.start` | `npm start` |
|
||||
| `Makefile` → `dev` target | `make dev` |
|
||||
| `Makefile` → `run` target | `make run` |
|
||||
| `pyproject.toml` (Poetry) | `poetry run python main.py` |
|
||||
| `go.mod` → `package main` | `go run main.go` |
|
||||
| `Cargo.toml` → `[[bin]]` | `cargo run` |
|
||||
| `docker-compose.yml` exists | `docker-compose up` |
|
||||
| `Dockerfile` exists, no compose | `docker build -t app . && docker run app` |
|
||||
|
||||
## Common Environment Issues
|
||||
|
||||
| Error | Cause | Fix |
|
||||
|---|---|---|
|
||||
| `command not found: node` | Node.js not installed | Install Node.js (recommend LTS) |
|
||||
| `ModuleNotFoundError` | Python deps not installed | Run `pip install -r requirements.txt` |
|
||||
| `EACCES: permission denied` | Global install without sudo | Use nvm/fnm, or prefix with sudo |
|
||||
| `ENOENT: no such file` | Wrong working directory | `cd` to project root first |
|
||||
| `port already in use` | Another process on same port | Kill the process or use different port |
|
||||
| `go: cannot find main module` | Outside Go module | `cd` to directory with `go.mod` |
|
||||
| `error: could not find Cargo.toml` | Outside Rust project | `cd` to directory with `Cargo.toml` |
|
||||
| `java.lang.UnsupportedClassVersionError` | Wrong Java version | Match JDK version to project requirement |
|
||||
| `npm ERR! code ERESOLVE` | Dependency conflict | Try `npm install --legacy-peer-deps` |
|
||||
|
||||
## Detection Script for /follow
|
||||
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
# Quick environment check
|
||||
echo "=== Environment ==="
|
||||
node --version 2>/dev/null || echo "Node.js: not installed"
|
||||
python --version 2>/dev/null || echo "Python: not installed"
|
||||
go version 2>/dev/null || echo "Go: not installed"
|
||||
rustc --version 2>/dev/null || echo "Rust: not installed"
|
||||
java -version 2>/dev/null || echo "Java: not installed"
|
||||
echo "PWD: $(pwd)"
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
Run this at the start of `/follow` Step 1 to understand what's available.
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,57 @@
|
||||
# Frontend Design — Complete Guidance
|
||||
|
||||
This document provides a comprehensive framework for creating visually distinctive, non-templated UI designs. Here's the full breakdown:
|
||||
|
||||
## Foundational Approach
|
||||
|
||||
Act as the design lead for a studio known for unique client identities — the client has already turned down template-like proposals. Every choice about palette, typography, and layout must be specific to the brief, including "one real aesthetic risk you can justify."
|
||||
|
||||
## Grounding in Subject Matter
|
||||
|
||||
If the brief is vague about the product or subject, pin it down yourself: name the subject, its audience, and the page's single job. Draw inspiration from "the subject's own world, its materials, instruments, artifacts, and vernacular." Use any known context about the human's preferences or past designs as hints.
|
||||
|
||||
## Design Principles
|
||||
|
||||
- **Hero as thesis**: Open with "the most characteristic thing in the subject's world" — avoid default choices like a big number with a small label and gradient accent unless truly optimal.
|
||||
- **Typography**: Pair display and body faces deliberately, not from your usual repertoire. Set a clear type scale with intentional weights, widths, and spacing. "Make the type treatment itself a memorable part of the design."
|
||||
- **Structure as information**: Numbering, eyebrows, dividers must encode something true about the content. Question whether numbered markers (01/02/03) actually make sense before using them — only appropriate for real sequences.
|
||||
- **Motion**: Consider where animation serves the subject. "An orchestrated moment usually lands harder than scattered effects." Sometimes less is better to avoid an AI-generated feel.
|
||||
- **Complexity**: Match execution to the vision — maximalist needs elaborate execution, minimal needs precision.
|
||||
- **Content**: Come up with copy if the brief lacks it. Poor copy makes a design feel as templated as poor layout.
|
||||
|
||||
## AI-Generated Design Traps
|
||||
|
||||
Three common AI-default looks to watch for: (1) warm cream background (~#F4F1EA) with serif display and terracotta accent; (2) near-black with bright acid-green or vermilion; (3) broadsheet layout with hairline rules, zero border-radius, and dense columns. "All three are legitimate for some briefs, but they are defaults rather than choices." Where the brief leaves an axis free, don't spend that freedom on a default.
|
||||
|
||||
## Two-Pass Process
|
||||
|
||||
**Pass 1 — Plan**: Create a compact token system:
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Color**: 4–6 named hex values
|
||||
2. **Type**: Characterful display face (used with restraint), complementary body face, utility face for captions/data
|
||||
3. **Layout**: One-sentence prose descriptions + ASCII wireframes
|
||||
4. **Signature**: The single unique element the page will be remembered by
|
||||
|
||||
Review the plan against the brief. If any part reads like what you'd produce for any similar page, revise it. Only then write code.
|
||||
|
||||
**Pass 2 — Build**: Follow the revised plan exactly. Watch for CSS selector specificity conflicts (e.g., `.section` and `.cta` fighting over padding/margins). Do most planning internally, only sharing ideas when confident.
|
||||
|
||||
## Restraint & Self-Critique
|
||||
|
||||
"Spend your boldness in one place" — let the signature element be the one memorable thing; keep everything else quiet. "Not taking a risk can be a risk itself!" Build responsively down to mobile, with visible keyboard focus and reduced motion respected. Critique as you build. Follow Chanel's advice: before finishing, remove one accessory. Jot notes about what you've tried to avoid repeating yourself.
|
||||
|
||||
## Writing in Design
|
||||
|
||||
Words exist to make the design understandable and usable — they're "design material, not decoration." Write from the end user's perspective, naming things by what people control and recognize, never by how the system is built.
|
||||
|
||||
- Use active voice as default
|
||||
- A control should say exactly what happens: "Save changes," not "Submit"
|
||||
- Maintain consistent vocabulary throughout flows (button says "Publish," toast says "Published")
|
||||
- Treat errors as guidance, not mood — explain what went wrong and how to fix it
|
||||
- Empty screens are invitations to act
|
||||
- Keep the register conversational: "plain verbs, sentence case, no filler"
|
||||
- Let each element do exactly one job — "a label labels, an example demonstrates"
|
||||
|
||||
## License
|
||||
|
||||
Apache License 2.0 — see LICENSE.txt
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,83 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
name: gitnexus-cli
|
||||
description: "Use when the user needs to run GitNexus CLI commands like analyze/index a repo, check status, clean the index, generate a wiki, or list indexed repos. Examples: \"Index this repo\", \"Reanalyze the codebase\", \"Generate a wiki\""
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# GitNexus CLI Commands
|
||||
|
||||
All commands work via `npx` — no global install required.
|
||||
|
||||
## Commands
|
||||
|
||||
### analyze — Build or refresh the index
|
||||
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
npx gitnexus analyze
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
Run from the project root. This parses all source files, builds the knowledge graph, writes it to `.gitnexus/`, and generates AGENTS.md / AGENTS.md context files.
|
||||
|
||||
| Flag | Effect |
|
||||
| -------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------- |
|
||||
| `--force` | Force full re-index even if up to date |
|
||||
| `--embeddings` | Enable embedding generation for semantic search (off by default) |
|
||||
| `--drop-embeddings` | Drop existing embeddings on rebuild. By default, an `analyze` without `--embeddings` preserves them. |
|
||||
|
||||
**When to run:** First time in a project, after major code changes, or when `gitnexus://repo/{name}/context` reports the index is stale. In Codex, a PostToolUse hook detects staleness after `git commit` and `git merge` and notifies the agent to run `analyze` — the hook does not run analyze itself, to avoid blocking the agent for up to 120s and risking KuzuDB corruption on timeout.
|
||||
|
||||
### status — Check index freshness
|
||||
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
npx gitnexus status
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
Shows whether the current repo has a GitNexus index, when it was last updated, and symbol/relationship counts. Use this to check if re-indexing is needed.
|
||||
|
||||
### clean — Delete the index
|
||||
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
npx gitnexus clean
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
Deletes the `.gitnexus/` directory and unregisters the repo from the global registry. Use before re-indexing if the index is corrupt or after removing GitNexus from a project.
|
||||
|
||||
| Flag | Effect |
|
||||
| --------- | ------------------------------------------------- |
|
||||
| `--force` | Skip confirmation prompt |
|
||||
| `--all` | Clean all indexed repos, not just the current one |
|
||||
|
||||
### wiki — Generate documentation from the graph
|
||||
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
npx gitnexus wiki
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
Generates repository documentation from the knowledge graph using an LLM. Requires an API key (saved to `~/.gitnexus/config.json` on first use).
|
||||
|
||||
| Flag | Effect |
|
||||
| ------------------- | ----------------------------------------- |
|
||||
| `--force` | Force full regeneration |
|
||||
| `--model <model>` | LLM model (default: minimax/minimax-m2.5) |
|
||||
| `--base-url <url>` | LLM API base URL |
|
||||
| `--api-key <key>` | LLM API key |
|
||||
| `--concurrency <n>` | Parallel LLM calls (default: 3) |
|
||||
| `--gist` | Publish wiki as a public GitHub Gist |
|
||||
|
||||
### list — Show all indexed repos
|
||||
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
npx gitnexus list
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
Lists all repositories registered in `~/.gitnexus/registry.json`. The MCP `list_repos` tool provides the same information.
|
||||
|
||||
## After Indexing
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Read `gitnexus://repo/{name}/context`** to verify the index loaded
|
||||
2. Use the other GitNexus skills (`exploring`, `debugging`, `impact-analysis`, `refactoring`) for your task
|
||||
|
||||
## Troubleshooting
|
||||
|
||||
- **"Not inside a git repository"**: Run from a directory inside a git repo
|
||||
- **Index is stale after re-analyzing**: Restart Codex to reload the MCP server
|
||||
- **Embeddings slow**: Omit `--embeddings` (it's off by default) or set `OPENAI_API_KEY` for faster API-based embedding
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,89 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
name: gitnexus-debugging
|
||||
description: "Use when the user is debugging a bug, tracing an error, or asking why something fails. Examples: \"Why is X failing?\", \"Where does this error come from?\", \"Trace this bug\""
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Debugging with GitNexus
|
||||
|
||||
## When to Use
|
||||
|
||||
- "Why is this function failing?"
|
||||
- "Trace where this error comes from"
|
||||
- "Who calls this method?"
|
||||
- "This endpoint returns 500"
|
||||
- Investigating bugs, errors, or unexpected behavior
|
||||
|
||||
## Workflow
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
1. gitnexus_query({query: "<error or symptom>"}) → Find related execution flows
|
||||
2. gitnexus_context({name: "<suspect>"}) → See callers/callees/processes
|
||||
3. READ gitnexus://repo/{name}/process/{name} → Trace execution flow
|
||||
4. gitnexus_cypher({query: "MATCH path..."}) → Custom traces if needed
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
> If "Index is stale" → run `npx gitnexus analyze` in terminal.
|
||||
|
||||
## Checklist
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
- [ ] Understand the symptom (error message, unexpected behavior)
|
||||
- [ ] gitnexus_query for error text or related code
|
||||
- [ ] Identify the suspect function from returned processes
|
||||
- [ ] gitnexus_context to see callers and callees
|
||||
- [ ] Trace execution flow via process resource if applicable
|
||||
- [ ] gitnexus_cypher for custom call chain traces if needed
|
||||
- [ ] Read source files to confirm root cause
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
## Debugging Patterns
|
||||
|
||||
| Symptom | GitNexus Approach |
|
||||
| -------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------- |
|
||||
| Error message | `gitnexus_query` for error text → `context` on throw sites |
|
||||
| Wrong return value | `context` on the function → trace callees for data flow |
|
||||
| Intermittent failure | `context` → look for external calls, async deps |
|
||||
| Performance issue | `context` → find symbols with many callers (hot paths) |
|
||||
| Recent regression | `detect_changes` to see what your changes affect |
|
||||
|
||||
## Tools
|
||||
|
||||
**gitnexus_query** — find code related to error:
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
gitnexus_query({query: "payment validation error"})
|
||||
→ Processes: CheckoutFlow, ErrorHandling
|
||||
→ Symbols: validatePayment, handlePaymentError, PaymentException
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
**gitnexus_context** — full context for a suspect:
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
gitnexus_context({name: "validatePayment"})
|
||||
→ Incoming calls: processCheckout, webhookHandler
|
||||
→ Outgoing calls: verifyCard, fetchRates (external API!)
|
||||
→ Processes: CheckoutFlow (step 3/7)
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
**gitnexus_cypher** — custom call chain traces:
|
||||
|
||||
```cypher
|
||||
MATCH path = (a)-[:CodeRelation {type: 'CALLS'}*1..2]->(b:Function {name: "validatePayment"})
|
||||
RETURN [n IN nodes(path) | n.name] AS chain
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
## Example: "Payment endpoint returns 500 intermittently"
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
1. gitnexus_query({query: "payment error handling"})
|
||||
→ Processes: CheckoutFlow, ErrorHandling
|
||||
→ Symbols: validatePayment, handlePaymentError
|
||||
|
||||
2. gitnexus_context({name: "validatePayment"})
|
||||
→ Outgoing calls: verifyCard, fetchRates (external API!)
|
||||
|
||||
3. READ gitnexus://repo/my-app/process/CheckoutFlow
|
||||
→ Step 3: validatePayment → calls fetchRates (external)
|
||||
|
||||
4. Root cause: fetchRates calls external API without proper timeout
|
||||
```
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,78 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
name: gitnexus-exploring
|
||||
description: "Use when the user asks how code works, wants to understand architecture, trace execution flows, or explore unfamiliar parts of the codebase. Examples: \"How does X work?\", \"What calls this function?\", \"Show me the auth flow\""
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Exploring Codebases with GitNexus
|
||||
|
||||
## When to Use
|
||||
|
||||
- "How does authentication work?"
|
||||
- "What's the project structure?"
|
||||
- "Show me the main components"
|
||||
- "Where is the database logic?"
|
||||
- Understanding code you haven't seen before
|
||||
|
||||
## Workflow
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
1. READ gitnexus://repos → Discover indexed repos
|
||||
2. READ gitnexus://repo/{name}/context → Codebase overview, check staleness
|
||||
3. gitnexus_query({query: "<what you want to understand>"}) → Find related execution flows
|
||||
4. gitnexus_context({name: "<symbol>"}) → Deep dive on specific symbol
|
||||
5. READ gitnexus://repo/{name}/process/{name} → Trace full execution flow
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
> If step 2 says "Index is stale" → run `npx gitnexus analyze` in terminal.
|
||||
|
||||
## Checklist
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
- [ ] READ gitnexus://repo/{name}/context
|
||||
- [ ] gitnexus_query for the concept you want to understand
|
||||
- [ ] Review returned processes (execution flows)
|
||||
- [ ] gitnexus_context on key symbols for callers/callees
|
||||
- [ ] READ process resource for full execution traces
|
||||
- [ ] Read source files for implementation details
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
## Resources
|
||||
|
||||
| Resource | What you get |
|
||||
| --------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------- |
|
||||
| `gitnexus://repo/{name}/context` | Stats, staleness warning (~150 tokens) |
|
||||
| `gitnexus://repo/{name}/clusters` | All functional areas with cohesion scores (~300 tokens) |
|
||||
| `gitnexus://repo/{name}/cluster/{name}` | Area members with file paths (~500 tokens) |
|
||||
| `gitnexus://repo/{name}/process/{name}` | Step-by-step execution trace (~200 tokens) |
|
||||
|
||||
## Tools
|
||||
|
||||
**gitnexus_query** — find execution flows related to a concept:
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
gitnexus_query({query: "payment processing"})
|
||||
→ Processes: CheckoutFlow, RefundFlow, WebhookHandler
|
||||
→ Symbols grouped by flow with file locations
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
**gitnexus_context** — 360-degree view of a symbol:
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
gitnexus_context({name: "validateUser"})
|
||||
→ Incoming calls: loginHandler, apiMiddleware
|
||||
→ Outgoing calls: checkToken, getUserById
|
||||
→ Processes: LoginFlow (step 2/5), TokenRefresh (step 1/3)
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
## Example: "How does payment processing work?"
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
1. READ gitnexus://repo/my-app/context → 918 symbols, 45 processes
|
||||
2. gitnexus_query({query: "payment processing"})
|
||||
→ CheckoutFlow: processPayment → validateCard → chargeStripe
|
||||
→ RefundFlow: initiateRefund → calculateRefund → processRefund
|
||||
3. gitnexus_context({name: "processPayment"})
|
||||
→ Incoming: checkoutHandler, webhookHandler
|
||||
→ Outgoing: validateCard, chargeStripe, saveTransaction
|
||||
4. Read src/payments/processor.ts for implementation details
|
||||
```
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,64 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
name: gitnexus-guide
|
||||
description: "Use when the user asks about GitNexus itself — available tools, how to query the knowledge graph, MCP resources, graph schema, or workflow reference. Examples: \"What GitNexus tools are available?\", \"How do I use GitNexus?\""
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# GitNexus Guide
|
||||
|
||||
Quick reference for all GitNexus MCP tools, resources, and the knowledge graph schema.
|
||||
|
||||
## Always Start Here
|
||||
|
||||
For any task involving code understanding, debugging, impact analysis, or refactoring:
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Read `gitnexus://repo/{name}/context`** — codebase overview + check index freshness
|
||||
2. **Match your task to a skill below** and **read that skill file**
|
||||
3. **Follow the skill's workflow and checklist**
|
||||
|
||||
> If step 1 warns the index is stale, run `npx gitnexus analyze` in the terminal first.
|
||||
|
||||
## Skills
|
||||
|
||||
| Task | Skill to read |
|
||||
| -------------------------------------------- | ------------------- |
|
||||
| Understand architecture / "How does X work?" | `gitnexus-exploring` |
|
||||
| Blast radius / "What breaks if I change X?" | `gitnexus-impact-analysis` |
|
||||
| Trace bugs / "Why is X failing?" | `gitnexus-debugging` |
|
||||
| Rename / extract / split / refactor | `gitnexus-refactoring` |
|
||||
| Tools, resources, schema reference | `gitnexus-guide` (this file) |
|
||||
| Index, status, clean, wiki CLI commands | `gitnexus-cli` |
|
||||
|
||||
## Tools Reference
|
||||
|
||||
| Tool | What it gives you |
|
||||
| ---------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------ |
|
||||
| `query` | Process-grouped code intelligence — execution flows related to a concept |
|
||||
| `context` | 360-degree symbol view — categorized refs, processes it participates in |
|
||||
| `impact` | Symbol blast radius — what breaks at depth 1/2/3 with confidence |
|
||||
| `detect_changes` | Git-diff impact — what do your current changes affect |
|
||||
| `rename` | Multi-file coordinated rename with confidence-tagged edits |
|
||||
| `cypher` | Raw graph queries (read `gitnexus://repo/{name}/schema` first) |
|
||||
| `list_repos` | Discover indexed repos |
|
||||
|
||||
## Resources Reference
|
||||
|
||||
Lightweight reads (~100-500 tokens) for navigation:
|
||||
|
||||
| Resource | Content |
|
||||
| ---------------------------------------------- | ----------------------------------------- |
|
||||
| `gitnexus://repo/{name}/context` | Stats, staleness check |
|
||||
| `gitnexus://repo/{name}/clusters` | All functional areas with cohesion scores |
|
||||
| `gitnexus://repo/{name}/cluster/{clusterName}` | Area members |
|
||||
| `gitnexus://repo/{name}/processes` | All execution flows |
|
||||
| `gitnexus://repo/{name}/process/{processName}` | Step-by-step trace |
|
||||
| `gitnexus://repo/{name}/schema` | Graph schema for Cypher |
|
||||
|
||||
## Graph Schema
|
||||
|
||||
**Nodes:** File, Function, Class, Interface, Method, Community, Process
|
||||
**Edges (via CodeRelation.type):** CALLS, IMPORTS, EXTENDS, IMPLEMENTS, DEFINES, MEMBER_OF, STEP_IN_PROCESS
|
||||
|
||||
```cypher
|
||||
MATCH (caller)-[:CodeRelation {type: 'CALLS'}]->(f:Function {name: "myFunc"})
|
||||
RETURN caller.name, caller.filePath
|
||||
```
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,97 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
name: gitnexus-impact-analysis
|
||||
description: "Use when the user wants to know what will break if they change something, or needs safety analysis before editing code. Examples: \"Is it safe to change X?\", \"What depends on this?\", \"What will break?\""
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Impact Analysis with GitNexus
|
||||
|
||||
## When to Use
|
||||
|
||||
- "Is it safe to change this function?"
|
||||
- "What will break if I modify X?"
|
||||
- "Show me the blast radius"
|
||||
- "Who uses this code?"
|
||||
- Before making non-trivial code changes
|
||||
- Before committing — to understand what your changes affect
|
||||
|
||||
## Workflow
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
1. gitnexus_impact({target: "X", direction: "upstream"}) → What depends on this
|
||||
2. READ gitnexus://repo/{name}/processes → Check affected execution flows
|
||||
3. gitnexus_detect_changes() → Map current git changes to affected flows
|
||||
4. Assess risk and report to user
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
> If "Index is stale" → run `npx gitnexus analyze` in terminal.
|
||||
|
||||
## Checklist
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
- [ ] gitnexus_impact({target, direction: "upstream"}) to find dependents
|
||||
- [ ] Review d=1 items first (these WILL BREAK)
|
||||
- [ ] Check high-confidence (>0.8) dependencies
|
||||
- [ ] READ processes to check affected execution flows
|
||||
- [ ] gitnexus_detect_changes() for pre-commit check
|
||||
- [ ] Assess risk level and report to user
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
## Understanding Output
|
||||
|
||||
| Depth | Risk Level | Meaning |
|
||||
| ----- | ---------------- | ------------------------ |
|
||||
| d=1 | **WILL BREAK** | Direct callers/importers |
|
||||
| d=2 | LIKELY AFFECTED | Indirect dependencies |
|
||||
| d=3 | MAY NEED TESTING | Transitive effects |
|
||||
|
||||
## Risk Assessment
|
||||
|
||||
| Affected | Risk |
|
||||
| ------------------------------ | -------- |
|
||||
| <5 symbols, few processes | LOW |
|
||||
| 5-15 symbols, 2-5 processes | MEDIUM |
|
||||
| >15 symbols or many processes | HIGH |
|
||||
| Critical path (auth, payments) | CRITICAL |
|
||||
|
||||
## Tools
|
||||
|
||||
**gitnexus_impact** — the primary tool for symbol blast radius:
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
gitnexus_impact({
|
||||
target: "validateUser",
|
||||
direction: "upstream",
|
||||
minConfidence: 0.8,
|
||||
maxDepth: 3
|
||||
})
|
||||
|
||||
→ d=1 (WILL BREAK):
|
||||
- loginHandler (src/auth/login.ts:42) [CALLS, 100%]
|
||||
- apiMiddleware (src/api/middleware.ts:15) [CALLS, 100%]
|
||||
|
||||
→ d=2 (LIKELY AFFECTED):
|
||||
- authRouter (src/routes/auth.ts:22) [CALLS, 95%]
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
**gitnexus_detect_changes** — git-diff based impact analysis:
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
gitnexus_detect_changes({scope: "staged"})
|
||||
|
||||
→ Changed: 5 symbols in 3 files
|
||||
→ Affected: LoginFlow, TokenRefresh, APIMiddlewarePipeline
|
||||
→ Risk: MEDIUM
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
## Example: "What breaks if I change validateUser?"
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
1. gitnexus_impact({target: "validateUser", direction: "upstream"})
|
||||
→ d=1: loginHandler, apiMiddleware (WILL BREAK)
|
||||
→ d=2: authRouter, sessionManager (LIKELY AFFECTED)
|
||||
|
||||
2. READ gitnexus://repo/my-app/processes
|
||||
→ LoginFlow and TokenRefresh touch validateUser
|
||||
|
||||
3. Risk: 2 direct callers, 2 processes = MEDIUM
|
||||
```
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,121 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
name: gitnexus-refactoring
|
||||
description: "Use when the user wants to rename, extract, split, move, or restructure code safely. Examples: \"Rename this function\", \"Extract this into a module\", \"Refactor this class\", \"Move this to a separate file\""
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Refactoring with GitNexus
|
||||
|
||||
## When to Use
|
||||
|
||||
- "Rename this function safely"
|
||||
- "Extract this into a module"
|
||||
- "Split this service"
|
||||
- "Move this to a new file"
|
||||
- Any task involving renaming, extracting, splitting, or restructuring code
|
||||
|
||||
## Workflow
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
1. gitnexus_impact({target: "X", direction: "upstream"}) → Map all dependents
|
||||
2. gitnexus_query({query: "X"}) → Find execution flows involving X
|
||||
3. gitnexus_context({name: "X"}) → See all incoming/outgoing refs
|
||||
4. Plan update order: interfaces → implementations → callers → tests
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
> If "Index is stale" → run `npx gitnexus analyze` in terminal.
|
||||
|
||||
## Checklists
|
||||
|
||||
### Rename Symbol
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
- [ ] gitnexus_rename({symbol_name: "oldName", new_name: "newName", dry_run: true}) — preview all edits
|
||||
- [ ] Review graph edits (high confidence) and ast_search edits (review carefully)
|
||||
- [ ] If satisfied: gitnexus_rename({..., dry_run: false}) — apply edits
|
||||
- [ ] gitnexus_detect_changes() — verify only expected files changed
|
||||
- [ ] Run tests for affected processes
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
### Extract Module
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
- [ ] gitnexus_context({name: target}) — see all incoming/outgoing refs
|
||||
- [ ] gitnexus_impact({target, direction: "upstream"}) — find all external callers
|
||||
- [ ] Define new module interface
|
||||
- [ ] Extract code, update imports
|
||||
- [ ] gitnexus_detect_changes() — verify affected scope
|
||||
- [ ] Run tests for affected processes
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
### Split Function/Service
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
- [ ] gitnexus_context({name: target}) — understand all callees
|
||||
- [ ] Group callees by responsibility
|
||||
- [ ] gitnexus_impact({target, direction: "upstream"}) — map callers to update
|
||||
- [ ] Create new functions/services
|
||||
- [ ] Update callers
|
||||
- [ ] gitnexus_detect_changes() — verify affected scope
|
||||
- [ ] Run tests for affected processes
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
## Tools
|
||||
|
||||
**gitnexus_rename** — automated multi-file rename:
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
gitnexus_rename({symbol_name: "validateUser", new_name: "authenticateUser", dry_run: true})
|
||||
→ 12 edits across 8 files
|
||||
→ 10 graph edits (high confidence), 2 ast_search edits (review)
|
||||
→ Changes: [{file_path, edits: [{line, old_text, new_text, confidence}]}]
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
**gitnexus_impact** — map all dependents first:
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
gitnexus_impact({target: "validateUser", direction: "upstream"})
|
||||
→ d=1: loginHandler, apiMiddleware, testUtils
|
||||
→ Affected Processes: LoginFlow, TokenRefresh
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
**gitnexus_detect_changes** — verify your changes after refactoring:
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
gitnexus_detect_changes({scope: "all"})
|
||||
→ Changed: 8 files, 12 symbols
|
||||
→ Affected processes: LoginFlow, TokenRefresh
|
||||
→ Risk: MEDIUM
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
**gitnexus_cypher** — custom reference queries:
|
||||
|
||||
```cypher
|
||||
MATCH (caller)-[:CodeRelation {type: 'CALLS'}]->(f:Function {name: "validateUser"})
|
||||
RETURN caller.name, caller.filePath ORDER BY caller.filePath
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
## Risk Rules
|
||||
|
||||
| Risk Factor | Mitigation |
|
||||
| ------------------- | ----------------------------------------- |
|
||||
| Many callers (>5) | Use gitnexus_rename for automated updates |
|
||||
| Cross-area refs | Use detect_changes after to verify scope |
|
||||
| String/dynamic refs | gitnexus_query to find them |
|
||||
| External/public API | Version and deprecate properly |
|
||||
|
||||
## Example: Rename `validateUser` to `authenticateUser`
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
1. gitnexus_rename({symbol_name: "validateUser", new_name: "authenticateUser", dry_run: true})
|
||||
→ 12 edits: 10 graph (safe), 2 ast_search (review)
|
||||
→ Files: validator.ts, login.ts, middleware.ts, config.json...
|
||||
|
||||
2. Review ast_search edits (config.json: dynamic reference!)
|
||||
|
||||
3. gitnexus_rename({symbol_name: "validateUser", new_name: "authenticateUser", dry_run: false})
|
||||
→ Applied 12 edits across 8 files
|
||||
|
||||
4. gitnexus_detect_changes({scope: "all"})
|
||||
→ Affected: LoginFlow, TokenRefresh
|
||||
→ Risk: MEDIUM — run tests for these flows
|
||||
```
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,16 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
name: handoff
|
||||
description: Compact the current conversation into a handoff document for another agent to pick up.
|
||||
argument-hint: "What will the next session be used for?"
|
||||
disable-model-invocation: true
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
Write a handoff document summarising the current conversation so a fresh agent can continue the work. Save to the temporary directory of the user's OS - not the current workspace.
|
||||
|
||||
Include a "suggested skills" section in the document, which suggests skills that the agent should invoke.
|
||||
|
||||
Do not duplicate content already captured in other artifacts (PRDs, plans, ADRs, issues, commits, diffs). Reference them by path or URL instead.
|
||||
|
||||
Redact any sensitive information, such as API keys, passwords, or personally identifiable information.
|
||||
|
||||
If the user passed arguments, treat them as a description of what the next session will focus on and tailor the doc accordingly.
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,156 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
name: openspec-apply-change
|
||||
description: Implement tasks from an OpenSpec change. Use when the user wants to start implementing, continue implementation, or work through tasks.
|
||||
license: MIT
|
||||
compatibility: Requires openspec CLI.
|
||||
metadata:
|
||||
author: openspec
|
||||
version: "1.0"
|
||||
generatedBy: "1.3.1"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
Implement tasks from an OpenSpec change.
|
||||
|
||||
**Input**: Optionally specify a change name. If omitted, check if it can be inferred from conversation context. If vague or ambiguous you MUST prompt for available changes.
|
||||
|
||||
**Steps**
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Select the change**
|
||||
|
||||
If a name is provided, use it. Otherwise:
|
||||
- Infer from conversation context if the user mentioned a change
|
||||
- Auto-select if only one active change exists
|
||||
- If ambiguous, run `openspec list --json` to get available changes and use the **AskUserQuestion tool** to let the user select
|
||||
|
||||
Always announce: "Using change: <name>" and how to override (e.g., `/opsx:apply <other>`).
|
||||
|
||||
2. **Check status to understand the schema**
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
openspec status --change "<name>" --json
|
||||
```
|
||||
Parse the JSON to understand:
|
||||
- `schemaName`: The workflow being used (e.g., "spec-driven")
|
||||
- Which artifact contains the tasks (typically "tasks" for spec-driven, check status for others)
|
||||
|
||||
3. **Get apply instructions**
|
||||
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
openspec instructions apply --change "<name>" --json
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
This returns:
|
||||
- `contextFiles`: artifact ID -> array of concrete file paths (varies by schema - could be proposal/specs/design/tasks or spec/tests/implementation/docs)
|
||||
- Progress (total, complete, remaining)
|
||||
- Task list with status
|
||||
- Dynamic instruction based on current state
|
||||
|
||||
**Handle states:**
|
||||
- If `state: "blocked"` (missing artifacts): show message, suggest using openspec-continue-change
|
||||
- If `state: "all_done"`: congratulate, suggest archive
|
||||
- Otherwise: proceed to implementation
|
||||
|
||||
4. **Read context files**
|
||||
|
||||
Read every file path listed under `contextFiles` from the apply instructions output.
|
||||
The files depend on the schema being used:
|
||||
- **spec-driven**: proposal, specs, design, tasks
|
||||
- Other schemas: follow the contextFiles from CLI output
|
||||
|
||||
5. **Show current progress**
|
||||
|
||||
Display:
|
||||
- Schema being used
|
||||
- Progress: "N/M tasks complete"
|
||||
- Remaining tasks overview
|
||||
- Dynamic instruction from CLI
|
||||
|
||||
6. **Implement tasks (loop until done or blocked)**
|
||||
|
||||
For each pending task:
|
||||
- Show which task is being worked on
|
||||
- Make the code changes required
|
||||
- Keep changes minimal and focused
|
||||
- Mark task complete in the tasks file: `- [ ]` → `- [x]`
|
||||
- Continue to next task
|
||||
|
||||
**Pause if:**
|
||||
- Task is unclear → ask for clarification
|
||||
- Implementation reveals a design issue → suggest updating artifacts
|
||||
- Error or blocker encountered → report and wait for guidance
|
||||
- User interrupts
|
||||
|
||||
7. **On completion or pause, show status**
|
||||
|
||||
Display:
|
||||
- Tasks completed this session
|
||||
- Overall progress: "N/M tasks complete"
|
||||
- If all done: suggest archive
|
||||
- If paused: explain why and wait for guidance
|
||||
|
||||
**Output During Implementation**
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
## Implementing: <change-name> (schema: <schema-name>)
|
||||
|
||||
Working on task 3/7: <task description>
|
||||
[...implementation happening...]
|
||||
✓ Task complete
|
||||
|
||||
Working on task 4/7: <task description>
|
||||
[...implementation happening...]
|
||||
✓ Task complete
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
**Output On Completion**
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
## Implementation Complete
|
||||
|
||||
**Change:** <change-name>
|
||||
**Schema:** <schema-name>
|
||||
**Progress:** 7/7 tasks complete ✓
|
||||
|
||||
### Completed This Session
|
||||
- [x] Task 1
|
||||
- [x] Task 2
|
||||
...
|
||||
|
||||
All tasks complete! Ready to archive this change.
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
**Output On Pause (Issue Encountered)**
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
## Implementation Paused
|
||||
|
||||
**Change:** <change-name>
|
||||
**Schema:** <schema-name>
|
||||
**Progress:** 4/7 tasks complete
|
||||
|
||||
### Issue Encountered
|
||||
<description of the issue>
|
||||
|
||||
**Options:**
|
||||
1. <option 1>
|
||||
2. <option 2>
|
||||
3. Other approach
|
||||
|
||||
What would you like to do?
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
**Guardrails**
|
||||
- Keep going through tasks until done or blocked
|
||||
- Always read context files before starting (from the apply instructions output)
|
||||
- If task is ambiguous, pause and ask before implementing
|
||||
- If implementation reveals issues, pause and suggest artifact updates
|
||||
- Keep code changes minimal and scoped to each task
|
||||
- Update task checkbox immediately after completing each task
|
||||
- Pause on errors, blockers, or unclear requirements - don't guess
|
||||
- Use contextFiles from CLI output, don't assume specific file names
|
||||
|
||||
**Fluid Workflow Integration**
|
||||
|
||||
This skill supports the "actions on a change" model:
|
||||
|
||||
- **Can be invoked anytime**: Before all artifacts are done (if tasks exist), after partial implementation, interleaved with other actions
|
||||
- **Allows artifact updates**: If implementation reveals design issues, suggest updating artifacts - not phase-locked, work fluidly
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,114 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
name: openspec-archive-change
|
||||
description: Archive a completed change in the experimental workflow. Use when the user wants to finalize and archive a change after implementation is complete.
|
||||
license: MIT
|
||||
compatibility: Requires openspec CLI.
|
||||
metadata:
|
||||
author: openspec
|
||||
version: "1.0"
|
||||
generatedBy: "1.3.1"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
Archive a completed change in the experimental workflow.
|
||||
|
||||
**Input**: Optionally specify a change name. If omitted, check if it can be inferred from conversation context. If vague or ambiguous you MUST prompt for available changes.
|
||||
|
||||
**Steps**
|
||||
|
||||
1. **If no change name provided, prompt for selection**
|
||||
|
||||
Run `openspec list --json` to get available changes. Use the **AskUserQuestion tool** to let the user select.
|
||||
|
||||
Show only active changes (not already archived).
|
||||
Include the schema used for each change if available.
|
||||
|
||||
**IMPORTANT**: Do NOT guess or auto-select a change. Always let the user choose.
|
||||
|
||||
2. **Check artifact completion status**
|
||||
|
||||
Run `openspec status --change "<name>" --json` to check artifact completion.
|
||||
|
||||
Parse the JSON to understand:
|
||||
- `schemaName`: The workflow being used
|
||||
- `artifacts`: List of artifacts with their status (`done` or other)
|
||||
|
||||
**If any artifacts are not `done`:**
|
||||
- Display warning listing incomplete artifacts
|
||||
- Use **AskUserQuestion tool** to confirm user wants to proceed
|
||||
- Proceed if user confirms
|
||||
|
||||
3. **Check task completion status**
|
||||
|
||||
Read the tasks file (typically `tasks.md`) to check for incomplete tasks.
|
||||
|
||||
Count tasks marked with `- [ ]` (incomplete) vs `- [x]` (complete).
|
||||
|
||||
**If incomplete tasks found:**
|
||||
- Display warning showing count of incomplete tasks
|
||||
- Use **AskUserQuestion tool** to confirm user wants to proceed
|
||||
- Proceed if user confirms
|
||||
|
||||
**If no tasks file exists:** Proceed without task-related warning.
|
||||
|
||||
4. **Assess delta spec sync state**
|
||||
|
||||
Check for delta specs at `openspec/changes/<name>/specs/`. If none exist, proceed without sync prompt.
|
||||
|
||||
**If delta specs exist:**
|
||||
- Compare each delta spec with its corresponding main spec at `openspec/specs/<capability>/spec.md`
|
||||
- Determine what changes would be applied (adds, modifications, removals, renames)
|
||||
- Show a combined summary before prompting
|
||||
|
||||
**Prompt options:**
|
||||
- If changes needed: "Sync now (recommended)", "Archive without syncing"
|
||||
- If already synced: "Archive now", "Sync anyway", "Cancel"
|
||||
|
||||
If user chooses sync, use Task tool (subagent_type: "general-purpose", prompt: "Use Skill tool to invoke openspec-sync-specs for change '<name>'. Delta spec analysis: <include the analyzed delta spec summary>"). Proceed to archive regardless of choice.
|
||||
|
||||
5. **Perform the archive**
|
||||
|
||||
Create the archive directory if it doesn't exist:
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
mkdir -p openspec/changes/archive
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
Generate target name using current date: `YYYY-MM-DD-<change-name>`
|
||||
|
||||
**Check if target already exists:**
|
||||
- If yes: Fail with error, suggest renaming existing archive or using different date
|
||||
- If no: Move the change directory to archive
|
||||
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
mv openspec/changes/<name> openspec/changes/archive/YYYY-MM-DD-<name>
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
6. **Display summary**
|
||||
|
||||
Show archive completion summary including:
|
||||
- Change name
|
||||
- Schema that was used
|
||||
- Archive location
|
||||
- Whether specs were synced (if applicable)
|
||||
- Note about any warnings (incomplete artifacts/tasks)
|
||||
|
||||
**Output On Success**
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
## Archive Complete
|
||||
|
||||
**Change:** <change-name>
|
||||
**Schema:** <schema-name>
|
||||
**Archived to:** openspec/changes/archive/YYYY-MM-DD-<name>/
|
||||
**Specs:** ✓ Synced to main specs (or "No delta specs" or "Sync skipped")
|
||||
|
||||
All artifacts complete. All tasks complete.
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
**Guardrails**
|
||||
- Always prompt for change selection if not provided
|
||||
- Use artifact graph (openspec status --json) for completion checking
|
||||
- Don't block archive on warnings - just inform and confirm
|
||||
- Preserve .openspec.yaml when moving to archive (it moves with the directory)
|
||||
- Show clear summary of what happened
|
||||
- If sync is requested, use openspec-sync-specs approach (agent-driven)
|
||||
- If delta specs exist, always run the sync assessment and show the combined summary before prompting
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,288 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
name: openspec-explore
|
||||
description: Enter explore mode - a thinking partner for exploring ideas, investigating problems, and clarifying requirements. Use when the user wants to think through something before or during a change.
|
||||
license: MIT
|
||||
compatibility: Requires openspec CLI.
|
||||
metadata:
|
||||
author: openspec
|
||||
version: "1.0"
|
||||
generatedBy: "1.3.1"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
Enter explore mode. Think deeply. Visualize freely. Follow the conversation wherever it goes.
|
||||
|
||||
**IMPORTANT: Explore mode is for thinking, not implementing.** You may read files, search code, and investigate the codebase, but you must NEVER write code or implement features. If the user asks you to implement something, remind them to exit explore mode first and create a change proposal. You MAY create OpenSpec artifacts (proposals, designs, specs) if the user asks—that's capturing thinking, not implementing.
|
||||
|
||||
**This is a stance, not a workflow.** There are no fixed steps, no required sequence, no mandatory outputs. You're a thinking partner helping the user explore.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## The Stance
|
||||
|
||||
- **Curious, not prescriptive** - Ask questions that emerge naturally, don't follow a script
|
||||
- **Open threads, not interrogations** - Surface multiple interesting directions and let the user follow what resonates. Don't funnel them through a single path of questions.
|
||||
- **Visual** - Use ASCII diagrams liberally when they'd help clarify thinking
|
||||
- **Adaptive** - Follow interesting threads, pivot when new information emerges
|
||||
- **Patient** - Don't rush to conclusions, let the shape of the problem emerge
|
||||
- **Grounded** - Explore the actual codebase when relevant, don't just theorize
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## What You Might Do
|
||||
|
||||
Depending on what the user brings, you might:
|
||||
|
||||
**Explore the problem space**
|
||||
- Ask clarifying questions that emerge from what they said
|
||||
- Challenge assumptions
|
||||
- Reframe the problem
|
||||
- Find analogies
|
||||
|
||||
**Investigate the codebase**
|
||||
- Map existing architecture relevant to the discussion
|
||||
- Find integration points
|
||||
- Identify patterns already in use
|
||||
- Surface hidden complexity
|
||||
|
||||
**Compare options**
|
||||
- Brainstorm multiple approaches
|
||||
- Build comparison tables
|
||||
- Sketch tradeoffs
|
||||
- Recommend a path (if asked)
|
||||
|
||||
**Visualize**
|
||||
```
|
||||
┌─────────────────────────────────────────┐
|
||||
│ Use ASCII diagrams liberally │
|
||||
├─────────────────────────────────────────┤
|
||||
│ │
|
||||
│ ┌────────┐ ┌────────┐ │
|
||||
│ │ State │────────▶│ State │ │
|
||||
│ │ A │ │ B │ │
|
||||
│ └────────┘ └────────┘ │
|
||||
│ │
|
||||
│ System diagrams, state machines, │
|
||||
│ data flows, architecture sketches, │
|
||||
│ dependency graphs, comparison tables │
|
||||
│ │
|
||||
└─────────────────────────────────────────┘
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
**Surface risks and unknowns**
|
||||
- Identify what could go wrong
|
||||
- Find gaps in understanding
|
||||
- Suggest spikes or investigations
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## OpenSpec Awareness
|
||||
|
||||
You have full context of the OpenSpec system. Use it naturally, don't force it.
|
||||
|
||||
### Check for context
|
||||
|
||||
At the start, quickly check what exists:
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
openspec list --json
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
This tells you:
|
||||
- If there are active changes
|
||||
- Their names, schemas, and status
|
||||
- What the user might be working on
|
||||
|
||||
### When no change exists
|
||||
|
||||
Think freely. When insights crystallize, you might offer:
|
||||
|
||||
- "This feels solid enough to start a change. Want me to create a proposal?"
|
||||
- Or keep exploring - no pressure to formalize
|
||||
|
||||
### When a change exists
|
||||
|
||||
If the user mentions a change or you detect one is relevant:
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Read existing artifacts for context**
|
||||
- `openspec/changes/<name>/proposal.md`
|
||||
- `openspec/changes/<name>/design.md`
|
||||
- `openspec/changes/<name>/tasks.md`
|
||||
- etc.
|
||||
|
||||
2. **Reference them naturally in conversation**
|
||||
- "Your design mentions using Redis, but we just realized SQLite fits better..."
|
||||
- "The proposal scopes this to premium users, but we're now thinking everyone..."
|
||||
|
||||
3. **Offer to capture when decisions are made**
|
||||
|
||||
| Insight Type | Where to Capture |
|
||||
|----------------------------|--------------------------------|
|
||||
| New requirement discovered | `specs/<capability>/spec.md` |
|
||||
| Requirement changed | `specs/<capability>/spec.md` |
|
||||
| Design decision made | `design.md` |
|
||||
| Scope changed | `proposal.md` |
|
||||
| New work identified | `tasks.md` |
|
||||
| Assumption invalidated | Relevant artifact |
|
||||
|
||||
Example offers:
|
||||
- "That's a design decision. Capture it in design.md?"
|
||||
- "This is a new requirement. Add it to specs?"
|
||||
- "This changes scope. Update the proposal?"
|
||||
|
||||
4. **The user decides** - Offer and move on. Don't pressure. Don't auto-capture.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## What You Don't Have To Do
|
||||
|
||||
- Follow a script
|
||||
- Ask the same questions every time
|
||||
- Produce a specific artifact
|
||||
- Reach a conclusion
|
||||
- Stay on topic if a tangent is valuable
|
||||
- Be brief (this is thinking time)
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Handling Different Entry Points
|
||||
|
||||
**User brings a vague idea:**
|
||||
```
|
||||
User: I'm thinking about adding real-time collaboration
|
||||
|
||||
You: Real-time collab is a big space. Let me think about this...
|
||||
|
||||
COLLABORATION SPECTRUM
|
||||
════════════════════════════════════════════
|
||||
|
||||
Awareness Coordination Sync
|
||||
│ │ │
|
||||
▼ ▼ ▼
|
||||
┌────────┐ ┌────────┐ ┌────────┐
|
||||
│Presence│ │Cursors │ │ CRDT │
|
||||
│ "3 │ │ Multi │ │Conflict│
|
||||
│online" │ │ select │ │ free │
|
||||
└────────┘ └────────┘ └────────┘
|
||||
│ │ │
|
||||
trivial moderate complex
|
||||
|
||||
Where's your head at?
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
**User brings a specific problem:**
|
||||
```
|
||||
User: The auth system is a mess
|
||||
|
||||
You: [reads codebase]
|
||||
|
||||
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────┐
|
||||
│ CURRENT AUTH FLOW │
|
||||
└─────────────────────────────────────────────┘
|
||||
│
|
||||
┌─────────────┼─────────────┐
|
||||
▼ ▼ ▼
|
||||
┌─────────┐ ┌─────────┐ ┌─────────┐
|
||||
│ Google │ │ GitHub │ │ Email │
|
||||
│ OAuth │ │ OAuth │ │ Magic │
|
||||
└────┬────┘ └────┬────┘ └────┬────┘
|
||||
│ │ │
|
||||
└─────────────┼─────────────┘
|
||||
▼
|
||||
┌───────────┐
|
||||
│ Session │
|
||||
└─────┬─────┘
|
||||
│
|
||||
▼
|
||||
┌───────────┐
|
||||
│ Perms │
|
||||
└───────────┘
|
||||
|
||||
I see three tangles. Which one's burning?
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
**User is stuck mid-implementation:**
|
||||
```
|
||||
User: /opsx:explore add-auth-system
|
||||
The OAuth integration is more complex than expected
|
||||
|
||||
You: [reads change artifacts]
|
||||
|
||||
You're on task 4: "Implement OAuth flow"
|
||||
|
||||
Let me trace what's involved...
|
||||
|
||||
[draws diagram, explores options, suggests paths]
|
||||
|
||||
Want to update the design to reflect this?
|
||||
Or add a spike task to investigate?
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
**User wants to compare options:**
|
||||
```
|
||||
User: Should we use Postgres or SQLite?
|
||||
|
||||
You: Generic answer is boring. What's the context?
|
||||
|
||||
User: A CLI tool that tracks local dev environments
|
||||
|
||||
You: That changes everything.
|
||||
|
||||
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
|
||||
│ CLI TOOL DATA STORAGE │
|
||||
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
|
||||
|
||||
Key constraints:
|
||||
• No daemon running
|
||||
• Must work offline
|
||||
• Single user
|
||||
|
||||
SQLite Postgres
|
||||
Deployment embedded ✓ needs server ✗
|
||||
Offline yes ✓ no ✗
|
||||
Single file yes ✓ no ✗
|
||||
|
||||
SQLite. Not even close.
|
||||
|
||||
Unless... is there a sync component?
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Ending Discovery
|
||||
|
||||
There's no required ending. Discovery might:
|
||||
|
||||
- **Flow into a proposal**: "Ready to start? I can create a change proposal."
|
||||
- **Result in artifact updates**: "Updated design.md with these decisions"
|
||||
- **Just provide clarity**: User has what they need, moves on
|
||||
- **Continue later**: "We can pick this up anytime"
|
||||
|
||||
When it feels like things are crystallizing, you might summarize:
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
## What We Figured Out
|
||||
|
||||
**The problem**: [crystallized understanding]
|
||||
|
||||
**The approach**: [if one emerged]
|
||||
|
||||
**Open questions**: [if any remain]
|
||||
|
||||
**Next steps** (if ready):
|
||||
- Create a change proposal
|
||||
- Keep exploring: just keep talking
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
But this summary is optional. Sometimes the thinking IS the value.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Guardrails
|
||||
|
||||
- **Don't implement** - Never write code or implement features. Creating OpenSpec artifacts is fine, writing application code is not.
|
||||
- **Don't fake understanding** - If something is unclear, dig deeper
|
||||
- **Don't rush** - Discovery is thinking time, not task time
|
||||
- **Don't force structure** - Let patterns emerge naturally
|
||||
- **Don't auto-capture** - Offer to save insights, don't just do it
|
||||
- **Do visualize** - A good diagram is worth many paragraphs
|
||||
- **Do explore the codebase** - Ground discussions in reality
|
||||
- **Do question assumptions** - Including the user's and your own
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,110 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
name: openspec-propose
|
||||
description: Propose a new change with all artifacts generated in one step. Use when the user wants to quickly describe what they want to build and get a complete proposal with design, specs, and tasks ready for implementation.
|
||||
license: MIT
|
||||
compatibility: Requires openspec CLI.
|
||||
metadata:
|
||||
author: openspec
|
||||
version: "1.0"
|
||||
generatedBy: "1.3.1"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
Propose a new change - create the change and generate all artifacts in one step.
|
||||
|
||||
I'll create a change with artifacts:
|
||||
- proposal.md (what & why)
|
||||
- design.md (how)
|
||||
- tasks.md (implementation steps)
|
||||
|
||||
When ready to implement, run /opsx:apply
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
**Input**: The user's request should include a change name (kebab-case) OR a description of what they want to build.
|
||||
|
||||
**Steps**
|
||||
|
||||
1. **If no clear input provided, ask what they want to build**
|
||||
|
||||
Use the **AskUserQuestion tool** (open-ended, no preset options) to ask:
|
||||
> "What change do you want to work on? Describe what you want to build or fix."
|
||||
|
||||
From their description, derive a kebab-case name (e.g., "add user authentication" → `add-user-auth`).
|
||||
|
||||
**IMPORTANT**: Do NOT proceed without understanding what the user wants to build.
|
||||
|
||||
2. **Create the change directory**
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
openspec new change "<name>"
|
||||
```
|
||||
This creates a scaffolded change at `openspec/changes/<name>/` with `.openspec.yaml`.
|
||||
|
||||
3. **Get the artifact build order**
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
openspec status --change "<name>" --json
|
||||
```
|
||||
Parse the JSON to get:
|
||||
- `applyRequires`: array of artifact IDs needed before implementation (e.g., `["tasks"]`)
|
||||
- `artifacts`: list of all artifacts with their status and dependencies
|
||||
|
||||
4. **Create artifacts in sequence until apply-ready**
|
||||
|
||||
Use the **TodoWrite tool** to track progress through the artifacts.
|
||||
|
||||
Loop through artifacts in dependency order (artifacts with no pending dependencies first):
|
||||
|
||||
a. **For each artifact that is `ready` (dependencies satisfied)**:
|
||||
- Get instructions:
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
openspec instructions <artifact-id> --change "<name>" --json
|
||||
```
|
||||
- The instructions JSON includes:
|
||||
- `context`: Project background (constraints for you - do NOT include in output)
|
||||
- `rules`: Artifact-specific rules (constraints for you - do NOT include in output)
|
||||
- `template`: The structure to use for your output file
|
||||
- `instruction`: Schema-specific guidance for this artifact type
|
||||
- `outputPath`: Where to write the artifact
|
||||
- `dependencies`: Completed artifacts to read for context
|
||||
- Read any completed dependency files for context
|
||||
- Create the artifact file using `template` as the structure
|
||||
- Apply `context` and `rules` as constraints - but do NOT copy them into the file
|
||||
- Show brief progress: "Created <artifact-id>"
|
||||
|
||||
b. **Continue until all `applyRequires` artifacts are complete**
|
||||
- After creating each artifact, re-run `openspec status --change "<name>" --json`
|
||||
- Check if every artifact ID in `applyRequires` has `status: "done"` in the artifacts array
|
||||
- Stop when all `applyRequires` artifacts are done
|
||||
|
||||
c. **If an artifact requires user input** (unclear context):
|
||||
- Use **AskUserQuestion tool** to clarify
|
||||
- Then continue with creation
|
||||
|
||||
5. **Show final status**
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
openspec status --change "<name>"
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
**Output**
|
||||
|
||||
After completing all artifacts, summarize:
|
||||
- Change name and location
|
||||
- List of artifacts created with brief descriptions
|
||||
- What's ready: "All artifacts created! Ready for implementation."
|
||||
- Prompt: "Run `/opsx:apply` or ask me to implement to start working on the tasks."
|
||||
|
||||
**Artifact Creation Guidelines**
|
||||
|
||||
- Follow the `instruction` field from `openspec instructions` for each artifact type
|
||||
- The schema defines what each artifact should contain - follow it
|
||||
- Read dependency artifacts for context before creating new ones
|
||||
- Use `template` as the structure for your output file - fill in its sections
|
||||
- **IMPORTANT**: `context` and `rules` are constraints for YOU, not content for the file
|
||||
- Do NOT copy `<context>`, `<rules>`, `<project_context>` blocks into the artifact
|
||||
- These guide what you write, but should never appear in the output
|
||||
|
||||
**Guardrails**
|
||||
- Create ALL artifacts needed for implementation (as defined by schema's `apply.requires`)
|
||||
- Always read dependency artifacts before creating a new one
|
||||
- If context is critically unclear, ask the user - but prefer making reasonable decisions to keep momentum
|
||||
- If a change with that name already exists, ask if user wants to continue it or create a new one
|
||||
- Verify each artifact file exists after writing before proceeding to next
|
||||
@@ -148,7 +148,7 @@ openspec/changes/phase-1-infrastructure/
|
||||
|
||||
## 敏感信息（已编辑）
|
||||
|
||||
- MySQL 密码：已配置在 application.yml（`!Fucker123..`）
|
||||
- MySQL 密码：已从仓库移除，使用环境变量注入
|
||||
- Redis：无密码
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -97,7 +97,7 @@ spring:
|
||||
redis:
|
||||
host: 119.29.78.52
|
||||
port: 6379
|
||||
password: '!Fucker123..'
|
||||
password: ${SUPERBIZ_REDIS_PASSWORD}
|
||||
database: 0
|
||||
timeout: 3000
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -140,7 +140,7 @@ Error Code: 1049
|
||||
datasource:
|
||||
url: jdbc:mysql://119.29.78.52:33306/superbiz_agent?...
|
||||
username: root
|
||||
password: '!Fucker123..'
|
||||
password: ${SUPERBIZ_MYSQL_PASSWORD}
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
**Redis 配置**:
|
||||
@@ -149,7 +149,7 @@ data:
|
||||
redis:
|
||||
host: 119.29.78.52
|
||||
port: 6379
|
||||
password: '!Fucker123..'
|
||||
password: ${SUPERBIZ_REDIS_PASSWORD}
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
**Flyway 配置**:
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,13 @@
|
||||
root = true
|
||||
|
||||
[*]
|
||||
charset = utf-8
|
||||
end_of_line = crlf
|
||||
insert_final_newline = true
|
||||
trim_trailing_whitespace = true
|
||||
|
||||
[*.md]
|
||||
trim_trailing_whitespace = false
|
||||
|
||||
[*.{java,xml,yml,yaml,properties,json,sql,txt,ps1}]
|
||||
charset = utf-8
|
||||
+8
-1
@@ -44,6 +44,13 @@ build/
|
||||
app.log
|
||||
logs/
|
||||
|
||||
### Local Secrets ###
|
||||
.env
|
||||
.env.*
|
||||
!.env.example
|
||||
application-local.yml
|
||||
application-*.local.yml
|
||||
|
||||
### Upload Files ###
|
||||
uploads/
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -58,8 +65,8 @@ uploads/
|
||||
|
||||
### Windows / Runtime Artifacts
|
||||
*.stackdump
|
||||
NUL
|
||||
|
||||
### MVP Demo Generated Outputs
|
||||
mvp/demo/output/*.json
|
||||
!mvp/demo/output/README.md
|
||||
.pi/extensions/emdash-hook.ts
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -103,5 +103,48 @@ Find reuse opportunities + Trace the call/dependency chain and impact radius:
|
||||
## Baisc Infos
|
||||
|
||||
Unless directly relevant to the user's current question, you should avoid proactively mentioning, illustrating, or
|
||||
trailing off into the following information in 99% of cases:
|
||||
trailing off into the following information in 99% of cases:
|
||||
|
||||
<!-- gitnexus:start -->
|
||||
# GitNexus — Code Intelligence
|
||||
|
||||
This project is indexed by GitNexus as **SuperBizAgent-java** (13483 symbols, 22230 relationships, 300 execution flows). Use the GitNexus MCP tools to understand code, assess impact, and navigate safely.
|
||||
|
||||
> If any GitNexus tool warns the index is stale, run `npx gitnexus analyze` in terminal first.
|
||||
|
||||
## Always Do
|
||||
|
||||
- **MUST run impact analysis before editing any symbol.** Before modifying a function, class, or method, run `gitnexus_impact({target: "symbolName", direction: "upstream"})` and report the blast radius (direct callers, affected processes, risk level) to the user.
|
||||
- **MUST run `gitnexus_detect_changes()` before committing** to verify your changes only affect expected symbols and execution flows.
|
||||
- **MUST warn the user** if impact analysis returns HIGH or CRITICAL risk before proceeding with edits.
|
||||
- When exploring unfamiliar code, use `gitnexus_query({query: "concept"})` to find execution flows instead of grepping. It returns process-grouped results ranked by relevance.
|
||||
- When you need full context on a specific symbol — callers, callees, which execution flows it participates in — use `gitnexus_context({name: "symbolName"})`.
|
||||
|
||||
## Never Do
|
||||
|
||||
- NEVER edit a function, class, or method without first running `gitnexus_impact` on it.
|
||||
- NEVER ignore HIGH or CRITICAL risk warnings from impact analysis.
|
||||
- NEVER rename symbols with find-and-replace — use `gitnexus_rename` which understands the call graph.
|
||||
- NEVER commit changes without running `gitnexus_detect_changes()` to check affected scope.
|
||||
|
||||
## Resources
|
||||
|
||||
| Resource | Use for |
|
||||
|----------|---------|
|
||||
| `gitnexus://repo/SuperBizAgent-java/context` | Codebase overview, check index freshness |
|
||||
| `gitnexus://repo/SuperBizAgent-java/clusters` | All functional areas |
|
||||
| `gitnexus://repo/SuperBizAgent-java/processes` | All execution flows |
|
||||
| `gitnexus://repo/SuperBizAgent-java/process/{name}` | Step-by-step execution trace |
|
||||
|
||||
## CLI
|
||||
|
||||
| Task | Read this skill file |
|
||||
|------|---------------------|
|
||||
| Understand architecture / "How does X work?" | `.claude/skills/gitnexus/gitnexus-exploring/SKILL.md` |
|
||||
| Blast radius / "What breaks if I change X?" | `.claude/skills/gitnexus/gitnexus-impact-analysis/SKILL.md` |
|
||||
| Trace bugs / "Why is X failing?" | `.claude/skills/gitnexus/gitnexus-debugging/SKILL.md` |
|
||||
| Rename / extract / split / refactor | `.claude/skills/gitnexus/gitnexus-refactoring/SKILL.md` |
|
||||
| Tools, resources, schema reference | `.claude/skills/gitnexus/gitnexus-guide/SKILL.md` |
|
||||
| Index, status, clean, wiki CLI commands | `.claude/skills/gitnexus/gitnexus-cli/SKILL.md` |
|
||||
|
||||
<!-- gitnexus:end -->
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -111,3 +111,46 @@ trailing off into the following information in 99% of cases:
|
||||
- 文档目录结构：
|
||||
- 不要将文档放到用户目录（如 `C:\Users\EDY\.claude\`）中
|
||||
|
||||
<!-- gitnexus:start -->
|
||||
# GitNexus — Code Intelligence
|
||||
|
||||
This project is indexed by GitNexus as **SuperBizAgent-java** (13483 symbols, 22230 relationships, 300 execution flows). Use the GitNexus MCP tools to understand code, assess impact, and navigate safely.
|
||||
|
||||
> If any GitNexus tool warns the index is stale, run `npx gitnexus analyze` in terminal first.
|
||||
|
||||
## Always Do
|
||||
|
||||
- **MUST run impact analysis before editing any symbol.** Before modifying a function, class, or method, run `gitnexus_impact({target: "symbolName", direction: "upstream"})` and report the blast radius (direct callers, affected processes, risk level) to the user.
|
||||
- **MUST run `gitnexus_detect_changes()` before committing** to verify your changes only affect expected symbols and execution flows.
|
||||
- **MUST warn the user** if impact analysis returns HIGH or CRITICAL risk before proceeding with edits.
|
||||
- When exploring unfamiliar code, use `gitnexus_query({query: "concept"})` to find execution flows instead of grepping. It returns process-grouped results ranked by relevance.
|
||||
- When you need full context on a specific symbol — callers, callees, which execution flows it participates in — use `gitnexus_context({name: "symbolName"})`.
|
||||
|
||||
## Never Do
|
||||
|
||||
- NEVER edit a function, class, or method without first running `gitnexus_impact` on it.
|
||||
- NEVER ignore HIGH or CRITICAL risk warnings from impact analysis.
|
||||
- NEVER rename symbols with find-and-replace — use `gitnexus_rename` which understands the call graph.
|
||||
- NEVER commit changes without running `gitnexus_detect_changes()` to check affected scope.
|
||||
|
||||
## Resources
|
||||
|
||||
| Resource | Use for |
|
||||
|----------|---------|
|
||||
| `gitnexus://repo/SuperBizAgent-java/context` | Codebase overview, check index freshness |
|
||||
| `gitnexus://repo/SuperBizAgent-java/clusters` | All functional areas |
|
||||
| `gitnexus://repo/SuperBizAgent-java/processes` | All execution flows |
|
||||
| `gitnexus://repo/SuperBizAgent-java/process/{name}` | Step-by-step execution trace |
|
||||
|
||||
## CLI
|
||||
|
||||
| Task | Read this skill file |
|
||||
|------|---------------------|
|
||||
| Understand architecture / "How does X work?" | `.claude/skills/gitnexus/gitnexus-exploring/SKILL.md` |
|
||||
| Blast radius / "What breaks if I change X?" | `.claude/skills/gitnexus/gitnexus-impact-analysis/SKILL.md` |
|
||||
| Trace bugs / "Why is X failing?" | `.claude/skills/gitnexus/gitnexus-debugging/SKILL.md` |
|
||||
| Rename / extract / split / refactor | `.claude/skills/gitnexus/gitnexus-refactoring/SKILL.md` |
|
||||
| Tools, resources, schema reference | `.claude/skills/gitnexus/gitnexus-guide/SKILL.md` |
|
||||
| Index, status, clean, wiki CLI commands | `.claude/skills/gitnexus/gitnexus-cli/SKILL.md` |
|
||||
|
||||
<!-- gitnexus:end -->
|
||||
|
||||
+105
-1
@@ -72,9 +72,10 @@
|
||||
|
||||
### SessionContext
|
||||
- 定义：会话上下文数据类，存储在 Redis 中的会话数据
|
||||
- 包含字段：sessionId、userId、businessId、traceId、status、toolCalls、TTL
|
||||
- 包含字段：sessionId、userId、businessId、traceId、status、toolCalls、messageHistory、TTL
|
||||
- 序列化方式：JSON（GenericJackson2JsonRedisSerializer）
|
||||
- 使用场景：多轮对话上下文管理、工具调用历史追踪
|
||||
- 边界：messageHistory 是热路径对话历史缓存，用于下一轮 prompt 上下文；长期审计的问题和答案应落到 Diagnosis Run，而不是依赖 Redis TTL 内的上下文正文。
|
||||
|
||||
### ToolCall
|
||||
- 定义：工具调用记录数据类，追踪 Agent 使用的工具及其结果
|
||||
@@ -87,6 +88,21 @@
|
||||
- 核心方法：createSession、getSession、updateSession、deleteSession、refreshSession、addToolCall
|
||||
- 使用场景：分布式会话管理、Agent 状态维护
|
||||
|
||||
### Chat Session
|
||||
- 定义：一次多轮对话上下文，由 `sessionId` 唯一标识。
|
||||
- 使用场景：保存用户连续对话的上下文窗口、会话状态和最近活跃时间。
|
||||
- 边界：Chat Session 不代表一次诊断执行；同一个 Chat Session 可以包含多次 Diagnosis Run。
|
||||
|
||||
### Diagnosis Run
|
||||
- 定义：一次独立诊断执行，由 `runId` 唯一标识，属于一个 Chat Session。
|
||||
- 使用场景：保存某一轮诊断的 query、answer、status、耗时、token、反馈和自评估结果。
|
||||
- 边界：Diagnosis Run 是 Trace、Feedback 和 Evidence score 的绑定对象；多轮对话中的每次 `/api/chat` 或 `/api/ai_ops` 执行都应创建新的 Diagnosis Run。
|
||||
|
||||
### Diagnosis Trace
|
||||
- 定义：一次 Diagnosis Run 的可回放执行轨迹，由 run 主记录、AgentStep 和 ToolInvocation 聚合形成。
|
||||
- 使用场景：Trace API、Trace UI、Verifier 审计、评测 fixture 和人工排查。
|
||||
- 边界：Diagnosis Trace 是聚合视图，不要求单独的 trace 主表；当前 trace 明细由 `agent_step` 和 `tool_invocation` 表承载。
|
||||
|
||||
### Flyway
|
||||
- 定义：数据库版本迁移工具，管理 SQL 脚本的版本化执行
|
||||
- 配置：spring.flyway.enabled=true, baseline-on-migrate=true
|
||||
@@ -139,6 +155,94 @@
|
||||
- 使用场景：Executor 按 skill workflow 调用 evidence tools 收集事实，`tool_invocation` 记录这些事实证据。
|
||||
- 边界：最终诊断结论必须被 evidence tools 支撑，不能仅由 skill 正文支撑。
|
||||
|
||||
### Diagnosis Harness
|
||||
- 定义：围绕 Diagnosis Agent 提供确定性运行控制的边界，负责 Run、预算、取消、重试装配、Tool 调用记录、证据验真和最终释放，不承担业务诊断推理。
|
||||
- 边界：Harness 不是工作流引擎，不实现 Planner/Executor/Composer 节点或自行编写 ReAct 循环。
|
||||
|
||||
### Diagnosis Agent
|
||||
- 定义：诊断链路中唯一拥有 ReAct 工具循环并生成 `DiagnosisDraft` 的 Agent，负责规划证据查询、判断证据充分性和撰写完整诊断草稿。
|
||||
- 边界：不负责意图路由、Run/Session 生命周期、证据物理验真、独立语义审查或最终发布；证据不足时必须明确停止并保留限制。
|
||||
|
||||
### EvidenceGuard
|
||||
- 定义：Harness 内部的确定性证据验真能力，校验 Draft 引用、当前 Run 所有权、Tool 调用状态和有界 Agent 投影。
|
||||
- 边界：EvidenceGuard 不调用 LLM，也不判断证据是否足以推出业务结论。
|
||||
|
||||
### SemanticGuard
|
||||
- 定义：使用隔离上下文对完整诊断 Draft 与已验真证据做报告级语义审查的单轮 Agent。
|
||||
- 边界：无工具、无记忆、无 ReAct 循环，不访问 Redis，不生成或改写用户报告。
|
||||
|
||||
### Invocation Status
|
||||
- 定义：Tool 调用及结果投影的生命周期状态，固定为 `PROJECTING`、`READY`、`ERROR`。
|
||||
- 边界：它只说明调用记录是否完成，不说明结果是否包含证据。
|
||||
|
||||
### Durable Audit
|
||||
- 定义：为 Diagnosis Trace 长期保存的 Run、Agent 模型步骤和 Tool 调用元数据，用于 exact sessionId/runId 回放、评测和运维核对。
|
||||
- 边界：只保存有界、脱敏、可长期保留的身份、状态、耗时、预算和结果摘要；不保存 Prompt、Thought、完整 Tool 参数、raw response 或 Redis canonical invocation。
|
||||
|
||||
### Evidence Status
|
||||
- 定义：证据 Tool 的结果语义，固定为 `EVIDENCE_FOUND`、`NO_EVIDENCE`、`ERROR`。
|
||||
- 边界：`EVIDENCE_FOUND` 只表示存在候选内容，不保证内容能够支持当前诊断；`NO_EVIDENCE` 只表示当前查询范围内没有匹配结果，不能解释为问题不存在、根因被排除或系统健康。
|
||||
|
||||
### Information Gain
|
||||
- 定义：一次 Tool 结果是否推进当前 Diagnosis Run 的语义评价，固定为 `GAINED` 或 `NO_GAIN`。
|
||||
- 边界：它评价的是结果对当前诊断的作用，不评价 Tool 产品质量；`NO_EVIDENCE` 和重复的规范化 `tool + scope` 可由 Harness 机械标记为 `NO_GAIN`，其他成功非空结果（包括 RAG `REFERENCE`）由模型评价。
|
||||
|
||||
### Collection State
|
||||
- 定义：Diagnosis Harness 对当前 Run 是否允许继续收集证据的控制状态，固定为 `COLLECTING` 或 `SATURATED`。
|
||||
- 边界：状态由 Harness 维护；`SATURATED` 可因连续 `NO_GAIN` 或连续进展协议错误达到各自配置阈值而进入，不包括硬预算耗尽。模型可以请求新的 Tool 调用，但不能绕过 `SATURATED`。
|
||||
|
||||
### Diagnosis Stop Reason
|
||||
- 定义：Harness 停止当前 Run 继续调用 Tool 的内部原因，首版区分 `INFORMATION_SATURATED`、`BUDGET_LIMIT_REACHED` 与 `PROGRESS_PROTOCOL_VIOLATED`。
|
||||
- 边界：它用于控制、Trace 和 Release 输入，不是用户可见生命周期状态，也不进入模型上下文；真正的不可恢复技术故障走失败通道。协议错误不累计为 `NO_GAIN`，使用独立阈值与 stop reason。
|
||||
|
||||
### Progress Protocol Violation
|
||||
- 定义：模型未遵守 Tool Call Envelope 进展协议时的安全错误分类，例如缺失/错序/意外 `previous_observation`、缺失 `input` 或非法 Envelope。
|
||||
- 边界：返回可修正 observation（`repair_required`、`violation_type`、期望上一轮 Tool Call ID、允许的 `information_gain`）；连续错误达到阈值后交付一次 `STOP_REQUIRED/PROGRESS_PROTOCOL_VIOLATED`。不泄露业务参数、上一轮观察正文、raw response 或内部异常。
|
||||
|
||||
### Progress Snapshot
|
||||
- 定义：Tool Loop 结束时，从当前 Run 的 Canonical Tool Result 一次性投影出的有界发布视图，用于生成已检查范围和客观结果。
|
||||
- 边界：Canonical Tool Result 是真理源；Progress Snapshot 不逐轮维护、不保存原始 Tool Response、Prompt 或内部 thought，也不直接进入模型上下文。
|
||||
|
||||
### Safe Fallback Type
|
||||
- 定义：`SafeFallback.type` 对没有发布诊断结论的业务原因分类，例如 `INSUFFICIENT_EVIDENCE`、`MISSING_REQUIRED_CONTEXT`、`BUDGET_EXHAUSTED` 或安全校验失败。
|
||||
- 边界：它是 `ReleaseOutcome.FALLBACK` 的原因字段，不是与 `SUCCESS / FALLBACK / FAILED / CANCELLED` 平行的第二套生命周期状态。
|
||||
|
||||
### Diagnosis Release Use Case
|
||||
- 定义：诊断业务发布的唯一决策入口，接收 DiagnosisDraft 和/或 Harness `stop_reason + ProgressSnapshot`，生成安全的 `SUCCESS / FALLBACK` 结果。
|
||||
- 边界：`conclusion=null` 不触发 EvidenceRepair；只有存在结论时才执行完整 EvidenceGuard、EvidenceRepair 和 SemanticGuard 链路。不可形成安全业务内容的技术故障由 Chat Application Use Case 映射为 `FAILED / CANCELLED`。
|
||||
|
||||
### Diagnosis Draft Contract Failure
|
||||
- 定义：Diagnosis Agent 最终文本为空、不是严格 JSON，或不满足 `DiagnosisDraft` Schema 时产生的 Agent 输出合同失败。
|
||||
- 边界：非法文本始终丢弃，不做 Markdown/自然语言提取，也不调用模型修复；仅当当前 Run 的 `ProgressSnapshot` 含已验真 observed facts 时，Release 才能确定性发布 `INSUFFICIENT_EVIDENCE`，否则保持 `FAILED`。它不是 `Diagnosis Stop Reason`，不得伪装成信息饱和或预算终止。
|
||||
|
||||
### Model Observation
|
||||
- 定义：Tool 内部标准化结果经过白名单投影后，作为 Tool Response 进入 Diagnosis Agent 上下文的有界视图。
|
||||
- 边界：只包含模型完成语义判断和证据引用所需的信息；预算、阈值、重复指纹、原始相似度、原始 Tool Response 和完整 Harness 控制状态不得进入该视图。
|
||||
|
||||
### RunContext
|
||||
- 定义：一次 Diagnosis Run 的显式执行上下文，结构不可变地携带 `sessionId`、`runId`、deadline，以及该 Run 独占的取消、预算、重试策略和生命周期状态句柄。
|
||||
- 边界：RunContext 通过方法参数或框架受控 context 显式传播，不依赖 ThreadLocal；结构不可变不等于内部计数和取消状态不能变化，这些变化由线程安全句柄管理。
|
||||
|
||||
### Run Lifecycle
|
||||
- 定义：Diagnosis Harness 对单次 Run 执行状态的内存控制，采用 first-terminal-wins 规则保证成功、失败、取消、超时和预算耗尽只能产生一个最终终态。
|
||||
- 边界：Run Lifecycle 不直接等同于数据库实体写入；应用用例负责把最终状态映射到 `diagnosis_run` 持久化。
|
||||
|
||||
### Run Budget
|
||||
- 定义：单次 Run 的模型调用、Tool 调用、单 Tool 调用、输入/输出/总 Token 和 canonical invocation 字节容量的线程安全消耗计数与门禁。
|
||||
- 边界：预算上限由 Harness 配置显式提供；实际 Token 在模型响应后记录，超限后保留真实消耗并阻止后续执行。
|
||||
|
||||
### Harness Retry Policy
|
||||
- 定义：Harness 对同一技术操作 attempt 数和可重试失败类型的显式策略。
|
||||
- 边界：Router 与 SemanticGuard 的技术失败最多两次 attempt；Diagnosis Agent、Tool 和 Evidence repair 只有一次 attempt。Agent 正常 ReAct 轮次不是 retry，`NO_EVIDENCE`、业务拒绝、取消和预算耗尽不可重试。
|
||||
|
||||
### Chat Application Use Case
|
||||
- 定义：一次 Chat 请求的唯一业务入口，拥有 Session/Run、意图路由、固定执行器、PreviousTurn 和最终持久化。
|
||||
- 边界：不拥有 HTTP/SSE 连接，不把 ChatModel 或 Tool 选择权交给 Controller，也不在 Diagnosis Release Use Case 之外单独决定预算 Fallback 的业务内容。
|
||||
|
||||
### Chat SSE Contract
|
||||
- 定义：Chat 公开入口的五事件协议，顺序固定为 `metadata -> status* -> content|failure -> done`。
|
||||
- 边界：过程状态实时发送，最终安全内容最多释放一次；它不是 Token streaming，也不包含内部计划、Prompt、raw Tool 数据或异常。
|
||||
|
||||
### Verifier Skill Isolation
|
||||
- 定义：Chat Verifier 与 skill 系统隔离，只校验 Executor 答案和 `tool_trace_summary`。
|
||||
- 使用场景：防止 Verifier 把 playbook 指令当作事实证据；Verifier 只判断已有证据是否支持结论。
|
||||
|
||||
+57
-23
@@ -1,26 +1,60 @@
|
||||
# devflow 索引
|
||||
# devflow 索引
|
||||
|
||||
## Issue 生命周期
|
||||
|
||||
| Issue | 状态 | 说明 |
|
||||
|---|---|---|
|
||||
| ISS-014 | archived | 阶段 0-7 的单体 Diagnosis Agent、Harness、ACI、SSE、清理和最终 E2E 已完成并归档；阶段实现对应的 11 个 devflow/OpenSpec 项目均已 archived。 |
|
||||
| ISS-015 | active | 阶段 1 硬停止已由 ISS-016 收口；剩余 Evidence Repair Schema、Reasoning 审计验证/治理与最终综合验收。 |
|
||||
| ISS-016 | archived | Diagnosis 信息增益停止契约、协议修复反馈与统一 Release 已完成并归档。 |
|
||||
|
||||
## 项目
|
||||
|
||||
| 日期 | slug | 领域 | 关键词 | 状态 |
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
||||
| 2026-07-05 | diagnosis-playbook-skills | Agent Skill/Playbook | read_skill, diagnosis playbook, progressive disclosure, payment timeout, MySQL pool, Redis timeout | openspec/changes/diagnosis-playbook-skills | implemented |
|
||||
| 2026-07-06 | rag-eval-pipeline-closure | RAG/评测/回归闭环 | lookupResult fixture, LookupKnowledgeTool snapshot, evidenceBlocks, contextPack, retrievalTrace, rerankTrace, baseline diff, fallback case | devflow/projects/2026-07-06-rag-eval-pipeline-closure | archived |
|
||||
| 2026-07-06 | modular-rag-pipeline | RAG/Agent工具/证据链 | modular RAG, lookup_knowledge, evidenceBlocks, contextPack, rerank, retrievalTrace, L0 hint, unfiltered retry | openspec/changes/archive/2026-07-06-modular-rag-pipeline | archived |
|
||||
| 2026-07-05 | mvp-demo-interview-runbook | MVP Demo/Interview | Plan C, payment timeout, runbook, trace checklist, demo script | openspec/changes/archive/2026-07-05-mvp-demo-interview-runbook | archived |
|
||||
| 2026-07-05 | diagnosis-eval-baseline-diff | Agent 评测/回归 Diff | baseline diff, regression detection, evidence coverage, cost signal, markdown report | openspec/changes/archive/2026-07-05-diagnosis-eval-baseline-diff | archived |
|
||||
| 2026-07-04 | expand-diagnosis-eval-fixtures | Agent 评测/回归 Baseline | fixture coverage, baseline report, redis timeout, slow response, jvm memory risk | openspec/changes/archive/2026-07-05-expand-diagnosis-eval-fixtures | archived |
|
||||
| 2026-07-04 | diagnosis-eval-harness | Agent 评测/回归 Harness | fixed cases, trace validation, evidence coverage, verdict distribution, markdown report | openspec/changes/archive/2026-07-04-diagnosis-eval-harness | archived |
|
||||
| 2026-07-04 | evidence-trace-hardening | 证据链/降级契约/离线验证 | ToolInvocationRecorder, ToolTraceSummaryService, lookup_knowledge, query_logs, query_metrics, LOW_CONFID, REJECT | openspec/changes/archive/2026-07-04-evidence-trace-hardening | archived |
|
||||
| 2026-07-03 | mvp-demo-trace-acceptance | MVP Demo/trace/acceptance | mvp-demo, trace API, diagnosis_session, agent_step, tool_invocation, feedback | openspec/changes/archive/2026-07-03-mvp-demo-trace-acceptance | archived |
|
||||
| 2026-07-04 | aiops-traceable-diagnosis-entry | AIOps/trace/alert diagnosis | ai_ops, SSE, alert input, sessionId, diagnosis_session, trace API | openspec/changes/archive/2026-07-04-aiops-traceable-diagnosis-entry | archived |
|
||||
| 2026-07-04 | aiops-alert-scope-control | AIOps/scope/prompt control | payload mode, auto-discovery mode, queryPrometheusAlerts, HighCPUUsage | openspec/changes/archive/2026-07-04-aiops-alert-scope-control | archived |
|
||||
| 2026-05-29 | chatmodel-abstraction | 解耦/多模型路由 | ChatModel, EmbeddingModel, DeepSeek, BGE-M3, SiliconFlow, Spring AI | archived |
|
||||
| 2026-06-23 | phase1-infrastructure | 基础设施/文档管理 | MySQL, Redis, Milvus, Flyway, JPA, 向量检索, 类别过滤 | archived |
|
||||
| 2026-06-24 | lookup-knowledge-integration | 知识库检索 | L0精确匹配, L1语义检索, frontmatter, 混合检索 | archived |
|
||||
| 2026-06-25 | doc-management-ui | 前端开发/文档管理 | 文档管理页面, CRUD, 状态监控, 纯静态页面, API集成 | archived |
|
||||
| 2026-06-26 | session-storage | 会话存储/可观测 | diagnosis_session, agent_step, tool_invocation, token追踪, 多Agent路由 | openspec/changes/session-storage | archived |
|
||||
| 2026-06-29 | confidence-feedback | 质量评估/反馈机制 | evidence_score, selfEvaluation, feedback, useful, not_useful, case_library, BAD_CASE, tool_invocation规则引擎, 反馈按钮, sessionId回传 | openspec/changes/confidence-feedback | archived |
|
||||
| 2026-06-30 | session-dedup-knowledge-map | 去重/知识图谱 | RetrievedDocTracker, KnowledgeDomainService, knowledge_domain, covers, whenToRetrieve, Planner注入, ISS-001 | openspec/changes/archive/2026-06-30-session-dedup-knowledge-map | archived |
|
||||
| 2026-07-01 | executor-action-memory-relevance | 检索质量/行动记忆 | relevanceLevel, completenessHint, Min-Max归一化, RetrievedDocTracker域级记录, Executor检索约束, ISS-002 | openspec/changes/archive/2026-07-01-executor-action-memory-relevance | archived |
|
||||
| 2026-07-02 | chat-verifier-agent | Chat质量门禁/可追溯验证 | Verifier, groundedness_score, facts_checked, evidence_refs, tool_trace_summary, self_evaluation | openspec/changes/archive/2026-07-03-chat-verifier-agent | archived |
|
||||
| 日期 | slug | 说明 | 领域 | 关键词 | 关联 OpenSpec | 状态 |
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
||||
| 2026-07-28 | rag-eval-hybrid-baseline | 离线 RAG eval 对齐 hybrid：search.mode 生成器、fixture meta、baseline 重刷；hybrid 质量闸门可用 denseDistance。 | RAG/eval/baseline | search.mode, fixture meta, kb_scope rag-eval, L0 filter fallback, denseDistance | openspec/changes/archive/2026-07-28-rag-eval-hybrid-baseline | archived |
|
||||
| 2026-07-28 | rag-quality-score-unify | 统一 dense/hybrid scoreLabel 与 qualityScore；保检索序；去掉关键词 boost 改序与 hybrid L2 伪装。 | RAG/质量分/后处理 | qualityScore, scoreLabel dense/hybrid, originalRank, RetrievalScoreNormalizer, no boost rerank | openspec/changes/archive/2026-07-28-rag-quality-score-unify | archived |
|
||||
| 2026-07-26 | diagnosis-information-gain-stop-contract | Diagnosis 信息增益停止、协议修复反馈、ProgressSnapshot 与统一 Release。 | Harness/Diagnosis stop/Release | ISS-016, GAINED, NO_GAIN, STOP_REQUIRED, ProgressSnapshot, PROGRESS_PROTOCOL_VIOLATED, INSUFFICIENT_EVIDENCE | openspec/changes/archive/2026-07-27-diagnosis-information-gain-stop-contract | archived |
|
||||
| 2026-07-27 | rag-chunk-evidence-identity-dedup | chunk 级证据身份、去重、retrieve-k/return-n 与 SearchPort 地基，为 hybrid 铺路。 | RAG/证据身份/去重 | evidenceKey, maxChunksPerDocument, retrieve-k, return-n, KnowledgeSearchPort, document_id chunk-scoped | openspec/changes/archive/2026-07-27-rag-chunk-evidence-identity-dedup | archived |
|
||||
| 2026-07-27 | rag-bm25-hybrid-drop-sdk | 真 dense+BM25 hybrid（MilvusClientV2），废弃知识路径旧 SDK 检索/写入。 | RAG/BM25/hybrid | MilvusClientV2, BM25, hybridSearch, RRFRanker, biz_hybrid, drop SDK path | openspec/changes/archive/2026-07-27-rag-bm25-hybrid-drop-sdk | archived |
|
||||
| 2026-07-27 | rag-hybrid-search-rrf | Delivery 2：可配置 hybrid 检索与 RRF 多路融合（不绑旧 SDK）。 | RAG/hybrid/RRF | hybrid mode, RRF, KnowledgeSearchPort, filtered+unfiltered fusion, sparse-lite lexical | openspec/changes/archive/2026-07-27-rag-hybrid-search-rrf | archived |
|
||||
| 2026-07-21 | single-react-tool-invocation-store | 建立统一 ToolBoundary 与 Redis canonical invocation store，集中生命周期、证据状态、TTL、容量和 Run 所有权。 | Harness/Tool boundary/Canonical store | ISS-014, ToolBoundary, canonical invocation, PROJECTING, READY, ERROR, TTL, RESULT_TOO_LARGE | openspec/changes/archive/2026-07-21-single-react-tool-invocation-store | archived |
|
||||
| 2026-07-21 | single-react-harness-run-context | 建立显式 RunContext、Harness Core、预算、取消、类型化重试和 Tool Store 基础。 | Harness/Run lifecycle/Budget | ISS-014, RunContext, deadline, cancellation, budget, retry, ToolCallKey | openspec/changes/archive/2026-07-21-single-react-harness-run-context | archived |
|
||||
| 2026-07-21 | single-react-aci-tool-contracts | 冻结 RAG、日志和 MySQL evidence Tool 的 Agent-facing ACI Schema、状态、框架调用引用和描述边界。 | Harness/Agent Tool contract | ISS-014, ACI, tool_call_id, evidence_status, RAG, query_logs, query_mysql, MOCK | openspec/changes/archive/2026-07-21-single-react-aci-tool-contracts | archived |
|
||||
| 2026-07-21 | single-react-design-freeze | 冻结单体 Diagnosis Agent、Harness、Guard、工具证据与阶段门禁契约。 | Chat/Harness/Agent contract | ISS-014, single ReactAgent, Harness, EvidenceGuard, SemanticGuard, tool_call_id, evidence_status | openspec/changes/archive/2026-07-21-single-react-design-freeze | archived |
|
||||
| 2026-07-10 | session-run-trace-isolation | 拆分会话态和运行态，引入 runId 隔离 Trace、Feedback、AIOps 和 demo 链路。 | Trace/session/run isolation | chat_session, diagnosis_run, runId, trace exact run, feedback fallback, AIOps SSE metadata, baseline drift | openspec/changes/archive/2026-07-10-session-run-trace-isolation | archived |
|
||||
| 2026-07-09 | interview-demo-quality-audit | 增加面试演示前置质量审计，覆盖 prompt、Gatekeeper 和评测基线。 | Agent eval/demo/Prompt audit | interview demo preflight, prompt_audit, gatekeeper rules, diagnosis baseline, 12 fixtures | openspec/changes/archive/2026-07-09-interview-demo-quality-audit | archived |
|
||||
| 2026-07-08 | executor-composer-final-answer | 引入 Composer 生成最终回答，只使用 Verifier 允许的结论材料。 | Chat quality gate/evidence attribution | chat_composer, final answer, allowed_claims, allowed_hypotheses, safe fallback, composer_output | openspec/changes/archive/2026-07-08-executor-composer-final-answer | archived |
|
||||
| 2026-07-08 | diagnosis-eval-demo-gatekeeper-closure | 收敛诊断评测、稳定 demo 场景和 Gatekeeper 审计元数据。 | Agent eval/demo/Gatekeeper | diagnosis eval matrix, stable demo scenarios, Gatekeeper rule set version, audit metadata | openspec/changes/archive/2026-07-08-diagnosis-eval-demo-gatekeeper-closure | archived |
|
||||
| 2026-07-08 | verifier-evidence-reference-fidelity | 强化 Verifier 对 evidence_refs、raw_path 和 no_evidence 的保真校验。 | Chat质量门禁/证据归因 | evidence_refs, raw_path, Gatekeeper severity, verifier evidence excerpt, HikariCP mock, no_evidence | openspec/changes/archive/2026-07-08-verifier-evidence-reference-fidelity | archived |
|
||||
| 2026-07-07 | executor-evidence-output-contract | 设计 Executor 结构化证据输出，解决证据归因幻觉和 LOW_CONFID 问题。 | Chat质量门禁/证据归因 | Executor structured output, evidence bindings, Verifier structured claims, LOW_CONFID, hallucination | openspec/changes/archive/2026-07-07-executor-evidence-output-contract | archived |
|
||||
| 2026-07-07 | executor-v2-output-contract | 将 Executor 输出升级为 V2 契约，移除面向用户的最终回答字段。 | Chat质量门禁/证据归因 | executor_evidence_v2, user_facing_answer removal, diagnosis_summary removal, structured renderer | openspec/changes/archive/2026-07-07-executor-v2-output-contract | archived |
|
||||
| 2026-07-07 | executor-gatekeeper-hook | 在 Executor 与 Verifier 之间接入 Gatekeeper，校验证据绑定来源。 | Chat质量门禁/证据归因 | Gatekeeper, verifier payload, source_invocation_ids, tool_name match, self_evaluation | openspec/changes/archive/2026-07-07-executor-gatekeeper-hook | archived |
|
||||
| 2026-07-07 | executor-verifier-claim-checks | 增加 Verifier claim_checks 和事实校验兼容逻辑。 | Chat质量门禁/证据归因 | Verifier claim_checks, facts_checked compatibility, effective verdict guardrail, malformed output downgrade | openspec/changes/archive/2026-07-07-executor-verifier-claim-checks | archived |
|
||||
| 2026-07-06 | rag-eval-pipeline-closure | 建立 RAG 评测闭环，加入 fixture、快照和 baseline diff。 | RAG/评测/回归闭环 | lookupResult fixture, LookupKnowledgeTool snapshot, evidenceBlocks, contextPack, retrievalTrace, rerankTrace, baseline diff, fallback case | devflow/projects/2026-07-06-rag-eval-pipeline-closure | archived |
|
||||
| 2026-07-06 | modular-rag-pipeline | 将 lookup_knowledge 改造成模块化 RAG 管线，补齐证据块和检索追踪。 | RAG/Agent工具/证据链 | modular RAG, lookup_knowledge, evidenceBlocks, contextPack, rerank, retrievalTrace, L0 hint, unfiltered retry | openspec/changes/archive/2026-07-06-modular-rag-pipeline | archived |
|
||||
| 2026-07-05 | diagnosis-playbook-skills | 增加诊断 Playbook Skill，沉淀支付超时、MySQL 池、Redis 超时等套路。 | Agent Skill/Playbook | read_skill, diagnosis playbook, progressive disclosure, payment timeout, MySQL pool, Redis timeout | openspec/changes/diagnosis-playbook-skills | implemented |
|
||||
| 2026-07-05 | mvp-demo-interview-runbook | 准备可复现的 MVP 面试演示包、运行手册和 Trace 检查清单。 | MVP Demo/Interview | Plan C, payment timeout, runbook, trace checklist, demo script | openspec/changes/archive/2026-07-05-mvp-demo-interview-runbook | archived |
|
||||
| 2026-07-05 | diagnosis-eval-baseline-diff | 增加诊断评测 baseline diff，用于判断回归和证据覆盖变化。 | Agent 评测/回归 Diff | baseline diff, regression detection, evidence coverage, cost signal, markdown report | openspec/changes/archive/2026-07-05-diagnosis-eval-baseline-diff | archived |
|
||||
| 2026-07-04 | expand-diagnosis-eval-fixtures | 扩充诊断评测 fixture，覆盖 Redis、慢响应和 JVM 内存风险。 | Agent 评测/回归 Baseline | fixture coverage, baseline report, redis timeout, slow response, jvm memory risk | openspec/changes/archive/2026-07-05-expand-diagnosis-eval-fixtures | archived |
|
||||
| 2026-07-04 | diagnosis-eval-harness | 建立固定诊断评测 Harness，输出 trace、证据覆盖和 verdict 分布。 | Agent 评测/回归 Harness | fixed cases, trace validation, evidence coverage, verdict distribution, markdown report | openspec/changes/archive/2026-07-04-diagnosis-eval-harness | archived |
|
||||
| 2026-07-04 | evidence-trace-hardening | 强化工具调用证据链、降级契约和离线验证能力。 | 证据链/降级契约/离线验证 | ToolInvocationRecorder, ToolTraceSummaryService, lookup_knowledge, query_logs, query_metrics, LOW_CONFID, REJECT | openspec/changes/archive/2026-07-04-evidence-trace-hardening | archived |
|
||||
| 2026-07-04 | aiops-traceable-diagnosis-entry | 增加可追踪的 AIOps 告警诊断入口，打通 sessionId 和 Trace API。 | AIOps/trace/alert diagnosis | ai_ops, SSE, alert input, sessionId, diagnosis_session, trace API | openspec/changes/archive/2026-07-04-aiops-traceable-diagnosis-entry | archived |
|
||||
| 2026-07-04 | aiops-alert-scope-control | 收敛 AIOps 告警诊断范围，区分 payload 定向和自动发现模式。 | AIOps/scope/prompt control | payload mode, auto-discovery mode, queryPrometheusAlerts, HighCPUUsage | openspec/changes/archive/2026-07-04-aiops-alert-scope-control | archived |
|
||||
| 2026-07-03 | mvp-demo-trace-acceptance | 增加 MVP demo 的 Trace 验收，覆盖会话、步骤、工具和反馈链路。 | MVP Demo/trace/acceptance | mvp-demo, trace API, diagnosis_session, agent_step, tool_invocation, feedback | openspec/changes/archive/2026-07-03-mvp-demo-trace-acceptance | archived |
|
||||
| 2026-07-02 | chat-verifier-agent | 增加 Chat Verifier Agent，用 groundedness 和 evidence_refs 校验回答。 | Chat质量门禁/可追溯验证 | Verifier, groundedness_score, facts_checked, evidence_refs, tool_trace_summary, self_evaluation | openspec/changes/archive/2026-07-03-chat-verifier-agent | archived |
|
||||
| 2026-07-01 | executor-action-memory-relevance | 增加行动记忆和相关性信号，约束 Executor 重复检索。 | 检索质量/行动记忆 | relevanceLevel, completenessHint, Min-Max归一化, RetrievedDocTracker域级记录, Executor检索约束, ISS-002 | openspec/changes/archive/2026-07-01-executor-action-memory-relevance | archived |
|
||||
| 2026-06-30 | session-dedup-knowledge-map | 引入会话级去重和知识域地图，减少重复召回。 | 去重/知识图谱 | RetrievedDocTracker, KnowledgeDomainService, knowledge_domain, covers, whenToRetrieve, Planner注入, ISS-001 | openspec/changes/archive/2026-06-30-session-dedup-knowledge-map | archived |
|
||||
| 2026-06-29 | confidence-feedback | 建立质量评估和用户反馈机制，并把有用反馈沉淀为案例。 | 质量评估/反馈机制 | evidence_score, selfEvaluation, feedback, useful, not_useful, case_library, BAD_CASE, tool_invocation规则引擎, 反馈按钮, sessionId回传 | openspec/changes/confidence-feedback | archived |
|
||||
| 2026-06-26 | session-storage | 建立通用会话存储，记录 session、agent step 和 tool invocation。 | 会话存储/可观测 | diagnosis_session, agent_step, tool_invocation, token追踪, 多Agent路由 | openspec/changes/session-storage | archived |
|
||||
| 2026-06-25 | doc-management-ui | 实现文档管理页面，支持文档 CRUD、状态监控和 API 集成。 | 前端开发/文档管理 | 文档管理页面, CRUD, 状态监控, 纯静态页面, API集成 | - | archived |
|
||||
| 2026-06-24 | lookup-knowledge-integration | 接入知识库检索，支持 L0 精确匹配和 L1 语义检索。 | 知识库检索 | L0精确匹配, L1语义检索, frontmatter, 混合检索 | - | archived |
|
||||
| 2026-06-23 | phase1-infrastructure | 搭建第一阶段基础设施，包括 MySQL、Redis、Milvus、Flyway 和 JPA。 | 基础设施/文档管理 | MySQL, Redis, Milvus, Flyway, JPA, 向量检索, 类别过滤 | - | archived |
|
||||
| 2026-05-29 | chatmodel-abstraction | 抽象 ChatModel 和 EmbeddingModel，支持多模型路由。 | 解耦/多模型路由 | ChatModel, EmbeddingModel, DeepSeek, BGE-M3, SiliconFlow, Spring AI | - | archived |
|
||||
| 2026-07-21 | single-react-rag-log-projections | RAG/log projection adapters through ToolBoundary | Harness/Tool projection | ISS-014, RAG, query_logs, projection, scope, redaction, MOCK, NO_EVIDENCE | openspec/changes/archive/2026-07-21-single-react-rag-log-projections | archived |
|
||||
| 2026-07-21 | single-react-mysql-readonly-tool | Fail-closed read-only MySQL evidence Tool with AST allowlist, JDBC controls and bounded projection | Harness/MySQL security | ISS-014, MySQL, JSqlParser, allowlist, PreparedStatement, timeout, projection | openspec/changes/archive/2026-07-21-single-react-mysql-readonly-tool | archived |
|
||||
| 2026-07-21 | single-react-diagnosis-agent | Single internal Diagnosis ReactAgent with Harness-controlled model/tool loop, bounded context and typed Draft | Harness/Diagnosis Agent/ReAct | ISS-014, ReactAgent, DiagnosisDraft, PreviousTurn, ToolInterceptor, ModelInterceptor, budget | openspec/changes/archive/2026-07-21-single-react-diagnosis-agent | archived |
|
||||
| 2026-07-21 | single-react-evidence-semantic-guards | Deterministic evidence validation, isolated semantic review and fail-closed diagnosis release | Harness/EvidenceGuard/SemanticGuard/Release | ISS-014, EvidenceGuard, verified snapshot, SemanticGuard, repair, fallback, release policy | openspec/changes/archive/2026-07-21-single-react-evidence-semantic-guards | archived |
|
||||
| 2026-07-21 | single-react-chat-application-usecase | Internal Chat application use case with isolated routing, fixed executors and safe PreviousTurn | Harness/Chat application/Run persistence | ISS-014, Intent Router, PreviousTurn, PublishedResult, V012, observer, cancellation | openspec/changes/archive/2026-07-21-single-react-chat-application-usecase | archived |
|
||||
| 2026-07-21 | single-react-chat-sse-cutover | Unique named-event Chat SSE endpoint, bounded production Harness wiring and strict frontend consumer | Chat/SSE/Harness production wiring | ISS-014, /api/chat, SSE, metadata, status, content, failure, done, disconnect, bounded executor | openspec/changes/archive/2026-07-22-single-react-chat-sse-cutover | archived |
|
||||
| 2026-07-22 | single-react-cleanup-e2e | Remove legacy Agent paths, add bounded Harness audit, and complete exact-run live acceptance | Chat/Harness/cleanup/E2E | ISS-014, single ReAct Agent, durable audit, named SSE, exact run, Flyway V013 | openspec/changes/archive/2026-07-22-single-react-cleanup-e2e | archived |
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -48,7 +48,7 @@
|
||||
|
||||
## 遗留问题
|
||||
|
||||
ISS-002：Executor 无约束重复调用 `lookup_knowledge`（单会话 20+ 次），knowledge map 和检索约束只注入了 Planner 未注入 Executor。详见 `mvp/issues/ISS-002-executor-unconstrained-lookup.md`。
|
||||
ISS-002：Executor 无约束重复调用 `lookup_knowledge`（单会话 20+ 次），knowledge map 和检索约束只注入了 Planner 未注入 Executor。详见 `mvp/issues/archived/ISS-002-executor-unconstrained-lookup.md`。
|
||||
|
||||
## 已知限制
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -9,8 +9,8 @@
|
||||
## Context
|
||||
|
||||
- `devflow/index.md` was checked. Relevant history includes `session-storage`, `confidence-feedback`, `executor-action-memory-relevance`, and `chat-verifier-agent`.
|
||||
- `mvp/notes/agent-engineering-decisions.md` already recommends the next phase as "可复现 MVP Demo", including `mvp-demo` profile, fixed diagnosis case, one-click request, and `GET /api/diagnosis/{sessionId}/trace`.
|
||||
- `mvp/issues/ISS-003-mvp-design-implementation-review.md` identifies test stability, session traceability, verifier evidence chain, upload path, and SupervisorAgent consistency as recent MVP concerns. Security cleanup is intentionally deferred by user decision.
|
||||
- `mvp/archive/2026-07-09-doc-cleanup/notes/agent-engineering-decisions.md` already recommends the next phase as "可复现 MVP Demo", including `mvp-demo` profile, fixed diagnosis case, one-click request, and `GET /api/diagnosis/{sessionId}/trace`.
|
||||
- `mvp/issues/archived/ISS-003-mvp-design-implementation-review.md` identifies test stability, session traceability, verifier evidence chain, upload path, and SupervisorAgent consistency as historical MVP concerns. Security cleanup was intentionally deferred by user decision at that time.
|
||||
|
||||
## Question Pool
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,16 @@
|
||||
# Acceptance: executor-evidence-output-contract
|
||||
|
||||
## Draft Acceptance
|
||||
|
||||
- [x] Issue exists: `mvp/issues/archived/executor-evidence-attribution-hallucination.md`.
|
||||
- [x] OpenSpec change artifacts exist.
|
||||
- [x] devflow tracking files exist.
|
||||
- [x] OpenSpec validation passes.
|
||||
- [x] Implementation updates Chat Executor prompt.
|
||||
- [x] Implementation passes structured Executor output to Verifier.
|
||||
- [x] Verifier prefers structured claims and still falls back safely.
|
||||
- [x] Focused tests cover parsing, payload assembly, and unsupported confirmed claims.
|
||||
|
||||
## Notes
|
||||
|
||||
This project is currently in proposal/design stage. Runtime code is intentionally not changed yet.
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,23 @@
|
||||
# Brief: executor-evidence-output-contract
|
||||
|
||||
## Summary
|
||||
|
||||
Executor currently returns natural-language diagnosis answers that may mix confirmed evidence, runbook guidance, historical patterns, and unsupported inference. Verifier catches many unsupported facts, but only after extracting claims from prose.
|
||||
|
||||
This project defines a structured Executor evidence-attribution contract and updates the Verifier input/verification path to consume it.
|
||||
|
||||
## Goal
|
||||
|
||||
Make Chat Executor output machine-checkable so confirmed claims are explicitly bound to current-session evidence, while hypotheses and evidence gaps remain visibly separate.
|
||||
|
||||
## Scope
|
||||
|
||||
- Chat Executor prompt contract.
|
||||
- Executor structured output parsing.
|
||||
- Verifier payload extension.
|
||||
- Chat Verifier prompt behavior.
|
||||
- Focused tests/eval fixtures.
|
||||
|
||||
## Related OpenSpec
|
||||
|
||||
`openspec/changes/executor-evidence-output-contract/`
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,71 @@
|
||||
# Decisions: executor-evidence-output-contract
|
||||
|
||||
## sm-flow Progress
|
||||
|
||||
### Clarify
|
||||
|
||||
Entry summary: recent Chat diagnosis sessions are `LOW_CONFID` because Executor presents unsupported or weakly supported details as confirmed facts after successful tool calls.
|
||||
|
||||
Slug: `executor-evidence-output-contract`
|
||||
|
||||
Scale: standard. This affects prompts, verifier input assembly, parsing behavior, and tests, but does not require a database schema change.
|
||||
|
||||
### Context
|
||||
|
||||
Relevant history:
|
||||
|
||||
- `executor-action-memory-relevance`: Executor already has retrieval quality constraints and should avoid repeated `lookup_knowledge`.
|
||||
- `chat-verifier-agent`: Verifier should not see intermediate reasoning; it receives explicit `original_query`, `executor_final_answer`, `tool_trace_summary`, and `retry_context`.
|
||||
- `evidence-trace-hardening`: evidence-bearing tools persist stable traces and no-evidence semantics.
|
||||
- `modular-rag-pipeline`: `lookup_knowledge` exposes evidence blocks and context packs; L0 hints are not fact evidence.
|
||||
|
||||
Current code shape:
|
||||
|
||||
- `src/main/resources/prompts/chat-executor-prompt.md` is the Chat Executor prompt.
|
||||
- `src/main/resources/prompts/executor-prompt.md` is for the AiOps flow and is not the target of this Chat change.
|
||||
- `VerifierInputHook` currently builds a payload with `original_query`, `executor_final_answer`, `tool_trace_summary`, and `retry_context`.
|
||||
- Verifier prompt currently extracts facts from `executor_final_answer`.
|
||||
|
||||
### Grill
|
||||
|
||||
Question: Should Executor output only JSON or JSON plus readable answer?
|
||||
|
||||
Decision: use one JSON object containing both machine fields and `user_facing_answer`. This avoids losing a readable Chinese answer while giving Verifier structured claims.
|
||||
|
||||
Question: Should evidence binding use `chunk_id`?
|
||||
|
||||
Decision: no. Use generic binding fields because `query_logs` and `query_metrics` do not naturally expose RAG chunks.
|
||||
|
||||
Question: Should Verifier trust Executor-provided claims completely?
|
||||
|
||||
Decision: no. Verifier should verify structured claims first, then scan `user_facing_answer` for extra confirmed-sounding facts omitted from `claims`.
|
||||
|
||||
Question: What happens when Executor JSON is malformed?
|
||||
|
||||
Decision: preserve raw final answer, mark parse failure, and fall back to existing natural-language verification.
|
||||
|
||||
### Specify
|
||||
|
||||
OpenSpec artifacts:
|
||||
|
||||
- `proposal.md`: why and scope
|
||||
- `design.md`: contract, verifier behavior, risks
|
||||
- `specs/chat-verifier-agent/spec.md`: modified and added requirements
|
||||
- `tasks.md`: implementation checklist
|
||||
|
||||
### Audit
|
||||
|
||||
Cross-artifact alignment:
|
||||
|
||||
- Issue describes evidence attribution hallucination.
|
||||
- Proposal scopes the fix to Executor output and Verifier consumption.
|
||||
- Design preserves existing verifier isolation.
|
||||
- Spec adds observable behavior without changing database schema.
|
||||
- Tasks remain implementation-oriented and unchecked.
|
||||
|
||||
Interface impact:
|
||||
|
||||
- Prompt/output contract: L2 internal Agent contract change.
|
||||
- Verifier payload: L2 internal structured input extension.
|
||||
- Database schema: no change.
|
||||
- External HTTP API: no intended change.
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,17 @@
|
||||
# Evidence: executor-evidence-output-contract
|
||||
|
||||
## Repository Evidence
|
||||
|
||||
- `chat-executor-prompt.md` currently requires using real tool data but does not require a structured evidence-attribution output.
|
||||
- `chat-verifier-prompt.md` currently extracts facts from `executor_final_answer` prose and compares them with `tool_trace_summary`.
|
||||
- `VerifierInputHook` currently provides `original_query`, `executor_final_answer`, `tool_trace_summary`, and `retry_context`.
|
||||
- `openspec/specs/chat-verifier-agent/spec.md` already requires explicit verifier inputs, auditable evidence refs, fixed verdicts, and low-confidence handling.
|
||||
- `openspec/specs/evidence-trace-hardening/spec.md` already distinguishes failed, no-hit, deduped, and successful evidence-tool traces.
|
||||
|
||||
## Runtime Evidence From Recent Sessions
|
||||
|
||||
Recent MySQL inspection showed repeated `LOW_CONFID` verifier results with many `no_evidence` facts. Typical unsupported claims included OOM, Full GC frequency, specific slow SQL timings, lock waits, and service-specific timeout details that were not supported by current-session tool traces.
|
||||
|
||||
## Design Evidence
|
||||
|
||||
This change preserves the previous design that Verifier should not inspect intermediate reasoning. The new structured output is still final Executor output, not hidden chain-of-thought.
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,48 @@
|
||||
# Acceptance: executor-gatekeeper-hook
|
||||
|
||||
## Implementation Result
|
||||
|
||||
Completed stage two of Executor Structured Output V2.
|
||||
|
||||
- Added `ExecutorGatekeeperService`.
|
||||
- Added initial `schema.executor_v2` and `evidence.invocation_ref` rules.
|
||||
- Added `gatekeeper_result` to Verifier payload.
|
||||
- Stored `gatekeeper_result` in `VerifierContextHolder`.
|
||||
- Persisted `gatekeeper_result` under `diagnosis_session.self_evaluation.verifier_evaluation`.
|
||||
- Updated Verifier prompt so Gatekeeper fail must not produce PASS.
|
||||
- Added focused tests for schema failure, valid pass, fabricated invocation ids, tool name mismatch, hook payload, and persistence.
|
||||
|
||||
## Static Verification
|
||||
|
||||
- `cmd /c openspec validate executor-gatekeeper-hook`
|
||||
- Result: passed.
|
||||
- Coverage: OpenSpec change validity.
|
||||
|
||||
## Script Verification
|
||||
|
||||
- `mvn "-Dtest=ExecutorGatekeeperServiceTest,VerifierInputHookTest,ChatServiceSequentialAgentTest" test`
|
||||
- Result: passed.
|
||||
- Coverage: 23 focused tests for Gatekeeper service, hook integration, and ChatService persistence.
|
||||
|
||||
## Browser / Manual Verification
|
||||
|
||||
Not run. This stage changes backend validation and audit behavior only.
|
||||
|
||||
## Unverified
|
||||
|
||||
- Full live application run with a real LLM.
|
||||
- MySQL trace inspection after a real chat session.
|
||||
- Excerpt similarity or phrase/utilization rules.
|
||||
|
||||
Reason: This phase intentionally covers deterministic schema and invocation-reference validation. Full live verification is better after Verifier V2 and Composer are implemented.
|
||||
|
||||
## Remaining Work
|
||||
|
||||
- Phase three: Verifier V2 `claim_checks`.
|
||||
- Phase four: Composer final-answer generation.
|
||||
- Phase five: eval fixtures and full audit closure.
|
||||
|
||||
## Archive Status
|
||||
|
||||
Devflow archive files created for stage two. OpenSpec archive is expected before moving to stage three.
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,44 @@
|
||||
# Brief: executor-gatekeeper-hook
|
||||
|
||||
## Background
|
||||
|
||||
Stage one of Executor Structured Output V2 changed Chat Executor output to `executor_evidence_v2`, removing final-expression fields from Executor. That made the output structured, but it did not yet prevent deterministic evidence attribution failures such as fabricated invocation ids, removed fields, empty evidence bindings, or mismatched tool names.
|
||||
|
||||
## Goal
|
||||
|
||||
Add a deterministic Gatekeeper between Executor output parsing and Verifier model execution.
|
||||
|
||||
The Gatekeeper should:
|
||||
|
||||
- Validate the initial Executor V2 schema.
|
||||
- Validate `claims[].evidence_bindings[].source_invocation_ids` against current-session `tool_invocation` rows.
|
||||
- Validate evidence binding `tool_name` against the persisted invocation tool name.
|
||||
- Expose a small `gatekeeper_result` to Verifier and audit persistence.
|
||||
|
||||
## Scope
|
||||
|
||||
Included:
|
||||
|
||||
- New Gatekeeper validation service.
|
||||
- `schema.executor_v2` initial rule.
|
||||
- `evidence.invocation_ref` initial rule.
|
||||
- `VerifierInputHook` payload integration.
|
||||
- `VerifierContextHolder` storage.
|
||||
- `ChatService` verifier evaluation persistence.
|
||||
- Minimal verifier prompt update.
|
||||
- Focused tests for Gatekeeper, hook payload, fabricated invocation ids, tool name mismatch, and persistence.
|
||||
|
||||
Excluded:
|
||||
|
||||
- No Executor retry on Gatekeeper failure.
|
||||
- No excerpt similarity rule in this phase.
|
||||
- No hallucination phrase or evidence utilization rule in this phase.
|
||||
- No Verifier V2 `claim_checks`.
|
||||
- No Composer.
|
||||
- No database schema changes.
|
||||
|
||||
## OpenSpec
|
||||
|
||||
- Change: `openspec/changes/executor-gatekeeper-hook`
|
||||
- Parent stage: `openspec/changes/archive/2026-07-07-executor-v2-output-contract`
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,51 @@
|
||||
# Decisions: executor-gatekeeper-hook
|
||||
|
||||
## Key Decisions
|
||||
|
||||
### Gatekeeper stays in VerifierInputHook
|
||||
|
||||
Decision: Gatekeeper is integrated inside `VerifierInputHook`, after Executor output parsing and before Verifier model execution.
|
||||
|
||||
Reason: The user explicitly chose to keep this version in the Verifier hook and not move validation into Executor hook. This preserves the current workflow orchestration.
|
||||
|
||||
### No retry in this phase
|
||||
|
||||
Decision: Gatekeeper failure does not trigger automatic Executor retry.
|
||||
|
||||
Reason: Retry behavior is intentionally deferred. This phase only validates, exposes, and audits deterministic failures.
|
||||
|
||||
### Initial rule set is intentionally small
|
||||
|
||||
Decision: Stage two implements only `schema.executor_v2` and `evidence.invocation_ref` as hard checks.
|
||||
|
||||
Reason: These rules catch the highest-confidence physical failures with low implementation risk. Excerpt similarity, hallucination phrases, and evidence utilization remain later enhancements.
|
||||
|
||||
### No new database schema
|
||||
|
||||
Decision: Persist `gatekeeper_result` in existing `diagnosis_session.self_evaluation.verifier_evaluation`.
|
||||
|
||||
Reason: The user asked to keep database fields minimal. Existing JSON audit storage is enough for this phase.
|
||||
|
||||
### Internal interface impact
|
||||
|
||||
Decision: This is an L2 internal interface extension.
|
||||
|
||||
Impact:
|
||||
|
||||
- Verifier payload gains `gatekeeper_result`.
|
||||
- `VerifierContextHolder` gains Gatekeeper result storage.
|
||||
- `self_evaluation.verifier_evaluation` gains `gatekeeper_result`.
|
||||
- No external API, DTO, database table, or schema migration changes.
|
||||
|
||||
## Deferred Decisions
|
||||
|
||||
- Whether Gatekeeper should later trigger Executor retry.
|
||||
- Whether `evidence.excerpt_similarity` should be hard fail or warn-only.
|
||||
- Whether hallucination phrase and evidence utilization rules should be config-driven from metadata files.
|
||||
- How Verifier V2 `claim_checks` should enforce Gatekeeper failures in code, beyond prompt instruction.
|
||||
|
||||
## Remaining Risks
|
||||
|
||||
- Verifier prompt compliance is not a deterministic guarantee; stage three should make Gatekeeper fail incompatible with PASS in Verifier V2 behavior.
|
||||
- Excerpt authenticity is not checked in this phase, so real invocation ids can still be paired with misleading excerpt text until a later rule is implemented.
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,54 @@
|
||||
# Evidence: executor-gatekeeper-hook
|
||||
|
||||
## Context Evidence
|
||||
|
||||
- `executor-v2-output-contract` established `executor_evidence_v2` and removed Executor final-expression fields.
|
||||
- `VerifierInputHook` is the existing integration point for explicit Verifier payload construction.
|
||||
- `ChatService.persistVerifierEvaluation(...)` is the existing persistence path for verifier audit snapshots.
|
||||
- `ToolInvocationRepository.findBySessionIdOrderByIdAsc(...)` provides the current-session invocation pool used by Gatekeeper.
|
||||
|
||||
## Implementation Evidence
|
||||
|
||||
- `src/main/java/com/superbiz/agent/service/ExecutorGatekeeperService.java`
|
||||
- Implements `schema.executor_v2`.
|
||||
- Implements `evidence.invocation_ref`.
|
||||
- Returns `status`, `failed_rules`, `warnings`, and `errors`.
|
||||
|
||||
- `src/main/java/com/superbiz/agent/hook/VerifierInputHook.java`
|
||||
- Runs Gatekeeper after parsing Executor output and building trace summary.
|
||||
- Adds `gatekeeper_result` to Verifier payload.
|
||||
- Stores `gatekeeper_result` in `VerifierContextHolder`.
|
||||
|
||||
- `src/main/java/com/superbiz/agent/util/VerifierContextHolder.java`
|
||||
- Stores per-request Gatekeeper result for later persistence.
|
||||
|
||||
- `src/main/java/com/superbiz/agent/service/ChatService.java`
|
||||
- Wires `ExecutorGatekeeperService` into verifier hook construction.
|
||||
- Persists `gatekeeper_result` under `diagnosis_session.self_evaluation.verifier_evaluation`.
|
||||
|
||||
- `src/main/resources/prompts/chat-verifier-prompt.md`
|
||||
- Documents `gatekeeper_result` as an input.
|
||||
- States Gatekeeper fail must not produce PASS.
|
||||
|
||||
## Test Evidence
|
||||
|
||||
- `src/test/java/com/superbiz/agent/service/ExecutorGatekeeperServiceTest.java`
|
||||
- Covers schema failure and valid pass behavior.
|
||||
- Covers fabricated invocation ids and tool name mismatch.
|
||||
|
||||
- `src/test/java/com/superbiz/agent/hook/VerifierInputHookTest.java`
|
||||
- Covers Verifier payload containing `gatekeeper_result`.
|
||||
- Covers hook behavior for fabricated invocation ids.
|
||||
|
||||
- `src/test/java/com/superbiz/agent/service/ChatServiceSequentialAgentTest.java`
|
||||
- Covers persistence of `gatekeeper_result` into verifier evaluation.
|
||||
|
||||
## Validation Evidence
|
||||
|
||||
- `mvn "-Dtest=ExecutorGatekeeperServiceTest,VerifierInputHookTest,ChatServiceSequentialAgentTest" test`
|
||||
- Result: passed.
|
||||
- Coverage: 23 focused tests.
|
||||
|
||||
- `cmd /c openspec validate executor-gatekeeper-hook`
|
||||
- Result: passed.
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,41 @@
|
||||
# Acceptance: executor-v2-output-contract
|
||||
|
||||
## Implementation Result
|
||||
|
||||
Completed stage one of Executor Structured Output V2.
|
||||
|
||||
- Executor prompt now emits `executor_evidence_v2`.
|
||||
- Executor output no longer includes `diagnosis_summary` or `user_facing_answer`.
|
||||
- ChatService PASS path renders V2 structured output into readable Chinese.
|
||||
- VerifierInputHook remains parse-only and accepts V2 output without final-expression fields.
|
||||
|
||||
## Static Verification
|
||||
|
||||
- `cmd /c openspec validate executor-v2-output-contract`
|
||||
- Result: passed.
|
||||
- Coverage: OpenSpec syntax and change validity.
|
||||
|
||||
## Script Verification
|
||||
|
||||
- `mvn "-Dtest=VerifierInputHookTest,ChatServiceSequentialAgentTest" test`
|
||||
- Result: passed.
|
||||
- Coverage: VerifierInputHook V2 parsing; ChatService PASS rendering for V2; existing sequential workflow tests.
|
||||
|
||||
## Browser / Manual Verification
|
||||
|
||||
Not run. This stage changes backend prompt/runtime contract and unit-level behavior only.
|
||||
|
||||
## Unverified
|
||||
|
||||
- Full live application run with a real LLM.
|
||||
- MySQL trace inspection after a real chat session.
|
||||
|
||||
Reason: Stage one is covered by focused unit tests; live verification is more useful after Gatekeeper and Composer phases.
|
||||
|
||||
## Remaining Work
|
||||
|
||||
- Phase two: Gatekeeper in `VerifierInputHook`.
|
||||
- Phase three: Verifier V2 `claim_checks`.
|
||||
- Phase four: Composer.
|
||||
- Phase five: eval fixtures and full audit closure.
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,32 @@
|
||||
# Brief: executor-v2-output-contract
|
||||
|
||||
## Background
|
||||
|
||||
`executor_evidence_v1` still made Chat Executor produce both evidence attribution and final user-facing prose through `diagnosis_summary` and `user_facing_answer`.
|
||||
|
||||
This kept Executor in a "diagnose and narrate" role and left room for unsupported conclusions to appear before later verification and composition stages.
|
||||
|
||||
## Goal
|
||||
|
||||
Narrow Chat Executor output to `executor_evidence_v2`: structured diagnostic material only, with final expression removed from Executor.
|
||||
|
||||
## Scope
|
||||
|
||||
- Update Chat Executor prompt to emit `executor_evidence_v2`.
|
||||
- Remove `diagnosis_summary` and `user_facing_answer` from Executor output.
|
||||
- Keep `claims`, `hypotheses`, `recommended_actions`, `missing_info`, and evidence bindings.
|
||||
- Add temporary ChatService rendering for PASS + V2 output so normal users do not see raw JSON.
|
||||
- Preserve V1 `user_facing_answer` extraction for compatibility.
|
||||
|
||||
## Non-Goals
|
||||
|
||||
- No Gatekeeper implementation.
|
||||
- No Verifier V2 `claim_checks`.
|
||||
- No Composer.
|
||||
- No Planner changes.
|
||||
- No database schema changes.
|
||||
- No evidence tool signature changes.
|
||||
|
||||
## Related OpenSpec
|
||||
|
||||
`openspec/changes/archive/2026-07-07-executor-v2-output-contract/`
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,39 @@
|
||||
# Decisions: executor-v2-output-contract
|
||||
|
||||
## Key Decisions
|
||||
|
||||
### Executor V2 removes final-expression fields
|
||||
|
||||
Decision: Chat Executor final output now uses `executor_evidence_v2` and must not include `diagnosis_summary` or `user_facing_answer`.
|
||||
|
||||
Reason: Executor should collect evidence and produce structured diagnostic material, not write final user-facing conclusions.
|
||||
|
||||
### Temporary renderer bridges the gap before Composer
|
||||
|
||||
Decision: `ChatService` renders V2 structured fields into readable Chinese only when Verifier returns `PASS`.
|
||||
|
||||
Reason: Composer is a later phase, but external users must not receive raw JSON during this intermediate stage.
|
||||
|
||||
### V1 compatibility remains
|
||||
|
||||
Decision: Existing V1 `user_facing_answer` extraction remains.
|
||||
|
||||
Reason: It keeps old tests and any lingering V1 output compatible while the staged migration continues.
|
||||
|
||||
### Gatekeeper and Verifier V2 are deferred
|
||||
|
||||
Decision: This phase does not add Gatekeeper or `claim_checks`.
|
||||
|
||||
Reason: The user requested phase-by-phase implementation with archive and commit after each phase. Gatekeeper is phase two.
|
||||
|
||||
## Interface Impact
|
||||
|
||||
- Internal Agent output contract: L4, because fields are removed.
|
||||
- Verifier payload: L2, because raw `executor_final_answer` and parsed `executor_structured_output` remain.
|
||||
- External Chat answer: compatible intent; users still get readable Chinese.
|
||||
|
||||
## Risks
|
||||
|
||||
- The temporary renderer is not a full Composer and should be replaced in the Composer phase.
|
||||
- Verifier prompt still uses V1 `facts_checked`; Verifier V2 is a later phase.
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,21 @@
|
||||
# Evidence: executor-v2-output-contract
|
||||
|
||||
## Context Used
|
||||
|
||||
- `devflow/projects/2026-07-07-executor-evidence-output-contract`: V1 evidence-attribution contract kept `user_facing_answer`.
|
||||
- `devflow/projects/2026-07-02-chat-verifier-agent`: Verifier consumes explicit inputs and should not see intermediate reasoning.
|
||||
- `devflow/projects/2026-07-04-evidence-trace-hardening`: evidence summaries and tool invocation references are the evidence foundation.
|
||||
- `mvp/issues/design-notes/executor-structured-output-v2.md`: staged implementation design; stage one is Executor V2 output contract.
|
||||
|
||||
## Code Evidence
|
||||
|
||||
- `src/main/resources/prompts/chat-executor-prompt.md`: V2 contract now uses `answer_version="executor_evidence_v2"` and removes final-expression fields.
|
||||
- `src/main/java/com/superbiz/agent/service/ChatService.java`: PASS path now tries V1 `user_facing_answer`, then renders V2 structured output to readable Chinese.
|
||||
- `src/main/resources/prompts/chat-verifier-prompt.md`: `user_facing_answer` is now described as compatibility-only.
|
||||
- `src/test/java/com/superbiz/agent/hook/VerifierInputHookTest.java`: V2 structured output without `user_facing_answer` parses successfully.
|
||||
- `src/test/java/com/superbiz/agent/service/ChatServiceSequentialAgentTest.java`: PASS + V2 output renders Chinese and does not expose raw JSON.
|
||||
|
||||
## Key Finding
|
||||
|
||||
The previous V1 contract intentionally kept `user_facing_answer`, but the V2 staged design intentionally removes it. This is an internal Agent contract break, mitigated by a temporary renderer until Composer is implemented.
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,58 @@
|
||||
# Acceptance
|
||||
|
||||
## Implementation Result
|
||||
|
||||
Implemented stage three of Executor Structured Output V2:
|
||||
|
||||
- Verifier prompt now validates claim derivability rather than scanning final natural-language output.
|
||||
- Verifier output supports `claim_checks`.
|
||||
- `ChatService` derives compatibility `facts_checked` from `claim_checks`.
|
||||
- `ChatService` persists both `claim_checks` and `facts_checked`.
|
||||
- Effective verdict guardrails prevent Gatekeeper failures and malformed structured output from remaining `PASS`.
|
||||
- Verifier logging summarizes `claim_checks`.
|
||||
|
||||
## Static Verification
|
||||
|
||||
- Reviewed `git diff --stat` and changed files are scoped to stage three implementation, tests, OpenSpec/devflow, and the issue handoff document.
|
||||
- `cmd /c openspec validate executor-verifier-claim-checks` passed.
|
||||
- After OpenSpec archive, `cmd /c openspec validate --specs` passed.
|
||||
|
||||
## Script Verification
|
||||
|
||||
Passed:
|
||||
|
||||
```powershell
|
||||
mvn "-Dtest=ExecutorGatekeeperServiceTest,VerifierInputHookTest,ChatServiceSequentialAgentTest" test
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
Coverage:
|
||||
|
||||
- Verifier payload and Gatekeeper hook behavior.
|
||||
- Gatekeeper schema/invocation validation.
|
||||
- `claim_checks` parsing and persistence.
|
||||
- `claim_checks` to `facts_checked` compatibility mapping.
|
||||
- all claim verification mapping classes.
|
||||
- Gatekeeper failure downgrade from model `PASS`.
|
||||
- malformed Executor output downgrade from model `PASS`.
|
||||
|
||||
The targeted Maven test command was re-run after OpenSpec archive and passed.
|
||||
|
||||
## Browser / Manual Verification
|
||||
|
||||
Not run. This stage changes backend prompt, parser, audit, and tests only.
|
||||
|
||||
## OpenSpec Archive Status
|
||||
|
||||
Archived:
|
||||
|
||||
```text
|
||||
openspec/changes/archive/2026-07-07-executor-verifier-claim-checks
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
Archive follow-up: the generated canonical `chat-verifier-agent` spec was reviewed and amended to preserve pre-existing verifier input and Gatekeeper schema scenarios while adding the new claim-check scenarios.
|
||||
|
||||
## Remaining Risks
|
||||
|
||||
- Composer is not implemented in this stage; final PASS rendering still uses the temporary V2 renderer until stage four.
|
||||
- Full eval fixture expansion is deferred to stage five.
|
||||
- Existing Maven warnings about duplicate test dependency and Lombok builder defaults remain outside this stage.
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,41 @@
|
||||
# Executor Verifier Claim Checks
|
||||
|
||||
## Background
|
||||
|
||||
Stage one moved Chat Executor to `executor_evidence_v2`, and stage two added deterministic Gatekeeper checks before Verifier. After those stages, Verifier still primarily used the legacy `facts_checked` contract and could still treat `executor_final_answer` as a fact source.
|
||||
|
||||
That left two risks:
|
||||
|
||||
- Verifier could still extract extra confirmed facts from natural-language Executor output.
|
||||
- Downstream audit and retry consumers could not distinguish V2 claim-level verification from legacy fact checks.
|
||||
|
||||
## Goal
|
||||
|
||||
Make Verifier V2 claim-oriented:
|
||||
|
||||
- verify `executor_structured_output.claims` as the primary target;
|
||||
- emit `claim_checks` as the authoritative V2 result;
|
||||
- keep `facts_checked` only as a compatibility projection;
|
||||
- enforce code-side guardrails so Gatekeeper failures or malformed structured output cannot remain effective `PASS`.
|
||||
|
||||
## Scope
|
||||
|
||||
- Updated `chat-verifier-prompt.md` to frame verification as claim derivability.
|
||||
- Extended `ChatService` to parse, normalize, map, and persist `claim_checks`.
|
||||
- Added effective verdict guardrails for Gatekeeper failure and malformed/missing Executor structured output.
|
||||
- Updated verifier logging summaries to count `claim_checks`.
|
||||
- Updated sequential workflow tests to cover claim mapping and downgrade behavior.
|
||||
|
||||
## Non-Goals
|
||||
|
||||
- No Composer integration in this phase.
|
||||
- No final-answer material filtering beyond existing templates and temporary V2 renderer.
|
||||
- No Executor retry behavior change.
|
||||
- No Gatekeeper rule expansion.
|
||||
- No database schema migration.
|
||||
|
||||
## OpenSpec
|
||||
|
||||
- Active change before archive: `openspec/changes/executor-verifier-claim-checks`
|
||||
- Capability: `chat-verifier-agent`
|
||||
- Scale: standard
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,57 @@
|
||||
# Decisions
|
||||
|
||||
## Scope Decision
|
||||
|
||||
Stage three is limited to Verifier V2 claim checks. Composer is explicitly deferred to stage four.
|
||||
|
||||
Reason: Composer requires stable verifier output and allowed-material filtering; mixing it into this stage would make rollback and acceptance unclear.
|
||||
|
||||
## Contract Decision
|
||||
|
||||
`claim_checks` is the authoritative V2 verifier output.
|
||||
|
||||
`facts_checked` remains as a compatibility projection generated from `claim_checks` when present.
|
||||
|
||||
Reason: existing low-confidence rendering, retry context, trace output, and evaluation code still depend on `facts_checked`.
|
||||
|
||||
## Mapping Decision
|
||||
|
||||
Claim verification maps to legacy facts as follows:
|
||||
|
||||
| claim verification | legacy facts_checked verification |
|
||||
|---|---|
|
||||
| `direct_observation` | `direct_evidence` |
|
||||
| `reasonable_inference` | `indirect_support` |
|
||||
| `overstated` | `indirect_support` |
|
||||
| `unsupported` | `no_evidence` |
|
||||
| `external_unknown` | `no_evidence` |
|
||||
| `contradicted` | `contradicted` |
|
||||
|
||||
## Guardrail Decision
|
||||
|
||||
Effective verdict is enforced in code:
|
||||
|
||||
- `gatekeeper_result.status=fail` cannot remain `PASS`.
|
||||
- `evidence.invocation_ref` failure downgrades to `REJECT`.
|
||||
- Other Gatekeeper failures downgrade at least to `LOW_CONFID`.
|
||||
- missing/malformed Executor structured output cannot remain `PASS`.
|
||||
|
||||
Reason: prompt compliance is not deterministic enough for safety-critical evidence attribution.
|
||||
|
||||
## Apply Fix Record
|
||||
|
||||
Initial targeted Maven verification failed because older tests expected PASS to return Executor natural-language output or V1 `user_facing_answer`.
|
||||
|
||||
Classification: test drift from the committed OpenSpec, not a design blocker.
|
||||
|
||||
Resolution: update tests to use valid Executor V2 output for PASS paths and assert downgrade behavior for malformed or Gatekeeper-failed outputs.
|
||||
|
||||
## Interface Impact
|
||||
|
||||
L2 internal contract extension:
|
||||
|
||||
- Verifier output gains `claim_checks`.
|
||||
- Existing `facts_checked` remains available.
|
||||
- Persistence JSON gains `claim_checks` under existing `self_evaluation`.
|
||||
|
||||
No external API or database schema changes.
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,35 @@
|
||||
# Evidence
|
||||
|
||||
## Relevant History
|
||||
|
||||
- `executor-v2-output-contract`: Executor emits `executor_evidence_v2` and no longer emits final-expression fields.
|
||||
- `executor-gatekeeper-hook`: Gatekeeper validates schema and invocation references before Verifier and persists `gatekeeper_result`.
|
||||
- `chat-verifier-agent`: Existing Verifier used `facts_checked`, low-confidence rendering, retry context, and verifier audit.
|
||||
|
||||
## Code Evidence
|
||||
|
||||
- `src/main/resources/prompts/chat-verifier-prompt.md`: Verifier prompt now makes `executor_structured_output.claims` primary and treats `executor_final_answer` as debug/fallback only.
|
||||
- `src/main/java/com/superbiz/agent/service/ChatService.java`: parses `claim_checks`, maps them to compatibility `facts_checked`, persists both, and applies effective verdict guardrails.
|
||||
- `src/main/java/com/superbiz/agent/hook/AgentLoggingHook.java`: verifier thought summaries now include `claim_checks`.
|
||||
- `src/test/java/com/superbiz/agent/service/ChatServiceSequentialAgentTest.java`: covers claim-check mapping, Gatekeeper downgrade, malformed output downgrade, and V2 PASS paths.
|
||||
|
||||
## Evidence-Driven Conclusions
|
||||
|
||||
- `facts_checked` cannot be removed yet because existing low-confidence templates, retry context, trace tooling, and eval paths still consume it.
|
||||
- Prompt-only prevention is insufficient for Gatekeeper failures; `ChatService` must enforce effective verdict downgrades in code.
|
||||
- No database schema migration is needed because `claim_checks` is persisted inside existing `diagnosis_session.self_evaluation`.
|
||||
- Composer remains stage four and must not be mixed into this stage.
|
||||
|
||||
## Verification Evidence
|
||||
|
||||
Script verification passed:
|
||||
|
||||
```powershell
|
||||
mvn "-Dtest=ExecutorGatekeeperServiceTest,VerifierInputHookTest,ChatServiceSequentialAgentTest" test
|
||||
cmd /c openspec validate executor-verifier-claim-checks
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
Known existing warnings:
|
||||
|
||||
- Maven reports duplicate `spring-boot-starter-test` dependency in `pom.xml`.
|
||||
- Existing Lombok `@Builder` default warnings remain.
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,48 @@
|
||||
# diagnosis-eval-demo-gatekeeper-closure Acceptance
|
||||
|
||||
## Static / Structure Verification
|
||||
|
||||
- `cmd /c openspec validate diagnosis-eval-demo-gatekeeper-closure --strict`
|
||||
- Result: passed.
|
||||
- `cmd /c openspec validate --specs`
|
||||
- Result: passed, 10 specs passed.
|
||||
|
||||
## Script Verification
|
||||
|
||||
- `mvn "-Dtest=ExecutorGatekeeperServiceTest,DiagnosisTraceEvaluatorTest,DiagnosisEvalBaselineDiffTest,VerifierInputHookTest" test`
|
||||
- Result: 36 tests, 0 failures, 0 errors.
|
||||
- `mvn "-Dtest=DiagnosisTraceEvaluatorTest,DiagnosisEvalBaselineDiffTest,ExecutorGatekeeperServiceTest,VerifierInputHookTest,ChatServiceSequentialAgentTest,ToolInvocationRecorderTest,QueryLogsToolsTest" test`
|
||||
- Result: 61 tests, 0 failures, 0 errors.
|
||||
- `mvn "-Dtest=ExecutorGatekeeperServiceTest,VerifierInputHookTest" test`
|
||||
- Result after E2E startup fix: 23 tests, 0 failures, 0 errors.
|
||||
|
||||
## Live E2E Verification
|
||||
|
||||
- Start command: `mvn spring-boot:run "-Dspring-boot.run.profiles=mvp-demo"`.
|
||||
- Demo command: `powershell -ExecutionPolicy Bypass -File mvp/demo/scripts/run-payment-timeout-demo.ps1`.
|
||||
- Result: chat, trace, and feedback requests completed successfully.
|
||||
- Output files:
|
||||
- `mvp/demo/output/chat-response.json`
|
||||
- `mvp/demo/output/trace-response.json`
|
||||
- `mvp/demo/output/feedback-response.json`
|
||||
- Trace observations:
|
||||
- `hasVerifierEvaluation=true`
|
||||
- `gatekeeper_result.rule_set_version=gatekeeper-rules-v1`
|
||||
|
||||
## Fixed During Verification
|
||||
|
||||
- E2E startup initially failed because Spring could not instantiate `ExecutorGatekeeperService`.
|
||||
- Root cause: two public constructors and no explicit `@Autowired` constructor.
|
||||
- Fix: annotate the production constructor with `@Autowired`.
|
||||
|
||||
## Residual Risk
|
||||
|
||||
- The live payment-timeout path can still produce `LOW_CONFID` because model-generated evidence bindings may omit some explicit `source_invocation_id` values.
|
||||
- This is not a blocker for this change because deterministic matrix behavior is covered by saved fixtures and baseline evaluation.
|
||||
- Existing Maven warnings remain: duplicate `spring-boot-starter-test` declaration and Lombok `@Builder` default warnings.
|
||||
|
||||
## Archive Status
|
||||
|
||||
- Devflow archive artifacts created.
|
||||
- OpenSpec change archived to `openspec/changes/archive/2026-07-08-diagnosis-eval-demo-gatekeeper-closure`.
|
||||
- Main specs synced by `cmd /c openspec archive diagnosis-eval-demo-gatekeeper-closure --yes`.
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,33 @@
|
||||
# diagnosis-eval-demo-gatekeeper-closure Brief
|
||||
|
||||
## Background
|
||||
|
||||
The Chat evidence pipeline already had Executor V2 structured output, deterministic Gatekeeper validation, Verifier claim checks, and Composer final rendering. The missing piece was an interview-ready acceptance story that made the anti-hallucination behavior easy to demonstrate and regress.
|
||||
|
||||
## Goal
|
||||
|
||||
Close the next three interview-readiness gaps together:
|
||||
|
||||
- diagnosis eval fixture matrix
|
||||
- stable demo data set
|
||||
- Gatekeeper rule configuration and audit version
|
||||
|
||||
## Scope
|
||||
|
||||
- Expand `mvp/eval` with matrix-oriented cases, fixtures, and baseline reports.
|
||||
- Add stable demo request payloads and scenario documentation.
|
||||
- Add a lightweight local Gatekeeper rule catalog with `rule_set_version` and rule metadata in `gatekeeper_result`.
|
||||
- Update architecture, demo, and eval docs to describe the current implementation.
|
||||
|
||||
## Non-goals
|
||||
|
||||
- No new public HTTP endpoint.
|
||||
- No new database table.
|
||||
- No Planner `scope_contract`.
|
||||
- No Gatekeeper retry loop.
|
||||
- No remote or dynamic rule execution engine.
|
||||
|
||||
## OpenSpec
|
||||
|
||||
- Change: `openspec/changes/diagnosis-eval-demo-gatekeeper-closure`
|
||||
- Interface impact: L2 internal contract change.
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,144 @@
|
||||
# diagnosis-eval-demo-gatekeeper-closure Decisions
|
||||
|
||||
## Clarify
|
||||
|
||||
- Entry summary: implement the next three interview-readiness items together: diagnosis eval fixture matrix, stable demo data set, and Gatekeeper rule configuration/audit version.
|
||||
- Slug: `diagnosis-eval-demo-gatekeeper-closure`
|
||||
- Devflow scale: `standard`
|
||||
- Interface impact: expected L2 internal contract change because `gatekeeper_result` audit JSON will gain rule metadata/version fields.
|
||||
|
||||
## Context
|
||||
|
||||
- `devflow/index.md` used: related entries found for diagnosis eval harness, fixture expansion, MVP demo runbook, Gatekeeper hook, and verifier evidence reference fidelity.
|
||||
- Relevant glossary:
|
||||
- Evidence Tools produce incident facts and must be recorded in `tool_invocation`.
|
||||
- Verifier should not use skills/runbooks as incident evidence.
|
||||
- `tool_invocation.retrieval_details` is the structured evidence/audit home for tool-specific details.
|
||||
- Historical constraints that must enter OpenSpec:
|
||||
- Diagnosis eval is offline and deterministic; no LLM-as-judge.
|
||||
- Demo assets should be runnable, but fixed regression should use saved fixtures.
|
||||
- Gatekeeper remains in the Verifier hook path.
|
||||
- No new database table for Gatekeeper audit; use `self_evaluation.verifier_evaluation.gatekeeper_result`.
|
||||
- `$.no_evidence` is a query no-hit signal, not proof that a problem is impossible.
|
||||
|
||||
## Question Pool
|
||||
|
||||
| ID | Dimension | Mode | Question | Status |
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
||||
| Q1 | Terminology | evidence-driven | What names should this change use for the matrix, demo set, and Gatekeeper rule metadata? | Resolved |
|
||||
| Q2 | Boundary | evidence-driven | Should this change alter public APIs, database schema, Planner output, or retry behavior? | Resolved |
|
||||
| Q3 | Acceptance | evidence-driven | Which existing tests and baseline assets define the current acceptance style? | Resolved |
|
||||
| Q4 | Technical | evidence-driven | Where should Gatekeeper rule metadata live with minimal implementation risk? | Pending code research |
|
||||
| Q5 | Scope | user-interview | Should the stable demo set be documentation/payloads only, or should it include live E2E scripts for all scenarios? | Confirmed |
|
||||
|
||||
## Evidence-driven Conclusions
|
||||
|
||||
- Q1 conclusion: use `diagnosis eval matrix`, `stable demo scenarios`, and `Gatekeeper rule set version` as terms.
|
||||
- Q2 conclusion: keep this as an internal contract change. Do not add public endpoints, tables, Planner `scope_contract`, or Gatekeeper retry.
|
||||
- Q3 conclusion: existing `DiagnosisTraceEvaluatorTest`, `ExecutorGatekeeperServiceTest`, `VerifierInputHookTest`, `ToolInvocationRecorderTest`, and `mvp/eval/reports` define the current acceptance style.
|
||||
- Q4 conclusion: Gatekeeper metadata should live behind a small rule catalog loaded by `ExecutorGatekeeperService`; the audit output should include a rule set version and enabled rule metadata summary, without adding tables or remote registry.
|
||||
|
||||
## User-interview Confirmations
|
||||
|
||||
- Q5 confirmed by resumed objective: complete items 1/2/3 with sm-flow, archive, submit, and run end-to-end if necessary.
|
||||
- Implementation interpretation: stable demo scenarios will be fixed request payloads and runbook docs plus deterministic fixture-backed eval. Live E2E remains necessary only for at least one main path or where unit/fixture evidence is insufficient.
|
||||
|
||||
## OpenSpec Backfill
|
||||
|
||||
- Created Draft proposal at `openspec/changes/diagnosis-eval-demo-gatekeeper-closure/proposal.md`.
|
||||
- Context constraints from historical devflow entries were written into the proposal.
|
||||
- Scope confirmation and Gatekeeper catalog placement were written into the proposal/design.
|
||||
|
||||
## Current Checkpoint
|
||||
|
||||
- Discover completed.
|
||||
- No implementation files changed yet.
|
||||
|
||||
## Specify / Alignment
|
||||
|
||||
### Cross-artifact Alignment
|
||||
|
||||
| Check | Status | Notes |
|
||||
|---|---|---|
|
||||
| brief/proposal goals -> proposal | Aligned | Proposal covers eval matrix, stable demo scenarios, and Gatekeeper rule catalog/audit version. |
|
||||
| proposal scope/constraints -> design | Aligned | Design records offline deterministic eval, fixture-backed demo distinction, local rule catalog, and no new table/API. |
|
||||
| design decisions -> specs/tasks | Aligned | Specs cover eval matrix, rule set version validation, demo scenarios, and Gatekeeper rule metadata; tasks cover matching implementation slices. |
|
||||
| specs observable behavior -> tasks | Aligned | Each requirement has an executable task and acceptance check. |
|
||||
|
||||
### Interface Impact
|
||||
|
||||
- Level: L2 internal contract change.
|
||||
- Reason: `gatekeeper_result` internal audit JSON gains `rule_set_version` and rule metadata summary. Eval case/result fields may gain optional rule set checks. No public HTTP API, database schema, or external DTO contract changes.
|
||||
|
||||
## Audit
|
||||
|
||||
Input -> processing -> output chain:
|
||||
|
||||
```text
|
||||
mvp/demo request docs + mvp/eval fixtures
|
||||
-> DiagnosisTraceEvaluator
|
||||
-> baseline reports
|
||||
-> interview/demo evidence
|
||||
|
||||
Gatekeeper rule catalog
|
||||
-> ExecutorGatekeeperService
|
||||
-> VerifierInputHook / ChatService persisted self_evaluation
|
||||
-> Trace and eval audit
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
Architecture risk assessment:
|
||||
|
||||
1. The change is intentionally internal and should not add new public consumers.
|
||||
2. Gatekeeper catalog must stay metadata-only; dynamic rule execution would be a different, riskier architecture.
|
||||
3. Fixture-backed demo scenarios should be documented as deterministic regression artifacts, not live LLM guarantees.
|
||||
4. Baseline report churn is expected and must be committed with case/fixture changes.
|
||||
5. No devflow/OpenSpec conflict found.
|
||||
|
||||
## Commit Gate
|
||||
|
||||
- `cmd /c openspec validate diagnosis-eval-demo-gatekeeper-closure --strict`: passed.
|
||||
- `cmd /c openspec validate --specs`: passed, 10 specs passed.
|
||||
- File completeness:
|
||||
- proposal.md: present.
|
||||
- design.md: present.
|
||||
- specs: present for `diagnosis-eval-harness`, `mvp-demo-trace-acceptance`, `chat-verifier-agent`.
|
||||
- tasks.md: present.
|
||||
- Consistency:
|
||||
- Proposal concepts have corresponding design sections.
|
||||
- Design decisions are reflected in specs/tasks.
|
||||
- Task acceptance checks are verifiable.
|
||||
|
||||
## Current Checkpoint
|
||||
|
||||
- Commit completed.
|
||||
- `.committed` marker created.
|
||||
|
||||
## Apply Verification
|
||||
|
||||
- Focused verification passed:
|
||||
- `mvn "-Dtest=ExecutorGatekeeperServiceTest,DiagnosisTraceEvaluatorTest,DiagnosisEvalBaselineDiffTest,VerifierInputHookTest" test`
|
||||
- Result: 36 tests, 0 failures, 0 errors.
|
||||
- Broader relevant regression passed:
|
||||
- `mvn "-Dtest=DiagnosisTraceEvaluatorTest,DiagnosisEvalBaselineDiffTest,ExecutorGatekeeperServiceTest,VerifierInputHookTest,ChatServiceSequentialAgentTest,ToolInvocationRecorderTest,QueryLogsToolsTest" test`
|
||||
- Result: 61 tests, 0 failures, 0 errors.
|
||||
- E2E startup repro found a Spring bean construction issue:
|
||||
- Command: `mvn spring-boot:run "-Dspring-boot.run.profiles=mvp-demo"`
|
||||
- Failure: `ExecutorGatekeeperService` had two public constructors and no annotated constructor, so Spring attempted a no-arg constructor and failed with `No default constructor found`.
|
||||
- Classification: code deviation from OpenSpec implementation intent, not a spec gap.
|
||||
- Fix: annotate the production constructor with `@Autowired`.
|
||||
- Post-fix focused regression passed:
|
||||
- `mvn "-Dtest=ExecutorGatekeeperServiceTest,VerifierInputHookTest" test`
|
||||
- Result: 23 tests, 0 failures, 0 errors.
|
||||
- Live E2E passed for demo compatibility:
|
||||
- Start: `mvn spring-boot:run "-Dspring-boot.run.profiles=mvp-demo"`
|
||||
- Run: `powershell -ExecutionPolicy Bypass -File mvp/demo/scripts/run-payment-timeout-demo.ps1`
|
||||
- Result: `/api/chat`, `/api/diagnosis/{sessionId}/trace`, and `/api/feedback` completed successfully.
|
||||
- Trace summary included `hasVerifierEvaluation=true`.
|
||||
- Persisted Gatekeeper audit included `rule_set_version=gatekeeper-rules-v1`.
|
||||
- Residual quality note: the live payment-timeout response remained `LOW_CONFID` because some model-produced evidence bindings still lacked explicit `source_invocation_id`; deterministic PASS/LOW_CONFID/REJECT claims are covered by fixture-backed eval.
|
||||
|
||||
## Archive Readiness
|
||||
|
||||
- OpenSpec tasks 1-4 completed.
|
||||
- Verification is recorded in devflow acceptance artifacts.
|
||||
- Remaining known risk: live LLM output is not deterministic and may still produce LOW_CONFID on the payment-timeout path; this is intentionally documented as demo compatibility, not a fixed PASS guarantee.
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,22 @@
|
||||
# diagnosis-eval-demo-gatekeeper-closure Evidence
|
||||
|
||||
## Code And Artifact Evidence
|
||||
|
||||
- Gatekeeper rule metadata lives in `src/main/resources/gatekeeper/gatekeeper-rules.json`.
|
||||
- `ExecutorGatekeeperService` loads the local catalog, uses configured threshold parameters, and emits `rule_set_version` plus enabled rule metadata.
|
||||
- `VerifierInputHook` and `ChatService` preserve Gatekeeper audit metadata in fallback/default paths.
|
||||
- `DiagnosisTraceEvaluator` can optionally validate expected Gatekeeper rule set version.
|
||||
- `mvp/eval/cases/diagnosis-cases.json` now includes narrow-scope and no-evidence matrix cases.
|
||||
- `mvp/eval/reports/baseline-report.json` and `.md` were regenerated for the expanded fixed matrix.
|
||||
- `mvp/demo/evidence-pipeline-scenarios.md` documents live vs fixture-backed demo scenarios.
|
||||
|
||||
## Decisions
|
||||
|
||||
- Keep this phase internal: no public API, no DB schema, no Planner output change.
|
||||
- Keep Gatekeeper deterministic Java validation; the catalog is metadata/config only.
|
||||
- Treat live demo as compatibility evidence and fixture-backed eval as deterministic regression evidence.
|
||||
- Persist audit under the existing `self_evaluation.verifier_evaluation.gatekeeper_result` structure.
|
||||
|
||||
## Runtime Finding
|
||||
|
||||
The first Maven E2E startup found a real integration issue: `ExecutorGatekeeperService` had multiple public constructors without an annotated constructor, so Spring could not instantiate the service. The fix was to annotate the production constructor with `@Autowired`.
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,57 @@
|
||||
# Acceptance
|
||||
|
||||
## Implementation Result
|
||||
|
||||
Implemented stage four of Executor Structured Output V2:
|
||||
|
||||
- Added `chat_composer` prompt and Agent.
|
||||
- Final answers for PASS, LOW_CONFID, and REJECT now use Composer when Verifier decision is valid.
|
||||
- Composer input is filtered from Verifier decision and Executor structured output.
|
||||
- Unsupported, external-unknown, and contradicted claims are excluded from confirmed final-answer material.
|
||||
- REJECT Composer input has `allowed_hypotheses=[]`.
|
||||
- Malformed Composer output uses deterministic safe fallback.
|
||||
- Fallback does not expose raw Composer JSON, raw Executor JSON, or Executor `user_facing_answer`.
|
||||
- `composer_output` is persisted in verifier audit.
|
||||
|
||||
## Static Verification
|
||||
|
||||
- Reviewed implementation diff for stage-four scope.
|
||||
- `cmd /c openspec validate executor-composer-final-answer` passed.
|
||||
- `cmd /c openspec validate --specs` passed before archive.
|
||||
|
||||
## Script Verification
|
||||
|
||||
Passed:
|
||||
|
||||
```powershell
|
||||
mvn "-Dtest=ChatServiceSequentialAgentTest" test
|
||||
mvn "-Dtest=ExecutorGatekeeperServiceTest,VerifierInputHookTest,ChatServiceSequentialAgentTest" test
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
Coverage:
|
||||
|
||||
- Composer prompt loading and invocation.
|
||||
- valid Composer output as final answer source.
|
||||
- malformed Composer output fallback.
|
||||
- PASS no raw Executor JSON leakage.
|
||||
- LOW_CONFID separation of confirmed material, possible directions, and gaps.
|
||||
- REJECT safe output without raw Executor answer.
|
||||
- Gatekeeper and Verifier stage compatibility.
|
||||
|
||||
## Browser / Manual Verification
|
||||
|
||||
Not run. This stage changes backend prompt, routing, parser, audit, and tests only.
|
||||
|
||||
## OpenSpec Archive Status
|
||||
|
||||
Archived:
|
||||
|
||||
```text
|
||||
openspec/changes/archive/2026-07-08-executor-composer-final-answer
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
## Remaining Risks
|
||||
|
||||
- Stage five still needs broader eval fixture coverage for full evidence-attribution regressions.
|
||||
- Composer prompt quality can be improved after real run traces are collected.
|
||||
- Existing Maven warnings about duplicate test dependency and Lombok builder defaults remain outside this stage.
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,54 @@
|
||||
# Executor Composer Final Answer
|
||||
|
||||
## Background
|
||||
|
||||
Stages one to three moved the Chat diagnosis chain to structured Executor output, deterministic Gatekeeper validation, and Verifier `claim_checks`.
|
||||
|
||||
Before this stage, `ChatService` still owned final answer rendering. PASS paths could use a temporary V2 renderer, while LOW_CONFID and REJECT paths used templates. That left final user-facing expression too close to Executor material and made it harder to prove that only Verifier-allowed claims reached the user.
|
||||
|
||||
## Goal
|
||||
|
||||
Add a Composer expression layer after Verifier:
|
||||
|
||||
```text
|
||||
chat_planner
|
||||
-> chat_executor
|
||||
-> VerifierInputHook + Gatekeeper
|
||||
-> chat_verifier
|
||||
-> chat_composer
|
||||
-> final answer
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
Composer produces user-facing answers from filtered material only:
|
||||
|
||||
- `allowed_claims`
|
||||
- `allowed_hypotheses`
|
||||
- `missing_info`
|
||||
- `recommended_actions`
|
||||
- `rationale`
|
||||
|
||||
## Scope
|
||||
|
||||
- Added `chat-composer-prompt.md`.
|
||||
- Added `chat_composer` Agent construction in `ChatService`.
|
||||
- Added Composer input filtering from Verifier decision and Executor structured output.
|
||||
- Replaced PASS temporary V2 renderer usage with Composer-or-safe-fallback rendering.
|
||||
- Routed LOW_CONFID and REJECT final answers through Composer when Verifier output is valid.
|
||||
- Added deterministic fallback for malformed Composer output.
|
||||
- Persisted `composer_output` under `diagnosis_session.self_evaluation.verifier_evaluation`.
|
||||
- Updated sequential workflow tests.
|
||||
|
||||
## Non-Goals
|
||||
|
||||
- No Planner changes.
|
||||
- No Executor retry changes.
|
||||
- No Gatekeeper rule expansion.
|
||||
- No Verifier classification expansion.
|
||||
- No database schema migration.
|
||||
- No stage-five eval fixture expansion.
|
||||
|
||||
## OpenSpec
|
||||
|
||||
- Active change before archive: `openspec/changes/executor-composer-final-answer`
|
||||
- Capabilities: `chat-composer-agent`, `chat-verifier-agent`
|
||||
- Scale: standard
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,70 @@
|
||||
# Decisions
|
||||
|
||||
## Scope Decision
|
||||
|
||||
Stage four is limited to Composer final-answer generation and routing.
|
||||
|
||||
Reason: Gatekeeper and Verifier contracts were stabilized in earlier stages; this phase should only close the final-expression path.
|
||||
|
||||
## Composer Responsibility
|
||||
|
||||
Composer is an expression layer, not a diagnosis layer.
|
||||
|
||||
It may rephrase and organize only filtered material. It must not call tools, introduce new facts, rejudge root cause, or read raw Executor/tool output.
|
||||
|
||||
## Filtering Decision
|
||||
|
||||
`ChatService` owns Composer input filtering:
|
||||
|
||||
| Verifier classification | Composer handling |
|
||||
|---|---|
|
||||
| `direct_observation` | `allowed_claims` |
|
||||
| `reasonable_inference` | `allowed_claims`, with bounded wording |
|
||||
| `overstated` | `allowed_hypotheses` or `missing_info` |
|
||||
| `unsupported` | `missing_info` |
|
||||
| `external_unknown` | `missing_info` |
|
||||
| `contradicted` | `missing_info` / REJECT-safe output |
|
||||
|
||||
For REJECT, `allowed_hypotheses` is always empty.
|
||||
|
||||
## Fallback Decision
|
||||
|
||||
Malformed Composer output falls back to deterministic rendering from filtered Composer input.
|
||||
|
||||
Fallback must never expose:
|
||||
|
||||
- raw Composer JSON;
|
||||
- raw Executor JSON;
|
||||
- Executor `user_facing_answer`;
|
||||
- full unscreened tool output.
|
||||
|
||||
## Audit Decision
|
||||
|
||||
No new table is added. Composer output is persisted under:
|
||||
|
||||
```text
|
||||
diagnosis_session.self_evaluation.verifier_evaluation.composer_output
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
The audit snapshot is intentionally compact and stores status plus parsed user-facing fields.
|
||||
|
||||
## Apply Fix Record
|
||||
|
||||
Initial targeted verification exposed test drift:
|
||||
|
||||
- test file had a UTF-8 BOM and failed Java compilation;
|
||||
- scripted chat model did not recognize `COMPOSER_TEST_PROMPT`;
|
||||
- older tests expected three-Agent execution and temporary V2 renderer behavior;
|
||||
- LOW_CONFID assertions required indirect support to disappear instead of appearing as a possible direction.
|
||||
|
||||
Resolution: remove BOM, add Composer script branch, and update assertions to match the committed Composer contract.
|
||||
|
||||
## Interface Impact
|
||||
|
||||
L2 internal behavior change:
|
||||
|
||||
- external Chat API still returns a final answer string;
|
||||
- internal final-answer source changes from Executor/temporary renderer to Composer or safe fallback;
|
||||
- audit JSON gains `composer_output` under existing `self_evaluation`.
|
||||
|
||||
No database schema change.
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,36 @@
|
||||
# Evidence
|
||||
|
||||
## Relevant History
|
||||
|
||||
- `executor-v2-output-contract`: Executor emits structured diagnostic material and no final-expression fields.
|
||||
- `executor-gatekeeper-hook`: Gatekeeper validates deterministic evidence failures before Verifier.
|
||||
- `executor-verifier-claim-checks`: Verifier emits `claim_checks` and effective verdict guardrails.
|
||||
|
||||
## Code Evidence
|
||||
|
||||
- `src/main/resources/prompts/chat-composer-prompt.md`: defines Composer as an expression layer with strict JSON output.
|
||||
- `src/main/java/com/superbiz/agent/service/ChatService.java`: loads Composer prompt, invokes `chat_composer`, filters Composer input, parses Composer output, falls back safely, and persists Composer audit.
|
||||
- `src/test/java/com/superbiz/agent/service/ChatServiceSequentialAgentTest.java`: covers Composer invocation, fallback, REJECT/LOW_CONFID behavior, and no raw JSON leakage.
|
||||
|
||||
## Evidence-Driven Conclusions
|
||||
|
||||
- Composer must be after Verifier because Verifier `claim_checks` are the authority for allowed final-answer material.
|
||||
- Composer must not receive raw tool output or full unscreened Executor output because that would re-open the evidence attribution problem.
|
||||
- Verifier malformed/missing output should not invoke Composer because there is no trustworthy decision to filter with.
|
||||
- Fixed fallback remains necessary because Composer is an LLM call with a strict JSON contract and can produce malformed output.
|
||||
|
||||
## Verification Evidence
|
||||
|
||||
Passed:
|
||||
|
||||
```powershell
|
||||
mvn "-Dtest=ChatServiceSequentialAgentTest" test
|
||||
mvn "-Dtest=ExecutorGatekeeperServiceTest,VerifierInputHookTest,ChatServiceSequentialAgentTest" test
|
||||
cmd /c openspec validate executor-composer-final-answer
|
||||
cmd /c openspec validate --specs
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
Known existing warnings:
|
||||
|
||||
- Maven reports duplicate `spring-boot-starter-test` dependency in `pom.xml`.
|
||||
- Existing Lombok `@Builder` default warnings remain.
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,52 @@
|
||||
# Acceptance
|
||||
|
||||
## Static Verification
|
||||
|
||||
- `openspec validate verifier-evidence-reference-fidelity --strict`: passed.
|
||||
- `openspec validate --specs`: passed.
|
||||
|
||||
## Script Verification
|
||||
|
||||
- `mvn "-Dtest=ToolInvocationRecorderTest,ExecutorGatekeeperServiceTest,VerifierInputHookTest,QueryLogsToolsTest,ChatServiceSequentialAgentTest" test`
|
||||
- Passed: 38 tests.
|
||||
- `mvn "-Dtest=ExecutorGatekeeperServiceTest" test`
|
||||
- Passed: 9 tests.
|
||||
- `mvn test`
|
||||
- Failed on unrelated environment-gated `MilvusConnectionTest.connect`: `MILVUS_TOKEN` environment variable was not set.
|
||||
- Other executed tests in the run progressed until that single failure; focused tests for this change passed.
|
||||
|
||||
## End-to-End Verification
|
||||
|
||||
The Java service was restarted with `mvn spring-boot:run`; logs were written under `logs/`.
|
||||
|
||||
| Case | Session | Result | Gatekeeper Audit |
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|
|
||||
| HikariCP positive | `iss007-hikari-positive-20260708-1553` | PASS; confirmed order-service HikariCP timeout and pool saturation logs | `pass / none`, checked_bindings=2 |
|
||||
| HikariCP negative | `iss007-hikari-negative-20260708-1555` | LOW_CONFID; no `generic-service`; no false positive for inventory-service | `fail / low_confid` |
|
||||
| HighMemoryUsage positive | `iss007-memory-positive-20260708-1558` | PASS; confirmed HighMemoryUsage 91%, did not confirm memory leak | `pass / none`, checked_bindings=1 |
|
||||
| SlowResponse positive | `iss007-slow-positive-20260708-1600` | PASS; confirmed SlowResponse and slow request logs, no DB pool root cause | `pass / none`, checked_bindings=7 |
|
||||
| Narrow HighCPUUsage | `iss007-narrow-highcpu-20260708-1602` | PASS; only covered payment-service HighCPUUsage | `pass / none`, checked_bindings=1 |
|
||||
|
||||
## Database Audit
|
||||
|
||||
`scripts/query_mysql.py` was used to verify:
|
||||
|
||||
- `diagnosis_session.self_evaluation.verifier_evaluation.verdict`
|
||||
- `gatekeeper_result.status`
|
||||
- `gatekeeper_result.severity`
|
||||
- `gatekeeper_result.checked_bindings`
|
||||
- no-hit HikariCP query rows persist `evidence_status=no_evidence`
|
||||
|
||||
## Remaining Risk
|
||||
|
||||
- Negative no-hit claims still have incomplete precise references when Executor uses `$.logs` for empty arrays. Gatekeeper correctly downgrades to `LOW_CONFID`.
|
||||
- Prompt-only scope control is improved but not a hard contract. A future `scope_contract` may still be needed.
|
||||
- Full test suite requires `MILVUS_TOKEN` to pass `MilvusConnectionTest`.
|
||||
|
||||
## OpenSpec Archive
|
||||
|
||||
- `openspec archive verifier-evidence-reference-fidelity --yes`: succeeded.
|
||||
- Main specs updated:
|
||||
- `openspec/specs/chat-verifier-agent/spec.md`
|
||||
- `openspec/specs/evidence-trace-hardening/spec.md`
|
||||
- Non-blocking warning: proposal did not use OpenSpec's preferred `## Why` / `## What Changes` headers, but archive completed.
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,44 @@
|
||||
# Verifier Evidence Reference Fidelity
|
||||
|
||||
## Background
|
||||
|
||||
ISS-007 came from end-to-end diagnosis cases where raw tool output and Executor `evidence_excerpt` contained enough facts, but Verifier still returned `LOW_CONFID` because the verifier-facing summary compressed away key details.
|
||||
|
||||
The affected flow is:
|
||||
|
||||
```text
|
||||
chat_planner
|
||||
-> chat_executor
|
||||
-> VerifierInputHook / Gatekeeper
|
||||
-> chat_verifier
|
||||
-> chat_composer
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
The change hardens the evidence handoff between Executor, Gatekeeper, and Verifier.
|
||||
|
||||
## Goal
|
||||
|
||||
Make Executor cite concrete tool evidence, make Gatekeeper validate that citation with code, and make Verifier judge whether verified evidence can derive the claim.
|
||||
|
||||
## Scope
|
||||
|
||||
- Persist `tool_invocation.retrieval_details.evidence_refs`.
|
||||
- Use `source_invocation_id + raw_path + evidence_excerpt` as the precise evidence binding.
|
||||
- Add Gatekeeper `severity` and checked binding audit.
|
||||
- Keep Gatekeeper in the Verifier hook path.
|
||||
- Keep `tool_trace_summary` as navigation/audit context, not the only evidence source.
|
||||
- Fix HikariCP mock positive/no-hit behavior.
|
||||
- Tighten Executor/Verifier prompts for narrow-scope evidence handling.
|
||||
|
||||
## Non-goals
|
||||
|
||||
- No Planner `scope_contract`.
|
||||
- No new database table.
|
||||
- No full JSONPath engine.
|
||||
- No change to external HTTP API.
|
||||
- No retry rollback from Gatekeeper to Executor in this phase.
|
||||
|
||||
## OpenSpec
|
||||
|
||||
- Change: `openspec/changes/verifier-evidence-reference-fidelity`
|
||||
- Source issue: `mvp/issues/archived/ISS-007-verifier-evidence-summary-fidelity.md`
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,54 @@
|
||||
# Decisions
|
||||
|
||||
## Evidence Reference
|
||||
|
||||
Use `source_invocation_id + raw_path + evidence_excerpt` as the precise evidence reference for Executor claim bindings.
|
||||
|
||||
Reason:
|
||||
|
||||
- Invocation ID alone only identifies a tool call, not the evidence inside it.
|
||||
- `raw_path` is enough for the first version when paired with `retrieval_details.evidence_refs`.
|
||||
- `evidence_excerpt` remains the text Verifier reads, but only after Gatekeeper validates it.
|
||||
|
||||
## Raw Path
|
||||
|
||||
Only support stable locators in the first version:
|
||||
|
||||
- `$.alerts[i]`
|
||||
- `$.logs[i]`
|
||||
- `$.evidence_blocks[i]`
|
||||
|
||||
No full JSONPath engine is introduced.
|
||||
|
||||
## Gatekeeper Severity
|
||||
|
||||
Gatekeeper output includes:
|
||||
|
||||
- `status`
|
||||
- `severity`
|
||||
- `checked_bindings`
|
||||
- `failed_rules`
|
||||
- `warnings`
|
||||
- `errors`
|
||||
|
||||
Severity meaning:
|
||||
|
||||
- `none`: precise references passed.
|
||||
- `low_confid`: evidence is missing or incomplete, but not fabricated.
|
||||
- `reject`: fabricated ID, wrong tool, unknown raw path, or mismatched excerpt.
|
||||
|
||||
## Verifier Boundary
|
||||
|
||||
Verifier uses verified claim-local excerpts as primary derivability evidence. `tool_trace_summary` remains available for navigation and audit, but no longer needs to carry every concrete fact.
|
||||
|
||||
## Hook Placement
|
||||
|
||||
Gatekeeper remains in the Verifier input hook path. This version does not retry Executor on Gatekeeper failure.
|
||||
|
||||
## Planner
|
||||
|
||||
Planner is not changed. `scope_contract` remains a later-stage idea. This phase uses prompt constraints to reduce narrow-scope over-expansion.
|
||||
|
||||
## Database
|
||||
|
||||
No new tables. Evidence refs are stored in `tool_invocation.retrieval_details.evidence_refs`; audit is stored in `diagnosis_session.self_evaluation.verifier_evaluation.gatekeeper_result`.
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,33 @@
|
||||
# Evidence
|
||||
|
||||
## Existing Context
|
||||
|
||||
- Existing `chat-verifier-agent` spec still used `source_invocation_ids` and `tool_trace_summary` as the main verifier evidence context.
|
||||
- Existing `evidence-trace-hardening` spec already established `tool_invocation.retrieval_details` as the right place for structured tool-specific facts.
|
||||
- Prior devflow projects established that runbook/skill content is guidance, not incident evidence.
|
||||
|
||||
## Code Findings
|
||||
|
||||
- `VerifierInputHook` previously backfilled plural `source_invocation_ids` from `tool_trace_summary` by tool name.
|
||||
- `ExecutorGatekeeperService` previously validated invocation existence and tool name, but not `raw_path` or excerpt authenticity.
|
||||
- `ToolInvocationRecorder` persisted retrieval details but did not generate claim-addressable `evidence_refs`.
|
||||
- `QueryLogsTools` could fall back to `generic-service` placeholder logs on no-hit.
|
||||
|
||||
## Implementation Evidence
|
||||
|
||||
- `ToolInvocationRecorder` now extracts:
|
||||
- `$.alerts[i]` for `query_metrics`
|
||||
- `$.logs[i]` for `query_logs`
|
||||
- `$.evidence_blocks[i]` for `lookup_knowledge`
|
||||
- `ExecutorGatekeeperService` now validates:
|
||||
- invocation existence
|
||||
- tool name
|
||||
- raw path presence
|
||||
- `retrieval_details.evidence_refs`
|
||||
- excerpt similarity/support
|
||||
- `VerifierInputHook` only auto-fills a singular `source_invocation_id` when exactly one candidate exists and never invents `raw_path`.
|
||||
- `QueryLogsTools` returns HikariCP mock logs for `order-service` and returns empty no-hit results for unrelated services.
|
||||
|
||||
## Residual Finding
|
||||
|
||||
The HikariCP negative E2E no longer has generic-service pollution, but the model still issued an extra broad HikariCP query without the service filter and used order-service as context. This is a remaining narrow-scope behavior issue, not a mock evidence pollution issue.
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,46 @@
|
||||
# Acceptance
|
||||
|
||||
## Static Verification
|
||||
|
||||
- `openspec validate interview-demo-quality-audit --strict`
|
||||
- Result: passed.
|
||||
- Coverage: OpenSpec proposal/design/spec/tasks consistency.
|
||||
- PowerShell parser/runtime readiness check:
|
||||
- Command: `powershell -NoProfile -ExecutionPolicy Bypass -File mvp/demo/scripts/run-interview-demo-check.ps1 -BaseUrl http://127.0.0.1:1 -OutputDir target/demo-check-syntax`
|
||||
- Result: expected failure with actionable readiness message.
|
||||
- Coverage: script parses under Windows PowerShell and fails before issuing diagnosis requests when service is unreachable.
|
||||
|
||||
## Script Verification
|
||||
|
||||
- `mvn -q "-Dtest=DiagnosisTraceEvaluatorTest" test`
|
||||
- Result: passed.
|
||||
- Coverage: 12/12 fixed eval fixtures, Prompt audit evaluator checks, Gatekeeper rule metadata checks, regenerated baseline reports.
|
||||
- `mvn -q "-Dtest=ChatServiceSequentialAgentTest" test`
|
||||
- Result: passed.
|
||||
- Coverage: Chat verifier evaluation persists `prompt_audit`.
|
||||
- `mvn -q "-Dtest=DiagnosisTraceEvaluatorTest,DiagnosisEvalBaselineDiffTest,ChatServiceSequentialAgentTest,ExecutorGatekeeperServiceTest,VerifierInputHookTest" test`
|
||||
- Result: passed.
|
||||
- Coverage: broader eval, baseline diff, Chat sequential flow, Gatekeeper, and Verifier input hook regression set.
|
||||
- `mvn -q -DskipTests compile`
|
||||
- Result: passed.
|
||||
- Coverage: main source compilation.
|
||||
|
||||
## E2E Verification
|
||||
|
||||
- Started service with:
|
||||
- `mvn spring-boot:run -Dspring-boot.run.profiles=mvp-demo`
|
||||
- Ran:
|
||||
- `powershell -NoProfile -ExecutionPolicy Bypass -File mvp/demo/scripts/run-interview-demo-check.ps1 -BaseUrl http://localhost:9900 -SessionId mvp-demo-interview-quality-audit-001`
|
||||
- Result: passed.
|
||||
- Summary:
|
||||
- `chatSuccess=true`
|
||||
- `verdict=LOW_CONFID`
|
||||
- `gatekeeperStatus=fail`
|
||||
- `gatekeeperRuleSetVersion=gatekeeper-rules-v1`
|
||||
- `promptAuditVersion=chat-prompts-v1`
|
||||
- tools included `lookup_knowledge`, `query_logs`, `query_metrics`, and `get_available_log_topics`
|
||||
- Note: live E2E remains a compatibility check, not the deterministic PASS oracle. The fixed fixture baseline is the regression source of truth.
|
||||
|
||||
## Not Verified
|
||||
|
||||
- Browser UI inspection was not required for this change because the scope is backend trace/eval/demo script documentation, not frontend behavior.
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,23 @@
|
||||
# Interview Demo Quality Audit Brief
|
||||
|
||||
## Background
|
||||
|
||||
The MVP already demonstrates traceable Agent diagnosis with Planner, Executor, Gatekeeper, Verifier, Composer, evidence tools, trace persistence, and deterministic eval fixtures. The remaining interview-readiness gap is not a new Agent architecture; it is making the demo easier to run and making prompt/rule changes easier to audit.
|
||||
|
||||
## Goal
|
||||
|
||||
Stabilize the interview demo path, expand fixture-backed evaluation, and persist prompt/Gatekeeper audit metadata so the project can explain and verify Agent behavior during interviews.
|
||||
|
||||
## Scope
|
||||
|
||||
- Add prompt audit metadata to Chat verifier evaluation.
|
||||
- Extend deterministic eval cases and baseline reports.
|
||||
- Add an interview demo preflight/check script.
|
||||
- Update MVP demo and architecture documentation.
|
||||
|
||||
## Non-goals
|
||||
|
||||
- No public API or database schema changes.
|
||||
- No new SubAgent split, MCP migration, process isolation, or AIOps LLM Verifier.
|
||||
- No guarantee that every live LLM run returns PASS.
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,111 @@
|
||||
# interview-demo-quality-audit Decisions
|
||||
|
||||
## Clarify
|
||||
|
||||
- Entry summary: stabilize the interview demo, expand deterministic eval coverage, and add Prompt/Gatekeeper version audit.
|
||||
- Slug: `interview-demo-quality-audit`.
|
||||
- Devflow scale: `standard`.
|
||||
- Interface impact: L2 internal contract change because `verifier_evaluation` gains `prompt_audit`; no public HTTP API or database schema change.
|
||||
|
||||
## Context
|
||||
|
||||
- `devflow/index.md` used: related entries found for `diagnosis-eval-demo-gatekeeper-closure`, `executor-composer-final-answer`, `verifier-evidence-reference-fidelity`, `mvp-demo-interview-runbook`, and `diagnosis-eval-baseline-diff`.
|
||||
- Relevant glossary:
|
||||
- Evidence Tools produce incident facts and must be recorded in `tool_invocation`.
|
||||
- Verifier should not use skills/runbooks as incident evidence.
|
||||
- Diagnosis Playbook Skill is workflow guidance, not a fact source.
|
||||
- Historical constraints that must enter OpenSpec:
|
||||
- Diagnosis eval is deterministic and fixture-backed; no LLM-as-judge.
|
||||
- Stable demo scenarios are documentation/payloads plus deterministic fixtures; live E2E is a compatibility check, not a guaranteed PASS oracle.
|
||||
- Gatekeeper rule metadata is already metadata-only and should not become dynamic rule execution.
|
||||
- Composer is the final expression layer and must not leak raw Executor JSON.
|
||||
|
||||
## Question Pool
|
||||
|
||||
| ID | Dimension | Mode | Question | Status |
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
||||
| Q1 | Terminology | evidence-driven | What should the new audit metadata be called? | Resolved |
|
||||
| Q2 | Boundary | evidence-driven | Does this require public API or schema changes? | Resolved |
|
||||
| Q3 | Acceptance | evidence-driven | Which current assets define deterministic acceptance? | Resolved |
|
||||
| Q4 | Technical | evidence-driven | Where should prompt version metadata live with minimal implementation risk? | Resolved |
|
||||
| Q5 | Scope | user-interview | Should live E2E be mandatory for all scenarios? | Confirmed by objective as conditional |
|
||||
|
||||
## Evidence-driven Conclusions
|
||||
|
||||
- Q1 conclusion: use `prompt_audit` for prompt version metadata and keep existing `gatekeeper_result.rule_set_version`.
|
||||
- Q2 conclusion: keep this as an internal trace/self-evaluation contract change. Do not add endpoints, tables, or new Agent roles.
|
||||
- Q3 conclusion: `DiagnosisTraceEvaluatorTest`, baseline reports, fixed fixtures, and demo scripts define current acceptance style.
|
||||
- Q4 conclusion: add a small Chat prompt audit catalog near `ChatService` prompt loading and persist a compact snapshot with verifier evaluation.
|
||||
- Q5 conclusion: run live E2E with `mvp-demo` profile if dependencies are available; otherwise record the blocker and rely on deterministic eval/unit evidence.
|
||||
|
||||
## Specify / Alignment
|
||||
|
||||
| Check | Status | Notes |
|
||||
|---|---|---|
|
||||
| proposal goals -> proposal | Aligned | Proposal covers demo preflight, eval expansion, prompt audit, and docs. |
|
||||
| proposal scope/constraints -> design | Aligned | Design records no public API/schema changes, prompt audit shape, eval fields, and demo script behavior. |
|
||||
| design decisions -> specs/tasks | Aligned | Specs cover persisted prompt audit, evaluator checks, baseline, and demo script outputs. |
|
||||
| specs observable behavior -> tasks | Aligned | Each requirement has implementation and verification tasks. |
|
||||
|
||||
## Audit
|
||||
|
||||
Input -> processing -> output chain:
|
||||
|
||||
```text
|
||||
prompt resource metadata
|
||||
-> ChatService / PromptAudit snapshot
|
||||
-> verifier_evaluation.prompt_audit
|
||||
-> Trace API / eval fixtures
|
||||
-> DiagnosisTraceEvaluator baseline
|
||||
|
||||
run-interview-demo-check.ps1
|
||||
-> service readiness
|
||||
-> chat / trace / feedback
|
||||
-> mvp/demo/output summary
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
Architecture risk assessment:
|
||||
|
||||
1. The audit shape is intentionally compact and internal; storing full prompt text would create noisy traces and possible sensitive-content risk.
|
||||
2. Eval should assert versions by explicit metadata, not by prompt content hashes that churn during local prompt edits.
|
||||
3. Live demo checks may still be LOW_CONFID because LLM output is not deterministic; deterministic fixtures remain the regression source of truth.
|
||||
4. No devflow/OpenSpec conflict found.
|
||||
|
||||
## Commit Gate
|
||||
|
||||
- `openspec validate interview-demo-quality-audit --strict`: passed.
|
||||
- File completeness:
|
||||
- `proposal.md`: present.
|
||||
- `design.md`: present.
|
||||
- `specs/`: present for `chat-verifier-agent`, `diagnosis-eval-harness`, and `mvp-demo-trace-acceptance`.
|
||||
- `tasks.md`: present.
|
||||
- Consistency:
|
||||
- Proposal goals map to design sections.
|
||||
- Design decisions map to spec requirements and executable tasks.
|
||||
- Task acceptance checks are verifiable.
|
||||
- `.committed` marker created.
|
||||
|
||||
## Current Checkpoint
|
||||
|
||||
- Commit completed.
|
||||
- Apply is authorized by the original objective: "完成后归档提交".
|
||||
|
||||
## Pre-apply Research
|
||||
|
||||
- Capability source: sm-flow built-in apply protocol. `openspec-apply-change` was not invoked directly in this session.
|
||||
- Repository semantic search/LSP note: the requested `codebase-retrieval` and LSP tools were not available in the exposed toolset, so impact analysis used `rg`, direct file reads, OpenSpec/devflow artifacts, and targeted tests.
|
||||
- Reference implementation and reuse:
|
||||
- `ChatService.persistVerifierEvaluation(...)` is the single persistence point for Chat verifier/composer audit data; prompt audit was added there to cover normal, fallback, and degraded Composer paths.
|
||||
- `DiagnosisTraceEvaluator` and `DiagnosisEvalReportWriter` are the deterministic eval extension points; no LLM judge was introduced.
|
||||
- `mvp/demo/scripts/run-payment-timeout-demo.ps1` provided the request/trace/feedback flow reused by the new interview preflight script.
|
||||
- Interface impact remains L2 internal trace contract: `verifier_evaluation.prompt_audit` and eval report fields are added; no public endpoint, table, or request DTO changed.
|
||||
|
||||
## Apply Notes
|
||||
|
||||
- Added compact Chat prompt audit metadata: `chat-prompts-v1`, with planner/executor/verifier/composer prompt versions and resource paths.
|
||||
- Extended diagnosis eval schema, result reporting, baseline fixtures, JSON report, and Markdown report for Prompt audit and Gatekeeper rule metadata.
|
||||
- Added two fixture-backed audit cases:
|
||||
- `prompt-gatekeeper-audit-closure`
|
||||
- `audit-metadata-low-confid`
|
||||
- Added `mvp/demo/scripts/run-interview-demo-check.ps1` to run service readiness, Chat, Trace, feedback, and summary output.
|
||||
- Updated MVP demo/eval/architecture docs to explain `prompt_audit.version`, `gatekeeper_result.rule_set_version`, and deterministic fixture baseline.
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,58 @@
|
||||
# Evidence
|
||||
|
||||
## Context Files Read
|
||||
|
||||
- `devflow/index.md`
|
||||
- `devflow/glossary/CONTEXT.md`
|
||||
- `devflow/projects/2026-07-08-diagnosis-eval-demo-gatekeeper-closure/decisions.md`
|
||||
- `devflow/projects/2026-07-08-executor-composer-final-answer/decisions.md`
|
||||
- `mvp/architecture/current-mvp-architecture.md`
|
||||
- `mvp/architecture/agent-orchestration.md`
|
||||
- `mvp/architecture/executor-evidence-pipeline-refactor.md`
|
||||
- `mvp/architecture/harness-quality-gates.md`
|
||||
- `mvp/demo/README.md`
|
||||
- `mvp/demo/ten-minute-interview-demo.md`
|
||||
- `mvp/eval/README.md`
|
||||
- `mvp/eval/cases/diagnosis-cases.json`
|
||||
- `src/main/java/com/superbiz/agent/service/ChatService.java`
|
||||
- `src/main/java/com/superbiz/agent/service/ExecutorGatekeeperService.java`
|
||||
- `src/main/java/com/superbiz/agent/eval/DiagnosisTraceEvaluator.java`
|
||||
- `src/main/resources/gatekeeper/gatekeeper-rules.json`
|
||||
|
||||
## Tooling Note
|
||||
|
||||
The required `codebase-retrieval` and LSP tools were not exposed in this session. Impact analysis used `rg`, direct file reads, existing OpenSpec/devflow artifacts, and targeted tests instead.
|
||||
|
||||
## Implementation Evidence
|
||||
|
||||
- `src/main/java/com/superbiz/agent/service/ChatService.java`
|
||||
- Adds `prompt_audit` under `verifier_evaluation` through the shared `persistVerifierEvaluation(...)` path.
|
||||
- Uses compact metadata only: audit version, prompt names, prompt versions, and resource paths.
|
||||
- `src/main/java/com/superbiz/agent/eval/DiagnosisTraceEvaluator.java`
|
||||
- Adds deterministic checks for `requirePromptAudit`, `expectedPromptAuditVersion`, `expectedPromptVersions`, and `requireGatekeeperRules`.
|
||||
- `src/main/java/com/superbiz/agent/eval/DiagnosisEvalReportWriter.java`
|
||||
- Adds Prompt Audit and Gatekeeper rule count columns to Markdown reports.
|
||||
- `mvp/eval/cases/diagnosis-cases.json`
|
||||
- Expands fixed baseline to 12 fixture-backed cases.
|
||||
- `mvp/eval/fixtures/prompt-gatekeeper-audit-closure-pass.json`
|
||||
- Positive PASS fixture proving Prompt audit and Gatekeeper rule metadata closure.
|
||||
- `mvp/eval/fixtures/audit-metadata-low-confid.json`
|
||||
- LOW_CONFID fixture proving safe answer behavior while audit metadata remains present.
|
||||
- `mvp/demo/scripts/run-interview-demo-check.ps1`
|
||||
- Adds service readiness, Chat, Trace, feedback, and summary output for interview preflight.
|
||||
|
||||
## Verification Evidence
|
||||
|
||||
- OpenSpec:
|
||||
- `openspec validate interview-demo-quality-audit --strict`: passed before archive.
|
||||
- `openspec validate --specs --strict`: 10 specs passed after merging deltas into main specs.
|
||||
- Unit/eval:
|
||||
- `mvn -q "-Dtest=DiagnosisTraceEvaluatorTest" test`: passed.
|
||||
- `mvn -q "-Dtest=ChatServiceSequentialAgentTest" test`: passed.
|
||||
- `mvn -q "-Dtest=DiagnosisTraceEvaluatorTest,DiagnosisEvalBaselineDiffTest,ChatServiceSequentialAgentTest,ExecutorGatekeeperServiceTest,VerifierInputHookTest" test`: passed.
|
||||
- Compile:
|
||||
- `mvn -q -DskipTests compile`: passed.
|
||||
- E2E:
|
||||
- Started `mvn spring-boot:run -Dspring-boot.run.profiles=mvp-demo`.
|
||||
- Ran `mvp/demo/scripts/run-interview-demo-check.ps1` against `http://localhost:9900`.
|
||||
- Summary recorded `chatSuccess=true`, `verdict=LOW_CONFID`, `gatekeeperRuleSetVersion=gatekeeper-rules-v1`, and `promptAuditVersion=chat-prompts-v1`.
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,103 @@
|
||||
# Acceptance
|
||||
|
||||
## 实现结果
|
||||
|
||||
- OpenSpec tasks: `42/42` complete。
|
||||
- Phase commits:
|
||||
- `52bf030 feat(trace): add session run isolation schema`
|
||||
- `6fdbd34 docs(openspec): tighten run isolation contract`
|
||||
- `26d5529 feat(trace): isolate chat runs`
|
||||
- `027aed1 feat(trace): add run-scoped trace reads`
|
||||
- `d928a19 feat(trace): bind feedback to runs`
|
||||
- `78c1477 feat(trace): isolate aiops runs`
|
||||
- `f9df943 feat(trace): finish run-aware demo verification`
|
||||
- OpenSpec archive: `openspec/changes/archive/2026-07-10-session-run-trace-isolation`
|
||||
|
||||
## 静态验证
|
||||
|
||||
```powershell
|
||||
node --check src\main\resources\static\app.js
|
||||
node --check src\main\resources\static\trace.js
|
||||
openspec validate session-run-trace-isolation --strict
|
||||
git diff --check -- . ':!devflow/index.md'
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
结果：通过。
|
||||
|
||||
## 脚本验证
|
||||
|
||||
PowerShell demo 脚本解析：
|
||||
|
||||
```powershell
|
||||
$scripts = @(
|
||||
'mvp\demo\scripts\run-payment-timeout-demo.ps1',
|
||||
'mvp\demo\scripts\run-interview-demo-check.ps1'
|
||||
)
|
||||
foreach ($script in $scripts) {
|
||||
[scriptblock]::Create((Get-Content -Raw -Encoding UTF8 $script)) | Out-Null
|
||||
}
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
结果：通过。
|
||||
|
||||
Focused tests：
|
||||
|
||||
```powershell
|
||||
mvn -q "-Dtest=ChatControllerTest,DiagnosisTraceServiceTest,FeedbackControllerTest,FeedbackServiceTest,AiOpsServiceTest" test
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
结果：通过。
|
||||
|
||||
Baseline / regression：
|
||||
|
||||
```powershell
|
||||
mvn -q "-Dtest=DiagnosisTraceEvaluatorTest,DiagnosisEvalBaselineDiffTest" test
|
||||
mvn -q "-Dtest=DiagnosisTraceEvaluatorTest,DiagnosisEvalBaselineDiffTest,ExecutorGatekeeperServiceTest,VerifierInputHookTest,ChatServiceSequentialAgentTest" test
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
结果：通过，无 baseline drift。
|
||||
|
||||
## E2E 验证
|
||||
|
||||
使用 Maven 启动：
|
||||
|
||||
```powershell
|
||||
mvn spring-boot:run -Dspring-boot.run.profiles=mvp-demo
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
E2E 使用同一 `sessionId` 连续两轮 Chat：
|
||||
|
||||
- `sessionId`: `e2e-phase6-chat-codex-20260710-2120`
|
||||
- `run1`: `run-e2a97696-4398-4abc-90e4-28f45c838f92`
|
||||
- `run2`: `run-76ce6a6e-92ab-40c9-800a-eca0c1bb5172`
|
||||
|
||||
验证结果：
|
||||
|
||||
- Chat1 / Chat2 均成功。
|
||||
- run1 exact trace 返回 run1。
|
||||
- run2 exact trace 返回 run2。
|
||||
- session-only latest trace 返回 run2。
|
||||
- DB 中同一 session 有两条 `diagnosis_run`。
|
||||
- step/tool rows 按 `run_id` 隔离，mixed row check 为 0。
|
||||
- `chat_session.message_pair_count = 2`。
|
||||
|
||||
## 日志验证
|
||||
|
||||
检查：
|
||||
|
||||
- `target/e2e/phase6-mvn-20260710-211831.out.log`
|
||||
- `logs/application.log`
|
||||
- `logs/chat.log`
|
||||
|
||||
结果：能找到 E2E `sessionId`、两个 `runId`、Chat execution、run persistence 和 trace lookup 相关日志。
|
||||
|
||||
## 浏览器/人工验证
|
||||
|
||||
未单独进行浏览器点击验证。Trace UI 的本次验收通过静态语法检查、URL/runId 参数代码审查和后端 exact trace E2E 共同覆盖。建议后续手动打开 `trace.html?sessionId=...&runId=...` 做展示层冒烟。
|
||||
|
||||
## 剩余风险 / 后续事项
|
||||
|
||||
- 缺少 `runId` 的 Feedback fallback 是短期兼容路径，客户端全部迁移后可收紧。
|
||||
- `diagnosis_session` 仍保留为历史兼容和回滚表，后续需要观察窗口后再评估约束收紧或归档策略。
|
||||
- `case_library.diagnosis_id` 仍是过渡字段，旧值可能为 `session_id`，新自动值为 `run_id`。
|
||||
- 历史 mixed trace 不能恢复真实多轮边界，只能按 compatibility run 查询。
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,41 @@
|
||||
# Session / Run / Trace Isolation
|
||||
|
||||
## 背景
|
||||
|
||||
同一个 `sessionId` 以前同时代表多轮 Chat 上下文和一次持久化诊断 Trace。端到端验证发现，同一 `sessionId` 连续两轮 Chat 时，Redis 多轮上下文是正确的，但 MySQL 中 `diagnosis_session` 会被后一轮覆盖，`agent_step` 和 `tool_invocation` 会按同一个 `session_id` 混在一起。
|
||||
|
||||
这会导致 Trace 回放、Verifier/Evaluation 读数、Feedback 绑定和 `case_library` 来源都可能跨轮污染。
|
||||
|
||||
## 目标
|
||||
|
||||
- 将会话态和运行态拆开：`chat_session` 保存会话元数据，`diagnosis_run` 保存一次诊断运行。
|
||||
- 引入正式 API 字段 `runId`，作为一次可回放诊断执行的边界。
|
||||
- `agent_step` 和 `tool_invocation` 保留原 Trace 明细角色，新增 `run_id` 并按 run 隔离读写。
|
||||
- Trace、Feedback、CaseLibrary、AIOps、demo 脚本和 Trace UI 都支持 run-aware 流程。
|
||||
- 保留旧 `diagnosis_session` 作为历史兼容和回滚表。
|
||||
- 完成 Maven E2E、DB 检查、日志检查和 baseline drift 验证。
|
||||
|
||||
## 范围
|
||||
|
||||
- Flyway/JPA 增加 `chat_session`、`diagnosis_run`，并给 `agent_step`、`tool_invocation` 增加 `run_id`。
|
||||
- Chat 每次有效执行创建一个新的 `diagnosis_run`，响应返回 `sessionId + runId`。
|
||||
- Trace API 支持 latest-run fallback 和 exact-run 查询：`GET /api/diagnosis/{sessionId}/trace?runId=...`。
|
||||
- 新增 run list API：`GET /api/chat/session/{sessionId}/runs`。
|
||||
- Feedback 优先绑定 `runId`，缺省时短期 fallback 到 latest run 并返回 `fallbackToLatestRun=true`。
|
||||
- AIOps 每次有效执行创建并透出 `runId`，SSE 保持 `message` event name 并发送 `type=metadata`。
|
||||
- MVP demo、Trace UI、表文档和架构文档统一为 `chat_session -> diagnosis_run -> trace detail(run_id)`。
|
||||
|
||||
## 非目标
|
||||
|
||||
- 不新增 `diagnosis_trace` 或 `trace_event` 主表。
|
||||
- 不实现完整 run-list UI。
|
||||
- 不删除旧 `diagnosis_session`。
|
||||
- 不改变 Redis 对话历史窗口策略。
|
||||
- 不把完整多轮正文历史持久化到 MySQL。
|
||||
- 不尝试把历史混合 trace 还原成真实多轮边界。
|
||||
|
||||
## 关联
|
||||
|
||||
- OpenSpec: `openspec/changes/archive/2026-07-10-session-run-trace-isolation`
|
||||
- Change slug: `session-run-trace-isolation`
|
||||
- 分档: complex
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,48 @@
|
||||
# Decisions
|
||||
|
||||
## 核心决策
|
||||
|
||||
| 决策 | 选择 | 理由 |
|
||||
|---|---|---|
|
||||
| 领域拆分 | 新增 `chat_session` 和 `diagnosis_run` | 会话元数据和一次诊断执行的生命周期不同，继续塞在一张表会导致上下文膨胀和边界混淆 |
|
||||
| Trace 明细 | 复用 `agent_step` / `tool_invocation`，增加 `run_id` | 现有明细表已经能表达 Trace，隔离需要 run key，不需要新事件模型 |
|
||||
| API 身份 | `runId = "run-" + UUID` | 外部 ID 不依赖数据库自增 ID，碰撞风险低 |
|
||||
| Trace 兼容 | 缺少 `runId` 时按 `created_at DESC, id DESC` 解析 latest run | 保留旧客户端兼容性，避免 feedback/eval 更新 `updated_at` 后改变 latest 判定 |
|
||||
| 历史迁移 | 每条旧 `diagnosis_session` 生成一条 compatibility run | 旧混合数据没有真实轮次边界，不能伪造多 run 历史 |
|
||||
| Feedback fallback | 缺少 `runId` 时短期绑定 latest run 并返回 `fallbackToLatestRun=true` | 老客户端可继续工作，同时让歧义可观测 |
|
||||
| Case provenance | 新自动案例写 `case_library.diagnosis_id = run_id` | 保留旧列，文档声明过渡语义 |
|
||||
| AIOps 范围 | 同一个 change 内完成 AIOps run isolation | AIOps 是一等 Trace 入口，不能留下同类混合 trace bug |
|
||||
| 所有权校验 | 服务层校验 run/session ownership，暂不加 DB 外键 | 兼容历史 orphan rows 和回滚窗口 |
|
||||
|
||||
## 用户确认
|
||||
|
||||
- 选择拆 `chat_session` 和 `diagnosis_run`，不只是在旧表加字段。
|
||||
- `chat_session` 第一阶段只保存元数据，不保存完整对话正文。
|
||||
- 完整多轮对话历史继续放在 Redis `SessionContext.messageHistory`。
|
||||
- `runId` 是正式 API 字段。
|
||||
- Trace 缺少 `runId` 时短期默认查 latest run。
|
||||
- Feedback 缺少 `runId` 时短期 fallback，长期可再收紧。
|
||||
- 每次有效 Chat/AIOps 都创建 run。
|
||||
- 不新增 `diagnosis_trace` / `trace_event` 主表。
|
||||
- 旧 `diagnosis_session` 保留用于历史和回滚，新代码不再写新执行态。
|
||||
- demo 脚本和 Trace UI 做最小 `runId` 支持。
|
||||
|
||||
## 接口影响
|
||||
|
||||
级别：L4。
|
||||
|
||||
- 新 API 响应字段：`runId`。
|
||||
- Trace API 新 query 参数：`runId`。
|
||||
- 新 API：`GET /api/chat/session/{sessionId}/runs`。
|
||||
- Feedback request 新增 optional/preferred `runId`。
|
||||
- Feedback response 新增 bound `runId` 和 `fallbackToLatestRun`。
|
||||
- `/api/ai_ops` SSE 保持 event name `message`，新增 `type=metadata` 消息。
|
||||
- DB contract 新增两张表和两个 `run_id` 列。
|
||||
- 旧 `sessionId` only 调用仍兼容，但 fallback 必须可观测。
|
||||
|
||||
## 风险接受
|
||||
|
||||
- 历史混合 trace 无法真实拆分，只能作为 compatibility run。
|
||||
- 上下文传播同时依赖 `RunnableConfig.metadata` 和 `SessionContextHolder`，后续改动必须注意 `sessionId/runId` 同步。
|
||||
- `case_library.diagnosis_id` 在过渡期存在 `session_id` 和 `run_id` 两种语义。
|
||||
- 缺少 `runId` 的 Feedback 仍有歧义，后续客户端迁移完成后可收紧为参数错误。
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,76 @@
|
||||
# Evidence
|
||||
|
||||
## 上下文证据
|
||||
|
||||
- `SessionContext.messageHistory` 和 `getMessagePairCount()` 证明 Redis 承载热对话历史；MySQL 只需要长期审计的会话目录和运行记录。
|
||||
- `CaseLibraryService.createFromSession` 原先按 `DiagnosisSession.sessionId` 去重并映射 query/answer，因此 run 隔离后需要新增 `createFromRun`。
|
||||
- 旧 `mvp/architecture/data-model.md` 把 `case_library.diagnosis_id` 解释为 `diagnosis_session.session_id`，本次改为过渡语义：旧数据可能是 `session_id`，新自动案例是 `run_id`。
|
||||
- 既有 Trace OpenSpec 要求 `GET /api/diagnosis/{sessionId}/trace` 是只读端点；latest-run 和 exact-run 查询都必须保持只读。
|
||||
- ISS-010 的 E2E 事实显示同一 `sessionId` 两轮 Chat 会产生 MySQL Trace 混合，是本 change 的直接触发证据。
|
||||
|
||||
## 实现证据
|
||||
|
||||
- Phase 1 增加 `V011__add_session_run_isolation.sql`，创建 `chat_session`、`diagnosis_run`，并为 `agent_step` / `tool_invocation` 增加 nullable `run_id`。
|
||||
- Phase 2 将 Chat 写路径切到 `chat_session + diagnosis_run`，并让 Hook/Tool/Evaluation/Gatekeeper 使用 run-scoped 数据。
|
||||
- Phase 3 将 Trace API 改为 latest-run / exact-run 双模式，并加入 lightweight run summaries。
|
||||
- Phase 4 将 Feedback 和 CaseLibrary 绑定到 run，保留没有 run-backed 数据时的 legacy fallback。
|
||||
- Phase 5 将 AIOps 接入 run isolation，SSE metadata 暴露 `sessionId + runId`。
|
||||
- Phase 6 更新 demo 脚本、Trace UI、MVP 架构文档和表文档，并修正 review 后发现的 session-only 文档残留。
|
||||
|
||||
## E2E 证据
|
||||
|
||||
Maven 启动命令：
|
||||
|
||||
```powershell
|
||||
mvn spring-boot:run -Dspring-boot.run.profiles=mvp-demo
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
日志：
|
||||
|
||||
- `target/e2e/phase6-mvn-20260710-211831.out.log`
|
||||
- `target/e2e/phase6-mvn-20260710-211831.err.log`
|
||||
- `logs/application.log`
|
||||
- `logs/chat.log`
|
||||
|
||||
E2E session:
|
||||
|
||||
- `sessionId`: `e2e-phase6-chat-codex-20260710-2120`
|
||||
- `run1`: `run-e2a97696-4398-4abc-90e4-28f45c838f92`
|
||||
- `run2`: `run-76ce6a6e-92ab-40c9-800a-eca0c1bb5172`
|
||||
|
||||
结果：
|
||||
|
||||
- 两轮 Chat 都成功，并复用同一个 `sessionId`。
|
||||
- 两轮返回不同 `runId`。
|
||||
- run1 exact trace 只返回 run1。
|
||||
- run2 exact trace 只返回 run2。
|
||||
- session-only Trace latest fallback 返回 run2。
|
||||
- `chat_session.message_pair_count = 2`，证明多轮上下文连续。
|
||||
|
||||
## DB 证据
|
||||
|
||||
通过 `scripts/query_mysql.py` 检查：
|
||||
|
||||
- `diagnosis_run` 中该 E2E session 有 2 条 `SUCCESS / CHAT` 运行。
|
||||
- `agent_step` 按 run 分组：run1 `10` 行，run2 `9` 行。
|
||||
- `tool_invocation` 按 run 分组：run1 `14` 行，run2 `8` 行。
|
||||
- mixed row check 为 `0`，没有 NULL 或 unexpected `run_id` 混入该 E2E session。
|
||||
|
||||
## Baseline 证据
|
||||
|
||||
运行：
|
||||
|
||||
```powershell
|
||||
mvn -q "-Dtest=DiagnosisTraceEvaluatorTest,DiagnosisEvalBaselineDiffTest" test
|
||||
mvn -q "-Dtest=DiagnosisTraceEvaluatorTest,DiagnosisEvalBaselineDiffTest,ExecutorGatekeeperServiceTest,VerifierInputHookTest,ChatServiceSequentialAgentTest" test
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
结果：
|
||||
|
||||
- 两组 baseline / regression 命令通过。
|
||||
- baseline harness 使用离线 fixture，不依赖 live DB/session tables。
|
||||
- 未观察到 baseline drift。
|
||||
|
||||
## 工具限制
|
||||
|
||||
AGENTS 要求的 `codebase-retrieval` 和 LSP 工具在本会话不可用。替代验证使用 OpenSpec、`rg`、定向阅读、 focused tests、E2E、DB 查询和日志检查。
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,44 @@
|
||||
# Acceptance: single-react-aci-tool-contracts
|
||||
|
||||
## 实现结果
|
||||
|
||||
- RAG Contract：最小 query Request、bounded document evidence Result。
|
||||
- Log Contract：逻辑 Topic/Lookback Request、Mock provenance、Scope/Pattern/Event Result。
|
||||
- MySQL Contract：逻辑 data source、参数化 SQL Request、bounded structured rows Result。
|
||||
- 共享 Contract：snake_case Tool 名称、ACI 描述、不可变集合 helper，复用阶段 0 两套状态枚举。
|
||||
- 旧 Tool、Chat/AIOps、Controller、持久化、数据源和公开协议未修改。
|
||||
|
||||
## 静态验证
|
||||
|
||||
- `openspec validate single-react-aci-tool-contracts --strict`：通过。
|
||||
- `openspec instructions apply --change single-react-aci-tool-contracts --json`：12/12 tasks complete。
|
||||
- `rg` 引用检查：新 contract 生产包未接入旧运行链路。
|
||||
- 受保护文件 diff scope：旧 Tool、Chat/AIOps、Controller、Repository、resources 均为空。
|
||||
|
||||
## 脚本验证
|
||||
|
||||
- `mvn -q -DskipTests compile`：通过。
|
||||
- `mvn -q '-Dtest=RagToolContractTest,QueryLogsToolContractTest,MysqlToolContractTest' test`：通过。
|
||||
- `mvn -q '-Dtest=HarnessContractTest,LookupKnowledgeToolTest,QueryLogsToolsTest' test`：通过。
|
||||
|
||||
## 浏览器/人工验证
|
||||
|
||||
- 不适用。本阶段无 UI、Controller、SSE 或公开运行行为变化。
|
||||
|
||||
## 未验证
|
||||
|
||||
- 未执行 live LLM/Redis/CLS/MySQL E2E；本阶段没有接入这些运行路径，最终 live E2E 按 ISS-014 门禁留到阶段 7。
|
||||
- 未验证 ToolInterceptor 的真实 ID 传播；阶段 2/3A 必须以 `ToolCallRequest.getToolCallId()` 添加集成测试。
|
||||
- 未验证真实日志 adapter 的 `SourceKind` 扩展；本 Issue 首版明确只使用 Mock。
|
||||
- Provider 侧旧凭据轮换仍需凭据所有者完成，仓库只能证明明文已移除。
|
||||
|
||||
## 剩余风险与后续门禁
|
||||
|
||||
- 新旧 Contract 短期并存，阶段 3B/3C 接入前不得声称旧 Tool 已符合新 ACI 输出。
|
||||
- 下一阶段只能在本 change OpenSpec Archive 和 Git commit 完成后开始。
|
||||
|
||||
## 状态
|
||||
|
||||
- Stage acceptance: accepted
|
||||
- OpenSpec archive: archived at `openspec/changes/archive/2026-07-21-single-react-aci-tool-contracts`
|
||||
- Main spec sync: `openspec/specs/aci-evidence-tool-contracts/spec.md`（7 added requirements）
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,32 @@
|
||||
# Brief: single-react-aci-tool-contracts
|
||||
|
||||
## 背景
|
||||
|
||||
旧 RAG 和日志 Tool 暴露检索/基础设施细节与不一致状态，MySQL Tool 尚无 Agent-facing 类型。Harness 实现前需要先冻结三类最小 ACI 契约。
|
||||
|
||||
## 目标
|
||||
|
||||
- 冻结 RAG、日志、MySQL 的 Request/Result JSON Schema。
|
||||
- 统一 `evidence_status`，并保持其与 invocation lifecycle 独立。
|
||||
- 统一使用框架 `tool_call_id`，禁止模型传入或 Harness 生成第二套 ID。
|
||||
- 冻结简短 Tool 名称/描述和 Mock 日志来源边界。
|
||||
- 用三个独立契约测试锁定行为。
|
||||
|
||||
## 范围
|
||||
|
||||
- 新增 `com.superbiz.agent.harness.tool.contract` 值对象、枚举和描述常量。
|
||||
- 复用阶段 0 的 `InvocationStatus` 与 `EvidenceStatus`。
|
||||
- 验证 JSON、不可变集合、描述泄漏和新旧边界。
|
||||
|
||||
## 非目标
|
||||
|
||||
- 不切换旧 RAG/日志运行方法或 Chat/AIOps 注册。
|
||||
- 不实现投影、Redis store、真实日志适配器或 MySQL 执行。
|
||||
- 不修改 Controller/SSE 或公开协议。
|
||||
|
||||
## 元数据
|
||||
|
||||
- 分档：standard
|
||||
- 接口影响：L2 前置内部契约；当前运行行为无变化
|
||||
- 关联 Issue：ISS-014 阶段 1
|
||||
- 关联 OpenSpec：`openspec/changes/single-react-aci-tool-contracts`
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,116 @@
|
||||
# Decisions: single-react-aci-tool-contracts
|
||||
|
||||
## 规模与入口
|
||||
|
||||
- 分档：standard。
|
||||
- 入口：ISS-014 阶段 1，前置 `single-react-design-freeze` 已 Archive 并由 Git commit `58c3910` 固化。
|
||||
- 目标：冻结三类 evidence Tool 的 Agent-facing ACI 契约，不接入新运行链路。
|
||||
|
||||
## Context
|
||||
|
||||
- `devflow/index.md` 命中 `single-react-design-freeze`、`modular-rag-pipeline` 和 `evidence-trace-hardening`。
|
||||
- `devflow/glossary/CONTEXT.md` 已定义 Diagnosis Harness、Invocation Status、Evidence Status 与 Evidence Tools。
|
||||
- 阶段 0 已确认 `tool_call_id` 使用框架 ID、两套状态语义分离、阶段串行门禁和阶段 6B 才公开切换。
|
||||
- 未发现根目录旧 `CONTEXT.md` 与 glossary 冲突。
|
||||
|
||||
## Question Pool
|
||||
|
||||
| 维度 | 问题 | 模式 | 证据与结论 | 状态 |
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
||||
| 术语 | invocation lifecycle 与 evidence result 是否使用同一状态？ | evidence-driven | ISS-014 5.2、阶段 0 contract 明确分离；分别复用 `InvocationStatus` 与 `EvidenceStatus`。 | 已解决并汇报 |
|
||||
| 术语 | `tool_call_id` 由谁生成、从哪里取得？ | evidence-driven | Spring AI `AssistantMessage.ToolCall.id()` 与 Alibaba `ToolCallRequest.getToolCallId()` 提供框架 ID；普通 `ToolContext` 不自动加入该 ID。Harness 不生成第二套 ID。 | 已解决并汇报 |
|
||||
| 边界 | 阶段 1 是否直接改旧 RAG/日志执行签名与返回值？ | evidence-driven | ISS-014 阶段 1 只冻结 Contract，投影在阶段 3B、公开切换在阶段 6B；本阶段只新增契约代码和测试。 | 已解决并汇报 |
|
||||
| 边界 | 日志阶段是否实现真实 CLS/MCP 或保留 Topic discovery？ | evidence-driven | ISS-014 8.1 明确继续 Mock、删除 Agent 侧 discovery、真实适配器不在本 Issue 提前设计。 | 已解决并汇报 |
|
||||
| 验收 | 如何证明契约已冻结且有界？ | evidence-driven | 对三类独立 DTO 做精确 JSON、不可变集合、状态和描述泄漏测试；不以旧 Tool 集成测试代替。 | 已解决并汇报 |
|
||||
| 技术 | 框架 ID 能否在后续 Harness 边界取得？ | evidence-driven | 本地依赖 Spring AI Alibaba 1.1.2.0 暴露 `ToolInterceptor.interceptToolCall(ToolCallRequest, ToolCallHandler)`，request 含 `toolCallId`。 | 已解决并汇报 |
|
||||
|
||||
## Grill 结论
|
||||
|
||||
- 术语、边界、验收三类问题均已由代码、依赖 API、阶段 0 档案和 ISS-014 证明。
|
||||
- 没有需要新增用户偏好或风险取舍的 `user-interview` 问题；不代理确认任何新方向。
|
||||
- `grill-with-docs` 要求的代码可证问题已先查证；结论已向用户汇报。
|
||||
- Proposal 已回写框架 ID 接入点、旧运行链路不切换、Mock 边界和 L2 接口影响。
|
||||
|
||||
## 已确认决策
|
||||
|
||||
- DTO 放在 Harness 的 Tool Contract 边界，复用阶段 0 的共享状态枚举，不在旧 `dto` 包继续堆叠协议。
|
||||
- 三类结果只携带 `evidence_status`，canonical invocation 的 `status` 保持独立；阶段 1 通过测试冻结枚举，不提前定义存储实现。
|
||||
- Tool description 使用代码常量冻结，后续 Tool adapter 注册时复用；旧 `@Tool` 注解本阶段不改，避免提前改变运行行为。
|
||||
- RAG 输入仅保留 `query`；日志输入仅保留逻辑 `topic/query/lookback_minutes`；MySQL 输入仅保留逻辑 `data_source/sql/params`。
|
||||
- 日志 `source_kind` 首版固定支持 `MOCK` 契约值，但保留 enum 扩展位置给后续真实适配器 change 审查。
|
||||
|
||||
## 能力与工具限制
|
||||
|
||||
- Discover 能力来源：`sm-flow` + `grill-with-docs`。
|
||||
- 仓库要求的 `codebase-retrieval` 和 LSP 工具在当前工具集中不可用；已用 `rg` 引用搜索、源码阅读和本地依赖 `javap` 补足事实核对。该限制不改变契约方向，但后续 Apply 仍需通过编译和引用测试验证。
|
||||
|
||||
## Cross-artifact 对齐
|
||||
|
||||
| 链路 | 状态 | 结论 |
|
||||
|---|---|---|
|
||||
| brief 目标/范围/非目标 -> proposal | 已对齐 | 三类 DTO、状态、框架 ID、短描述和不切旧运行链路均有对应。 |
|
||||
| proposal 范围/约束/承诺 -> design | 已对齐 | 包边界、ID 来源、record/defensive copy、三类 Schema 和迁移顺序均已设计。 |
|
||||
| design 决策/接口影响/风险 -> specs/tasks | 已对齐 | L2 边界、字段、状态、描述、Mock provenance 和运行不切换均有可验证 requirement 与任务。 |
|
||||
| specs 可观察行为 -> tasks | 已对齐 | 每类 Contract 都有实现与独立测试，另有状态、回归和 diff scope 验证。 |
|
||||
|
||||
## Architecture Audit
|
||||
|
||||
- 能力来源：`zoom-out`，以项目 glossary 的 Diagnosis Harness、Evidence Tools、Invocation Status 和 Evidence Status 术语审计。
|
||||
- 当前输入到输出链路仍为 `ChatController/ChatService` 或 `AiOpsService -> ReactAgent -> LookupKnowledgeTool/QueryLogsTools -> 旧结果`，新契约没有运行消费者。
|
||||
- 未来链路为 `Diagnosis Agent -> Alibaba ToolInterceptor/Harness -> typed Request -> adapter/store/projector -> bounded Result -> Agent observation`，阶段 1 只占有 typed contract 边界。
|
||||
- 数据所有权保持明确：框架拥有 `tool_call_id`，canonical invocation 拥有生命周期，Tool-specific result 拥有证据语义与有界内容。
|
||||
- 主要耦合风险是新旧契约短期并存被误当成已迁移；通过独立包、无旧调用方修改和后续阶段门禁控制，无 ADR 冲突。
|
||||
|
||||
## Commit Gate Preflight
|
||||
|
||||
- proposal、design、specs、tasks 文件完整，OpenSpec CLI 状态为 complete。
|
||||
- strict validation：`openspec validate single-react-aci-tool-contracts --strict` 通过。
|
||||
- question pool 中没有未汇报的 evidence-driven 结论或未确认的 user-interview 问题。
|
||||
- 接口影响为 L2，当前运行消费者零变更；阶段 6B 的 L4 切换保持独立。
|
||||
- cross-artifact 四段对齐无 gap，架构审计未发现需要回写的新实现约束。
|
||||
- Apply 已由用户对 ISS-014 全阶段的持续授权覆盖；仍严格限制在本 Committed OpenSpec tasks 内。
|
||||
|
||||
## Pre-apply Research
|
||||
|
||||
### 参考实现
|
||||
|
||||
- `src/main/java/com/superbiz/agent/tool/LookupKnowledgeTool.java`：确认旧 RAG 暴露 `LookupResult`、ContextPack 和检索 Trace，本阶段不改。
|
||||
- `src/main/java/com/superbiz/agent/agent/tool/QueryLogsTools.java`：确认旧日志输入包含 region/logTopic/limit、存在 Topic discovery 和 mutable nested DTO，本阶段不改。
|
||||
- `src/test/java/com/superbiz/agent/tool/LookupKnowledgeToolTest.java`：现有 RAG 行为回归基线。
|
||||
- `src/test/java/com/superbiz/agent/agent/tool/QueryLogsToolsTest.java`：现有 Mock 日志行为回归基线。
|
||||
- `src/main/java/com/superbiz/agent/harness/contract/*.java`：Java 17 record、Jackson snake_case 和共享状态枚举风格。
|
||||
|
||||
### 技术栈清单
|
||||
|
||||
- 请求/响应标准：Java 17 record + Jackson `@JsonProperty`，集合构造时 defensive copy。
|
||||
- Tool 定义：当前使用 Spring AI `@Tool`，新名称/描述先以常量冻结，后续 adapter 注册复用。
|
||||
- 框架调用 ID：Spring AI Alibaba `ToolCallRequest.getToolCallId()`；普通 `ToolContext` 不作为 ID 来源。
|
||||
- 异常与校验：本阶段只冻结结构；Schema、ID、权限、范围和状态组合错误由后续 Pre-Tool/Projector 显式返回安全 `ERROR`。
|
||||
- MQ/Consumer/加密验签：本 change 不涉及。
|
||||
|
||||
### 新建类型
|
||||
|
||||
- `AgentToolContracts` 与 contract defensive-copy helper。
|
||||
- RAG Request/Result/Evidence。
|
||||
- Log Topic/SourceKind/Request/Result/Scope/Pattern/Event。
|
||||
- MySQL Request/Result。
|
||||
- 三个独立 contract test classes。
|
||||
|
||||
### 影响半径
|
||||
|
||||
- 新增包当前应无生产调用方；旧 Chat/AIOps、Tool、Controller、Repository 和配置文件均不修改。
|
||||
- 通过 focused compile/tests 和 `rg`/diff scope 证明边界。
|
||||
|
||||
## Apply 结果
|
||||
|
||||
- 冲突分类：未发现 OpenSpec 遗漏、代码偏离或方向不确定项。
|
||||
- 新增共享 ACI Tool 名称/描述、defensive-copy helper 和三类 typed Request/Result records。
|
||||
- 新增三个独立契约测试，覆盖精确 JSON、状态分离、框架 ID 原样保留、不可变集合、Mock provenance 和基础设施字段排除。
|
||||
- 首模块对齐：共享/RAG/日志/MySQL contract 与 design/tasks 全部完成；旧 runtime 接入保持 TODO，归属后续 3B/3C/6B changes。
|
||||
|
||||
## Apply 验证
|
||||
|
||||
- 编译：`mvn -q -DskipTests compile` 通过。
|
||||
- 新契约：`mvn -q '-Dtest=RagToolContractTest,QueryLogsToolContractTest,MysqlToolContractTest' test` 通过。
|
||||
- 旧行为回归：`mvn -q '-Dtest=HarnessContractTest,LookupKnowledgeToolTest,QueryLogsToolsTest' test` 通过。
|
||||
- 静态 scope：新 contract 生产类型当前无旧运行消费者；受保护的 Tool、Chat/AIOps、Controller、Repository 和配置文件 diff 为空。
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,27 @@
|
||||
# Evidence: single-react-aci-tool-contracts
|
||||
|
||||
## 文档证据
|
||||
|
||||
- ISS-014 5.2/5.3 冻结 `evidence_status` 与框架 `tool_call_id`；6-9 节冻结 RAG、日志和 MySQL Agent-facing Schema。
|
||||
- ISS-014 阶段 1 明确只冻结 ACI Contract，不实现 Agent 架构切换、真实 CLS/MCP 或 MySQL 执行。
|
||||
- 阶段 0 OpenSpec 与 devflow 已冻结 `InvocationStatus`、`EvidenceStatus`、框架 ID 真理源和阶段 6B 才公开切换。
|
||||
|
||||
## 代码证据
|
||||
|
||||
- `LookupKnowledgeTool` 仍返回包含 ContextPack/Trace 的旧 `LookupResult`，证明需要新的 bounded RAG Contract，也证明本阶段未提前切换。
|
||||
- `QueryLogsTools` 仍暴露 region/logTopic/limit、Topic discovery 和旧 mutable DTO，证明逻辑 Topic/Scope/Mock provenance 契约的必要性。
|
||||
- `ChatService` 与 `AiOpsService` 仍引用旧 `LookupKnowledgeTool`/`QueryLogsTools`，新 contract 生产包当前没有旧运行消费者。
|
||||
- 本地 Spring AI 1.1.7 `AssistantMessage.ToolCall` 提供 `id()`；Spring AI Alibaba 1.1.2.0 `ToolCallRequest` 提供 `getToolCallId()` 与 `ToolInterceptor` 边界。
|
||||
- Spring AI 1.1.7 普通 `ToolContext` 只传递调用方 context/history，不自动提供当前 Tool Call ID，因此后续必须从 Alibaba interceptor request 接入。
|
||||
|
||||
## Evidence-driven 结论
|
||||
|
||||
- lifecycle 与 evidence result 必须保持两套正交状态；已汇报并进入 OpenSpec/代码测试。
|
||||
- `tool_call_id` 可以从当前框架 API 取得，Harness 无需也不得生成第二套 ID；已汇报并进入 OpenSpec。
|
||||
- 阶段 1 不改旧运行签名/返回；已通过引用和 diff scope 验证。
|
||||
- 日志首版保留 Mock 数据源但必须显式 `source_kind=MOCK`，不实现真实适配器；已进入 Log Contract。
|
||||
- 三类 Contract 的可验证口径是精确 JSON、不可变结果、短描述和基础设施字段排除；三个独立测试均通过。
|
||||
|
||||
## 工具限制
|
||||
|
||||
- 当前会话未提供 `codebase-retrieval` 或 LSP；使用 `rg` 引用搜索、源码阅读、本地依赖 `javap`、Maven 编译和 focused tests 完成等价核对。
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,42 @@
|
||||
# Acceptance: single-react-chat-application-usecase
|
||||
|
||||
## Result
|
||||
|
||||
- Status: archived
|
||||
- OpenSpec tasks: 14/14 complete
|
||||
- Interface impact: L3 database/collaboration
|
||||
- Public protocol: unchanged
|
||||
|
||||
## Static Verification
|
||||
|
||||
- V012 migration、`DiagnosisRun` 和 `DiagnosisRunRepository` 对齐 `intent/release_outcome/published_result` 及安全 PreviousTurn filter。
|
||||
- 公开 Controller、前端和 endpoint diff 为空。
|
||||
- Router/System executor 未检出 Tool、ReactAgent、ThreadLocal 或手写循环。
|
||||
- `PublishedResult` 固定为 `user_query/published_conclusion/scope/limitations/source_documents`；序列化负向测试覆盖内部字段泄漏。
|
||||
|
||||
## Script Verification
|
||||
|
||||
- `mvn -q -DskipTests compile`：通过。
|
||||
- Stage 6A focused `ApplicationExecutorsTest,PublishedResultPersistenceTest,ChatApplicationUseCaseTest`：13 tests，通过。
|
||||
- Stage 2-5 与 6A regression selection：18 suites / 76 tests，0 failure/error/skipped。
|
||||
- `openspec validate single-react-chat-application-usecase --strict`：通过。
|
||||
|
||||
## Browser or Manual Verification
|
||||
|
||||
- Not applicable。阶段 6A 没有 UI 或公开入口变化。
|
||||
|
||||
## Not Verified
|
||||
|
||||
- 未运行真实 LLM、Redis、日志和 MySQL live E2E；按 ISS-014 串行门禁统一留到阶段 7。
|
||||
- V012 未在本阶段连接真实数据库执行；migration/entity/query 已由静态检查、focused persistence tests 和 compile 覆盖。
|
||||
|
||||
## Remaining Work
|
||||
|
||||
- 阶段 6B：唯一 `POST /api/chat` SSE 原子切换、旧 endpoint 删除和前端消费者迁移。
|
||||
- 阶段 7：旧链路清理、全局 spec 格式修复和最终 live E2E。
|
||||
|
||||
## Archive
|
||||
|
||||
- `.archive-ready`: created
|
||||
- OpenSpec archive: `openspec/changes/archive/2026-07-21-single-react-chat-application-usecase`
|
||||
- Main spec sync: `openspec/specs/single-react-chat-application-usecase/spec.md`
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,31 @@
|
||||
# Brief: single-react-chat-application-usecase
|
||||
|
||||
## Background
|
||||
|
||||
阶段 2-5 已具备 RunContext、单一 Diagnosis Agent 和安全释放门禁，但没有统一应用用例拥有 Session/Run、意图路由、PreviousTurn、固定执行器和最终持久化，阶段 6B 因而无法只做协议切换。
|
||||
|
||||
## Goal
|
||||
|
||||
在不改变公开 Chat/SSE 行为的前提下，建立内部 `ChatApplicationUseCase`，统一三类意图、同一 Run 生命周期、安全 PreviousTurn 和 typed public content。
|
||||
|
||||
## Scope
|
||||
|
||||
- 无 Tool、无记忆、无 ReAct 的三分类 Intent Router。
|
||||
- SYSTEM_CHAT、KNOWLEDGE_QUERY、DIAGNOSIS 固定执行器。
|
||||
- Knowledge exact invocation/document reference validation。
|
||||
- 同 Session 最近安全 Diagnosis SUCCESS 的有界 PreviousTurn。
|
||||
- `diagnosis_run` V012 字段、JPA store 和安全 `PublishedResult`。
|
||||
- Protocol-neutral observer、Run control、终态持久化和 focused tests。
|
||||
|
||||
## Non-goals
|
||||
|
||||
- 不修改 Controller、`/api/chat`、`/api/chat_stream`、SSE schema 或前端消费者。
|
||||
- 不删除旧 ChatService、多 Agent、ThreadLocal 或旧 session storage。
|
||||
- 不运行真实模型、Redis、日志和 MySQL live E2E；统一留到阶段 7。
|
||||
|
||||
## Metadata
|
||||
|
||||
- Scale: complex
|
||||
- Interface impact: L3 database/collaboration
|
||||
- OpenSpec: `single-react-chat-application-usecase`
|
||||
- Parent issue: `ISS-014`
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,117 @@
|
||||
# Decisions: single-react-chat-application-usecase
|
||||
|
||||
## Discover Status
|
||||
|
||||
- Checkpoint: Discover
|
||||
- Capability source: `sm-flow` + `grill-with-docs`；`codebase-retrieval`、LSP 和 GitNexus MCP 当前不可用，使用既有 GitNexus 结论、`rg` 引用核对和源码阅读降级。
|
||||
- Scale: complex。跨模型路由、三类执行器、Run/session 生命周期、数据库 migration、PreviousTurn 和阶段 6B consumer boundary。
|
||||
- `devflow/index.md` 命中阶段 0-5、session-run-trace-isolation、RAG contracts 和 release guards；无 ADR 冲突。
|
||||
|
||||
## Question Pool
|
||||
|
||||
| # | 维度 | 问题 | 模式 | 状态 |
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
||||
| Q1 | 术语 | Chat Application Use Case 与 Controller、Harness、Agent 的职责边界是什么？ | evidence-driven | 已解决 |
|
||||
| Q2 | 路由 | Router 输入、输出和可重试失败范围是什么？ | evidence-driven | 已解决 |
|
||||
| Q3 | 路由 | Router 最终失败是否允许默认进入 Diagnosis？ | evidence-driven | 已解决 |
|
||||
| Q4 | 执行器 | 三种 intent 分别允许哪些模型和 Tool 行为？ | evidence-driven | 已解决 |
|
||||
| Q5 | Knowledge | 单次 RAG 调用如何验证模型引用且不公开 Tool Call ID？ | evidence-driven | 已解决 |
|
||||
| Q6 | PreviousTurn | 上一回合的真理源、筛选条件和截断边界是什么？ | evidence-driven | 已解决 |
|
||||
| Q7 | 生命周期 | 何时读取上一回合、创建当前 Run、记录 intent 和终态？ | evidence-driven | 已解决 |
|
||||
| Q8 | 持久化 | diagnosis_run 需要新增哪些字段，哪些内部内容禁止进入 published_result？ | evidence-driven | 已解决 |
|
||||
| Q9 | 6B 边界 | 如何让 Controller 切换时不重写应用用例？ | evidence-driven | 已解决 |
|
||||
| Q10 | 接口 | 数据库/内部接口影响等级和回滚要求是什么？ | evidence-driven | 已解决 |
|
||||
| Q11 | 验收 | 如何证明原始 Query、sessionId/runId 和失败终态一致传播？ | evidence-driven | 已解决 |
|
||||
|
||||
## Evidence-driven
|
||||
|
||||
| 结论 | 证据来源 | 是否已汇报用户 |
|
||||
|---|---|---|
|
||||
| Controller 只负责协议；Application Use Case 拥有 session/run、routing、executor、persistence，Harness 拥有预算/取消/释放，Agent 拥有诊断语义。 | ISS-014 3、4.2、阶段 6A/6B | 已汇报 |
|
||||
| Router 输入只含 query/last_intent/last_user_query，输出只允许三枚举；无 Tool/记忆/ReAct。 | ISS-014 4.5 | 已汇报 |
|
||||
| timeout/transport/非法输出可重试一次；第二次失败返回安全入口错误，不进入 Diagnosis。 | ISS-014 重试策略、`HarnessRetryPolicies.intentRouter()` | 已汇报 |
|
||||
| SYSTEM_CHAT 无 Tool；KNOWLEDGE_QUERY 只调用一次 lookup；DIAGNOSIS 进入 Agent + Guards。 | ISS-014 4.5 | 已汇报 |
|
||||
| PreviousTurn 只来自同 Session 最近 `DIAGNOSIS + SUCCESS + published_result`，不使用 Redis 历史。 | ISS-014 4.6 | 已汇报 |
|
||||
| `PublishedResult`/`PreviousTurn` 已冻结为 query/conclusion/scope/limitations/source_documents，不含 Tool ID/raw/Draft/reason。 | 阶段 0 contracts、`PublishedResult`、`PreviousTurn` | 已汇报 |
|
||||
| 当前 `DiagnosisRun`/V011 尚无 intent/release_outcome/published_result，需要 V012 和 repository query。 | `DiagnosisRun.java`、`V011__add_session_run_isolation.sql` | 已汇报 |
|
||||
| 上一回合必须在保存当前 PENDING Run 前读取，否则 latest query 会命中当前请求。 | repository 当前 latest method + 生命周期顺序推导 | 已汇报 |
|
||||
| 6B 需要 metadata/status/cancel，6A 应提供 observer 和显式 RunContext，而不包含 SSE 类型。 | ISS-014 4.7、阶段 6B | 已汇报 |
|
||||
|
||||
## User-interview
|
||||
|
||||
- 无新增 user-interview。三类路由、数据库字段、PreviousTurn、失败语义、阶段边界和自动 Apply/Archive/commit 均由 ISS-014 与用户持续授权冻结。
|
||||
|
||||
## Key Decisions
|
||||
|
||||
- 在创建当前 Run 前读取 latest safe routing context 和 PreviousTurn，随后 `startRun -> persist RUNNING -> observer metadata -> route`。
|
||||
- Application output 使用 typed content union，Diagnosis success 转为无 Tool ID 的 public report view；Fallback output 不携带完整 snapshot。
|
||||
- Knowledge path 生成一次 direct canonical Tool Call ID（该路径没有框架 Tool Call），只调用 `lookup_knowledge`，严格验证 `KnowledgeAnswerDraft` 的 exact call ID 和 document subset，再移除 ID 发布。
|
||||
- 所有普通单轮模型调用复用阶段 5 的受控 `GuardModelCall`，从而共享 Core 模型/Token/timeout/cancel 边界；不引入新模型路由。
|
||||
- `PublishedResult` 仅在 Diagnosis SUCCESS 且 conclusion 非空时写入；Fallback/Failed/Cancelled/System/Knowledge 不生成 PreviousTurn 真理源。
|
||||
- 数据库变更使用 V012 可前向迁移；回滚为先停止新应用用例，再删除新索引/列，不影响 V011 既有字段。
|
||||
- 不创建 ADR：这些是 ISS-014 已冻结设计的落地，不是新的跨项目不可逆决策。
|
||||
|
||||
## OpenSpec Backfill
|
||||
|
||||
- 需进入 proposal/design/spec/tasks：路由隔离/重试、三执行器、original query、PreviousTurn filter/bounds、observer/cancel、Run terminal persistence、V012/L3、公开隔离。
|
||||
- 非目标：Controller/SSE/前端切换、旧链路删除、live E2E。
|
||||
|
||||
## Cross-artifact Alignment
|
||||
|
||||
| 上游 -> 下游 | 检查内容 | 状态 |
|
||||
|---|---|---|
|
||||
| ISS-014/brief -> proposal | 三路由、previous turn、Run lifecycle、内部-only 和阶段 6B handoff | 已对齐 |
|
||||
| proposal -> design | typed executors、observer、JPA/V012、异常/终态、L3 migration/rollback | 已对齐 |
|
||||
| design -> specs/tasks | 每项所有权/安全边界均有可观察 requirement 和实现测试切片 | 已对齐 |
|
||||
| specs -> tasks | 9 组 requirements 覆盖 Router/executors、store/policy、application、verification | 已对齐 |
|
||||
|
||||
## Architecture Audit
|
||||
|
||||
- 能力来源：`zoom-out`，使用 Chat Session、Diagnosis Run、RunContext、Diagnosis Agent、EvidenceGuard、SemanticGuard 和 PublishedResult 术语。
|
||||
- 链路为 `request -> application use case -> run store/router -> fixed executor -> Harness/Agent/Tool -> typed public content -> run finish`；Controller 不拥有模型/工具/Run。
|
||||
- ChatRunStore 拥有 MySQL 映射，Core 拥有运行状态，Application 拥有 dispatch/终态，path executor 拥有单一路径行为；PreviousTurn policy 是唯一安全历史投影。
|
||||
- 最大风险是 prior/current Run 顺序和 DB/lifecycle 双终态，design/tasks 已固定 prior read before start、single finish path 和 focused failure/cancel tests。
|
||||
- V012 是 L3 additive schema；migration、entity、repository、rollback 独立章节完整，公开入口阶段 6A 零变化。
|
||||
|
||||
## Interface Impact
|
||||
|
||||
- 级别：L3 database/collaboration interface。
|
||||
- 新增 `diagnosis_run.intent/release_outcome/published_result` 和索引；修改 Entity/Repository，新增 internal application/store/output contract。
|
||||
- 消费者：阶段 6B Controller/SSE adapter、MySQL/Flyway；旧 ChatService 在本阶段不消费新字段。
|
||||
- 迁移/回滚：V012 nullable additive；回滚先切旧入口，再删除 index/columns。
|
||||
|
||||
## Commit Gate Preflight
|
||||
|
||||
- proposal、design、specs、tasks 完整，`openspec status` complete，change strict validation 通过。
|
||||
- Question pool 全部已解决并汇报，无 user-interview、未判级接口或未接受架构风险。
|
||||
- Cross-artifact 四段对齐无 gap；V012/L3、prior read ordering、terminal persistence 和 6B handoff 已进入 design/spec/tasks。
|
||||
- Apply/Archive/commit 使用用户持续授权；公开协议和前端必须保持零 diff。
|
||||
- `.committed` 已创建，可进入 Apply。
|
||||
|
||||
## Pre-apply Research
|
||||
|
||||
- `DiagnosisHarnessCore`/`RunContext`：Run ID、budget、cancel 和 first-terminal-wins。
|
||||
- `GuardModelCall`/`HarnessRetryExecutor`：单轮模型 timeout/usage 和 Router 两次 attempt。
|
||||
- `HarnessEvidenceTools`/`RagToolResult`：Knowledge 唯一 lookup 路径和有界 projection。
|
||||
- `DiagnosisAgentUseCase`/`DiagnosisReleaseUseCase`：Diagnosis Draft 与安全 release boundary。
|
||||
- `DiagnosisRun`/`DiagnosisRunRepository`/`V011`：现有 Run schema 和写入模式。
|
||||
- `ChatService.ensureChatSession/startDiagnosisRun`：只参考 session metadata/JPA 写法，不复用旧 routing、多 Agent 或 ThreadLocal。
|
||||
- 技术栈：Spring AI direct Prompt、Jackson strict JSON、JPA repository、Flyway additive migration、protocol-neutral observer；无 MQ/新依赖。
|
||||
|
||||
## Apply Progress
|
||||
|
||||
- Router/System/Knowledge contracts 与 executors 已完成，tasks 1.1-1.4 完成。
|
||||
- 5 个 `ApplicationExecutorsTest` 通过：同输入 retry、最终 routing failure、System direct call、Knowledge exact references/no ID、NO_EVIDENCE/model skip。
|
||||
- TODO：PublishedResult/JPA/V012、Diagnosis executor、总应用用例和综合验证。
|
||||
- REVIEW：修正 `JpaChatRunStore` 多构造器 Spring 注入歧义；prior/start/intent/finish 持久化异常统一为稳定 `RUN_PERSISTENCE_FAILED`，并在安全完成时更新 ChatSession 活跃时间/消息对数。均为代码偏离修复，无需变更 OpenSpec。
|
||||
- PublishedResult/JPA/V012、Diagnosis executor、protocol-neutral Run control 与总 ChatApplicationUseCase 已完成，tasks 2.1-3.4 完成。
|
||||
- 13 个 stage 6A focused tests 通过；TODO 仅剩综合回归、static scope 和 OpenSpec verification。
|
||||
- 综合回归曾在 `SemanticGuardTest.attemptTimeoutCancelsBothPermittedModelCalls` 出现负载相关失败。诊断确认生产代码对每次 timeout 均调用 `Future.cancel(true)`，但第二个 Future 可能在任务线程启动前已取消，此时不存在可接收 interrupt 的线程。分类为测试假设偏差，不是 OpenSpec 或生产代码偏离；回归断言改为两次 TIMEOUT attempt、两次模型预算预留，以及至少一个已运行调用收到 interrupt。
|
||||
|
||||
## Final Review
|
||||
|
||||
- Stage 6A focused tests 与阶段 2-5 regression 共 18 suites / 76 tests，0 failure/error/skipped；Maven compile 通过。
|
||||
- OpenSpec strict validation 通过；V012、Entity、Repository 的三个字段和 previous-turn filter 对齐。
|
||||
- 公开 Controller、前端和 endpoint 零 diff；Router/System executor 无 Tool、ReactAgent、ThreadLocal 或手写 loop。
|
||||
- `PublishedResult` 只包含 `user_query/published_conclusion/scope/limitations/source_documents`，负向序列化测试通过。
|
||||
- 本阶段不运行 live E2E，按 ISS-014 门禁留到阶段 7。
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,31 @@
|
||||
# Evidence: single-react-chat-application-usecase
|
||||
|
||||
## Code and Contract Evidence
|
||||
|
||||
- `DiagnosisHarnessCore`/`RunContext` 已提供 Run ID、预算、取消和 first-terminal-wins，应用用例无需创建第二套生命周期。
|
||||
- `GuardModelCall`/`HarnessRetryExecutor` 提供单轮模型 timeout、Token 记账和两次 Router attempt。
|
||||
- `HarnessEvidenceTools`/`RagToolResult` 提供 Knowledge 路径唯一 lookup 和有界 projection。
|
||||
- `DiagnosisAgentUseCase`/`DiagnosisReleaseUseCase` 已形成 Diagnosis Draft 与安全发布边界。
|
||||
- `DiagnosisRun`/`DiagnosisRunRepository`/V011 提供既有 Run 持久化，V012 以 nullable additive 字段扩展。
|
||||
|
||||
## Confirmed Boundaries
|
||||
|
||||
- Router 输入只含原始 Query、可选 last intent 和 last user query；最终失败不得默认进入 Diagnosis。
|
||||
- 三类 executor 不互相调用，所有路径接收未改写 Query。
|
||||
- PreviousTurn 只来自同 Session 最近 `DIAGNOSIS + SUCCESS + published_result`，且必须在保存当前 Run 前读取。
|
||||
- Knowledge 公开内容只保留 stable document metadata，不发布 direct Tool Call ID。
|
||||
- `PublishedResult` 不保存 Tool ID、raw evidence、完整 Draft 或 SemanticGuard reason；Fallback/Failed/Cancelled 不写安全历史。
|
||||
- Controller/SSE/前端切换属于阶段 6B，本阶段保持公开协议不变。
|
||||
|
||||
## Diagnosis Finding
|
||||
|
||||
- 综合回归暴露 `SemanticGuardTest` 的负载竞态：第二个 Future 可能在获得线程前被取消，因而不会产生第二次 interrupt。
|
||||
- 生产代码已对每次 timeout 调用 `Future.cancel(true)`；测试改为验证两次 TIMEOUT attempt、两次模型预算预留，以及至少一个运行中调用被中断。
|
||||
- 分类为测试假设偏差，不是生产代码或 OpenSpec 偏离。
|
||||
|
||||
## Verification Evidence
|
||||
|
||||
- Stage 6A focused tests：13 tests 通过。
|
||||
- Stage 2-5 与 6A 综合回归：18 suites / 76 tests，0 failure/error/skipped。
|
||||
- Maven compile 与 change strict validation 通过。
|
||||
- 公开 Controller/前端零 diff；Router/System executor 无 Tool、ReactAgent、ThreadLocal 或手写 loop。
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,49 @@
|
||||
# Acceptance: single-react-chat-sse-cutover
|
||||
|
||||
## Result
|
||||
|
||||
- Status: archived
|
||||
- OpenSpec tasks: 14/14 complete
|
||||
- Interface impact: L4 breaking HTTP/frontend contract
|
||||
- Public Chat protocol: unique named-event SSE `POST /api/chat`
|
||||
|
||||
## Static Verification
|
||||
|
||||
- 组合路由保持 `/api/chat`、`/api/ai_ops`、`/api/chat/clear`、`/api/chat/session/{sessionId}` 和 `/runs`；`/api/chat_stream` 已删除。
|
||||
- 生产 Controller/前端 legacy Chat token scan：0。
|
||||
- `ChatController` forbidden dependency scan：0；结构测试固定其三个 protocol/application dependencies。
|
||||
- SSE payload 只包含固定 metadata/status/content/failure/done fields，`CANCELLED` 不作为公开 done outcome。
|
||||
- mode selector DOM、state、consumer 和 CSS 已删除。
|
||||
|
||||
## Script Verification
|
||||
|
||||
- `mvn -q -DskipTests compile`：通过。
|
||||
- Stage 2-6B + AiOps regression selection：24 suites / 101 tests，0 failure/error/skipped。
|
||||
- `openspec validate single-react-chat-sse-cutover --strict`：通过。
|
||||
- `node --check src/main/resources/static/app.js`：通过。
|
||||
- `git diff --check`：通过，仅有仓库既存 LF/CRLF 提示。
|
||||
|
||||
## Browser or Manual Verification
|
||||
|
||||
- 本阶段未运行浏览器人工验证；前端协议由静态 contract test 和 JavaScript syntax check 覆盖。
|
||||
|
||||
## Not Verified
|
||||
|
||||
- 未运行 live 模型、Redis、日志和 MySQL E2E；按 ISS-014 阶段门禁统一留到阶段 7。
|
||||
- 未验证外部第三方 Chat API consumer；L4 变更不提供兼容分支，外部消费者必须同步迁移到 named-event SSE。
|
||||
|
||||
## Migration and Rollback
|
||||
|
||||
- 部署必须将后端 SSE endpoint 与 bundled frontend consumer 作为同一版本原子发布。
|
||||
- 回滚必须同时回滚 Controller 和 frontend 到阶段 6A commit；V012 additive nullable migration 可保留。
|
||||
- 不允许通过恢复 `/api/chat_stream`、同步 JSON consumer 或旧 message wrapper 形成双轨兼容。
|
||||
|
||||
## Remaining Work
|
||||
|
||||
- 阶段 7：物理删除旧 Agent/Graph/Hook/ThreadLocal/ChatService 路径和过时测试，更新文档并完成最终 live E2E、日志与数据库核验。
|
||||
|
||||
## Archive
|
||||
|
||||
- `.archive-ready`: created
|
||||
- OpenSpec archive: `openspec/changes/archive/2026-07-22-single-react-chat-sse-cutover`
|
||||
- Main spec sync: `openspec/specs/single-react-chat-sse-cutover/spec.md` (10 requirements added)
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,32 @@
|
||||
# Brief: single-react-chat-sse-cutover
|
||||
|
||||
## Background
|
||||
|
||||
阶段 6A 已建立 protocol-neutral `ChatApplicationUseCase`，但公开 Chat 仍有同步 `/api/chat` 和伪流式 `/api/chat_stream` 两条旧链路，Controller 直接拥有模型、Tools、Session 历史和无界线程池，前端也保留两套消费者。
|
||||
|
||||
## Goal
|
||||
|
||||
将公开 Chat 原子切换为唯一 `POST /api/chat` named-event SSE，并让 Controller 只承担校验、HTTP/SSE 和连接生命周期；所有公开内容必须来自阶段 6A 的安全释放结果。
|
||||
|
||||
## Scope
|
||||
|
||||
- 唯一 `/api/chat` SSE 与 `metadata -> status* -> content|failure -> done` 状态机。
|
||||
- exact Run disconnect/timeout/send-failure cancellation。
|
||||
- Spring-managed bounded Chat/model executors 和完整 Harness production Bean graph。
|
||||
- 前端唯一 named-event consumer、typed renderer 和 metadata identity 保存。
|
||||
- AiOps 模型/Tool acquisition 下沉到 service，并将 AiOps/Session endpoint 从 Chat Controller 职责中隔离。
|
||||
- L4 前后端迁移、成对回滚和 focused regression。
|
||||
|
||||
## Non-goals
|
||||
|
||||
- 不做 Token streaming、最终答案切片、断线续传、事件重放、轮询或 WebSocket。
|
||||
- 不修改 `/api/ai_ops` 的公开 URL、请求和 SSE message-wrapper 行为。
|
||||
- 不在本阶段物理删除旧多 Agent、ChatService、Hook 或 ThreadLocal；阶段 7 统一清理。
|
||||
- 不运行 live 模型、Redis、日志或 MySQL E2E；阶段 7 统一验收。
|
||||
|
||||
## Metadata
|
||||
|
||||
- Scale: complex
|
||||
- Interface impact: L4 breaking HTTP/frontend contract
|
||||
- OpenSpec: `single-react-chat-sse-cutover`
|
||||
- Parent issue: `ISS-014`
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,110 @@
|
||||
# Decisions: single-react-chat-sse-cutover
|
||||
|
||||
## Discover Status
|
||||
|
||||
- Checkpoint: Discover
|
||||
- Capability source: `sm-flow` + `grill-with-docs`；`codebase-retrieval`、LSP 和 GitNexus MCP 当前不可用，使用 `rg` 引用核对、源码阅读和 focused tests 降级。
|
||||
- Scale: complex。涉及 L4 HTTP/SSE 协议、前端消费者、异步连接生命周期、生产 Bean 装配和阶段 7 删除边界。
|
||||
- `devflow/index.md` 命中阶段 0-6A、ISS-013 和 session-run-trace-isolation；ISS-014 是更新且已冻结的最终协议源。
|
||||
|
||||
## Question Pool
|
||||
|
||||
| # | 维度 | 问题 | 模式 | 状态 |
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
||||
| Q1 | 术语 | “真正 SSE”是 Token streaming，还是过程事件实时 + 最终内容一次释放？ | evidence-driven | 已解决 |
|
||||
| Q2 | 协议 | 唯一 endpoint、事件名称、payload、顺序、互斥和终态是什么？ | evidence-driven | 已解决 |
|
||||
| Q3 | 边界 | Controller、Application Use Case、Harness 和 SSE adapter 各自拥有何种职责？ | evidence-driven | 已解决 |
|
||||
| Q4 | 生命周期 | disconnect/timeout/send failure 如何取消同一个 Run，正常 complete 如何避免误取消？ | evidence-driven | 已解决 |
|
||||
| Q5 | 执行器 | 如何消除 Controller 自建无界线程池并处理饱和？ | evidence-driven | 已解决 |
|
||||
| Q6 | 装配 | 阶段 2-6A plain Java components 如何形成可启动的生产 Bean graph？ | evidence-driven | 已解决 |
|
||||
| Q7 | 前端 | 快速/流式双模式如何迁移到唯一 SSE consumer？ | evidence-driven | 已解决 |
|
||||
| Q8 | 安全 | 哪些内部状态/内容禁止进入 SSE？ | evidence-driven | 已解决 |
|
||||
| Q9 | 兼容 | 是否保留同步 `/api/chat` 或 `/api/chat_stream` 兼容？ | evidence-driven | 已解决 |
|
||||
| Q10 | 范围 | `/api/ai_ops` 和旧多 Agent 何时处理？ | evidence-driven | 已解决 |
|
||||
| Q11 | 验收 | 如何证明 event order、single terminal、same IDs、cancel 和 production wiring？ | evidence-driven | 已解决 |
|
||||
|
||||
## Evidence-driven
|
||||
|
||||
| 结论 | 证据来源 | 是否已汇报用户 |
|
||||
|---|---|---|
|
||||
| 真正 SSE 固定为状态实时发送、最终 typed content 一次释放，不做 Token/字符切片。 | ISS-014 4.7 | 已汇报 |
|
||||
| 唯一入口是 `POST /api/chat`；顺序为 `metadata -> status* -> content|failure -> done`。 | ISS-014 4.7、阶段 6B | 已汇报 |
|
||||
| metadata/status/content/failure/done 使用 named SSE event；payload 不再包含旧 `type/data` 包装。 | ISS-014 最小事件结构 | 已汇报 |
|
||||
| 当前 Controller 同时拥有旧 ChatService、模型、Tools、SessionManager、同步/伪流式流程和 cached thread pool。 | `ChatController.java` | 已汇报 |
|
||||
| 当前前端 quick 调 `/chat` JSON，stream 调 `/chat_stream` 并保留大量旧格式 fallback。 | `static/app.js` | 已汇报 |
|
||||
| `ChatApplicationUseCase` 已提供 observer、同一 run control、typed content 和 stable failure code，但组件尚无完整生产 Bean graph。 | 阶段 6A code + Spring annotation scan | 已汇报 |
|
||||
| 客户端断开必须通过 observer 得到的 `ChatRunControl` 取消，同一引用需覆盖断开早于 onStarted 的竞态。 | 阶段 6A design + `SseEmitter` lifecycle | 已汇报 |
|
||||
| `/api/ai_ops` 是独立公开入口，不属于阶段 6B Chat 原子切换；旧实现阶段 7 清理/处置。 | ISS-014 阶段 6B/7 | 已汇报 |
|
||||
|
||||
## User-interview
|
||||
|
||||
- 无新增 user-interview。唯一 endpoint、破坏性迁移、事件 schema、非 Token 流、自动 Apply/Archive/commit 均由 ISS-014 与用户持续授权冻结。
|
||||
|
||||
## Key Decisions
|
||||
|
||||
- Controller 使用构造注入的 `ChatApplicationUseCase` 与受控 `TaskExecutor`；不注入 ChatModel、Tools、ChatService 或 SessionManager 来处理 Chat。
|
||||
- SSE adapter 为每个请求维护单一 state machine 和 `AtomicReference<ChatRunControl>`；disconnect 标记先于 onStarted 时，onStarted 立即取消。
|
||||
- 正常 result 只产生一次 typed content 和 done；异常只产生 failure 和 done；IOException/timeout/disconnect 只取消，不尝试补发终态。
|
||||
- executor rejection 在没有 Run 时发送稳定 failure/done；worker 启动后所有 failure code 来自 `ChatApplicationException`，不暴露 cause。
|
||||
- 生产装配使用集中 `harness.chat` properties 和 Spring-managed bounded executors；所有模型调用复用同一 `ChatModel` 和 `GuardModelCall`。
|
||||
- 前端移除 mode selector 和 quick path，只保留一个严格 named-event parser；unknown event/schema fail closed。
|
||||
- 不创建 ADR：L4 方案已经在 ISS-014 设计冻结，本 change 负责原子落地和迁移说明。
|
||||
|
||||
## OpenSpec Backfill
|
||||
|
||||
- 需进入 proposal/design/spec/tasks：唯一 SSE、五事件 state machine、typed payload、安全 failure、same IDs、disconnect cancellation、bounded executors、production assembly、frontend migration、L4 rollback。
|
||||
- 非目标：AiOps 协议、旧类物理删除、live E2E。
|
||||
|
||||
## Cross-artifact Alignment
|
||||
|
||||
| 上游 -> 下游 | 检查内容 | 状态 |
|
||||
|---|---|---|
|
||||
| ISS-014/brief -> proposal | 唯一 SSE、五事件、断开取消、前端迁移、生产装配、阶段 7 边界 | 已对齐 |
|
||||
| proposal -> design | named events、state machine、bounded executors、Bean graph、AiOps 隔离、L4 rollback | 已对齐 |
|
||||
| design -> specs/tasks | 每项 ownership/lifecycle/safety/migration 均有可观察 requirement 和纵向切片 | 已对齐 |
|
||||
| specs -> tasks | 10 组 requirements 覆盖 wiring、SSE、cancel、frontend、AiOps regression 和 verification | 已对齐 |
|
||||
|
||||
## Architecture Audit
|
||||
|
||||
- Capability source: `zoom-out`，使用 Chat Application Use Case、RunContext、Run Lifecycle、Diagnosis Harness 和 Chat SSE Contract 术语。
|
||||
- 链路为 `browser -> Controller -> SSE session -> bounded worker -> Application Use Case -> Harness -> typed release -> SSE session`；业务真理源不进入 Controller。
|
||||
- SSE session 独占协议状态，Application 独占 Run/dispatch/persistence，Core 独占 cancel/budget，configuration 独占 infrastructure graph。
|
||||
- 最大风险是 disconnect/onStarted 与 terminal callback 竞态，design/tasks 已固定 pending-disconnect、atomic terminal 和 no-send-after-close tests。
|
||||
- L4 部署必须 Controller/frontend 同版本；回滚成对返回阶段 6A commit，V012 可保留。
|
||||
|
||||
## Interface Impact
|
||||
|
||||
- Level: L4 breaking HTTP/frontend contract。
|
||||
- 删除同步 JSON `POST /api/chat`、`POST /api/chat_stream` 和旧 Chat SSE wrapper；新增 named-event SSE `POST /api/chat`。
|
||||
- 消费者：bundled `static/app.js`、外部 Chat callers、Controller/MockMvc tests；Trace/feedback 继续使用 metadata IDs。
|
||||
- 迁移/回滚：前后端同 commit 原子部署/回滚；不提供兼容开关、双 endpoint 或旧 parser。
|
||||
|
||||
## Commit Gate Preflight
|
||||
|
||||
- proposal、design、specs、tasks 完整，change strict validation 通过。
|
||||
- Question pool 全部 evidence-driven 解决并已汇报，无 user-interview、未判级接口或未接受架构风险。
|
||||
- Cross-artifact 四段对齐无 gap；L4 migration/rollback、production wiring、disconnect race 和阶段 7 边界均进入 design/spec/tasks。
|
||||
- `openspec-propose` 补全产物，`zoom-out` 完成架构审计；可提交为 Committed OpenSpec。
|
||||
|
||||
## Apply Progress
|
||||
|
||||
- 1.1-1.4 完成：新增 `ChatHarnessProperties`、bounded worker/model executors 和显式 `HarnessChatConfiguration` graph；空 MySQL datasource 只允许 fail-closed unknown logical ID。
|
||||
- 2.1-2.4 完成：新增 named-event `ChatSseEvent`/`ChatSseSession`，Chat 唯一 SSE Controller，移除 `/chat_stream` 和同步 Chat；AiOps 模型/Tool 依赖下沉到 service。
|
||||
- 3.1-3.3 完成：前端移除 quick/stream 双轨，统一 named-event parser、typed renderer 和静态 contract test。
|
||||
- `JpaChatRunStore` 生产构造器改为注入集中 `PublishedResultPolicy`，避免读写边界漂移；这是实现偏差修复，无需改需求方向。
|
||||
|
||||
## Apply Review
|
||||
|
||||
- Review 发现 `ChatController` 虽然 Chat path 已经只调用应用用例，但类本身仍承载 AiOps 和 Session 管理依赖，不完全满足“Chat Controller 只负责 Chat 协议”的 ownership 要求。
|
||||
- 用户确认将职责拆分为 `ChatController`（仅 `/api/chat`）、`AiOpsController`（保持 `/api/ai_ops`）和 `ChatSessionController`（保持 clear/session/runs URL）。
|
||||
- 该修正保持所有公开 URL、AiOps message-wrapper payload 和 Session observable behavior，不修改 Committed OpenSpec 的范围或方向。
|
||||
- `styles.css` 中 mode selector/dropdown 死样式随前端双轨删除一并移除。
|
||||
- AGENTS.md 指定的 `codebase-retrieval` 和 LSP 工具在当前环境不可用；使用 OpenSpec 全量上下文、`rg` 引用检查、Java 编译、结构测试和综合回归完成等价影响面确认。
|
||||
|
||||
## Verification and Migration
|
||||
|
||||
- Stage 2-6B + AiOps regression：24 suites / 101 tests，0 failure/error/skipped；包含 `HarnessChatConfigurationTest` Spring wiring。
|
||||
- `mvn -q -DskipTests compile`、`openspec validate single-react-chat-sse-cutover --strict`、`node --check src/main/resources/static/app.js` 均通过。
|
||||
- 生产 Controller/前端遗留 token 静态扫描为 0；`ChatController` 中模型、Tool、ChatService、AiOps、Session 和 Trace service 禁止依赖扫描为 0。
|
||||
- L4 部署必须将后端 `/api/chat` SSE 与 bundled frontend consumer 同版本原子部署；回滚必须成对回滚到阶段 6A commit，不提供兼容 endpoint、旧 parser 或双轨开关。
|
||||
- live 模型、Redis、日志和 MySQL E2E 按 ISS-014 门禁明确延后到阶段 7，本阶段没有把 focused/Mock 验证表述为 live 验收。
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,32 @@
|
||||
# Evidence: single-react-chat-sse-cutover
|
||||
|
||||
## Code and Contract Evidence
|
||||
|
||||
- `ChatApplicationUseCase` 已提供 typed result、observer 和 exact `ChatRunControl`，Controller 无需拥有模型、Tool 或业务路由。
|
||||
- `ChatSseSession` 使用 first-terminal-wins 状态和 pending disconnect，覆盖断开早于 `onStarted`、send failure、late terminal 与正常 completion 竞态。
|
||||
- `ChatSseEvent` 固定 metadata/status/content/failure/done payload；content 引用阶段 6A typed public content，failure 只公开 stable code/message。
|
||||
- `HarnessChatConfiguration` 组装同一个 Core、model boundary、canonical store、ToolBoundary、Diagnosis Agent、Guards、Router、executors 和 application use case。
|
||||
- `ChatHarnessProperties` 集中 worker/model queue、Run、SSE、canonical store、Agent、Router、Guard 和 single-turn limits；executors 使用有限队列与 `AbortPolicy`。
|
||||
- bundled frontend 只向 `/api/chat` 发起 streaming POST，按完整 named SSE frame 严格解析并 fail closed。
|
||||
|
||||
## Ownership Review
|
||||
|
||||
- Apply review 将原 Controller 拆为 `ChatController`、`AiOpsController` 和 `ChatSessionController`。
|
||||
- `ChatController` 只注入 `ChatApplicationUseCase`、bounded worker 和 Chat properties；禁止依赖扫描为 0。
|
||||
- `/api/ai_ops`、`/api/chat/clear`、session info 和 run list 的 URL 与 payload 字段保持不变。
|
||||
- mode selector/dropdown DOM、JS state 和 CSS 已全部移除，不保留双轨开关。
|
||||
|
||||
## Safety and Lifecycle Evidence
|
||||
|
||||
- success 测试验证 `metadata,status,content,done` 严格顺序和 typed content。
|
||||
- failure 测试验证内部 provider detail 不进入 failure payload，且 content/failure 互斥。
|
||||
- disconnect-before-start 与 send-failure 测试验证 exact Run 取消和 late terminal 阻断。
|
||||
- frontend contract test 验证唯一 request target、五类 event branch 与旧 consumer token 删除。
|
||||
- static scan：生产 Controller/前端 legacy Chat token 0；Chat Controller forbidden dependency 0。
|
||||
|
||||
## Verification Evidence
|
||||
|
||||
- Stage 2-6B + AiOps regression：24 suites / 101 tests，0 failure/error/skipped。
|
||||
- `HarnessChatConfigurationTest` 覆盖 bounded queues、共享依赖、空 MySQL fail-closed 和 Spring context wiring。
|
||||
- Maven compile、strict OpenSpec validation 和 JavaScript syntax check 通过。
|
||||
- 真实模型、Redis、日志和 MySQL live E2E 按 ISS-014 串行门禁留到阶段 7。
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,36 @@
|
||||
# Acceptance: single-react-design-freeze
|
||||
|
||||
## 实现结果
|
||||
|
||||
- 新增类型化 Harness contracts 和序列化契约测试。
|
||||
- ISS-014 已调整为 11 个串行 changes，并补齐 Tool ID、双状态、previous turn 和安全切换决策。
|
||||
- Python 查询脚本和 Spring 主配置改为环境变量 Secret。
|
||||
- 集成测试和历史 handoff 中的旧 Secret 副本已删除或脱敏。
|
||||
- devflow glossary 新增 Harness、EvidenceGuard、SemanticGuard、Invocation Status 和 Evidence Status。
|
||||
|
||||
## 静态验证
|
||||
|
||||
- OpenSpec strict validation：通过。
|
||||
- Secret 扫描：通过，已知真实 Secret 模式零匹配。
|
||||
- Diff whitespace 检查：通过。
|
||||
|
||||
## 脚本验证
|
||||
|
||||
- 4 个 contract tests：通过。
|
||||
- ToolInvocationRecorder、ExecutorGatekeeperService、ChatController focused baseline：通过。
|
||||
- 查询脚本缺失密码环境变量时 fail fast：通过。
|
||||
|
||||
## 浏览器/人工验证
|
||||
|
||||
- 不适用；阶段 0 未切换任何公开 UI/API。
|
||||
|
||||
## 未验证与后续门禁
|
||||
|
||||
- Provider 侧旧凭据轮换待凭据所有者完成。
|
||||
- Live E2E 留到阶段 7。
|
||||
- 阶段 1 只有在本 change Archive 和 Git commit 后才能开始。
|
||||
|
||||
## 状态
|
||||
|
||||
- Stage acceptance: accepted
|
||||
- OpenSpec archive: authorized by standing user instruction
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,31 @@
|
||||
# Brief: single-react-design-freeze
|
||||
|
||||
## 背景
|
||||
|
||||
ISS-014 将 Chat 诊断从多 Agent、Hook、ThreadLocal 和外层重试编排收敛为单体 Diagnosis ReAct Agent、确定性 Harness 和隔离 SemanticGuard。阶段 0 先冻结后续实施共同依赖的契约和安全边界。
|
||||
|
||||
## 目标
|
||||
|
||||
- 提供可复用的 Diagnosis Draft、Knowledge Answer、Fallback、published result 和 previous turn 类型。
|
||||
- 固定 framework Tool Call ID、调用生命周期和证据结果双状态。
|
||||
- 固定取消、重试、no-evidence、阶段门禁和安全凭据策略。
|
||||
- 保持当前公开 Chat 运行行为不变。
|
||||
|
||||
## 范围
|
||||
|
||||
- `com.superbiz.agent.harness.contract` 类型层和 focused tests。
|
||||
- ISS-014 的 11 个串行 OpenSpec changes 台账。
|
||||
- 主配置、查询脚本和集成测试中的明文 Secret 清理。
|
||||
- OpenSpec、devflow glossary 和阶段验收基线。
|
||||
|
||||
## 非目标
|
||||
|
||||
- 不接入新 Harness、Agent 或 Guards。
|
||||
- 不切换 `/api/chat`，不删除旧运行链。
|
||||
- 不执行 live E2E。
|
||||
|
||||
## 元数据
|
||||
|
||||
- Scale: complex
|
||||
- Parent issue: `ISS-014`
|
||||
- OpenSpec: `openspec/changes/single-react-design-freeze`
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,20 @@
|
||||
# Decisions: single-react-design-freeze
|
||||
|
||||
## 已确认决策
|
||||
|
||||
- ISS-014 保留为总 Issue，实施拆成 11 个独立、串行 sm-flow changes。
|
||||
- 每个 change 必须完成 Apply、阶段验收、OpenSpec Archive 和 Git commit 后才能进入下一项。
|
||||
- Apply、Archive 和阶段 Git commit 已获得用户对整个目标的持续授权；仅方向性决策需要暂停。
|
||||
- `tool_call_id` 使用框架协议 ID，Harness 不生成第二套 ID。
|
||||
- `status=PROJECTING/READY/ERROR` 表示 invocation lifecycle；`evidence_status=EVIDENCE_FOUND/NO_EVIDENCE/ERROR` 表示结果语义。
|
||||
- `NO_EVIDENCE` 只能支持限定范围的 `NEGATIVE_OBSERVATION`。
|
||||
- KNOWLEDGE_QUERY 使用 answer items 绑定 `tool_call_id + document_id`，首版不进入 SemanticGuard。
|
||||
- `diagnosis_run` 是 previous turn 的持久化真理源；只有最近的 `DIAGNOSIS + SUCCESS` 安全发布结果可用。
|
||||
- 取消采用分层、可观测语义；同步模型调用不承诺无法证明的立即硬取消。
|
||||
- 底层重试压为一次 attempt，Router/SemanticGuard 的允许重试只由 Harness 执行。
|
||||
- 阶段 4 和 6A 不接管公开入口，阶段 6B 才执行原子 SSE 切换。
|
||||
|
||||
## 权衡
|
||||
|
||||
- contract types 提前落地会增加少量文件，但后续 output type、validator、持久化和 SSE 可以复用，避免多阶段字符串协议漂移。
|
||||
- Provider 侧凭据轮换是外部前置，阶段 0 只证明工作树已清理，不伪造外部完成状态。
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,25 @@
|
||||
# Evidence: single-react-design-freeze
|
||||
|
||||
## 代码与框架证据
|
||||
|
||||
- `ChatController` 当前直接管理会话、模型、工具、执行和伪流式 SSE，证明公开切换必须延后到阶段 6B。
|
||||
- `ChatService` 当前构建 Planner/Executor/Verifier/Composer 并依赖 ThreadLocal，证明阶段 0 只能创建无运行依赖的 contract types。
|
||||
- Spring AI Alibaba `Builder` 提供 ToolInterceptor、output type、tool timeout 和调用限制扩展点；`ReactAgent` 提供 interrupt。
|
||||
- Spring AI 1.1.7 `SpringAiRetryProperties` 构造器默认 `maxAttempts=10`，与 Harness 单一重试所有权冲突，阶段 2 必须压为一次底层 attempt。
|
||||
- `DiagnosisRun` 当前只有通用 status 和文本 answer，不足以确定性恢复安全 previous turn，因此确认后续保存 `intent/release_outcome/published_result`。
|
||||
- 历史 ISS-009 和 verifier evidence 归档证明 `NO_EVIDENCE` 只能表达限定范围内无匹配结果。
|
||||
|
||||
## 验证证据
|
||||
|
||||
- `mvn -q '-Dtest=HarnessContractTest' test`：通过。
|
||||
- `mvn -q '-Dtest=ToolInvocationRecorderTest,ExecutorGatekeeperServiceTest,ChatControllerTest' test`：通过。
|
||||
- `mvn -q '-Dtest=HarnessContractTest,ToolInvocationRecorderTest,ExecutorGatekeeperServiceTest,ChatControllerTest' test`：通过。
|
||||
- `openspec validate single-react-design-freeze --strict`：通过。
|
||||
- `git diff --check`：通过，仅有 Windows line-ending warning。
|
||||
- 已知旧 Secret 模式扫描：零匹配。
|
||||
- 缺少 `SUPERBIZ_MYSQL_PASSWORD` 时运行查询脚本：在连接前 fail fast，符合预期。
|
||||
|
||||
## 未验证
|
||||
|
||||
- 未运行模型、Redis、MySQL 或 Milvus live E2E；按阶段门禁留到阶段 7。
|
||||
- Provider 侧旧凭据是否已经轮换无法由仓库证明，必须由凭据所有者完成，并在阶段 3C/7 前核验。
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,65 @@
|
||||
# Single React Diagnosis Agent Acceptance
|
||||
|
||||
## 结果
|
||||
|
||||
已接受。阶段 4 Committed OpenSpec 的 11 项任务全部完成，新链路仅通过内部 Java/test 入口运行，公开 Chat 未切换。
|
||||
|
||||
## 验证
|
||||
|
||||
### 静态验证
|
||||
|
||||
- 检查：新 `harness.agent` 包与 Prompt 搜索 `ThreadLocal|SessionContextHolder|while|SequentialAgent|SupervisorAgent|StateGraph|Planner|Composer|Verifier|raw_response`。
|
||||
- 结果：通过，无匹配。
|
||||
- 检查：`git diff --name-only` 限定 Controller、ChatService、AiOpsService。
|
||||
- 结果：通过，无 diff。
|
||||
- 检查：OpenSpec artifact status、cross-artifact、L2 interface impact、`.committed`、`.archive-ready`。
|
||||
- 结果：通过。
|
||||
|
||||
### 脚本验证
|
||||
|
||||
- 命令：`mvn -q -DskipTests compile`
|
||||
- 结果：通过。
|
||||
- 命令：`mvn -q '-Dtest=HarnessToolInterceptorTest,DiagnosisAgentUseCaseTest' test`
|
||||
- 结果：通过，14 tests。
|
||||
- 命令：`mvn -q '-Dtest=DiagnosisAgentUseCaseTest,HarnessToolInterceptorTest,DiagnosisHarnessCoreTest,ToolBoundaryTest,ToolAdapterTest,MysqlToolAdapterTest,CanonicalInvocationStoreTest,HarnessContractTest,RagToolContractTest,QueryLogsToolContractTest,MysqlToolContractTest' test`
|
||||
- 结果：通过。
|
||||
- 命令：`openspec validate single-react-diagnosis-agent --strict`
|
||||
- 结果：通过。
|
||||
- 命令：归档后 `openspec validate single-react-diagnosis-agent --type spec --strict`
|
||||
- 结果：通过；仓库级 `openspec validate --specs --strict` 另发现前序 `mysql-readonly-tool`、`rag-log-projections` 主规格仍使用旧 scenario 格式，本阶段不跨归档边界修改。
|
||||
|
||||
### 浏览器/人工验证
|
||||
|
||||
- 不适用。本阶段无 UI、HTTP 或 SSE 行为变化。
|
||||
|
||||
### 未验证
|
||||
|
||||
- 未启动 Maven 应用、外部模型、MySQL、Redis、Milvus 或日志服务；按 ISS-014 门禁统一留到阶段 7 live E2E。
|
||||
- 未验证 provider 生产响应始终携带 Token Usage；缺失 Usage 时模型调用次数仍强制，实际 Token 只能在 provider 返回时记录。
|
||||
|
||||
## 已完成范围
|
||||
|
||||
- 单一 Diagnosis ReactAgent、单 Prompt 和固定 Query/PreviousTurn 输入。
|
||||
- 框架原生 tool loop、exact Tool Call ID 和三类 Harness adapter bridge。
|
||||
- 模型/Token/Tool/上下文/Draft 预算与无自动 retry。
|
||||
- 严格 DiagnosisDraft 输出和无证据停止规则。
|
||||
- 显式 sessionId/runId audit metadata、可注入 AgentStep Hook、canonical Tool invocation。
|
||||
- 公开 Chat/AiOps 与旧多 Agent 路径保持不变。
|
||||
|
||||
## 已知限制
|
||||
|
||||
- Draft 尚未经过 EvidenceGuard/SemanticGuard，不能公开发布；阶段 5 负责释放门禁。
|
||||
- previous turn 由调用方传入，阶段 6A 才实现同 Session 安全 Run 选择和确定性组装。
|
||||
- 真实业务 adapter/Spring Bean 装配和公开入口切换分别留给阶段 6A/6B。
|
||||
- 仓库级全规格 strict validation 仍受阶段 3B/3C 主规格 scenario 标题格式阻塞，建议阶段 7 文档清理时统一修正并复验。
|
||||
|
||||
## Bug 修复和诊断
|
||||
|
||||
- 编译发现框架 `Interceptor.getName()` 必须实现，已补充稳定名称并回归。
|
||||
- 首次测试修正了两个测试假设：callback 异常包装类型，以及 ToolResponseMessage 在 Prompt instructions 中的实际位置；生产规格与实现方向未变。
|
||||
- 提交前自审发现默认 BeanOutputConverter schema 不允许 `conclusion=null`，与冻结的无证据契约冲突；已增加 schema post-process 和 focused regression，未放宽其他 Draft 字段。
|
||||
|
||||
## 交接
|
||||
|
||||
- 下一步：提交独立阶段 4 commit，再进入阶段 5。
|
||||
- OpenSpec 归档确认：用户已对 ISS-014 每阶段 Apply、Archive 和 Git commit 提供持续授权；已归档至 `openspec/changes/archive/2026-07-21-single-react-diagnosis-agent`，主规格已同步至 `openspec/specs/single-react-diagnosis-agent/spec.md`。
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,21 @@
|
||||
# Single React Diagnosis Agent Brief
|
||||
|
||||
## 背景
|
||||
|
||||
- 用户目标：按 ISS-014 阶段 4 建立唯一的 Diagnosis ReAct Agent，并完成独立 sm-flow 归档与提交。
|
||||
- 当前问题：Harness Core 和三类 evidence Tool 已就绪，但没有一个内部诊断执行链消费它们；公开 Chat 仍依赖旧的简单/多 Agent 路径。
|
||||
- 关联 OpenSpec：`openspec/changes/archive/2026-07-21-single-react-diagnosis-agent/`
|
||||
- devflow 分档：complex
|
||||
- 需求真理源：`mvp/issues/archived/ISS-014-single-react-agent-harness-aci-ptk-refactor.md`，不重复创建独立 PRD。
|
||||
|
||||
## 范围
|
||||
|
||||
- 本次要做：单 Prompt、单 Diagnosis ReactAgent、固定 Query/PreviousTurn 输入、Harness Model/Tool interceptors、三类 Tool 注册、严格 DiagnosisDraft 解析、上下文/模型/Tool/Token 预算和内部审计注入。
|
||||
- 本次不做：公开 Chat 切换、旧链路删除、EvidenceGuard、SemanticGuard、previous turn 选择、DiagnosisRun 持久化和 live E2E。
|
||||
- 影响区域：`com.superbiz.agent.harness.agent`、`src/main/resources/prompts`、focused tests、OpenSpec/devflow/ISS-014 状态。
|
||||
|
||||
## OpenSpec 对齐
|
||||
|
||||
- proposal 覆盖状态：已覆盖
|
||||
- specs 覆盖状态：已覆盖
|
||||
- tasks 覆盖状态：已覆盖
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,156 @@
|
||||
# Decisions: single-react-diagnosis-agent
|
||||
|
||||
## Discover status
|
||||
|
||||
- Checkpoint: Discover
|
||||
- Capability source: `sm-flow`，使用 `grill-with-docs` 进行代码可证问题澄清，并使用 GitNexus、源码、依赖 sources jar 与 `javap` 核对调用链和框架 API。
|
||||
- Scale: complex。变更新增内部 Agent/use case，跨越模型、Tool、预算、结构化输出和审计边界，但不切换公开协议。
|
||||
- `devflow/index.md` 命中 design freeze、RunContext、ACI contracts、canonical store、RAG/log projection 和 MySQL Tool；没有与 OpenSpec 冲突的 ADR。
|
||||
|
||||
## Question Pool
|
||||
|
||||
| # | 维度 | 问题 | 模式 | 状态 |
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
||||
| Q1 | 术语 | 单体 Diagnosis Agent 是否包含外层 Graph 或多个报告作者？ | evidence-driven | 已解决 |
|
||||
| Q2 | 边界 | 阶段 4 是否切换公开 Chat 或删除旧多 Agent 链路？ | evidence-driven | 已解决 |
|
||||
| Q3 | 验收 | 如何证明 ReAct 正常轮次不是 Harness retry？ | evidence-driven | 已解决 |
|
||||
| Q4 | 技术 | 如何取得并保留框架原始 tool_call_id？ | evidence-driven | 已解决 |
|
||||
| Q5 | 技术 | 如何在每个模型和 Tool 边界强制 Run 预算？ | evidence-driven | 已解决 |
|
||||
| Q6 | 输出 | 框架生成的 DiagnosisDraft schema 是否与可空 conclusion 契约一致，并会直接返回 DiagnosisDraft？ | evidence-driven | 已解决 |
|
||||
| Q7 | 上下文 | previous_turn 如何进入模型且保持固定 Schema 和有界？ | evidence-driven | 已解决 |
|
||||
| Q8 | 审计 | 如何保留 Run/AgentStep/ToolInvocation 而不引入 ThreadLocal？ | evidence-driven | 已解决 |
|
||||
| Q9 | 验收 | 无证据结果如何停止而不补造根因？ | evidence-driven | 已解决 |
|
||||
|
||||
## Evidence-driven
|
||||
|
||||
| 结论 | 证据来源 | 是否已汇报用户 |
|
||||
|---|---|---|
|
||||
| 只新增一个拥有 tool loop 的 `ReactAgent`，无 SequentialAgent、SupervisorAgent 或业务 StateGraph。 | ISS-014 阶段 4；`ChatService` 旧链路反例；Spring AI Alibaba `ReactAgent` API | 已汇报 |
|
||||
| 阶段 4 只提供内部用例，公开入口保持旧实现，接口影响 L2。 | ISS-014 1174-1197、阶段 0 design freeze、GitNexus `createReactAgent` 引用 | 已汇报 |
|
||||
| `ToolCallRequest.getToolCallId()` 精确暴露 `AssistantMessage.ToolCall.id()`；ToolInterceptor 可在回调执行前取得该 ID。 | framework sources `ToolCallRequest`、`AgentToolNode` | 已汇报 |
|
||||
| `ModelInterceptor` 包围每次真实模型调用，适合调用 `beforeModelCall` 并记录响应 Usage；ToolBoundary 已负责 Tool 预算，不能重复计数。 | framework `AgentLlmNode`/`InterceptorChain`；`ToolBoundary` | 已汇报 |
|
||||
| BeanOutputConverter 可从 DiagnosisDraft 生成格式说明，但默认 schema 不允许冻结契约的 `conclusion=null`；必须 post-process nullable conclusion，且 `ReactAgent.call` 仍返回 AssistantMessage，需要 Harness 严格解析 JSON。 | framework `DefaultBuilder`、`ReactAgent`、本地生成 schema | 已汇报 |
|
||||
| RunContext 可放入 `RunnableConfig` metadata，由框架控制地传播到 ToolInterceptor；不需要 ThreadLocal。 | `RunnableConfig.addMetadata(String,Object)`、`AgentToolNode` | 已汇报 |
|
||||
| 现有 `AgentLoggingHook` 优先读取 config metadata 的 sessionId/runId，可作为可选审计 Hook 复用；ToolBoundary 保持 canonical Tool invocation。 | `AgentLoggingHook`、`ToolBoundary` | 已汇报 |
|
||||
| 原始 Query 不截断；超限 fail closed。PreviousTurn 先按固定 record 序列化并受独立/总上下文字节限制。 | ISS-014 极简上下文与预算规则 | 已汇报 |
|
||||
| `NO_EVIDENCE` 不是错误，只能形成限定范围的 NEGATIVE_OBSERVATION；Prompt 必须要求 conclusion=null、记录 missing_info 并停止。 | glossary、ACI spec、DiagnosisDraft contract | 已汇报 |
|
||||
|
||||
## User-interview
|
||||
|
||||
- 本阶段没有新增 user-interview 问题。方向、范围、阶段串行规则、框架 ID、状态语义以及 routine Apply/Archive/Commit 持续授权均已由用户在 ISS-014 评审与前序阶段确认。
|
||||
|
||||
## 关键取舍
|
||||
|
||||
- 决策：使用框架 `ToolInterceptor` 直接桥接已注册的 Tool 定义与 Harness adapter。
|
||||
- 原因：Spring AI `ToolCallback` 的调用参数不包含 Tool Call ID，而 Alibaba interceptor 明确提供原始 ID 和运行 metadata。
|
||||
- 影响：ToolCallback 负责模型可见定义，interceptor 负责受控执行；未知 Tool 仍交给框架 handler 并最终失败，不伪造结果。
|
||||
- 决策：模型预算由 `ModelInterceptor` 执行，Tool 预算继续由 `ToolBoundary` 执行。
|
||||
- 原因：避免在 Agent 层和 Tool boundary 双重 reserve。
|
||||
- 决策：阶段 4 只严格反序列化 `DiagnosisDraft`，不提前实现 EvidenceGuard。
|
||||
- 原因：字段引用真实性、唯一性和语义支持属于阶段 5；本阶段只验证 Agent 能生成冻结结构并携带框架 IDs。
|
||||
- 决策：复用现有 Agent Hook 注入点，不复制 AgentStep 持久化实现。
|
||||
- 原因：阶段 4 不接公开运行态，阶段 6A 再装配真实 Repository 和 Run 持久化。
|
||||
|
||||
## OpenSpec 回写
|
||||
|
||||
- 需进入 proposal/design/spec/tasks：单 Agent、内部入口、ToolInterceptor 原始 ID、ModelInterceptor 模型预算、ToolBoundary 单点 Tool 预算、严格 JSON 解析、上下文字节限制、审计 Hook 注入、无证据停止、不切换公开入口。
|
||||
- 不创建 ADR：这些是 ISS-014 已冻结方向和当前阶段可逆的内部装配，不满足新的难逆转架构决策条件。
|
||||
|
||||
## Cross-artifact 对齐
|
||||
|
||||
| 上游 -> 下游 | 检查内容 | 状态 |
|
||||
|---|---|---|
|
||||
| brief/ISS-014 -> proposal | 单 Agent、内部入口、极简上下文、预算、审计、非目标和验收预期 | 已对齐 |
|
||||
| proposal -> design | Tool/Model interceptor、严格 Draft、无重试、审计注入和公开隔离 | 已对齐 |
|
||||
| design -> specs/tasks | ID 传播、预算单点、输入输出限制、生命周期所有权和风险缓解 | 已对齐 |
|
||||
| specs -> tasks | 7 组可观察要求均有输入/Prompt、Tool bridge、Agent use case 和 focused test 切片 | 已对齐 |
|
||||
|
||||
## Architecture Audit
|
||||
|
||||
- 能力来源：`zoom-out`，使用 glossary 的 Diagnosis Agent、Diagnosis Harness、RunContext、Evidence Status 和 Invocation Status 术语。
|
||||
- 链路为 `DiagnosisAgentInput + RunContext -> internal use case -> one ReactAgent -> model/tool interceptors -> ChatModel/ToolBoundary -> strict DiagnosisDraft`，没有外层业务 Graph。
|
||||
- RunContext 拥有预算/取消/生命周期，ToolBoundary/store 拥有 canonical invocation，use case 拥有输入和 Draft 解析，Agent 只拥有诊断语义；数据所有权不重叠。
|
||||
- 最大耦合风险是 Spring AI Alibaba interceptor/output schema API；设计通过本地 1.1.2.0 sources jar 和实际 schema 生成结果证实，并以 focused framework-loop/schema tests 固定。
|
||||
- 最大阶段风险是 Draft 在 Guards 前被误用；类名、文档和零 Controller 消费者共同保持 internal/draft 边界，阶段 5 前不得发布。
|
||||
|
||||
## 接口影响
|
||||
|
||||
- 级别：L2 内部接口。
|
||||
- 变更对象：新增内部 Java use case/factory/input/limits/interceptors/registry，不修改既有方法签名。
|
||||
- 消费者：本阶段只有 focused tests；阶段 6A 将成为首个生产消费者。
|
||||
- 兼容性：公开 HTTP/SSE、Controller DTO、数据库和旧 Chat/AiOps 路径不变，无迁移或回滚要求。
|
||||
|
||||
## Pre-apply Research
|
||||
|
||||
### 参考实现与框架源码
|
||||
|
||||
- `src/main/java/com/superbiz/agent/service/ChatService.java`：`createReactAgent`、`buildChatExecutorAgent` 和旧多 Agent 反例；只复用 Builder 形态，不复用运行职责。
|
||||
- `src/test/java/com/superbiz/agent/service/ChatServiceSequentialAgentTest.java`：scripted `ChatModel` 测试模式。
|
||||
- `src/main/java/com/superbiz/agent/harness/core/DiagnosisHarnessCore.java`：模型/Tool/Token/容量边界。
|
||||
- `src/main/java/com/superbiz/agent/harness/tool/boundary/ToolBoundary.java`：Tool budget 和 canonical record 单点。
|
||||
- `src/main/java/com/superbiz/agent/harness/tool/adapter/RagToolAdapter.java`、`QueryLogsToolAdapter.java`、`MysqlToolAdapter.java`：阶段 4 唯一允许的 evidence Tool 执行入口。
|
||||
- `src/main/java/com/superbiz/agent/hook/AgentLoggingHook.java`：可注入 AgentStep audit，优先读取 RunnableConfig metadata。
|
||||
- Spring AI Alibaba 1.1.2.0 sources：`ReactAgent`、`DefaultBuilder`、`AgentLlmNode`、`AgentToolNode`、`ToolCallRequest`、`InterceptorChain`。
|
||||
|
||||
### 技术栈清单
|
||||
|
||||
- `ReactAgent.builder()` + 从 `DiagnosisDraft` 生成并修正 nullable conclusion 的 `.outputSchema(...)`，不新建 Graph/SequentialAgent。
|
||||
- `RunnableConfig.addMetadata(String,Object)` 显式携带 sessionId/runId/RunContext，并设置 `_stream_=false`。
|
||||
- `ModelInterceptor` 对每次模型调用执行 Core budget；读取 `ChatResponseMetadata.Usage`。
|
||||
- `ToolInterceptor` 读取 exact framework ID，调用 adapter bridge；`ToolBoundary` 保留唯一 Tool reserve/store 边界。
|
||||
- Spring `FunctionToolCallback` 仅定义模型可见 Tool Schema/description；直接 callback 执行 fail closed。
|
||||
- Jackson `ObjectMapper` 负责固定输入 JSON 和严格 DiagnosisDraft 反序列化；UTF-8 字节按 `StandardCharsets.UTF_8` 计算。
|
||||
- 框架 Hook 列表作为 AgentStep audit 扩展点；阶段 4 不新增 JPA/Redis/Flyway。
|
||||
|
||||
### 新建基础设施
|
||||
|
||||
- `harness.agent`：Input、Limits、Tool registry/interceptor、Model interceptor、Factory、UseCase 和异常类型。
|
||||
- `prompts/diagnosis-agent-prompt.md`：唯一 Diagnosis Agent Prompt。
|
||||
- focused scripted model/tool-loop tests；无需新 Maven 依赖。
|
||||
|
||||
### ISS-014 PRD 复用
|
||||
|
||||
- 阶段 4 不新建独立 `prd.md`：ISS-014 已完整覆盖问题、用户价值、数据流、Draft Schema、预算、重试、阶段边界和验收；`brief.md` 只索引本切片，不复制总 Issue。
|
||||
|
||||
## Commit Gate Preflight
|
||||
|
||||
- proposal、design、specs、tasks 完整，`openspec status` 为 complete，`openspec validate single-react-diagnosis-agent --strict` 通过。
|
||||
- question pool 全部为已汇报的 evidence-driven 结论；无未确认 user-interview、接口等级或风险接受问题。
|
||||
- Cross-artifact 四段对齐无 gap；架构审计的数据所有权、阶段边界和框架耦合缓解已进入 design/spec/tasks。
|
||||
- 接口影响为 L2，仅新增内部 Java API；公开 Controller/SSE/JPA/旧 ChatService 保持不变。
|
||||
- Apply、Archive 和阶段 Git commit 使用用户对 ISS-014 各阶段的持续授权；实现必须严格限制为 Committed OpenSpec。
|
||||
- `.committed` 已创建，Committed OpenSpec 可进入 Apply。
|
||||
|
||||
## Apply Progress
|
||||
|
||||
- 首模块对齐：Input/Limits/Prompt/Tool registry/Tool interceptor 已落地，任务 1.2、2.1、2.2 完成；1.1 等待 focused test 后完成。
|
||||
- 编译首次发现 `ToolInterceptor` 必须实现 `Interceptor.getName()`；分类为代码偏离，已补充稳定名称并复编译通过，无需修改 OpenSpec。
|
||||
- 单 Agent use case、Model interceptor、strict Draft parser 和 audit Hook 注入已完成；scripted ChatModel 真实执行框架 `model -> Tool -> model` loop。
|
||||
- 首次测试的两处失败均为测试假设偏差：Spring 会将 callback 异常包装为 `ToolExecutionException`，Tool observation 位于 `Prompt.instructions` 的 `ToolResponseMessage` 而非 `Prompt.getContents()`；已按框架真实 API 修正测试，生产设计未变。
|
||||
- 阶段 4 focused tests 共 14 个通过，任务 1.1-4.2 完成；剩余任务 4.3 为综合回归、静态范围和 OpenSpec 验证。
|
||||
|
||||
## Apply Result
|
||||
|
||||
- 新增一个且仅一个 `diagnosis_agent` Factory 和内部 `DiagnosisAgentUseCase`；没有外层业务 Graph、SequentialAgent、SupervisorAgent 或手写 ReAct loop。
|
||||
- 新增单一 Prompt、固定 `DiagnosisAgentInput(query, previous_turn)`、可配置 UTF-8 限制和严格 `DiagnosisDraft` 解析；不接受完整历史，不执行结构修复或 Agent retry。
|
||||
- 新增 `HarnessModelInterceptor`，对每个非流式模型轮次执行 Core model/Token budget，并在 late result 返回后复查 Run active 状态。
|
||||
- 新增 `HarnessEvidenceTools` 和 `HarnessToolInterceptor`，注册三类冻结 Tool，精确传播框架 Tool Call ID，并通过阶段 3B/3C adapter/ToolBoundary 返回有界结果。
|
||||
- AgentStep 使用可注入框架 Hook 保留，RunnableConfig 显式传播 sessionId/runId；Run 和 Tool canonical invocation 继续由既有 Harness 边界拥有。
|
||||
- 公开 Controller、ChatService、AiOpsService 无 diff；旧多 Agent 主链路继续保留。
|
||||
|
||||
## Apply Verification
|
||||
|
||||
- 编译：`mvn -q -DskipTests compile` 通过。
|
||||
- 阶段 4 focused：`mvn -q '-Dtest=HarnessToolInterceptorTest,DiagnosisAgentUseCaseTest' test`，14 tests 通过。
|
||||
- 综合回归：`mvn -q '-Dtest=DiagnosisAgentUseCaseTest,HarnessToolInterceptorTest,DiagnosisHarnessCoreTest,ToolBoundaryTest,ToolAdapterTest,MysqlToolAdapterTest,CanonicalInvocationStoreTest,HarnessContractTest,RagToolContractTest,QueryLogsToolContractTest,MysqlToolContractTest' test` 通过。
|
||||
- OpenSpec：`openspec validate single-react-diagnosis-agent --strict` 通过。
|
||||
- 静态范围：新 Agent 包无 ThreadLocal、手写 while、外层 Graph、多 Agent 类型或 raw response；Controller/ChatService/AiOpsService diff 为空。
|
||||
- 未执行 live E2E：按 ISS-014 阶段门禁统一留到阶段 7。
|
||||
|
||||
## Archive Result
|
||||
|
||||
- 11/11 OpenSpec tasks 完成，`.archive-ready` 已创建。
|
||||
- 主规格已同步至 `openspec/specs/single-react-diagnosis-agent/spec.md`。
|
||||
- Change 已归档至 `openspec/changes/archive/2026-07-21-single-react-diagnosis-agent`。
|
||||
- `devflow/index.md` 和 ISS-014 阶段表已更新为阶段 0-4 archived，下一阶段为 5。
|
||||
- 提交前 schema 自审发现框架默认 BeanOutputConverter 将 `conclusion` 限为 object，与冻结的无证据 `null` 语义冲突；分类为实现设计遗漏，已回写 archived design，新增 nullable schema post-process 与回归测试，规格行为未改变。
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,29 @@
|
||||
# Single React Diagnosis Agent Evidence
|
||||
|
||||
## 代码与文档证据
|
||||
|
||||
| 来源 | 证据 | 结论 | 是否已汇报 |
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|
|
||||
| `mvp/issues/archived/ISS-014-single-react-agent-harness-aci-ptk-refactor.md` | 阶段 4 明确单 Agent、内部入口、极简上下文、结构化 Draft、无重试和预算验收 | 本 change 不得切换公开入口或删除旧链路 | 是 |
|
||||
| `ChatService.java` + GitNexus references | `createReactAgent` 被旧策略入口调用；复杂路径仍创建 Planner/Executor/Verifier/Composer | 新实现必须是独立内部 use case，不能复用旧 Service 运行职责 | 是 |
|
||||
| Spring AI Alibaba 1.1.2.0 `ReactAgent`/`AgentLlmNode` sources | 框架自带 ReAct loop；非流式 `ModelResponse` 保留 `ChatResponse` Usage | 不手写循环，使用 ModelInterceptor 强制模型/Token 预算 | 是 |
|
||||
| Spring AI Alibaba `ToolCallRequest`/`AgentToolNode` sources | `ToolCallRequest.getToolCallId()` 来自 `AssistantMessage.ToolCall.id()`，Tool interceptor 在 callback 前执行 | 可以精确传播框架 ID，不生成第二套 ID | 是 |
|
||||
| Spring AI Alibaba `DefaultBuilder` + 本地 BeanOutputConverter 输出 | 默认 schema 只允许 object conclusion，但冻结契约允许无证据时 conclusion=null | 生成 schema 必须 post-process nullable conclusion，UseCase 仍严格反序列化 DiagnosisDraft | 是 |
|
||||
| `DiagnosisHarnessCore.java` / `ToolBoundary.java` | Core 提供 model/Token/capacity；ToolBoundary 已负责 Tool reserve/store | Agent 层只 reserve model/context，禁止双扣 Tool budget | 是 |
|
||||
| 阶段 3B/3C adapters | RAG/log/MySQL 都以 `RunContext + ToolCallRequestEnvelope` 进入 ToolBoundary | Tool registry 可直接桥接既有 adapter，不复制投影或安全策略 | 是 |
|
||||
| `AgentLoggingHook.java` | 优先从 RunnableConfig metadata 读取 sessionId/runId | Factory 可复用现有 Hook 注入点，不依赖 ThreadLocal | 是 |
|
||||
|
||||
## Evidence-driven 结论
|
||||
|
||||
- 单 Agent 的可验证边界是一个 `ReactAgent.call`，内部允许正常模型/Tool轮次，但外部没有 Agent retry 或第二个报告作者。
|
||||
- ToolCallback 不直接提供 Tool Call ID，必须使用 Alibaba `ToolInterceptor`；已由真实 scripted framework loop 证明 ID 进入 ToolResponseMessage。
|
||||
- `PreviousTurn` 只作为固定上下文，当前 Draft 只允许引用当前 Run Tool result 中的 ID。
|
||||
- `NO_EVIDENCE` 必须以 `conclusion=null`、限定范围的负向观察和 missing info 结束，不能推导健康或排除根因。
|
||||
- 阶段 4 的 L2 内部 API 不影响公开消费者；阶段 5/6A/6B 前 Draft 不可发布。
|
||||
|
||||
## 实现证据
|
||||
|
||||
- 新包 `com.superbiz.agent.harness.agent` 包含 Input/Limits、Prompt loader、Tool registry/interceptor、Model interceptor、Factory 和 UseCase。
|
||||
- `diagnosis-agent-prompt.md` 是唯一新 Diagnosis Agent Prompt，包含 Tool、证据绑定、停止和精确 JSON 规则。
|
||||
- 14 个阶段 4 tests 覆盖框架 model -> Tool -> model、ID、错误、未知 Tool、PreviousTurn、审计 metadata、nullable conclusion schema、no-evidence、解析和预算。
|
||||
- 综合回归同时覆盖 Harness Core、ToolBoundary、3B/3C adapter、canonical store 和冻结 contracts。
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,44 @@
|
||||
# Acceptance: single-react-evidence-semantic-guards
|
||||
|
||||
## Result
|
||||
|
||||
- Status: archived
|
||||
- OpenSpec tasks: 14/14 complete
|
||||
- Interface impact: L2 internal
|
||||
- Public protocol: unchanged
|
||||
|
||||
## Static Verification
|
||||
|
||||
- `git diff --check`：阶段文件无 whitespace error；工作区用户已有 `AGENTS.md`/`CLAUDE.md` 仅报告 line-ending warning，未纳入阶段范围。
|
||||
- 公开 `controller`、`ChatService.java`、`AiOpsService.java` diff 为空。
|
||||
- SemanticGuard 包和 prompt 不含 Tool Call ID、raw response、ReactAgent、StateGraph、ThreadLocal 或手写 while。
|
||||
- 新 guard/release 包不包含业务 Agent loop。
|
||||
|
||||
## Script Verification
|
||||
|
||||
- `mvn -q -DskipTests compile`：通过。
|
||||
- Stage-focused `EvidenceGuardTest,SemanticGuardTest,DiagnosisReleaseUseCaseTest`：19 tests，0 failure/error。
|
||||
- Harness/Tool/Agent regression selection：18 suites / 70 tests，0 failure/error/skipped。
|
||||
- `openspec validate single-react-evidence-semantic-guards --strict`：通过。
|
||||
- `openspec validate --specs --strict`：16 passed / 2 failed；失败是前序 `mysql-readonly-tool`、`rag-log-projections` scenario 标题格式，不阻塞本 change，计划阶段 7 统一修复。
|
||||
|
||||
## Browser or Manual Verification
|
||||
|
||||
- Not applicable。阶段 5 没有 UI 或公开入口变化。
|
||||
|
||||
## Not Verified
|
||||
|
||||
- 未运行真实 LLM、Redis、日志和 MySQL live E2E；按 ISS-014 串行门禁统一留到阶段 7。
|
||||
- Provider 是否立即响应 Java thread interrupt 取决于 SDK；Harness 已保证 Future cancel、迟到 Token 记账和迟到结果不释放，阶段 7 需用真实模型观察取消延迟。
|
||||
|
||||
## Remaining Work
|
||||
|
||||
- 阶段 6A：Chat Application Use Case、Intent Router、PreviousTurn 和 Run persistence。
|
||||
- 阶段 6B：公开 SSE 原子切换。
|
||||
- 阶段 7：旧链路清理、全局 spec 格式修复和最终 live E2E。
|
||||
|
||||
## Archive
|
||||
|
||||
- `.archive-ready`: created
|
||||
- OpenSpec archive: `openspec/changes/archive/2026-07-21-single-react-evidence-semantic-guards`
|
||||
- Main spec: `openspec/specs/single-react-evidence-semantic-guards/spec.md`
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,32 @@
|
||||
# Brief: single-react-evidence-semantic-guards
|
||||
|
||||
## Background
|
||||
|
||||
阶段 4 已能生成带框架 Tool Call ID 的 `DiagnosisDraft`，但草稿在发布前还缺少当前 Run 证据验真、独立语义审查和 fail-closed 释放边界。
|
||||
|
||||
## Goal
|
||||
|
||||
在不恢复业务 Graph、不切换公开入口的前提下，实现确定性 EvidenceGuard、一次语义不变的结构修复、无 Tool/无记忆的单轮 SemanticGuard，以及只发布原 Draft 或固定 SafeFallback 的内部 release use case。
|
||||
|
||||
## Scope
|
||||
|
||||
- Draft 结构、Analysis/报告引用和 canonical Tool invocation 验真。
|
||||
- RAG/log/MySQL verified evidence snapshot。
|
||||
- Evidence repair 单次调用与语义不变约束。
|
||||
- SemanticGuard 模型/Token/字节预算、超时、取消、技术重试和严格二元输出。
|
||||
- SUPPORTED/UNSUPPORTED/unavailable/evidence-failed release policy。
|
||||
- focused tests、Harness/Tool/Agent 回归和静态范围验证。
|
||||
|
||||
## Non-goals
|
||||
|
||||
- 不切换 Chat/AiOps/SSE 公开协议。
|
||||
- 不实现 Intent Router、PreviousTurn、Run persistence 或最终报告渲染。
|
||||
- 不删除旧 Gatekeeper/Verifier/Composer/多 Agent 链路。
|
||||
- 不运行 live model/Redis/MySQL E2E；统一留到阶段 7。
|
||||
|
||||
## Metadata
|
||||
|
||||
- Scale: complex
|
||||
- Interface impact: L2 internal
|
||||
- OpenSpec: `single-react-evidence-semantic-guards`
|
||||
- Parent issue: `ISS-014`
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,144 @@
|
||||
# Decisions: single-react-evidence-semantic-guards
|
||||
|
||||
## Discover Status
|
||||
|
||||
- Checkpoint: Discover
|
||||
- Capability source: `sm-flow`，使用 `grill-with-docs` 做 evidence-driven 澄清；`codebase-retrieval`、LSP 和 GitNexus MCP 在当前会话不可用，降级为既有 GitNexus 研究结论、`rg` 调用点核对和逐文件源码阅读。
|
||||
- Scale: complex。变更跨 canonical store、三类 Tool projection、模型预算、超时/取消、结构修复、语义审查和释放边界，但不切换公开协议。
|
||||
- `devflow/index.md` 命中阶段 0-4 的设计冻结、RunContext、canonical store、Tool projection 和 Diagnosis Agent；没有与当前 OpenSpec 冲突的 ADR。
|
||||
|
||||
## Question Pool
|
||||
|
||||
| # | 维度 | 问题 | 模式 | 状态 |
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
||||
| Q1 | 术语 | EvidenceGuard 是否判断证据足以推出结论？ | evidence-driven | 已解决 |
|
||||
| Q2 | 边界 | verified snapshot 能读取哪些 canonical 字段，并向 SemanticGuard 暴露哪些内容？ | evidence-driven | 已解决 |
|
||||
| Q3 | 边界 | `NO_EVIDENCE` 能支持哪类 Analysis？ | evidence-driven | 已解决 |
|
||||
| Q4 | 修复 | 首次 EvidenceGuard 失败允许如何修复，是否可重跑 Agent 或 Tool？ | evidence-driven | 已解决 |
|
||||
| Q5 | 语义 | SemanticGuard 是否拥有 Tool、记忆、ReAct loop 或报告写作能力？ | evidence-driven | 已解决 |
|
||||
| Q6 | 重试 | 哪些 SemanticGuard 结果允许第二次 attempt？ | evidence-driven | 已解决 |
|
||||
| Q7 | 超时 | 单轮模型超时和 Run 取消如何终止后台调用？ | evidence-driven | 已解决 |
|
||||
| Q8 | 释放 | 三种 Fallback 能否包含 Draft、reason 或未验真来源？ | evidence-driven | 已解决 |
|
||||
| Q9 | 接口 | 阶段 5 是否切换公开入口或修改 SSE/持久化协议？ | evidence-driven | 已解决 |
|
||||
| Q10 | 验收 | 如何证明不存在隐式 Agent/repair/retry loop？ | evidence-driven | 已解决 |
|
||||
|
||||
## Evidence-driven
|
||||
|
||||
| 结论 | 证据来源 | 是否已汇报用户 |
|
||||
|---|---|---|
|
||||
| EvidenceGuard 只验证结构、引用和 canonical invocation 真实性，不判断 Analysis/Conclusion 的语义充分性。 | ISS-014 4.3、阶段 5；glossary `EvidenceGuard` | 已汇报 |
|
||||
| Store 只能按 `ToolCallKeyFactory.create(runId, toolCallId)` 查找；可引用记录必须是当前 Run、`READY`、含 `agent_result` 且状态为 `EVIDENCE_FOUND|NO_EVIDENCE`。 | `CanonicalInvocationStore`、`CanonicalToolInvocation.isReferencableBy` | 已汇报 |
|
||||
| Snapshot 解析 `agent_result` 和必要的有界 request 字段，不读取 `raw_response`；输出按 `analysis_id` 分组且不包含 Tool Call ID。 | ISS-014 4.4、10.2、已冻结 Tool contracts | 已汇报 |
|
||||
| `NORMAL` 只绑定 `EVIDENCE_FOUND`；`NEGATIVE_OBSERVATION` 只绑定 `NO_EVIDENCE`，且零结果范围来自投影/请求。 | ISS-014 4.3、10.2；`EvidenceStatus` glossary | 已汇报 |
|
||||
| Evidence repair 只在首次物理验真失败后执行一次无 Tool单轮模型调用，不重跑 Diagnosis Agent 或 Tool loop。 | ISS-014 10.3、阶段 5、重试边界决策 | 已汇报 |
|
||||
| SemanticGuard 复用同一 `ChatModel`，使用全新 `Prompt` 单轮调用，无 Tool/记忆/ReAct；只返回二元 verdict 和审计 reason。 | ISS-014 4.4、阶段 5；Spring AI `ChatModel.call(Prompt)` | 已汇报 |
|
||||
| 仅超时、传输、解析或 Schema 技术失败可重试一次；`UNSUPPORTED` 是有效业务结果，不重试。 | `HarnessRetryPolicies.strict().semanticGuard()`、ISS-014 重试策略 | 已汇报 |
|
||||
| `ChatResponseMetadata.Usage` 可复用 Core 的 model/Token 预算；受控 `Future.get(timeout)` 可在超时或 Run 取消时取消任务。 | `HarnessModelInterceptor`、`DiagnosisHarnessCore`、`RunCancellation` | 已汇报 |
|
||||
| `EVIDENCE_VALIDATION_FAILED` 的来源必须为空；其余 Fallback 只能包含已验真来源，不包含 Draft 或 SemanticGuard reason。 | ISS-014 10.3、阶段 5；`SafeFallback`/`FallbackType` | 已汇报 |
|
||||
| 阶段 5 只新增内部用例，公开入口切换留到阶段 6B。 | ISS-014 阶段顺序和 6B 门禁 | 已汇报 |
|
||||
|
||||
## User-interview
|
||||
|
||||
- 本阶段没有新增 user-interview 问题。上述方向、范围、修复次数、模型复用、超时/重试、Fallback 和阶段串行规则均已在 ISS-014 评审及前序对话中由用户确认。
|
||||
|
||||
## Key Decisions
|
||||
|
||||
- Snapshot 使用 Tool-specific adapter 严格解析冻结 projection；未知 Tool、ID 不一致、projection 反序列化失败或 projection 的 EvidenceStatus 与 canonical record 不一致均 fail closed。
|
||||
- MySQL 的逻辑数据源和查询范围来自 canonical `request`，行/列和值来自 `agent_result`；RAG/log 以 `agent_result` 自带的稳定来源和范围为准。
|
||||
- SemanticGuard 使用直接 `ChatModel.call(Prompt)`，不创建第二个 `ReactAgent`；模型调用由受控 Executor 执行，超时/取消时调用 `Future.cancel(true)`。
|
||||
- Evidence repair 与 SemanticGuard 共用同一模型抽象，但各自拥有独立 prompt、严格输出类型和预算；repair 策略固定一次 attempt，不能嵌套 retry executor。
|
||||
- Release use case 只在 EvidenceGuard 成功后调用 SemanticGuard；SUPPORTED 返回原 Draft 对象，所有其他路径只返回固定 `SafeFallback`。
|
||||
- 不创建 ADR：这些是 ISS-014 已冻结架构的阶段实现，不产生新的难逆转跨项目决策。
|
||||
|
||||
## OpenSpec Backfill
|
||||
|
||||
- 需进入 proposal/design/spec/tasks：EvidenceGuard 规则、Tool-specific snapshot、无 raw/ID 泄漏、repair 单次边界、SemanticGuard 隔离/预算/超时/重试、原样发布与三类 Fallback、L2/公开隔离。
|
||||
- 不进入本阶段：公开 Chat/SSE 装配、Run 持久化、旧多 Agent 删除和 live E2E。
|
||||
|
||||
## Cross-artifact Alignment
|
||||
|
||||
| 上游 -> 下游 | 检查内容 | 状态 |
|
||||
|---|---|---|
|
||||
| ISS-014/brief -> proposal | 物理验真、结构修复、隔离语义审查、固定 Fallback、阶段边界 | 已对齐 |
|
||||
| proposal -> design | Store ownership、Tool-specific snapshot、timeout/cancel/retry、唯一报告作者和 L2 影响 | 已对齐 |
|
||||
| design -> specs/tasks | 每个关键决策均有可观察 requirement 和对应实现/测试切片 | 已对齐 |
|
||||
| specs -> tasks | 9 组 requirements 覆盖为 Evidence、model boundary、repair/release 和回归验证任务 | 已对齐 |
|
||||
|
||||
## Architecture Audit
|
||||
|
||||
- 能力来源：`zoom-out`，使用 glossary 的 Diagnosis Harness、EvidenceGuard、SemanticGuard、RunContext、Invocation Status 和 Evidence Status 术语。
|
||||
- 链路为 `query + Draft + RunContext -> EvidenceGuard/store -> optional repair/shared model boundary -> SemanticGuard/shared model boundary -> original Draft or fixed Fallback`，没有外层 Graph 或第二个 Tool loop。
|
||||
- Store 拥有物理调用记录，EvidenceGuard 只读并生成 snapshot；Diagnosis Agent 拥有报告语义，repair 只修 ID，SemanticGuard 只审查，release 只做二选一，数据所有权没有重叠。
|
||||
- 最大运行风险是 provider 忽略 interrupt；design 要求 Future cancel、迟到 Token 记录和 `core.checkActive` 丢弃迟到结果，阶段 6A 再负责 Run 终态。
|
||||
- 架构审计未发现与阶段 0-4 或 ADR 冲突；所有风险缓解已回写 design/spec/tasks。
|
||||
|
||||
## Interface Impact
|
||||
|
||||
- 级别：L2 内部接口。
|
||||
- 变更对象：新增 guard/release records、interfaces、use cases、prompts 和 tests；现有方法签名不变。
|
||||
- 消费者：本阶段只有 focused tests，阶段 6A 才接入 production application use case。
|
||||
- 兼容性：公开 HTTP/SSE、Controller DTO、数据库、Redis key schema 和旧 Chat/AiOps 路径不变。
|
||||
|
||||
## Commit Gate Preflight
|
||||
|
||||
- proposal、design、specs、tasks 完整，`openspec status` 为 complete，`openspec validate single-react-evidence-semantic-guards --strict` 通过。
|
||||
- Question pool 全部为已汇报的 evidence-driven 结论；无未确认 user-interview、接口等级或风险接受问题。
|
||||
- Cross-artifact 四段对齐无 gap；架构审计的数据所有权、模型取消和唯一报告作者约束已进入 design/spec/tasks。
|
||||
- 接口影响为 L2，仅新增内部 Java API；公开 Controller/SSE/JPA/Redis schema/旧 ChatService 保持不变。
|
||||
- Apply、Archive 和阶段 Git commit 使用用户对 ISS-014 各阶段的持续授权；实现必须严格限制为 Committed OpenSpec。
|
||||
- `.committed` 已创建，Committed OpenSpec 可进入 Apply。
|
||||
|
||||
## Pre-apply Research
|
||||
|
||||
### Reference Implementations
|
||||
|
||||
- `harness/tool/store/CanonicalInvocationStore.java`、`CanonicalToolInvocation.java`、`ToolCallKeyFactory.java`：当前 Run 物理验真和 lifecycle 真理源。
|
||||
- `harness/tool/projection/RagResultProjector.java`、`QueryLogsResultProjector.java`、`harness/tool/mysql/MysqlResultProjector.java`：三类 `agent_result` 的唯一生产者和有界字段来源。
|
||||
- `harness/agent/HarnessModelInterceptor.java`：模型调用前预算、响应 Usage 记账和 late-result active check 模式。
|
||||
- `harness/retry/HarnessRetryExecutor.java`、`HarnessRetryPolicies.java`：SemanticGuard 两次技术 attempt 与 repair 一次 attempt 的装配边界。
|
||||
- `harness/core/RunCancellation.java`：取消 callback 注册和 first-cancel 语义。
|
||||
- `service/ExecutorGatekeeperService.java`：仅参考报告内部引用检查思想，不复用旧 Map/JPA/session DTO 或规则目录。
|
||||
|
||||
### Technology Stack
|
||||
|
||||
- Jackson strict `ObjectReader` 解析 frozen Draft/Tool projections；Tool-specific adapter 生成 typed snapshot，不透传 JsonNode/raw response。
|
||||
- Spring AI `ChatModel.call(Prompt)` 执行无 Tool 单轮 guard；`ChatResponseMetadata.Usage` 接入现有 Core Token 预算。
|
||||
- Java 17 `ExecutorService/Future.get(timeout)` 提供 per-attempt timeout，`Future.cancel(true)` 接入 Run cancellation；Semantic 总时限由 monotonic elapsed time 控制。
|
||||
- JUnit 5 scripted `ChatModel` 和 in-memory canonical store 作为外部边界 fake；测试只通过 EvidenceGuard/SemanticGuard/Release use case 公共接口断言行为。
|
||||
- 无 Controller、MQ、JPA、Flyway 或新 Maven dependency；不需要新共享基础设施。
|
||||
|
||||
## Apply Progress
|
||||
|
||||
- 首模块对齐：EvidenceGuard typed contracts、Draft/reference checks、current-Run canonical validation 和 RAG/log/MySQL snapshot adapters 已完成，tasks 1.1-1.4 完成。
|
||||
- 8 个 `EvidenceGuardTest` 行为测试通过；快照序列化不含 Tool Call ID 或 `raw_response`，`NO_EVIDENCE` 仅在 `NEGATIVE_OBSERVATION` 下进入带 scope/zero-match 的快照。
|
||||
- TODO：tasks 2.1-4.2，尚未实现模型边界、SemanticGuard、repair/release 和综合回归。
|
||||
- REVIEW 发现 corrupted Store key 下 record ID 可能与 Draft reference 不同；分类为代码偏离，已增加 exact canonical ID 校验和回归测试，无需改变规格方向。
|
||||
- REVIEW 发现 fallback `DiagnosisReleaseResult` 携带完整 snapshot 会通过 `analysis_text` 间接泄漏 Draft；分类为规格安全边界细化，已回写 design/spec，并让 fallback result 强制使用空 snapshot，安全来源只保留在 `SafeFallback.verified_sources`。
|
||||
|
||||
## Apply Result
|
||||
|
||||
- 新增确定性 EvidenceGuard：校验 typed Draft、唯一 Analysis ID、报告引用、exact current-Run Tool ID、READY lifecycle、agent result、Evidence Status 与 Analysis Kind，并严格展开 RAG/log/MySQL projection。
|
||||
- verified snapshot 按 Analysis ID 分组，只含稳定 source/scope/timestamp/excerpt/values；SemanticGuard 输入不含 Tool Call ID、Redis key 或 raw response。
|
||||
- 新增共享 `GuardModelCall`：复用系统 ChatModel，执行 Core model/Token/Run byte budget、per-attempt timeout、total timeout、Future cancellation 和 late-result active check。
|
||||
- 新增无 Tool/无记忆/无 ReAct 的单轮 SemanticGuard，严格解析 `SUPPORTED|UNSUPPORTED + reason`；仅技术失败使用既有两次 attempt，业务 UNSUPPORTED 不重试。
|
||||
- 新增一次 EvidenceRepair，只允许 ID/reference 修复；任何可见文本、kind、顺序、human-confirmation 或 limitations 变化都直接 Evidence fallback。
|
||||
- 新增 DiagnosisReleaseUseCase 和固定 SafeFallbackFactory：SUPPORTED 原样返回 Draft；evidence failed、semantic unsupported/unavailable 均不返回 Draft、完整 snapshot 或审计 reason。
|
||||
- 公开 Controller、ChatService、AiOpsService、SSE、JPA/Flyway 和旧多 Agent 链路无修改。
|
||||
|
||||
## Apply Verification
|
||||
|
||||
- 编译：`mvn -q -DskipTests compile` 通过。
|
||||
- 阶段 5 focused：`EvidenceGuardTest` 9、`SemanticGuardTest` 4、`DiagnosisReleaseUseCaseTest` 6，共 19 tests，0 failure/error。
|
||||
- 综合回归：阶段 5 + Harness Core/Retry/Tool boundary/store/projections/contracts + Diagnosis Agent，共 18 suites / 70 tests，0 failure/error/skipped。
|
||||
- OpenSpec：`openspec validate single-react-evidence-semantic-guards --strict` 通过。
|
||||
- 静态范围：公开 Controller/ChatService/AiOpsService diff 为空；SemanticGuard 无 Tool ID/raw response/ReactAgent/StateGraph/ThreadLocal/手写 while；新 guard/release 包无业务 Agent loop。
|
||||
- 仓库级 `openspec validate --specs --strict` 为 16 passed / 2 failed；失败仍是前序 `mysql-readonly-tool`、`rag-log-projections` 的 scenario 标题格式，按计划阶段 7 统一修复。
|
||||
- 未执行 live E2E：按 ISS-014 阶段门禁统一留到阶段 7。
|
||||
|
||||
## Archive Result
|
||||
|
||||
- 14/14 OpenSpec tasks 完成，`.archive-ready` 已创建。
|
||||
- 主规格已同步至 `openspec/specs/single-react-evidence-semantic-guards/spec.md`，新增 9 个 requirements。
|
||||
- Change 已归档至 `openspec/changes/archive/2026-07-21-single-react-evidence-semantic-guards`。
|
||||
- `devflow/index.md` 和 ISS-014 阶段表已更新为阶段 0-5 archived，下一阶段为 6A。
|
||||
- 未创建 ADR/compound knowledge：本阶段落实 ISS-014 已冻结边界，没有新的跨项目难逆转决策。
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,29 @@
|
||||
# Evidence: single-react-evidence-semantic-guards
|
||||
|
||||
## Code and Contract Evidence
|
||||
|
||||
- `CanonicalInvocationStore` 只提供 key lookup；`ToolCallKeyFactory` 冻结 `runId + toolCallId` 隔离，`CanonicalToolInvocation` 冻结 READY/agent_result/evidence status 可引用条件。
|
||||
- `RagToolResult`、`QueryLogsToolResult`、`MysqlToolResult` 是 Agent-facing 有界 projection，足以构造 snapshot；只有 MySQL 的逻辑数据源/SQL/params 需要从 canonical request 补足。
|
||||
- `AnalysisKind.accepts` 已冻结 `NORMAL -> EVIDENCE_FOUND`、`NEGATIVE_OBSERVATION -> NO_EVIDENCE`。
|
||||
- `HarnessRetryPolicies.strict()` 已冻结 SemanticGuard 两次技术 attempt 和 Evidence repair 一次 attempt。
|
||||
- `ChatModel.call(Prompt)`、`ChatResponseMetadata.Usage` 和 `RunCancellation.onCancel` 支持直接单轮模型调用、Token 记账与 Future cancellation，无需 ReactAgent。
|
||||
|
||||
## Confirmed Boundaries
|
||||
|
||||
- EvidenceGuard 不判断证据是否支持结论，只验证结构、引用和物理真实性。
|
||||
- SemanticGuard 只接收原始 Query、移除 Tool ID 的完整 Draft view 和 verified snapshot，不访问 Redis/raw response。
|
||||
- Evidence repair 只修改 ID/reference；用户可见语义发生任何变化即失败。
|
||||
- `UNSUPPORTED` 是有效业务结果，不重试；只有 timeout/transport/parse/schema 技术失败可进行第二次 attempt。
|
||||
- Fallback 不含 Draft、完整 snapshot 或 SemanticGuard reason；Evidence failure 的 verified sources 为空。
|
||||
|
||||
## Review Findings
|
||||
|
||||
- 增加 canonical record ID 与 Draft reference 的 exact match，防止 corrupted key 映射被误信任。
|
||||
- Fallback release result 强制使用空 snapshot，防止 `analysis_text` 通过误序列化泄漏 Draft；安全来源只保留在 `SafeFallback.verified_sources`。
|
||||
|
||||
## Verification Evidence
|
||||
|
||||
- Stage-focused: 19 tests，覆盖 EvidenceGuard 9、SemanticGuard 4、DiagnosisReleaseUseCase 6。
|
||||
- Regression: 18 suites / 70 tests，0 failure/error/skipped。
|
||||
- Maven compile 和 change strict validation 通过。
|
||||
- 公开 Controller/ChatService/AiOpsService 零 diff；SemanticGuard 无 Tool ID/raw/ReactAgent/Graph/ThreadLocal/手写 loop。
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,45 @@
|
||||
# Acceptance: single-react-harness-run-context
|
||||
|
||||
## 实现结果
|
||||
|
||||
- 新增显式 `RunContext`、取消信号、deadline 检查、Run Lifecycle 和 first-terminal-wins。
|
||||
- 新增 caller-supplied limits、线程安全 Model/Tool/Token/Run bytes 预算和容量 CAS。
|
||||
- 新增 strict typed retry policies/executor，记录每个实际 attempt 并阻止取消/预算异常误重试。
|
||||
- 新增无 Redis 依赖的 ToolCallKeyFactory，精确保留框架 Tool Call ID。
|
||||
- Spring AI `spring.ai.retry.max-attempts` 设置为 1；未修改 provider/model routing。
|
||||
- 未接入旧 Chat/AIOps/Controller、ThreadLocal、JPA、Redis、Agent 或公开协议。
|
||||
|
||||
## 静态验证
|
||||
|
||||
- `openspec validate single-react-harness-run-context --strict`：通过。
|
||||
- 新 Harness 包 `rg`：无 ThreadLocal/current-holder/Redis 引用。
|
||||
- 旧 Chat/AIOps/Controller/JPA 调用链 diff：为空。
|
||||
- 受保护配置检查：仅新增 `spring.ai.retry.max-attempts: 1`，model routing/provider 保持不变。
|
||||
|
||||
## 脚本验证
|
||||
|
||||
- `mvn -q -DskipTests compile`：通过。
|
||||
- Core focused suite：通过。
|
||||
- 综合回归 suite（阶段 0/1 契约 + 阶段 2 Core + ChatController）：通过。
|
||||
|
||||
## 浏览器/人工验证
|
||||
|
||||
- 不适用。本阶段没有 UI、Controller、SSE 或公开协议变化。
|
||||
|
||||
## 未验证
|
||||
|
||||
- 未执行真实模型调用、Redis、CLS、MySQL 或客户端断开 live E2E；这些属于后续 Tool store/adapter/最终 E2E 门禁。
|
||||
- 未将 RunContext 接入旧 ChatService；这是本阶段明确非目标，阶段 6A 才接入。
|
||||
- `RunContext` 取消对已进入的同步第三方调用仍是协作式；实际 HTTP/JDBC future 取消留给后续 adapter。
|
||||
- Provider 侧凭据轮换状态不由仓库证明。
|
||||
|
||||
## 剩余风险与后续门禁
|
||||
|
||||
- 关闭 SDK 隐式 retry 会使旧路径瞬时错误不再自动重试，直到后续 Router/SemanticGuard 接入 Harness；该变化已记录并可通过恢复配置回滚。
|
||||
- 下一阶段 3A 必须在 ToolInterceptor 接收 RunContext 和框架 Tool Call ID，直接复用 Key/Capacity/Cancellation 门禁。
|
||||
|
||||
## 状态
|
||||
|
||||
- Stage acceptance: accepted
|
||||
- OpenSpec archive: archived at `openspec/changes/archive/2026-07-21-single-react-harness-run-context`
|
||||
- Main spec sync: `openspec/specs/diagnosis-harness-run-context/spec.md`（8 added requirements）
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,32 @@
|
||||
# Brief: single-react-harness-run-context
|
||||
|
||||
## 背景
|
||||
|
||||
旧 Chat/AIOps 通过多个 ThreadLocal 和业务方法内状态机传播 session/run/token/retry，无法成为后续 Tool、Agent、Guard 和新入口的稳定共同边界。Spring AI 默认 10 attempts 还会制造未被 Harness 记录的隐藏重试。
|
||||
|
||||
## 目标
|
||||
|
||||
- 建立显式、结构不可变、可异步传播的 RunContext。
|
||||
- 集中实现 deadline、协作式取消、线程安全预算和唯一 Run 终态。
|
||||
- 实现类型化、最多两次 attempt、逐 attempt 记录的 Harness retry。
|
||||
- 提供阶段 3A 可直接使用的 Tool Call Key Factory 和单 Run 容量计数器。
|
||||
- 将 Spring AI 底层 retry 压为一次。
|
||||
|
||||
## 范围
|
||||
|
||||
- 新增 Harness Core/Retry/Tool Store foundation 类型和 focused Fake tests。
|
||||
- 更新 `application.yml` 的 Spring AI retry 配置。
|
||||
- 更新 glossary 和 OpenSpec/devflow 档案。
|
||||
|
||||
## 非目标
|
||||
|
||||
- 不接入旧 ChatService/AiOpsService/Controller/SSE。
|
||||
- 不读写现有 ThreadLocal，不删除旧实现。
|
||||
- 不写 `diagnosis_run` 或 Redis，不实现 Tool projection。
|
||||
|
||||
## 元数据
|
||||
|
||||
- 分档：complex
|
||||
- 接口影响：L2；另有关闭旧 SDK 隐式 retry 的有意内部行为变化
|
||||
- 关联 Issue：ISS-014 阶段 2
|
||||
- 关联 OpenSpec：`openspec/changes/single-react-harness-run-context`
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,110 @@
|
||||
# Decisions: single-react-harness-run-context
|
||||
|
||||
## 规模与入口
|
||||
|
||||
- 分档：complex。
|
||||
- 入口：ISS-014 阶段 2；阶段 0/1 已分别由 Git commit `58c3910`、`4274f33` 固化并 Archive。
|
||||
- 目标：建立后续 Tool、Agent、Guard 和入口共同依赖的显式 Harness 运行边界，不接旧 ChatService。
|
||||
|
||||
## Context
|
||||
|
||||
- `devflow/index.md` 命中 design freeze、ACI contracts 和 session/run trace isolation。
|
||||
- 当前 `SessionContextHolder`、`VerifierContextHolder`、`TokenUsageHolder` 使用 ThreadLocal；新 Harness 禁止复用。
|
||||
- 当前 ChatService 自行生成 runId、写 `diagnosis_run`、执行两轮 retry loop 并在 finally 清理 ThreadLocal，职责与新 Harness 边界冲突。
|
||||
- `DiagnosisRun.status` 当前是字符串 `PENDING/RUNNING/SUCCESS/FAILED`；本阶段不修改实体或迁移，由后续应用用例映射。
|
||||
- Spring AI 1.1.7 `SpringAiRetryProperties` 的配置前缀是 `spring.ai.retry`，默认 `maxAttempts=10`。
|
||||
|
||||
## Question Pool
|
||||
|
||||
| 维度 | 问题 | 模式 | 证据与结论 | 状态 |
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
||||
| 术语 | “不可变 RunContext”是否意味着预算/取消也不能变化？ | evidence-driven | ISS 要求上下文不可变同时要求计数/取消/终态；采用结构不可变 record + 线程安全单 Run 状态句柄。 | 已解决并汇报 |
|
||||
| 术语 | Run 与 DiagnosisRun 是否在阶段 2 直接持久化绑定？ | evidence-driven | 阶段 2 只建 Core，阶段 6A 才接应用用例；本阶段生命周期为内存执行真理，不改 JPA。 | 已解决并汇报 |
|
||||
| 边界 | 是否迁移旧 ThreadLocal/ChatService 调用？ | evidence-driven | ISS 1109-1111 明确禁止 ThreadLocal 和旧 ChatService 临时适配；只新增零消费者 Core。 | 已解决并汇报 |
|
||||
| 边界 | 取消是否承诺立即中断同步模型调用？ | evidence-driven | 阶段 0 已确认分层取消；阻止后续边界并执行资源回调，不承诺不可证明的硬中断。 | 已解决并汇报 |
|
||||
| 验收 | 唯一终态如何证明？ | evidence-driven | atomic first-terminal-wins lifecycle，并用取消/预算/异常/成功竞态测试证明后续终态不能覆盖。 | 已解决并汇报 |
|
||||
| 验收 | 异步传播如何证明不依赖 ThreadLocal？ | evidence-driven | Fake Tool 在 `CompletableFuture` 线程只接收显式 RunContext，并验证相同 session/run/state handles。 | 已解决并汇报 |
|
||||
| 技术 | 隐藏重试如何关闭？ | evidence-driven | 本地依赖 `SpringAiRetryProperties` 证实 `spring.ai.retry.max-attempts` 默认 10；配置改为 1 并加配置测试。 | 已解决并汇报 |
|
||||
| 技术 | 尚未校准的预算默认值如何处理？ | evidence-driven | ISS 要求集中配置且不伪造数值；Core 接受显式 limits，不内置默认预算，后续 Spring wiring 决定配置值。 | 已解决并汇报 |
|
||||
| 技术 | Tool Call Key 是否生成 Tool ID？ | evidence-driven | 阶段 0/1 冻结框架 ID；Factory 仅验证安全 segment 并拼接，不生成或改写。 | 已解决并汇报 |
|
||||
|
||||
## Grill 结论
|
||||
|
||||
- 术语、边界、验收和技术问题均可由已确认 ISS、现有代码和本地依赖 API 证明。
|
||||
- 没有新的产品偏好、公开协议或风险接受度问题需要 `user-interview`；短期关闭旧 SDK retry 的影响已在 proposal 明示。
|
||||
- `grill-with-docs` 的代码可证问题已先查证并向用户汇报；所有结论均已回写 proposal。
|
||||
|
||||
## 能力与工具限制
|
||||
|
||||
- Discover 能力来源：`sm-flow` + `grill-with-docs`。
|
||||
- 当前工具集没有 `codebase-retrieval` 和 LSP；使用 `rg`、源码阅读、本地依赖 `jar/javap`、编译和 focused tests 补足调用链与 API 核对。
|
||||
|
||||
## Cross-artifact 对齐
|
||||
|
||||
| 链路 | 状态 | 结论 |
|
||||
|---|---|---|
|
||||
| brief 目标/范围/非目标 -> proposal | 已对齐 | 显式 context、Core、预算/取消/终态、retry、key/capacity、隐藏 retry 和不接旧 runtime 全部覆盖。 |
|
||||
| proposal 范围/约束/承诺 -> design | 已对齐 | 类职责、并发语义、first-wins、配置变化、迁移和回滚均有明确设计。 |
|
||||
| design 决策/接口影响/风险 -> specs/tasks | 已对齐 | 每个状态边界都有 scenario，配置行为变化和 zero-consumer 边界有独立任务与验证。 |
|
||||
| specs 可观察行为 -> tasks | 已对齐 | 8 条 requirements 分解为 primitives、budget、Core、retry、key、配置和三层验证。 |
|
||||
|
||||
## Architecture Audit
|
||||
|
||||
- 能力来源：`zoom-out`，使用 glossary 的 RunContext、Run Lifecycle、Run Budget、Harness Retry Policy 和 Diagnosis Run 术语。
|
||||
- 输入链路为未来 application use case 创建 RunContext，处理链路由 Core/Retry/Key/Capacity 通过显式参数消费，输出为唯一 RunTermination；当前 runtime 不接入。
|
||||
- RunContext 拥有单 Run 内存状态，应用用例拥有数据库映射，Tool store 拥有 Redis invocation；数据所有权没有重叠。
|
||||
- Core 不保存全局 Run map、不调用 Agent/数据库/Redis、不实现循环编排，因此不会演变为工作流引擎。
|
||||
- 最大风险是关闭 SDK retry 对旧路径的短期行为影响；已作为显式配置变更进入 proposal/spec/test 和回滚说明，无 ADR 冲突。
|
||||
|
||||
## Commit Gate Preflight
|
||||
|
||||
- proposal、design、specs、tasks 完整，OpenSpec status complete，strict validation 通过。
|
||||
- question pool 无未汇报 evidence-driven 结论、无未确认 user-interview 问题。
|
||||
- 接口影响 L2；`spring.ai.retry.max-attempts=1` 的有意内部行为变化已明确影响和回滚边界。
|
||||
- cross-artifact 四段对齐无 gap，架构审计约束已进入 design/spec/tasks。
|
||||
- Apply 持续授权已存在；执行范围严格限制为新 Harness foundation、配置 override 和 focused tests。
|
||||
|
||||
## Pre-apply Research
|
||||
|
||||
### 参考实现与反例
|
||||
|
||||
- `SessionContextHolder`：ThreadLocal session/run fallback，新 Harness 明确禁止复用。
|
||||
- `TokenUsageHolder` / `TokenTrackingChatModel`：当前只记录 total token 且依赖 ThreadLocal，后续 model boundary 应改为显式 RunBudget；本阶段不改旧类。
|
||||
- `ChatService.executeChatComplex`：当前业务方法内创建 Run、两轮 retry、写终态和清理 ThreadLocal，是后续替换对象，不是 Core 参考实现。
|
||||
- `DiagnosisRun`：现有持久化字段和字符串状态；本阶段只确认映射边界，不修改实体或 Repository。
|
||||
- Spring AI 1.1.7 `SpringAiRetryProperties`：`spring.ai.retry` 前缀、默认 `maxAttempts=10`，支持精确配置 override。
|
||||
|
||||
### 技术栈清单
|
||||
|
||||
- Java 17 record 表达结构不可变 context/limits/snapshot/policy/attempt。
|
||||
- `AtomicReference` 实现 first-reason/first-terminal-wins；`AtomicLong` 实现 capacity CAS；同步临界区维护复合预算一致性。
|
||||
- `Clock` 和 `Supplier<String>` 注入保证 deadline/ID 可测试，不引入 scheduler 或全局 registry。
|
||||
- SLF4J 只记录取消 callback 异常，不记录用户输入、Tool payload 或凭据。
|
||||
- SnakeYAML 直接解析 classpath `application.yml` 验证 retry override，不启动外部 MySQL/Redis/Milvus/模型。
|
||||
|
||||
### 新建基础设施
|
||||
|
||||
- `harness.core`：RunContext、Cancellation、Lifecycle、Budget、Capacity、Core 和类型化异常/状态。
|
||||
- `harness.retry`：RetryFailure/Policy/Policies/Attempt/Executor/Exception 与函数接口。
|
||||
- `harness.tool.store.ToolCallKeyFactory`：纯 Key 构造，不访问 Redis。
|
||||
- focused unit tests 与 Fake Model/Tool；无需新 Maven 依赖。
|
||||
|
||||
### 影响半径
|
||||
|
||||
- 新生产包在本阶段保持零消费者。
|
||||
- 唯一现有运行配置变化为 `spring.ai.retry.max-attempts=1`；Model 路由、provider、Controller、JPA 和 Redis 配置保持不变。
|
||||
|
||||
## Apply 结果
|
||||
|
||||
- 冲突分类：未发现 OpenSpec 遗漏、代码偏离或方向不确定项；一次自审发现 RetryExecutor 需要无条件拦截预算/取消异常，已回写代码并通过回归测试。
|
||||
- 新增 `RunContext`、Cancellation、Lifecycle、Budget、Capacity、DiagnosisHarnessCore、typed Retry 和 ToolCallKeyFactory；未接旧 Chat/AIOps/Controller/Redis/JPA。
|
||||
- Spring AI 全局 retry 已由默认 10 压为 1；Harness strict policies 只允许 Router/SemanticGuard 技术失败一次显式重试。
|
||||
- 首模块对齐：Run state/budget/Core/retry/key/config 与 design/tasks 全部完成；Tool interceptor/store/Agent/应用用例仍留给后续阶段。
|
||||
|
||||
## Apply 验证
|
||||
|
||||
- 编译：`mvn -q -DskipTests compile`：通过。
|
||||
- Core focused：`mvn -q '-Dtest=RunContextTest,RunBudgetTest,DiagnosisHarnessCoreTest,HarnessRetryExecutorTest,ToolCallKeyFactoryTest,SpringAiRetryConfigurationTest' test`：通过（加固后复跑通过）。
|
||||
- 综合回归：`mvn -q '-Dtest=HarnessContractTest,RagToolContractTest,QueryLogsToolContractTest,MysqlToolContractTest,RunContextTest,RunBudgetTest,DiagnosisHarnessCoreTest,HarnessRetryExecutorTest,ToolCallKeyFactoryTest,SpringAiRetryConfigurationTest,ChatControllerTest' test`：通过。
|
||||
- 静态 scope：新 Harness 包无 ThreadLocal/current-holder/Redis 引用；旧 Chat/AIOps/Controller/JPA 调用链 diff 为空；模型路由/provider 未改。
|
||||
- OpenSpec：`openspec validate single-react-harness-run-context --strict`：通过。
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,25 @@
|
||||
# Evidence: single-react-harness-run-context
|
||||
|
||||
## 文档与依赖证据
|
||||
|
||||
- ISS-014 4.2/阶段 2 要求显式 `RunContext`、deadline、取消、预算、retry、Key Factory 和 no-ThreadLocal 边界。
|
||||
- 阶段 0/1 OpenSpec 已冻结框架 `tool_call_id`、两套状态语义和后续阶段串行门禁。
|
||||
- 本地 Spring AI 1.1.7 `SpringAiRetryProperties` 的 `@ConfigurationProperties("spring.ai.retry")` 默认 `maxAttempts=10`；配置已覆盖为 1。
|
||||
|
||||
## 代码证据
|
||||
|
||||
- `SessionContextHolder`、`TokenUsageHolder`、`VerifierContextHolder` 当前是旧链路 ThreadLocal；新 `com.superbiz.agent.harness` 包无任何 holder/ThreadLocal/Redis 引用。
|
||||
- `ChatService.executeChatComplex` 当前自行创建 run、执行两轮 retry、写 `diagnosis_run` 和清理 ThreadLocal；新 Core 不接入该方法，后续应用用例负责迁移。
|
||||
- `DiagnosisRun` 仍保留现有字符串状态和 JPA Schema；阶段 2 未修改实体、Repository 或数据库。
|
||||
- `DiagnosisHarnessCore` 不保存全局 Run map；RunContext 结构不可变，Cancellation/Budget/Lifecycle 为同一 Run 的线程安全句柄。
|
||||
|
||||
## Evidence-driven 结论
|
||||
|
||||
- first-reason-wins cancellation + first-terminal-wins lifecycle 可以用 AtomicReference 实现并跨异步边界共享。
|
||||
- 复合 Tool/Token 预算需要同步一致性；Run bytes 用 CAS 预留避免并发超限或部分增长。
|
||||
- SDK 隐藏 retry 压为一次后，Harness 才能记录 Router/SemanticGuard 的显式 attempt；Tool/Diagnosis/Evidence repair 固定一次。
|
||||
- Key Factory 可直接复用阶段 3A，但不生成或改写框架 Tool Call ID，也不访问 Redis。
|
||||
|
||||
## 工具限制
|
||||
|
||||
- `codebase-retrieval` 和 LSP 不在当前工具集中；使用 `rg`、源码阅读、`jar/javap`、Maven 编译、YAML 解析和 focused tests 补足核对。
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,26 @@
|
||||
# Acceptance: single-react-mysql-readonly-tool
|
||||
|
||||
## Commit preflight
|
||||
|
||||
- OpenSpec strict validation: passed.
|
||||
- Scope: fail-closed SQL validator, exact allowlist, JDBC read-only executor, bounded MySQL projection, ToolBoundary adapter and query-script safety cleanup.
|
||||
- Non-goals: public Agent/Chat cutover, metadata discovery, Agent persistence database access, dynamic/tenant authorization and live production datasource provisioning.
|
||||
- Security prerequisite: script write branch/default external connection values are explicitly included in this change.
|
||||
|
||||
## Apply acceptance
|
||||
|
||||
- Implemented and verified.
|
||||
- Static, Maven and script evidence is recorded in `evidence.md`.
|
||||
- No browser/manual verification applies; this stage adds no UI or public protocol change.
|
||||
- Residual risk is limited to later live datasource provisioning/driver behavior and stage 4 integration.
|
||||
|
||||
## Archive acceptance
|
||||
|
||||
- All OpenSpec tasks are complete.
|
||||
- `.archive-ready` marker is created after focused verification.
|
||||
- OpenSpec is ready to move to the dated archive directory.
|
||||
- Archive completed at `openspec/changes/archive/2026-07-21-single-react-mysql-readonly-tool`.
|
||||
|
||||
## Remaining work
|
||||
|
||||
- Stage 4 Diagnosis Agent integration and later live datasource/driver E2E remain outside this archive.
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,26 @@
|
||||
# Brief: single-react-mysql-readonly-tool
|
||||
|
||||
## Background
|
||||
|
||||
阶段 3A 提供了统一 ToolBoundary 和 canonical invocation store，阶段 3B 提供了 RAG/日志投影。3C 需要独立实现安全敏感的只读 MySQL Tool，避免 Agent 生成的 SQL 直接进入数据库。
|
||||
|
||||
## Goals
|
||||
|
||||
- 使用 JSqlParser 对保守 SELECT 子集进行 fail-closed AST 校验。
|
||||
- 使用逻辑数据源和 schema/table/column 精确 allowlist 授权。
|
||||
- 使用参数绑定、只读 JDBC、超时、取消和结果预算。
|
||||
- 通过阶段 3A boundary 投影为冻结的 `MysqlToolResult`。
|
||||
- 清理查询脚本的写入分支和默认连接风险。
|
||||
|
||||
## Non-goals
|
||||
|
||||
- 不接入公开 Agent/Chat 入口。
|
||||
- 不提供元数据发现、动态授权、租户/行级权限或生产 datasource provisioning。
|
||||
- 不查询 Agent 自身持久化数据库。
|
||||
|
||||
## Classification
|
||||
|
||||
- Scale: complex
|
||||
- Interface impact: L2 internal Harness tool/adapter, plus build dependency and script safety behavior
|
||||
- Issue: ISS-014 stage 3C
|
||||
- Change slug: `single-react-mysql-readonly-tool`
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,108 @@
|
||||
# Decisions: single-react-mysql-readonly-tool
|
||||
|
||||
## Discover status
|
||||
|
||||
- Checkpoint: Discover
|
||||
- Capability source: `sm-flow` with local ISS-014, OpenSpec contracts, existing JDBC dependency/configuration and JSqlParser 4.6 already present in the local Maven cache.
|
||||
- Scale: complex, because this stage combines AST policy, authorization, JDBC resource limits, projection, and security cleanup.
|
||||
|
||||
## Evidence-driven findings
|
||||
|
||||
1. `MysqlToolRequest` and `MysqlToolResult` are already frozen under `harness.tool.contract`; no public DTO change is needed.
|
||||
2. The project already has MySQL JDBC/JPA dependencies, but no Agent-facing external read-only executor or SQL policy.
|
||||
3. JSqlParser 4.6 is available in the local Maven cache and exposes `CCJSqlParserUtil`, `Select`, `PlainSelect`, `Table`, `Column`, `Function`, `JdbcParameter` and visitor adapters compatible with Java 17.
|
||||
4. The current application datasource points to the Agent persistence database; the new Tool must use an independently configured logical datasource map and must not reuse that datasource implicitly.
|
||||
5. `scripts/query_mysql.py` currently defaults host/port/user values and contains a non-SELECT commit branch. This violates the ISS-014 security prerequisite and will be changed to read-only, environment-only behavior.
|
||||
|
||||
## Question pool
|
||||
|
||||
| Dimension | Question | Mode | Conclusion | Status |
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
||||
| SQL language | Which SQL subset is executable? | evidence-driven | One SELECT, explicit columns, INNER/LEFT JOIN, predicates/group/order, parameter placeholders and allowlisted aggregates. | resolved |
|
||||
| Security | How is authorization decided? | evidence-driven | Independent exact schema/table/column allowlist; parser acceptance alone is insufficient. | resolved |
|
||||
| Data source | Can the Agent pass JDBC coordinates? | evidence-driven | No. Only logical data_source IDs are accepted; connection properties remain configuration/Secret data. | resolved |
|
||||
| Execution | Which JDBC controls are mandatory? | evidence-driven | PreparedStatement, readOnly connection, setMaxRows, query timeout and Run cancellation. | resolved |
|
||||
| Metadata | Can the Tool discover tables/columns? | evidence-driven | No. SHOW/DESCRIBE/information_schema are rejected. | resolved |
|
||||
| Compatibility | Does this cut over public runtime now? | evidence-driven | No. Add internal adapter/executor; Diagnosis Agent integration is stage 4. | resolved |
|
||||
|
||||
## User-confirmed direction
|
||||
|
||||
- Use the frozen `MysqlToolRequest`/`MysqlToolResult` contract.
|
||||
- Reuse the existing ToolBoundary and canonical invocation store.
|
||||
- Keep stage boundaries serial: archive and commit 3C before stage 4.
|
||||
- Do not pause for routine apply/archive/commit confirmation.
|
||||
|
||||
## Pre-apply research
|
||||
|
||||
### Existing implementations and dependencies
|
||||
|
||||
- `src/main/java/com/superbiz/agent/harness/tool/contract/MysqlToolRequest.java`
|
||||
- `src/main/java/com/superbiz/agent/harness/tool/contract/MysqlToolResult.java`
|
||||
- `src/main/java/com/superbiz/agent/harness/tool/boundary/ToolBoundary.java`
|
||||
- `src/main/java/com/superbiz/agent/harness/tool/adapter/QueryLogsToolAdapter.java`
|
||||
- `src/main/resources/application.yml`
|
||||
- `pom.xml` (`mysql-connector-j` already present; add JSqlParser 4.6)
|
||||
- `scripts/query_mysql.py`
|
||||
|
||||
### New classes
|
||||
|
||||
- `MysqlToolLimits`
|
||||
- `MysqlDataSourceDefinition` / allowlist value objects
|
||||
- `MysqlQueryPlan`
|
||||
- `MysqlSqlValidator`
|
||||
- `MysqlReadOnlyExecutor` and JDBC implementation
|
||||
- `MysqlResultProjector`
|
||||
- `MysqlToolAdapter`
|
||||
|
||||
### Risk controls
|
||||
|
||||
- Do not create a generic plugin/DSL layer.
|
||||
- Do not use regex or `startsWith` as SQL authorization.
|
||||
- Fail closed on parser/visitor uncertainty.
|
||||
- Keep raw result canonical-only and expose only bounded projection.
|
||||
|
||||
## Commit checkpoint preparation
|
||||
|
||||
- Proposal scope, design choices, frozen SQL subset, security script cleanup and acceptance scenarios are ready for Commit artifact generation.
|
||||
|
||||
## Commit audit
|
||||
|
||||
- Capability source: `sm-flow` and local OpenSpec CLI.
|
||||
- OpenSpec strict validation: passed for `single-react-mysql-readonly-tool`.
|
||||
- Cross-artifact alignment:
|
||||
- brief goals/non-goals -> proposal scope: aligned.
|
||||
- proposal SQL/security boundaries -> design architecture: aligned.
|
||||
- design validator/executor/projector decisions -> spec requirements: aligned.
|
||||
- spec scenarios -> tasks for dependency, policy, JDBC, projection, adapter and verification: aligned.
|
||||
- Interface impact: L2 internal Harness tool/adapter plus JSqlParser dependency and query-script behavior; no public protocol changes.
|
||||
- Preflight risk accepted: parser ambiguity, datasource isolation, driver cancellation behavior and sensitive result values all fail closed or remain Harness-only.
|
||||
|
||||
## Commit gate
|
||||
|
||||
- [x] proposal, design, specs and tasks exist.
|
||||
- [x] strict OpenSpec validation passes.
|
||||
- [x] all evidence-driven questions are resolved.
|
||||
- [x] no unresolved interface decision remains.
|
||||
- [x] `.committed` marker created for Apply.
|
||||
|
||||
## Apply result
|
||||
|
||||
- Added JSqlParser 4.6 and fail-closed `MysqlSqlValidator`.
|
||||
- Added immutable logical datasource/allowlist/limit/query-plan/raw-result models and independent `MysqlToolProperties` binding.
|
||||
- Added `JdbcMysqlReadOnlyExecutor` with read-only connection, PreparedStatement binding, query timeout, max rows, cell/result limits and Run cancellation callback.
|
||||
- Added `MysqlResultProjector` with sensitive-column redaction, row/cell/total UTF-8 bounds and `NO_EVIDENCE`.
|
||||
- Added `MysqlToolAdapter` through the existing ToolBoundary; invalid SQL is rejected before database execution.
|
||||
- Replaced `scripts/query_mysql.py` with environment-only, read-only transaction behavior and pre-connect write/metadata rejection.
|
||||
|
||||
## Apply conflicts and corrections
|
||||
|
||||
- `COUNT(*)` is represented by JSqlParser as an `AllColumns` parameter in this version; the visitor was corrected to permit only the explicit `COUNT(*)` exception.
|
||||
- JDBC metadata access cannot be used as a checked-exception stream method reference; the implementation uses an explicit column loop.
|
||||
- No OpenSpec/design conflict was found; both corrections were implementation details.
|
||||
|
||||
## Archive result
|
||||
|
||||
- Apply tasks complete and `.archive-ready` created.
|
||||
- OpenSpec archived at `openspec/changes/archive/2026-07-21-single-react-mysql-readonly-tool`.
|
||||
- Main capability specification added at `openspec/specs/mysql-readonly-tool/spec.md`.
|
||||
- Stage 4 may consume the internal adapter only after this stage is committed.
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,29 @@
|
||||
# Evidence: single-react-mysql-readonly-tool
|
||||
|
||||
## Static verification
|
||||
|
||||
- `git diff --check`: passed before archive.
|
||||
- Security scan confirms the query helper has no default external host/port/root user and no `commit()` write path.
|
||||
- New MySQL Harness code receives only injected logical DataSources and does not reference `spring.datasource` or the application persistence datasource.
|
||||
- OpenSpec strict validation passed for `single-react-mysql-readonly-tool`.
|
||||
|
||||
## Script/build verification
|
||||
|
||||
- `mvn -q -DskipTests compile`: passed.
|
||||
- Focused suite passed: `MysqlSqlValidatorTest`, `MysqlResultProjectorTest`, `JdbcMysqlReadOnlyExecutorTest`, `MysqlToolAdapterTest`, `MysqlToolContractTest`, `ToolBoundaryTest`, `CanonicalInvocationStoreTest`.
|
||||
- Python syntax compilation passed for `scripts/query_mysql.py`.
|
||||
- Missing connection environment variables exit before connection with code 2.
|
||||
- A write SQL invocation is rejected before connection with code 3.
|
||||
|
||||
## Security coverage
|
||||
|
||||
- Allowed: explicit allowlisted SELECT, parameter placeholders, qualified INNER JOIN and `COUNT(*)`.
|
||||
- Rejected: write, WITH, subquery, UNION, wildcard projection, unknown table/column, ambiguous column, dangerous function, inline literal, CASE, FOR UPDATE, multi-statement and placeholder mismatch.
|
||||
- JDBC controls verified: `setReadOnly(true)`, `PreparedStatement`, `setQueryTimeout`, `setMaxRows`, ordered parameter binding and cancellation-before-execution.
|
||||
- Projection controls verified: max rows, max cell chars, total UTF-8 bytes, sensitive-column redaction, valid bounded JSON and `NO_EVIDENCE`.
|
||||
|
||||
## Not verified in this stage
|
||||
|
||||
- No live production business datasource was provisioned or queried; ISS-014 explicitly assigns live E2E to a later issue/stage.
|
||||
- No public Diagnosis Agent/Chat integration was performed; stage 4 will consume the adapter internally.
|
||||
- JDBC driver timeout/cancel behavior against a real remote MySQL server remains an operational integration risk.
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,25 @@
|
||||
# Acceptance: single-react-rag-log-projections
|
||||
|
||||
## Commit preflight
|
||||
|
||||
- OpenSpec strict validation: passed.
|
||||
- Scope: RAG and Mock query-log projectors/adapters through the existing ToolBoundary.
|
||||
- Explicit non-goals: real CLS/MCP, MySQL, Diagnosis Agent cutover, public Chat/AIOps/SSE changes, legacy recorder cleanup.
|
||||
- Main residual risk: legacy log payloads contain sensitive values; projector tests must prove redaction before Agent serialization.
|
||||
|
||||
## Apply acceptance
|
||||
|
||||
- Implemented and verified.
|
||||
- Static verification and focused/regression Maven tests are recorded in `evidence.md`.
|
||||
- No browser/manual verification applies; this stage adds no UI or public protocol change.
|
||||
- Residual risks: live Redis/CLS integration and Agent cutover remain later stages.
|
||||
|
||||
## Archive acceptance
|
||||
|
||||
- `.archive-ready` marker is created after all tasks and checks pass.
|
||||
- OpenSpec is ready to move to the dated archive directory.
|
||||
- Archive completed at `openspec/changes/archive/2026-07-21-single-react-rag-log-projections`.
|
||||
|
||||
## Remaining work
|
||||
|
||||
- Real Redis/CLS integration, MySQL projection, Diagnosis Agent cutover and final E2E remain later stages.
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,24 @@
|
||||
# Brief: single-react-rag-log-projections
|
||||
|
||||
## Background
|
||||
|
||||
阶段 3A 已经统一 ToolBoundary 和 canonical invocation store。下一阶段需要把现有 RAG 与 Mock 日志工具接入该边界，并把旧工具输出投影为冻结的 Agent-facing ACI 结果。
|
||||
|
||||
## Goal
|
||||
|
||||
- 提供 bounded RAG evidence projection。
|
||||
- 提供带完整 logical scope 和 Mock provenance 的 query-log projection。
|
||||
- 复用阶段 3A 生命周期、Run ownership、tool_call_id、预算、错误和 canonical record。
|
||||
|
||||
## Non-goals
|
||||
|
||||
- 不接入真实 CLS/MCP。
|
||||
- 不实现 MySQL projection。
|
||||
- 不切换 Diagnosis Agent、Chat/AIOps、SSE 或旧 recorder。
|
||||
|
||||
## Classification
|
||||
|
||||
- Scale: complex
|
||||
- Interface impact: L2 internal Harness adapter/projector
|
||||
- Issue: ISS-014 stage 3B
|
||||
- Change slug: `single-react-rag-log-projections`
|
||||
Some files were not shown because too many files have changed in this diff Show More
Reference in New Issue
Block a user