e7dc6dfe655070d5113d343545e8cbaec29535b9
4
Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
 Andy Dixon
|
03e2d7890a |
feat(cognition): wanting, intending and acting inside the cognitive cycle
Volition and planning now run as part of cognition (PLAN §8.2 item 3):
- A volition hook derives wants after each cycle from what it perceived
and produced, satisfies answer wants when a reply is sent, raises due,
overdue, expired and conflicting commitments, and expires faded wants.
Events produced by earlier cycles are not re-derived.
- An intend process proposes deciding about the strongest undecided
wants; the candidate competes for the workspace, so attention gates
what the mind decides to pursue. The handler makes value tensions
explicit (caution against disruptive writes, privacy against reading
personal data), resolves them with recorded scores, runs deterministic
formation with commitments, policy preview, goals and values, records
the decision whatever it is, and plans a formed intention in the same
transaction. Operator requests carry their own weight in formation.
- Explicit requests in conversation ("restart <unit>", "logs for <unit>",
"fetch <url>") become wants with proposed means instead of direct
invocations; the reply says the request was recorded and that acting
depends on commitments and policy.
- The executor is woken after commits, runs in a scheduler-owned loop and
reacts to the event bus: a new commitment tightens or abandons affected
intentions (withdrawing their pending approvals), a weakened assumption
or a finished goal triggers reconsideration. A tightened plan may reuse
its strategy; a failed one may not.
- Metacognition gains volition checks: strong wants repeatedly set aside,
intentions with no recorded reason, intentions a commitment forbids,
commitments that cannot be kept, churn, repeated failed execution,
cost outweighing value, and intentions that outlived their goal.
- A plan model role and prompt let a model propose decompositions that
the planner validates. Ablations are a fork-only configuration field.
- Approvals required by an intention are described as coming from a
commitment or value constraint. The expectation after an approved
action is linked to the execution event, not the request.
- The wants.values column of the unreleased migration 0026 is renamed
value_keys: VALUES is reserved and the generic snapshot restore does
not quote identifiers.
- The hostile-output security test now uses a message that asks for no
action, because an operator's "status of <unit>" is legitimately a
read-only status check.
|
||
|
Andy Dixon
|
813b067842 |
feat(planning): plans, validation, planner and a restart-safe executor
Plans turn intentions into revisable dependency graphs (migration 0027): objective, assumptions, ordered or dependent steps, capabilities, expected observations, preconditions, risk, estimates, budget, completion criteria, abort conditions and the alternatives considered. - Validation owns structure: acyclic dependencies, registered and unlocked capabilities only, schema-valid parameters, targets that agree with parameters, read-only checks, a closed set of step kinds and internal actions. Model proposals are parsed into the same structure; fields that could carry authority or claim progress are reported as ignored, and an invalid draft is stored as a draft that never runs. - The planner prefers deterministic strategies: a direct action verified by observation, a read-only diagnosis that requests temporary scoped log access with risk and fallback stated, and an escalation that diagnoses and informs the operator instead of repeating a failed action. Failed strategies are not reused; a model is consulted only when none applies. - The executor holds no state in memory: it claims a step with a conditional update, acts only through Invoke and RequestCapability, and records the outcome. Waiting for approval or access forms a subordinate intention and blocks the parent with the reason. Expectations become verification predictions resolved from a read-only observation, so an HTTP-level success is never taken as the outcome; a miss is a prediction error that weakens the supporting belief and triggers reconsideration. Replanning creates a new revision, withdraws open requests of the old one and keeps it as history, within a replan limit. Checks never raise approval prompts. Budgets stop runaway plans. Preconditions skip actions when the world already changed. Dream plans and disabled sandbox minds never act. An interrupted non-idempotent action with no record is blocked for verification instead of repeated; recorded outcomes are adopted. Completed plans are stored as procedural memories; a completed escalation does not count as fulfilling the intention. - Executions and approvals record their origin; minds may withdraw their own pending approval requests; Preview reports a decision without side effects; service.status is allowed by default as a bounded read. |
||
|
Andy Dixon
|
937c5fb2ff |
feat(capabilities): metadata, frozen registry, scoped grants and requests
- Capabilities declare access (read/write, unknown fails closed as write), side effects, idempotency, timeout, cost estimate and the trust of their output (web content is low trust). A capability may derive its policy target from its parameters; a disagreeing target is refused, and approvals whose modified parameters change the target are refused. - The registry is frozen at start-up; registration afterwards panics. - Invocation.RequireApproval turns ALLOW into ASK for commitments; it can only tighten, and scoped grants never satisfy it. - Scoped grants (migration 0025): capability, target and parameter globs, access, expiry of at most seven days and an optional operation count consumed atomically; applied only where policy says ASK. A sweep marks lapsed grants and refreshes the self-model, which now lists live grants. - Capability requests carry scope, duration, operation cap, reason, evidence, risk, mitigation, fallback, alternatives and explicit decision history; they batch per intention, are capped per mind (operator attention budget) and can be decided only by a named person. Component names are refused as deciders, for approvals too, and as usernames. - API routes, OpenAPI entries, scheduler sweeps and approval-centre sections for requests and temporary grants. |
||
|
Andy Dixon
|
b35dbe0299 |
security: add the capability and policy layer as the only path to action
Phase 12 (ADR-0005). Capabilities are registered in code with parameter schemas, risk classes and default effects; sudo_shell and delete_database are locked to DENY and cannot be relaxed. Policies are scoped globally or per mind with capability, target glob, action kind and optional hour window; evaluation is deterministic, most specific wins, and ties go to the stricter effect. Invoke is the single entry point: it refuses dreaming and replay contexts, validates parameters (unknown keys, non http URLs and path traversal rejected), evaluates policy and session grants, hashes the exact request and records a policy_decision event. ALLOW executes with timeout and panic isolation and turns textual output into a tool-trust observation; ASK creates an approval request bound to the hash with an alert notification; DENY is counted and recorded. Operators approve once, approve for a time-boxed session grant, deny with a note, or modify parameters (re-validated, re-hashed, original kept in the append-only decision log). The self-model's capability list is recomputed from effective policy on start and on every policy change. The act process maps fetch requests to http.fetch and the action handler invokes through the layer; replies report capabilities and outcomes. Policy matrix and approval centre pages, dashboard count, API, CLI (approvals, policy, invoke) and docs/capabilities.md. |