docs(model-grounded-detection): 16 tasks in 6 groups, with a coupling map so Opus does not crash-discover

Design approved. All 49 criteria trace to a task.

The tasks carry an agent-guidance preamble aimed squarely at the escalations
this session hit: the eighteen-defect lesson (fix the class, not the instance),
the gate-baseline as the safety net (the whole learning/ package is off the
gate path, so its deletion cannot move a gate -- a moved gate means you touched
a retained path), the zero-dep capability-detection pattern to copy verbatim,
and -- most important for the subtraction -- a full coupling map naming every
touchpoint of the removed code (cli, pairs hunter path, config, reports,
semantic seed/loo, the mechanism loop across improve/ and semantic/). The
subtraction is not discovery by import error.

Group 1 is pure gate-protected subtraction, sequenced so vocabularies are
ported (1.1) and importers detached (1.2-1.3) before anything is deleted (1.4),
then tests reduced in the same spirit (1.5) and the tree audited for orphans
(1.6). Group 2 is a Joern go/no-go: task 2.3 reads go or stop, and groups 3-6
do not begin until it is green -- building past a red 2.3 is the mistake the
whole spec exists to prevent. Parallelism is deliberately absent; the
subtraction is sequential and the spike gates the rest.

Not approved for implementation.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 <[email protected]>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01T7XD7x5KonMdmGRkp63EQG
This commit is contained in:
Marius Ciepluch
2026-09-08 11:47:10 +02:00
co-authored by Claude Opus 4.8
parent 0a8cc9b5a7
commit 6fe8682993
2 changed files with 257 additions and 5 deletions
@@ -1,9 +1,9 @@
{
"feature_name": "model-grounded-detection",
"created_at": "2026-09-08T00:00:00Z",
"updated_at": "2026-09-08T03:00:00Z",
"updated_at": "2026-09-08T04:00:00Z",
"language": "en",
"phase": "design",
"phase": "tasks",
"approvals": {
"requirements": {
"generated": true,
@@ -11,10 +11,10 @@
},
"design": {
"generated": true,
"approved": false
"approved": true
},
"tasks": {
"generated": false,
"generated": true,
"approved": false
}
},
@@ -24,5 +24,5 @@
"constrained-detector"
],
"depends_on": [],
"approval_note": "2026-09-08 corrective brief drafted at the maintainer's direction ('can you produce a corrective spec that supersedes the project and sets a course'). Written after the learning-harness evolve rounds produced zero decisions distinguishable from noise, and after researching Clearwing (/home/mc/Source/clearwing, fork norandom/deepwing), Google Big Sleep, and the DARPA AIxCC 2025 finals. Not approved; requirements not generated. The central recommendation is to adopt Clearwing as the execution substrate rather than rebuild, and to contribute the web/logic detection path (taxonomy + IR candidate enumeration + obligation checker + a differential web oracle) that Clearwing's crash-oracle model does not reach. ; 2026-09-08 renamed execution-grounded-detection -> model-grounded-detection after the maintainer's correction: execution is not possible for all SAST targets and the bugs we own do not crash, so the arbiter is a program model built deterministically from code (IR candidate enumeration, binding-chain dataflow, obligation/guard-dominance) that checks LLM claims, producing a static evidence ladder (suspicion -> model_corroborated -> model_entailed); execution is a deferred tier for memory-safety-in-C only, adopted from Clearwing when a class needs it. ; 2026-09-08 requirements generated at the maintainer's direction ('write the requirements, and include to throw away broken parts. include the reduction of tests to what makes sense. I think there is an outgrowth problem here'): subtraction is Req 1-3 (remove the noise architecture, reduce 832 tests to surviving behavior, audit 99 modules for orphans) and precedes adoption of the Joern CPG arbiter (Req 4-8), the corpus as calibration set (Req 9), and the deferred Clearwing execution tier (Req 10). ; 2026-09-08 requirements approved by the maintainer in session ('approve the requirements and run the design phase'); design generated: subtraction is phase 1 (gate-protected, ~5000 lines removed before any Joern), a Joern spike on the injection family is phase 2 and can end the design before the integration cost is paid."
"approval_note": "2026-09-08 corrective brief drafted at the maintainer's direction ('can you produce a corrective spec that supersedes the project and sets a course'). Written after the learning-harness evolve rounds produced zero decisions distinguishable from noise, and after researching Clearwing (/home/mc/Source/clearwing, fork norandom/deepwing), Google Big Sleep, and the DARPA AIxCC 2025 finals. Not approved; requirements not generated. The central recommendation is to adopt Clearwing as the execution substrate rather than rebuild, and to contribute the web/logic detection path (taxonomy + IR candidate enumeration + obligation checker + a differential web oracle) that Clearwing's crash-oracle model does not reach. ; 2026-09-08 renamed execution-grounded-detection -> model-grounded-detection after the maintainer's correction: execution is not possible for all SAST targets and the bugs we own do not crash, so the arbiter is a program model built deterministically from code (IR candidate enumeration, binding-chain dataflow, obligation/guard-dominance) that checks LLM claims, producing a static evidence ladder (suspicion -> model_corroborated -> model_entailed); execution is a deferred tier for memory-safety-in-C only, adopted from Clearwing when a class needs it. ; 2026-09-08 requirements generated at the maintainer's direction ('write the requirements, and include to throw away broken parts. include the reduction of tests to what makes sense. I think there is an outgrowth problem here'): subtraction is Req 1-3 (remove the noise architecture, reduce 832 tests to surviving behavior, audit 99 modules for orphans) and precedes adoption of the Joern CPG arbiter (Req 4-8), the corpus as calibration set (Req 9), and the deferred Clearwing execution tier (Req 10). ; 2026-09-08 requirements approved by the maintainer in session ('approve the requirements and run the design phase'); design generated: subtraction is phase 1 (gate-protected, ~5000 lines removed before any Joern), a Joern spike on the injection family is phase 2 and can end the design before the integration cost is paid. ; 2026-09-08 design approved and tasks generated ('approve the design and generate the tasks. add infos so that Opus can follow the tasks without running into complexity escalations'): tasks carry an agent-guidance preamble with the eighteen-defect lesson, the gate-baseline safety net, the zero-dep capability-detection pattern, and a full coupling map of every learning/mechanism touchpoint so the subtraction is not crash-driven discovery; group 1 is pure gate-protected subtraction, group 2 is a Joern go/no-go that gates groups 3-6."
}