Commit Graph
14 Commits
Author SHA1 Message Date
Marius CiepluchandClaude Opus 5 3ebcc6729a fix: a body that stops mid-read is transient, and a round that dies still says so
Round 5 died on `http.client.IncompleteRead(0 bytes read)` and left no record
at all. Two defects, both ours.

The retry classified only connection-level failures. IncompleteRead and
RemoteDisconnected arrive while the *body* is being read, after the connection
succeeded, so they are not URLError -- they escaped both the retry and the
error wrapper and walked out of the round. The network is allowed to be
unreliable; losing a paid round to it is not the provider's defect.

And the exception path was wrapped around the stages that come *after* the
proposal is applied, because those are the ones with something to revert. The
stages before it had already spent money, and a round that leaves no record is
a round nobody can account for. Every outcome is journalled now, with the
exception type in the reason.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <[email protected]>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01T7XD7x5KonMdmGRkp63EQG
2026-09-07 07:37:41 +02:00
Marius CiepluchandClaude Opus 5 cde57e4293 fix(learning-harness): say why the proposer had nothing, and stop hard-coding its vendor
The meta-agent round journalled `no_proposal`. The real cause was an
authentication failure: `_model_config` hard-coded the anthropic provider
while the detector was talking to DeepSeek and no ANTHROPIC_API_KEY exists
here. The composition itself was fine -- MetaAgent constructed, evolve
started, budget $5 -- and the trace was thrown away.

`no_proposal` covered two different worlds: a proposer that considered the
facts and declined, and one that could not start at all. The journal now
carries the proposer's own reason, and the vendor comes from
`[harnessx] provider` instead of being assumed.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <[email protected]>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01T7XD7x5KonMdmGRkp63EQG
2026-09-06 22:24:40 +02:00
Marius CiepluchandClaude Opus 5 506bbe5f5c fix(learning-harness): round zero writes down every pair it has paid for
The 176-pair vfc baseline hit its four-hour timeout and wrote nothing. Scores
were accumulated in memory and persisted once at the end, so roughly four
hours of paid API calls were lost. I fixed the exception path this morning --
a provider hiccup costs one pair -- and missed that a timeout, a kill or a
machine going away cost all of them.

Each pair is now appended to `scores.jsonl` and flushed as it is measured, and
`--resume` keeps what a previous run of that exact baseline already bought.
This also gives the per-pair outcomes the round-3 review asked for, which make
the noise floor auditable after the fact instead of only in aggregate.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <[email protected]>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01T7XD7x5KonMdmGRkp63EQG
2026-09-06 19:53:49 +02:00
Marius CiepluchandClaude Opus 5 b57b1a35d8 feat(learning-harness): thinking is a measured condition, and every round
records whether its decision beat noise

Two things the maintainer was right about.

Thinking was disabled so `temperature: 0` would not be silently ignored --
a trade that only pays if it buys determinism. Round zero says it did not:
11 of 20 injection pairs disagreed with themselves across five runs, so the
variance is in the agentic path, not the decoder. We paid the reasoning cost
on a reasoning model and got nothing. It is now `[learning] thinking`,
recorded in the artifact and part of its key so the two modes cannot be read
as one number. The default stays off only because that is what round zero
was measured under.

And the deeper point: the spec built `sign_test` and `reliable_change` and
the acceptance rule calls neither -- `decide` compares raw deltas. On a
detector with that floor a raw delta is mostly noise, and a rule that
brittle is exactly what makes a deterministic decoder look necessary. It is
not; the alternative is an acceptance rule that models the score as noisy,
the way reflective-evolution and Bayesian prompt optimizers do. Changing
Req 9.5 is a maintainer's call, so this does not change the decision: every
round now journals the two-sided sign test over the pairs that moved, and
after four rounds the journal will say whether any decision could be told
from a coin flip.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <[email protected]>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01T7XD7x5KonMdmGRkp63EQG
2026-09-06 15:12:09 +02:00
Marius CiepluchandClaude Opus 5 ce89b0dbe0 fix(learning-harness): a slice is part of what identifies a baseline
Keyed by model alone, the memory-safety run over the vfc slice silently
replaced the run over the web families, and the published table would have
shown one of them as if it were everything. The artifact key and the
comparison label now carry the slice selection when it is not the default.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <[email protected]>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01T7XD7x5KonMdmGRkp63EQG
2026-09-06 14:39:43 +02:00
Marius CiepluchandClaude Opus 5 c1ef3ca539 fix(learning-harness): a provider hiccup costs one pair, not the whole run
Round zero is the most expensive thing this harness does. An error two
thirds of the way through raised straight out of `run_baseline` and took
everything already measured and paid for with it, so the only honest
response to a flaky endpoint was to run the whole thing again and hope. The
pair is now recorded as unscorable with the reason `detector_unreachable`
and the run finishes.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <[email protected]>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01T7XD7x5KonMdmGRkp63EQG
2026-09-06 14:20:52 +02:00
Marius CiepluchandClaude Opus 5 2dad25d312 fix(learning-harness): the round-4 review findings
Three defects, two of them the same shape as ones already rejected once:

- The meta-agent proposer still could not propose. `MetaAgent(inner_model=)`
  takes a ModelConfig; it was handed a model name, a `# type: ignore` hid
  that from mypy, and a bare `except Exception` turned the resulting
  AttributeError into `meta_agent_failed` -- which reads exactly like the
  model declining. The composition is now a seam a test can pin, and a
  construction error is re-raised rather than reported as a quiet round.
- `ousast pairs --hunter` crashed in its documented form: the K floor landed
  with `--k-runs` still defaulting to 1. The covering test always passed
  `--k-runs 4`, which is why nothing noticed.
- 28 rows (12% of the corpus) resolved a span on the vulnerable side and
  none on the fixed side, so every fixed-side finding read as outside the
  labeled function and the pair scored as silence whatever the detector
  said. `fix_function` now reaches the catalog and the scorer, and the
  generator derives it from the fixed excerpt for the 25 trap rows that
  never declared one. Measured after: 0 rows.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <[email protected]>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01T7XD7x5KonMdmGRkp63EQG
2026-09-06 14:03:10 +02:00
Marius CiepluchandClaude Opus 5 3e71e9e88b feat(learning-harness): fix dates and the post-cutoff slice
The catalog generator fills `fix_date` from the recipe at the precision the
recipe has -- a full ISO day when one was recorded, otherwise the year.
Every harvested recipe carries a year and almost none carries a day, and
writing `-01-01` would turn a year into a claim about a month. A row counts
as post-cutoff only when its earliest possible date is after the cutoff, so
a coarse date can under-claim the clean slice but never over-claim it.

Each family now reports the same numbers over the rows fixed after the
cutoff, beside the whole number and never instead of it, with the undated
count on its own line. Without a configured cutoff every scoreboard says so
rather than inventing one: guessing a model's training cutoff and then
publishing a contamination number from the guess would be worse than
reporting none.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <[email protected]>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01T7XD7x5KonMdmGRkp63EQG
2026-09-06 13:15:20 +02:00
Marius CiepluchandClaude Opus 5 1843ef9a02 fix(learning-harness): the round-3 review findings, remediated RED-first
Eight of nine group-3 tasks were rejected. Each defect was hiding a number,
and the numbers are why the loop was not learning:

- The fixed side was judged against the *vulnerable* side's function
  ranges. 191 of 227 pairs with a resolvable labeled span (84%) have
  different spans on the two sides, so a leak was recorded as silence,
  always in the direction that flatters Youden.
- Round zero measured every family with the generalist. `family:unknown`
  earns no credit against any real family, so every family but `unknown`
  baselined at a structural zero and every noise floor with it.
- The cross-family sweep counted absolute failures instead of negative
  flips. On a corpus where most pairs fail at round zero that rejects
  every round for damage it did not do. Unscorable rows voted too.
- K runs was declared and never threaded; `pairs --k-runs` was parsed and
  discarded, and its only test grepped `--help`.
- The meta-agent proposer was a stub, so `learning round` could never
  propose anything. It now composes MetaAgent.evolve against a scratch
  copy of the family directory, and `--proposals FILE` runs a recorded
  sequence offline.
- `refused_holdout` was a vocabulary word no code path could produce, and
  the covering test accepted either outcome.
- Cost was metered once, after everything had been paid for; a stage that
  raised left no record at all.
- The corrected lever number was published beside the earlier one rather
  than in place of it, and the test named for that property never checked.
- Refusals were `continue` statements: `Refusal.degradation()` existed and
  nothing called it. A train-split identical twin was reported as
  `split:train`, which is untrue.

Test repairs that each changed a number: two split tests measured an
`x = 1` fixture that teaches nothing whatever the rule says; two CLI
scoreboard tests asserted against all-zero output produced by a stub that
answers twice and puts its finding outside the labeled function.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <[email protected]>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01T7XD7x5KonMdmGRkp63EQG
2026-09-06 13:03:06 +02:00
Marius CiepluchandClaude Opus 5 c2d9c4ad01 feat(learning-harness): absence rows travel with their registration
Eight of the ten vendored access-control rows had no named handler at all,
so every one of them would have scored `missing_context` forever rather
than as a detector miss. After the re-harvest nine are named and the tenth
states its reason.

The handler-context mode now carries the class its framework registers,
multi-line decorators, and commented-out guards -- `#@token_required`
above a ThreatByte handler is the entire bug. Where the registration lives
in another document (connexion's `operationId`, an express router), a
recipe names `context = [...]`, the harvester writes that stanza per side,
and the pair materializes both files at their repository-relative paths so
the entry-point mapper sees the layout the project has. `harvest_recipe`
fetches every blob before the first write and the driver takes `--report`,
so a failed fetch leaves a reviewed excerpt exactly as it was.

Two defects the re-harvest exposed: `.mjs` was not a known suffix, so the
one pair vendored as an ES module had no file target at all; and
`_python_route_access` matched auth words inside decorator prose, reading
`@ns.doc(description='... without proper authorization checks')` as a
guard. Recorded in the hygiene artifact: nine of the ten duplicate groups
sit on both sides of the split, which the repository-level split cannot
see.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <[email protected]>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01T7XD7x5KonMdmGRkp63EQG
2026-09-06 12:39:55 +02:00
Marius CiepluchandClaude Opus 5 7a33756a7e feat(learning-harness): the learning subcommands
Task 3.9. Five entry points make the classified detector set reachable:
classify a corpus and report the classifier against itself, score a catalog by
family, run round zero, run one evolve round, and publish every number from its
artifacts. The pairs command gains a runs-per-pair flag, since the family scorer
needs more than one.

Every step degrades with a reason rather than failing: with no chat endpoint the
run says so and still records what it could measure without a detector, and a
missing configuration directory is written from the current hunter prompt rather
than being an error. Artifacts are keyed by model throughout, so comparing a
second detector is a flag rather than a rewrite.

Both matrices are green and all three gate outputs stay byte-identical.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <[email protected]>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01T7XD7x5KonMdmGRkp63EQG
2026-09-06 12:06:16 +02:00
Marius CiepluchandClaude Opus 5 b8ad42c57e feat(learning-harness): publish every number from the artifacts that produced it
Task 3.8. A number in a roadmap that nobody can regenerate is a claim, not a
measurement. One entry point now writes them all from the committed artifacts
and puts the denominator beside each: how many pairs could be scored, why the
rest could not, which taxonomy version scored them, the noise the family shows
against itself, and what the run cost per pair it got right. Every table says
whether hierarchical partial credit could apply, which today it cannot.

The roadmap section is replaced in place between markers rather than appended,
so the file cannot accumulate a stale number beside a fresh one, and running the
command twice without new artifacts changes nothing. With no baseline recorded
it says so instead of printing an empty table.

The corrected mechanism-lever number travels with the rest: detected five of
seventeen at a negative Youden once only train-split pairs teach, against seven
when every pair taught, with the difference named as what holdout pairs stopped
teaching. Round zero now records what it spent so the cost column has a source.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <[email protected]>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01T7XD7x5KonMdmGRkp63EQG
2026-09-06 11:59:13 +02:00
Marius CiepluchandClaude Opus 5 b9552518b9 feat(learning-harness): one evolve round, end to end
Task 3.7. A round proposes one change for one family and then lets the evidence
decide whether it stays. The stages run cheapest first: a train minibatch, then
the family's held-out pairs, then every other family. Each stage scores several
runs per pair, and asking for fewer than three is refused outright, because a
single run misses most real changes.

The family directory is snapshotted before the change, so every outcome other
than acceptance leaves the tree exactly as it was found: a tie, a regression on
either side, another family below its floor, a proposal that reaches beyond its
directory, or a round that crosses its cost cap. Acceptance bumps only that
family's version and records which configuration won which pair.

Every outcome is journalled, including having no proposal at all, and the round
directory holds the proposal, the scores, the pair identities behind the
attribution counts and the detector trajectories, all redacted, so a round can
be replayed and its attribution audited rather than taken on trust. A round
number is never reused.

Recorded while writing the sweep: with per-family directories a change cannot
reach another family, so the sweep is a floor check over every other family at
the moment this round would land, not a causal claim about this change.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <[email protected]>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01T7XD7x5KonMdmGRkp63EQG
2026-09-06 11:52:16 +02:00
Marius CiepluchandClaude Opus 5 e8e6bafa61 feat(learning-harness): round zero and the per-family noise floor
Task 3.3. Before anything learns, every family gets the same detector and is
measured against itself. Running a pair several times at the same settings does
not give the same answer, because the chat provider offers no seed, so the
spread between runs is real and unavoidable. That spread is the family's noise
floor and it becomes the budget a later round must stay inside before a
cross-family change counts as a regression. Choosing a budget instead of
measuring one would be a guess dressed as a threshold.

A pair the corpus already marked unscorable is never run: spending model calls
on a row that cannot be scored buys nothing and would put its noise into a floor
where it does not belong.

Artifacts are keyed by detector model, so a second model is baselined by
changing the model and running again, and the comparison table reads both side
by side. A model swap never touches a configuration, which is what makes the two
numbers comparable and reconsidering the model cheap. The web slices are the
default selection and the memory-safety family is measured with its floor marked
as never gating a round.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <[email protected]>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01T7XD7x5KonMdmGRkp63EQG
2026-09-06 11:28:47 +02:00