mirror of
https://github.com/norandom/OpenUltraSAST.git
synced 2026-10-18 04:29:27 +00:00
Marius CiepluchandClaude Opus 5
bccc89be52
**Amendments approved and folded into the numbered requirements** rather than left as a proposal appended to the file: - Req 5.5 — a report proportionate to the evidence behind a finding. A rule whose only evidence is a text match is summarised past a stated number of sites; a finding a proposer reasoned about keeps its detail whatever its rung; nothing leaves findings.json, which is the record a baseline is compared against. - Req 5.6 — a family that cannot decide a class states the limit, and no scan presents an absence of findings as evidence of absence. - Req 4.6 — at least one pinned checkout carries a vulnerability a family can decide in principle, so a scan producing nothing is distinguishable from an engine that cannot see. Each carries the evidence that produced it, and the amendment record keeps what group 2 confirmed rather than changed: Req 8's overfitting warning earned its place twice, Req 3.3's honesty counters made an invisible failure visible, and Req 11.2's gates held through all nine defect fixes. Req 5.5 is half implemented. Task 2.11 made pattern matches proportionate; task 2.17 now carries the model layer's own suspicion band, which is 38 of vampi's 60 findings and is an enumerated candidate the graph could NOT decide with a judge's opinion attached -- a pattern match with an opinion, not a reasoned claim, and weaker evidence than the obligations checker's structural output. **finding-feedback-loop requirements generated**, seven of them: a dismissal file the developer owns and the tool never writes, rejecting one without a reason because a suppression list without reasons is a graveyard nobody can audit; a counter-example ledger whose entries are runnable regression cases, grouped by shared cause so a recurring bug is visible as one; a model that proposes a cause into a review queue and decides nothing, validated by reverting the three known matcher fixes and measuring what it recovers; dismissals plus a recipe's known vulnerabilities as one split evaluation set with the holdout unread and asserted; evolution scoped to the judge and residual questions with the fact tables off limits to any automated means; an adoption that reports what it traded and reverts itself when net-negative; and the loop inheriting the corpus blind spot, so its evidence base is repositories and it states how few it has. Phase: requirements, generated, not approved. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <[email protected]> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01T7XD7x5KonMdmGRkp63EQG
27 lines
2.2 KiB
JSON
27 lines
2.2 KiB
JSON
{
|
|
"feature_name": "finding-feedback-loop",
|
|
"created_at": "2026-09-09T12:00:00Z",
|
|
"updated_at": "2026-09-09T12:30:00Z",
|
|
"language": "en",
|
|
"phase": "requirements",
|
|
"approvals": {
|
|
"requirements": {
|
|
"generated": true,
|
|
"approved": false
|
|
},
|
|
"design": {
|
|
"generated": false,
|
|
"approved": false
|
|
},
|
|
"tasks": {
|
|
"generated": false,
|
|
"approved": false
|
|
}
|
|
},
|
|
"ready_for_implementation": false,
|
|
"depends_on": [
|
|
"contributor-scan"
|
|
],
|
|
"approval_note": "2026-09-09 brief drafted. Scope lifted out of contributor-scan, where two task groups (a counter-example ledger and per-repository evolutionary prompting) had been appended directly to tasks.md without passing requirements or design -- a workflow error, and they are a separate feature rather than a refinement of scan integration. Prompted by the maintainer asking for GEPA/SIMBA-style evolution with declarative persistent per-repository state so developers can commit dismissals and evolve the harness. The design boundary is that an optimiser may evolve the QUESTION (judge and residual prompts) and never the FACTS (tables, rulesets, declared policy), because the closed-loop leak measured 2026-09-05 turned a -0.059 holdout Youden into +0.059 by teaching from the pairs it then recovered. Not approved; requirements not generated. ; 2026-09-09 requirements generated at the maintainer's direction ('approve the amendments and generate the requirements for finding-feedback-loop'). Seven requirements: a dismissal file the developer owns and the tool never writes; a counter-example ledger whose entries are runnable regression cases grouped by shared cause; a model that proposes a cause into a review queue and decides nothing, validated by reverting the three known matcher fixes; dismissals plus recipe vulnerabilities as one split evaluation set with the holdout unread; evolution scoped to the judge and residual questions with the fact tables off limits by any automated means; an adoption that reports what it traded and reverts itself when net-negative; and the loop inheriting the corpus blind spot, so its evidence base is repositories and it says how few of them there are. Not approved."
|
|
}
|