mirror of
https://github.com/norandom/OpenUltraSAST.git
synced 2026-10-17 12:09:27 +00:00
Marius CiepluchandClaude Opus 5
d9d6dfdbcf
Design approved in session. Every one of the 36 criteria is claimed by a task. Group 1 calls no model at all. The candidate enumerator, the ceiling report and the stop-or-go reading are offline, so the condition that ends this feature -- a deciding slice whose ceiling sits below its recorded detection rate -- is reachable before a cent is spent. The ruleset variant of this same design would have failed that condition at 12.1% against 64.9%. Group 2 is the only work that touches scoring.py, and its observable is that nothing changes: the recorded round-zero artifacts are the pin, and if they cannot be reproduced exactly then the refactor is wrong, not the numbers. Group 3 builds the detector, and task 3.3 is the test that would have caught the defect this spec exists for -- two runs must make an identical sequence of model calls. It lives in the suite and runs repeatedly, not in a one-off measurement. Group 4 is the maintainer's emphasis as code: deciding slices, development slices, the cross-slice rejection by name, and the overfitting gap printed beside every headline number. Group 5 compares the two detectors per slice, re-measures the trajectory count and the noise floor, and names -- without amending -- the learning-harness requirements that a collapsed floor would retire. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <[email protected]> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01T7XD7x5KonMdmGRkp63EQG
27 lines
1.4 KiB
JSON
27 lines
1.4 KiB
JSON
{
|
|
"feature_name": "constrained-detector",
|
|
"created_at": "2026-09-06T14:30:00Z",
|
|
"updated_at": "2026-09-06T17:00:00Z",
|
|
"language": "en",
|
|
"phase": "tasks",
|
|
"approvals": {
|
|
"requirements": {
|
|
"generated": true,
|
|
"approved": true
|
|
},
|
|
"design": {
|
|
"generated": true,
|
|
"approved": true
|
|
},
|
|
"tasks": {
|
|
"generated": true,
|
|
"approved": false
|
|
}
|
|
},
|
|
"ready_for_implementation": false,
|
|
"depends_on": [
|
|
"learning-harness"
|
|
],
|
|
"approval_note": "2026-09-06 brief drafted at the maintainer's direction ('I'd rather spend time to design the exact DSPy style interface and evolutionary / statistical prompt optimization than fixing piece by piece'). Not approved; requirements not generated.; 2026-09-06 renamed from detector-optimizer to constrained-detector after the trajectory measurement: the brief's own conclusion is that the optimiser is not the next thing to build, and the spec should be named for what it delivers; 2026-09-06 requirements generated at the maintainer's direction, with the maintainer's emphasis recorded as Requirement 3 ('don't forget the emphasis on the real world bugs from the larger projects to avoid overfitting. we otherwise benchmark for cases that are not relevant'); 2026-09-06 requirements approved by the maintainer in session ('approve the requirements and run the design phase'); 2026-09-06 design approved by the maintainer in session ('approve the design and generate the tasks')"
|
|
}
|