Root cause behind #41-#44: the framework verifies agent actions continuously and its own declarations never
还没有人认领这个 Issue。
评估
调研方向
Start by reading the six proposed changes and their cited entry points: agents/audit/audit.sh:3724, .context/working/.gitignore, the fw init templates, fw termlink dispatch, and fw doctor. The issue describes a broad architectural problem and several possible fixes, not a bounded first change; agree on scope with maintainers before proceeding. Done would mean implementing an agreed change that derives declarations where possible and validates irreducible cases at runtime.
由索引模型根据 Issue 内容生成。
描述
This is the cause behind #41, #42, #43 and #44
Those four were filed as separate defects over one day. They are not four defects. They are
four instances of one, and filing instances instead of the class is itself the mistake this
issue exists to correct.
The asymmetry
AEF gates agent behaviour at runtime, and does it well. P-002 on commands, G-020 on edits,
P-010/P-011 on completion, Tier 0 on destruction. Every action an agent takes passes a hook.
The framework's own output passes nothing. A template's cross-reference, a gitignore rule,
a hardcoded filter regex, a behavioural rule in CLAUDE.md, a deliverable a dispatch asks for,
the Mitigation: line an audit prints — each is asserted once and believed forever.
The agent is presumed unreliable and checked constantly. The framework is presumed correct
and checked never.
Every instance below has the same shape: a statement the framework makes about itself, written
in one context and consumed in another, that nothing re-evaluates at the point of use.
| # | The declaration | Where it was true |
|---|---|---|
| #41 | template: "See CLAUDE.md §AC Classification Guidance" | when someone intended to write that section |
| #42 | .gitignore names watchtower.{pid,port,url} |
as intent — not as mechanism; all three were already tracked, and a gitignore rule never untracks |
| #43 | CTL-013b's WARN text: stored verifications are decaying | of the mechanism the author imagined; the real one is a rotating cursor |
| #44 | CLAUDE.md: "ask the user before you continue" | in an interactive session |
| G-002 | handler prints fw fix-learned T-XXX |
if a task is focused — it just unfocused one |
| PL-033 | audit Mitigation: fields |
for a reader holding human authority |
The last row is independent evidence, not ours: it arrived on channel:learnings from project
100-Video-riper-and-translation-app at 2026-09-21T15:03:42Z, while we were diagnosing the
others. There, 18 of 26 audit findings prescribe actions an agent is structurally forbidden
to take (CTL-029 ×15 → task update --status work-completed, refused by the sovereignty
gate; D13 → fw inception sweep, which ticks a Human AC by design). That one is not a false
statement. It is a true statement addressed to somebody who is not reading it — same root,
different branch.
Why the audit cannot catch this
The audit measures compliance with declared rules. It cannot measure whether the declared
rules are true. It reported 14 WARNs, byte-identical across three orchestrated rounds, while
five real defects walked past it.
What actually caught them: an agent, incidentally, while doing something else. #41 because an
operator objected to a Human AC. #42 while tidying git status. #44 because a deliverable file
was absent. Zero were caught by fw doctor, fw audit or fw reviewer.
A stable audit is not evidence of health. It is evidence that the audit is measuring the things
that do not change.
The fix, and the trap in the fix
The obvious response is "add checks that the two artefacts agree". Please do not, or at
least not first — a check is itself a declaration, and it rots the same way. That is the same
defect one level up.
Derive, do not duplicate. Wherever a rule is stated twice, delete one and generate it from
the other. A check that two statements agree is strictly worse than having one statement.
Concretely, in rough order of leverage:
_SESSION_STATE_FILTER(agents/audit/audit.sh:3724) should be generated from
.context/working/.gitignore, not asserted to agree with it. Today two lists of volatile
paths exist in two languages in two files, must agree, and are never compared — which is why
the audit filtered the noise while the ignore rule that should have prevented it sat inert.- Ship the sections templates point at.
fw initshould emit
§AC Classification Guidance into the generatedCLAUDE.md, or generate the template's
pointer from the section that exists. Failing both, onefw doctorline: every
See CLAUDE.md §Xin a shipped template resolves. - Make execution context a fact, not an assumption.
fw termlink dispatchknows its worker
is headless;CLAUDE.mdcannot know and never will, because one file serves both. Inject the
context and let rules branch on it. This is #44, and it silently truncated a 3-cycle mandate
to one cycle atexit_code 0. --expect-artifact <path>on dispatch. A run whose promised deliverable is missing should
report incomplete, notstatus: done. This alone would have caught three separate instances
in our sequence automatically instead of relying on somebody noticing an absent file.- Audit mitigations should state the authority they require. Then an agent can tell which
findings are addressed to it — PL-033's finding, and the cheapest of these to implement. - One
fw doctorline for the general case: no tracked path matches an ignore rule
(git ls-files | git check-ignore --stdin --no-indexmust be empty). That is #42 generalised.
Where derivation is genuinely impossible, the check belongs in fw doctor — never in a
task's Verification block. A task closes and takes its check with it.
Environment
- Framework 1.6.769, shared-tooling mode, project
1409-sprind - Registered locally as concern G-003 (
high, watching) with all six instances - Instance issues: #41, #42, #43, #44
- 主要语言
- Shell
- 星标
- 16
- 派生
- 6
- 平均合并
- 6 小时 24 分钟
- 30 天内合并 PR
- 5
环境准备
- 提供 Dockerfile 或 Docker Compose 文件
- 没有 Pull Request 模板
- 阅读贡献指南
从这里开始
- 先读完整个 Issue,再读项目的贡献指南。
- 在 Issue 下留言说明你要接手 —— 这能避免两个人做同样的事。
- Fork 仓库,在一个分支上完成修改。
- 提交 Pull Request,并在描述里引用这个 Issue 编号。
DimitriGeelen/agentic-engineering-framework 的其他 Issue
-
area:cli bug severity:low status:fixed-on-bleeding-edge triaged
难度 2/5 1-3 小时 新手友好度 75/100
DimitriGeelen/agentic-engineering-framework#100 · 5 条评论 ·
-
area:cli bug severity:medium status:fixed-on-bleeding-edge triaged
难度 2/5 1-3 小时 新手友好度 76/100
DimitriGeelen/agentic-engineering-framework#97 · 5 条评论 ·
-
area:context bug severity:low status:fixed-on-bleeding-edge triaged
难度 2/5 1-3 小时 新手友好度 76/100
DimitriGeelen/agentic-engineering-framework#96 · 5 条评论 ·
-
area:docs bug severity:medium status:in-progress triaged
难度 2/5 1-3 小时 新手友好度 78/100
DimitriGeelen/agentic-engineering-framework#95 · 4 条评论 ·
-
难度 2/5 1-3 小时 新手友好度 64/100
查看 DimitriGeelen/agentic-engineering-framework 的全部 Issue
相似的 Issue
-
patch: moving an executable script removes its executable bit可能已有人在做 @chenyb999-zhcn 今天认领。 未关闭reproduced
难度 2/5 1-3 小时 新手友好度 78/100
anomalyco/opencode#58651 · 2 条评论 ·
维护者通常 1 天内回复
-
`ODK_RESOURCES_DIR` not set when `ODK_USER_ID` is 0 or unset可能已有人在做 @gouttegd 今天认领。 未关闭
难度 2/5 1-3 小时 新手友好度 78/100
INCATools/ontology-development-kit#1390 · 已指派 1 人 ·
-
使用脚本 DD 腾讯云 报错未关闭
难度 2/5 1-3 小时 新手友好度 82/100
-
evals: run-validity calls runs VALID when every Bash call failed to start the sandbox (long TMPDIR)未关闭priority: medium status: needs-decision work-class: scoped
难度 2/5 1-3 小时 新手友好度 72/100
melodic-software/claude-code-plugins#9611 · 2 条评论 ·
维护者通常 1 天内回复