7ddf0e38ee386fcf321155691a308077b87f5aec
4 Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 9366ba7879 |
feat: length-aware reinforcement + batch triage CLI + off-host backup
- Reinforcement matcher now handles paragraph-length memories via a
dual-mode threshold: short memories keep the 70% overlap rule,
long memories (>15 stems) require 12 absolute overlaps AND 35%
fraction so organic paraphrase can still reinforce. Diagnosis:
every active memory stayed at reference_count=0 because 40-token
project summaries never hit 70% overlap on real responses.
- scripts/atocore_client.py gains batch-extract (fan out
/interactions/{id}/extract over recent interactions) and triage
(interactive promote/reject walker for the candidate queue),
matching the Phase 9 reflection-loop review flow without pulling
extraction into the capture hot path.
- deploy/dalidou/cron-backup.sh adds an optional off-host rsync step
gated on ATOCORE_BACKUP_RSYNC, fail-open when the target is offline
so a laptop being off at 03:00 UTC never reds the local backup.
- docs/next-steps.md records the retrieval-quality sweep: project
state surfaces, chunks are on-topic but broad, active memories
never reach the pack (reflection loop has no retrieval outlet yet).
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
|
|||
| b492f5f7b0 |
fix: schema init ordering, deploy.sh default, client BASE_URL docs
Three issues Dalidou Claude surfaced during the first real deploy
of commit
|
|||
| fad30d5461 |
feat(client): Phase 9 reflection loop surface in shared operator CLI
Codex's sequence step 3: finish the Phase 9 operator surface in the
shared client. The previous client version (0.1.0) covered stable
operations (project lifecycle, retrieval, context build, trusted
state, audit-query) but explicitly deferred capture/extract/queue/
promote/reject pending "exercised workflow". That deferral ran
into a bootstrap problem: real Claude Code sessions can't exercise
the Phase 9 loop without a usable client surface to drive it. This
commit ships the 8 missing subcommands so the next step (real
validation on Dalidou) is unblocked.
Bumps CLIENT_VERSION from 0.1.0 to 0.2.0 per the semver rules in
llm-client-integration.md (new subcommands = minor bump).
New subcommands in scripts/atocore_client.py
--------------------------------------------
| Subcommand | Endpoint |
|-----------------------|-------------------------------------------|
| capture | POST /interactions |
| extract | POST /interactions/{id}/extract |
| reinforce-interaction | POST /interactions/{id}/reinforce |
| list-interactions | GET /interactions |
| get-interaction | GET /interactions/{id} |
| queue | GET /memory?status=candidate |
| promote | POST /memory/{id}/promote |
| reject | POST /memory/{id}/reject |
Each follows the existing client style: positional arguments with
empty-string defaults for optional filters, truthy-string arguments
for booleans (matching the existing refresh-project pattern), JSON
output via print_json(), fail-open behavior inherited from
request().
capture accepts prompt + response + project + client + session_id +
reinforce as positionals, defaulting the client field to
"atocore-client" when omitted so every capture from the shared
client is identifiable in the interactions audit trail.
extract defaults to preview mode (persist=false). Pass "true" as
the second positional to create candidate memories.
list-interactions and queue build URL query strings with
url-encoded values and always include the limit, matching how the
existing context-build subcommand handles its parameters.
Security fix: ID-field URL encoding
-----------------------------------
The initial draft used urllib.parse.quote() with the default safe
set, which does NOT encode "/" because it's a reserved path
character. That's a security footgun on ID fields: passing
"promote mem/evil/action" would build /memory/mem/evil/action/promote
and hit a completely different endpoint than intended.
Fixed by passing safe="" to urllib.parse.quote() on every ID field
(interaction_id and memory_id). The tests cover this explicitly via
test_extract_url_encodes_interaction_id and test_promote_url_encodes_memory_id,
both of which would have failed with the default behavior.
Project names keep the default quote behavior because a project
name with a slash would already be broken elsewhere in the system
(ingest root resolution, file paths, etc).
tests/test_atocore_client.py (new, 18 tests, all green)
-------------------------------------------------------
A dedicated test file for the shared client that mocks the
request() helper and verifies each subcommand:
- calls the correct HTTP method and path
- builds the correct JSON body (or query string)
- passes the right subset of CLI arguments through
- URL-encodes ID fields so path traversal isn't possible
Tests are structured as unit tests (not integration tests) because
the API surface on the server side already has its own route tests
in test_api_storage.py and the Phase 9 specific files. These tests
are the wiring contract between CLI args and HTTP calls.
Test file highlights:
- capture: default values, custom client, reinforce=false
- extract: preview by default, persist=true opt-in, URL encoding
- reinforce-interaction: correct path construction
- list-interactions: no filters, single filter, full filter set
(including ISO 8601 since parameter with T separator and Z)
- get-interaction: fetch by id
- queue: always filters status=candidate, accepts memory_type
and project, coerces limit to int
- promote / reject: correct path + URL encoding
- test_phase9_full_loop_via_client_shape: end-to-end sequence
that drives capture -> extract preview -> extract persist ->
queue list -> promote -> reject through the shared client and
verifies the exact sequence of HTTP calls that would be made
These tests run in ~0.2s because they mock request() — no DB, no
Chroma, no HTTP. The fast feedback loop matters because the
client surface is what every agent integration eventually depends
on.
docs/architecture/llm-client-integration.md updates
---------------------------------------------------
- New "Phase 9 reflection loop (shipped after migration safety
work)" section under "What's in scope for the shared client
today" with the full 8-subcommand table and a note explaining
the bootstrap-problem rationale
- Removed the "Memory review queue and reflection loop" section
from "What's intentionally NOT in scope today"; backup admin
and engineering-entity commands remain the only deferred
families
- Renumbered the deferred-commands list (was 3 items, now 2)
- Open follow-ups updated: memory-review-subcommand item replaced
with "real-usage validation of the Phase 9 loop" as the next
concrete dependency
- TL;DR updated to list the reflection-loop subcommands
- Versioning note records the v0.1.0 -> v0.2.0 bump with the
subcommands included
Full suite: 215 passing (was 197), 1 warning. The +18 is
tests/test_atocore_client.py. Runtime unchanged because the new
tests don't touch the DB.
What this commit does NOT do
----------------------------
- Does NOT change the server-side endpoints. All 8 subcommands
call existing API routes that were shipped in Phase 9 Commits
A/B/C. This is purely a client-side wiring commit.
- Does NOT run the reflection loop against the live Dalidou
instance. That's the next concrete step and is explicitly
called out in the open-follow-ups section of the updated doc.
- Does NOT modify the Claude Code slash command. It still pulls
context only; the capture/extract/queue/promote companion
commands (e.g. /atocore-record-response) are deferred until the
capture workflow has been exercised in real use at least once.
- Does NOT refactor the OpenClaw helper. That's a cross-repo
change and remains a queued follow-up, now unblocked by the
shared client having the reflection-loop subcommands.
|
|||
| ceb129c7d1 | Add operator client and operations playbook |
