Repository navigation
Conversation
jefft72
requested review from
Issacboy123 and
Pepps233
and removed request for
Issacboy123
August 16, 2026 00:11
Issacboy123
force-pushed
the
stack/native-plan-07-accepted-routing
branch
from
August 16, 2026 03:14
4a1a26f to
6d95aa3
Compare
Route accepted plan continuations through classified harnesses while preserving single-owner runtime activation.
Pepps233
force-pushed
the
stack/native-plan-07-accepted-routing
branch
from
August 16, 2026 04:05
6d95aa3 to
8787f45
Compare
Contributor
Author
|
Closing to rebuild on a clean base. This stack does not build. Two separate defects are present, and the first masks the second:
Replacement stacks:
The branch behind this PR is retained unchanged as a backup. |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Summary
Routes accepted plans through a dedicated one-time classifier that can retain the active harness, reuse an evolved harness, select an immutable base profile, or ask the host to resolve a genuine profile-policy ambiguity.
The implementation fails closed on malformed, unavailable, or low-confidence routing results and keeps the accepted continuation available for retry when routing or runtime activation does not complete safely.
Reasoning
The implementation profile must be chosen from the accepted plan itself rather than from the synthetic continuation wrapper, because the plan contains the actual outcome, constraints, and safety implications that should govern execution.
Accepted-plan routing is also more consequential than ordinary task classification because it can change tool access, guardrails, the active harness, and the runtime that will perform the work.
Some plans materially span multiple specialized profiles whose safeguards and tool policies differ, so silently choosing one would discard a user-relevant tradeoff.
The routing contract therefore exposes a bounded, immutable selection proposal to the host while revalidating continuation ownership around every asynchronous decision and activation boundary.
Changes
stay,reuse,select,ambiguous, andunresolvedoutcomes, including confidence thresholds, exact active-harness checks, harness-to-profile consistency, and fail-closed fallbacks for completion errors or invalid output.staydecision, reuses existing evolved harnesses only when their immutable base profile still exists, and otherwise creates a task-scoped descriptor for the selected profile.stayvalidation, completion errors, and replacement-safe descriptor cleanup.Testing
npm run checkpassed.