Rifqi Hafizuddin
[NOTICKET] planner: exhaustion refuses instead of crashing, + the dry-run findings log
59715a0
|
Raw History Blame
7.39 kB

Docs index

βœ… LIVE β€” the map. Reorganised 2026-08-24. Every doc in this repo carries a status banner under its H1; read it before trusting the body.

Status legend: βœ… LIVE (canonical) Β· πŸ”„ LIVE PLAN (in flight) Β· πŸ’‘ PROPOSAL (not approved) Β· β›” ARCHIVED (superseded, kept for the record) Β· πŸ“Ž REFERENCE (another repo's, can drift)


Start here β€” repo root

The root deliberately holds only four docs. If you read nothing else, read the first three.

Doc Status Is
../REPO_STATUS.md βœ… What is built. Canonical current state
../DEV_PLAN.md βœ… What is in flight. Sprint plan, task table, locked decisions
../API_CONTRACT_BE_PYTHON.md βœ… The contract of record for the FE-facing surface
../README.md β€” HuggingFace Space card. The YAML frontmatter is load-bearing for deployment β€” don't restructure it

CLAUDE.md also sits in the root but is gitignored (local operating manual, not shipped).

Trust order when sources disagree: code > REPO_STATUS / DEV_PLAN > everything else.


knowledge/ β€” the knowledge-pipeline workstream

Client documents β†’ candidate knowledge entries an expert reviews rather than authors. Two halves (parsing, Sofhia Β· extraction, Rifqi) meeting at one versioned artifact.

Doc Status Read it when
knowledge/knowledge_pipeline_context.md πŸ”„ You need the why β€” ownership split, settled decisions, what not to reopen
knowledge/KNOWLEDGE_PIPELINE_TODO.md πŸ”„ You want per-task status and owners. Start here
knowledge/KNOWLEDGE_PIPELINE_CALIBRATION.md πŸ”„ Before changing any constant. Every tuned value with the reason it has that value
knowledge/KNOWLEDGE_PARSING_OUTPUT_CONTRACT.md πŸ”„ You're working either side of the seam
knowledge/KNOWLEDGE_SURFACE_PLAN.md πŸ”„ Persistence + endpoints: who owns what, phased tasks, blockers. Approved 2026-09-01
knowledge/KNOWLEDGE_CONSUMPTION_PLAN.md πŸ’‘ How agents READ the entries (N14). Which agent gets what, and why. Proposal, nothing built
knowledge/TABLE_BRANCH_PROPOSAL.md πŸ’‘ Step 8 β€” the symptom x cause matrix a shop manual actually holds. Deterministic triples, LLM only to phrase. Proposal, nothing built
knowledge/TERM_HIERARCHY_PROPOSAL.md πŸ’‘ Step 7 + R7 β€” parent/child terms and cross-document identity, designed together. Touches entity_id; read before building
knowledge/KNOWLEDGE_DOMAIN_CONTEXT_V4.md πŸ’‘ What a real domain context is. v3's object is a document brief wearing the name. Proposal, nothing built
knowledge/KNOWLEDGE_PERSISTENCE_CONTRACT.md πŸ’‘ The four-table DDL sent to Harry 2026-09-01. Pending β€” no ORM written against it yet
knowledge/KNOWLEDGE_DOMAIN_CONTEXT_V3.md βœ… DomainContext design reasoning. Shipped in full 2026-09-02 β€” the live shape is the output contract Β§8

Roll-up status: DEV_PLAN Β§0.8 Β· built state: REPO_STATUS Β§14 Β· eval harness: ../eval/knowledge/README.md


plans/ β€” design plans

Doc Status Note
plans/SPINE_V2_PLAN.md πŸ”„ Approved 2026-07-13; W2+W1 shipped. W3 deferred β€” do not start. Holds the message_charts DDL (Β§4.4)
plans/DS_TOOLS_PLAN.md πŸ’‘ Design study only. Nothing was built from it; don't implement without sign-off

tools/ β€” the analytical-tools workstream

The analyze_* tool surface: forecast, importance, anomaly, cluster, A/B testing, segmentation, pareto. Tools are pure functions, no base class β€” the "framework" is spec_builder + ml/executor + the shared chart kit.

Doc Status Read it when
tools/ANALYTICAL_TOOLS_CONVENTIONS.md βœ… Before writing any tool. The InputModel β†’ ToolSpec flow, the auto-chart convention, run_fit, the three registrations, and the rules that aren't negotiable

Roll-up status: DEV_PLAN Β§0.9 Β· built state: REPO_STATUS Β§9 Β· chart envelope: plans/SPINE_V2_PLAN.md Β§4.2


testing/ β€” what running the thing actually found

End-to-end dry-runs of the structured_flow path against real sources. These runs are expensive (~170k-290k tokens each) and found twelve bugs that 881 passing unit tests did not, because each was an interaction between the model's choices and a real data shape.

Doc Status Read it when
testing/AGENTIC_DRY_RUN_LOG.md πŸ“Ž Before running a dry-run (it costs real money, and Β§6 halves it), and before assuming a green run means a working turn β€” seven of the twelve bugs produced a confident WRONG answer rather than an error

Suites + shapes: eval/chat_sim/run_chat.py Β· per-run answers: eval/chat_sim/results/


archive/ β€” superseded, kept for the record

Nothing here is safe to implement from. Each says what replaced it.

Doc Superseded by
archive/API_ENDPOINTS_RESTRUCTURE.md ../API_CONTRACT_BE_PYTHON.md. The frozen 2026-06-30 snapshot sent to Harry; says "observability" (now traceability) and cites the removed ENABLE_SLOW_PATH
archive/CODE_REVIEW_2026-07-23.md DEV_PLAN Β§0.7 for live F-n status. The review body still explains why each fix exists
archive/PROJECT_BRD.md REPO_STATUS (built state) + API_CONTRACT_BE_PYTHON (contract). Written against pr/4

reference/ β€” other repos

Doc Note
reference/API_CONTRACT_BE_GOLANG.md The Go Orchestrator's contract. We don't edit that repo; this is a copy and can drift. Verify against the Go source before relying on it. Last synced 2026-07-01

Subsystem docs (live beside the code)

src/*/README.md β€” catalog Β· knowledge_parsing Β· query Β· retrieval Β· security. eval/*/README.md β€” chat_sim Β· help Β· intent Β· knowledge Β· planner Β· readiness.

Eval READMEs are reliable; follow their run and commit conventions exactly. Subsystem READMEs can lag β€” code wins.


Conventions

  • Every doc gets a status banner under its H1, marked <!-- doc-status -->. New docs too.
  • Archive, don't delete. A deleted doc leaves a dead link and no explanation; an archived one says what replaced it. (Repo convention: deletion needs Rifqi's explicit sign-off.)
  • Docs are part of the change β€” a behaviour, surface or schema change updates the affected doc in the same unit of work.