9b65adf388fe48902fde26ff1409bf8e4347e462
2 Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
 Jaroslav Beneš
|
a5fa982ae3 |
A ceiling for a chat, and a nudge for an agent that stops early
MAX_ROUNDS = 1 was wrong, and wrong in a way worth writing down. The loop already ends the moment a round comes back with no tool calls -- that is the model saying it has what it needs, and it is the termination condition every agentic harness uses. A round limit was never a schedule; it exists to catch the case where the model never says so. One is low enough to stop being a ceiling and start being a schedule: it overrode the model's judgement on every single turn. And it broke something concrete. Several built-ins are two-step pairs -- knowledge_get and notes_get read a document "by the id a search returned" -- so one round left the library searchable and not readable. That is not an edge case, it is the library working at half depth, and I understated it as "cannot search the web and then read a result" when the change went in. It is a setting now, under General, default 5, with 0 meaning no ceiling. The loop and the harness both read settings_store.chat_rounds, so the model is never told a budget that is not its own; tools.MAX_ROUNDS is the fallback for callers with no session and a test pins the two equal. core.rounds goes back to naming the number, and vanishes entirely when there is no ceiling rather than promising zero rounds. The other half of "let it decide how long to go": an agent reply that ends while its plan still has open tasks is asked once to carry on. Only against a plan, because that is the one thing there is to be objectively wrong about -- a model with no plan that says it has finished is believed, and arguing with it would be guessing. At most twice in a row, with the count reset the moment it calls a tool again, so the bound is on consecutive stops rather than on stops in total. Never in Plan mode and never past plan_submit, which ends the turn on purpose. Giving up is recorded as an event rather than left silent. The model's own words go back with the nudge, which turned up a real bug on the way: ReasoningSplitter holds back a few characters against a <think> tag split across chunks, so round_text at the end of a round was missing its tail. That text is echoed as an assistant turn for tool rounds too, so a model has been occasionally asked to continue from a transcript where it trailed off mid-sentence. Flushed per round now. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
Jaroslav Beneš
|
4b8fd6bad2 |
A plan it can see is a plan it can keep
Plan mode produced a flat list of steps and then forgot it. Nothing told the
model to look before proposing, nothing let it ask when the scope was
ambiguous, and -- worst -- once execution started the plan was not in the prompt
at all, so it could not have kept it current if it had wanted to.
The shape is findings, objectives and phases of tasks now. Findings are the part
people skip and the part that makes a plan worth reading: what is actually
there, what surprised you, what the plan is working around. Plan mode is told to
research first and to ask with ask_user when the scope is genuinely ambiguous,
in one question rather than three.
steps is still always written, flattened from every phase in order. That is the
whole of the compatibility story: execute_plan reads it and needed no change,
and every row already on disk still works. services/plans.py:normalise is the
only place that knows version 1 existed -- a {title, steps} row comes back as
one phase, so the card, the harness and the Execute button have one shape to
deal with rather than two.
Chat.plan_message_id is what puts the plan in front of the model each turn, with
one primary-key lookup rather than a scan for "the newest message carrying a
plan" -- context_variables is synchronous and sits on the request path.
plan_update is offered only once there is a plan, because a tool for changing
something that does not exist costs a round to find out.
It is RISK_READ, and that sits in tension with notes_edit being RISK_WRITE, so:
risk is what a tool does to the world, and the world the four modes govern is
the machine. This cannot touch it. RISK_WRITE would put an approval card on
screen every time a task was ticked off -- four cards to carry out a four-task
plan, each approving a bookkeeping entry -- which is exactly the interruption
batching exists to prevent. A note is a durable artefact of the reader's that
outlives the chat; this is the chat's own record of what it is doing, nearer to
generation.status. An administrator who disagrees puts it in deny_default.
One thing that nearly went wrong quietly. A runner cannot write the message row,
since _persist is the single writer -- so plan_update returns the merged plan on
its event and the loop carries it. Both calls in a round would then have read
the same stale plan from the database and the second would have won. They merge
into AgentContext.plan instead, the snapshot seeded once when the context is
resolved. Both tools write event["plan"] so _persist stays one writer with one
rule; only plan_submit sets plan_final, which is what withdraws the tools.
The card does not re-render in place. The newest bubble carries the current plan
and older ones carry the plan as it was then -- that is what a transcript is
for, it needs no streaming machinery, and it makes "what did it think at step
three" answerable.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
|