{"task_id":"st_01a01334","status":"completed","residency_state":"evicted","parent_session_id":"01a00387-aaf8-7f2f-89e3-e24c1af24859","root_session_id":"01a00387-aaf8-7f2f-89e3-e24c1af24859","depth":1,"execution_mode":"in-process","model":"openai-codex/gpt-5.6-sol","notify_on_terminal":true,"created_at":"2026-08-18T04:50:08.970Z","updated_at":"2026-08-19T11:26:34.050Z","notification":{"run_epoch":0,"notified_epoch":0},"name":"clarification-policy-red-tests","task_summary":"Write failing clarification compiler tests","description":"Write failing clarification compiler tests","category":"deep","requested_model":{"provider":"openai-codex","model_id":"gpt-5.6-sol","display":"openai-codex/gpt-5.6-sol","source":"category","variant":"medium","reasoning_effort":"medium"},"fallback_models":[{"provider":"clinepass","model_id":"cline-pass/deepseek-v4-pro","display":"clinepass/cline-pass/deepseek-v4-pro","source":"category","variant":"medium","reasoning_effort":"medium"},{"provider":"clinepass","model_id":"cline-pass/glm-5.2","display":"clinepass/cline-pass/glm-5.2","source":"category","variant":"medium","reasoning_effort":"medium"}],"resolved_model":{"provider":"openai-codex","model_id":"gpt-5.6-sol","display":"GPT-5.6 Sol","source":"category","variant":"medium","reasoning_effort":"medium"},"spawn_spec":{"version":1,"cwd":"/home/cube/projects/richard/traning coach","prompt":"Goal: write RED tests only for the approved clarification root-fix and one-pass Golden Path policy. Do not edit production code. Sources: profile `/home/cube/.cache/task26-strict-successor-1786976146/src-p`; Hermes `/home/cube/projects/richard/hermes-agent`. Shared workspace: inspect status and preserve unrelated changes. No Git/plan/todo/live/evidence/service edits.\n\nDecision: do NOT introduce a new runtime-wide lifecycle authority. Existing domain authorities remain; implement later a deterministic 22-field compiler plus a hash-linked evidence graph. Provider output is advisory only and cannot create/select/order/persist/publish questions. Production and preview must use the same compiler result and render only committed records.\n\nAdd the smallest high-value failing tests at real seams. Required RED cases:\n1) Exact 22 natural Korean fixture from architecture review traverses Telegram `parse_answer` and profile collection to canonical values; equation phrase canonical male; compiler result expected zero issues/holds.\n2) Malicious reconciler proposes a question for every valid field: production persists/publishes zero and provider prose is absent.\n3) Same malicious output in preview: zero clarifications/provider question text absent; preview cannot bypass policy.\n4) Genuine ambiguous height `180 또는 185cm` yields exactly one schema-owned issue with stable issue_id, field, reason_code, fixed copy; provider text absent.\n5) Sensitive conditions/medications/pregnancy/eating-risk disclosures yield deterministic hold as contract requires, never a clarification.\n6) Revision of a later issue binds exact issue_id+field+answers_digest+reconciliation_digest; never QUESTION_FIELDS[0].\n7) Publication reloads the committed record; a transient provider object containing extra questions cannot surface.\n8) three-question display cap does not discard unresolved issues; recomputation after revision is complete/deterministic.\n\nUse behavioral machine-consumed assertions, never pin arbitrary provider prose. Preserve existing tests. Run focused tests and capture exact expected failures proving current v7 special-case is inadequate. If a case already passes, explain and keep only tests that fail for the intended missing mechanism. Return files, test names, commands, failures, and why each is a valid RED. Stop at RED; no production changes.\n\n<Category_Context name=\"deep\">\nYou are operating in DEEP mode. This is the category reserved for goal-oriented autonomous work on hairy problems that reward thorough exploration and comprehensive solutions.\n\nThe orchestrator chose this category because the task benefits from depth over speed. You should feel empowered to spend the time needed: five to fifteen minutes of silent exploration before the first edit is normal and correct. Rushing to implementation on a deep task is a failure mode, not a feature.\n\n# How deep mode adjusts the base behavior\n\n**Exploration budget: generous.** Read the files you need, trace dependencies both directions, fire 2-5 explore/librarian sub-agents in parallel for broader questions. Build a complete mental model before the first `apply_patch`. Exploration here is an investment, not overhead.\n\n**Goal, not plan.** You receive a GOAL describing the desired outcome. You figure out HOW to achieve it. The orchestrator deliberately did not hand you a step-by-step plan; producing one and asking for approval is not what was asked. Execute.\n\n**Atomic task treatment.** When the goal contains numbered steps or phases, treat them as sub-steps of ONE task and execute them all in this turn. Splitting them across turns is wrong unless they reveal an architectural blocker that requires the user's input. If the \"steps\" turn out to be genuinely independent tasks that should have been separate delegations, flag that in your final message and refuse the ones beyond scope.\n\n**Root cause bias.** Prefer root-cause fixes over symptom fixes. A null check around `foo()` is a symptom fix; fixing whatever causes `foo()` to return unexpected values is the root fix. Trace at least two levels up before settling on an answer. In deep mode, you have permission (and the expectation) to do the deeper fix.\n\n**Ambition scaled to context.** For brand-new greenfield work, be ambitious. Choose strong defaults, avoid AI-slop aesthetics, produce something you would be proud to hand to another senior engineer. For changes in an existing codebase, be surgical and respect the existing patterns; depth does not mean invasiveness.\n\n**Completion bar: full delivery.** \"Simplified version\", \"proof of concept\", and \"you can extend this later\" are not acceptable deliveries for a deep task. The orchestrator routed here specifically for a complete solution. If you hit a genuine blocker (missing secret, design decision only the user can make, three materially different attempts all failed), document it and return; otherwise, finish the task.\n\n**Status cadence: sparse.** The user is not on the other side of this conversation; the orchestrator is, and they will synthesize your progress. Send commentary only at meaningful phase transitions (starting exploration, starting implementation, starting verification, hitting a genuine blocker). Do not narrate every tool call; silence during focused work is expected.\n</Category_Context>"},"host_pid":1761519,"final_response":"I read this as completed RED-test delivery - I added only failing behavioral contracts and verified each failure maps to the missing root mechanism.\n\nAdded:\n\n- `tests/gateway/test_nutrition_onboarding_clarification_policy.py`\n\nEight tests, 11 pytest cases due to the four-way sensitive-input parameterization:\n\n1. `test_exact_natural_korean_fixture_compiles_without_issues_or_holds`\n2. `test_production_discards_provider_questions_for_valid_fields`\n3. `test_preview_cannot_publish_provider_questions_for_valid_fields`\n4. `test_ambiguous_height_creates_one_stable_schema_owned_issue`\n5. `test_sensitive_disclosure_creates_hold_never_clarification`\n6. `test_later_issue_revision_binds_issue_field_and_both_digests`\n7. `test_publication_reloads_committed_record_not_transient_provider_object`\n8. `test_display_cap_preserves_complete_issue_set_across_recomputation`\n\nFocused command:\n\n```bash\ncd /home/cube/projects/richard/hermes-agent\nPYTHONPATH=/home/cube/.cache/task26-strict-successor-1786976146/src-p \\\n  .venv/bin/pytest -q \\\n  tests/gateway/test_nutrition_onboarding_clarification_policy.py\n```\n\nResult: `11 failed in 0.33s`, all intended RED:\n\n- Natural Korean DOB remains raw instead of `1990-01-15`; the fixture also covers all 22 canonical values.\n- Production persists all 22 provider-authored questions.\n- Preview enters `clarifying` from malicious provider output.\n- Reconciliation records have no deterministic `issues` contract.\n- All four sensitive disclosures lack deterministic holds.\n- Later revision actually binds `date_of_birth` instead of the supplied `schedule_constraints` issue and digests.\n- Publication reads the committed record once and continues using the transient provider object.\n- Persistence rejects five issues with `at most three clarifications`, proving the display cap currently destroys the complete issue set.\n\nStatic verification passed:\n\n```text\nruff: All checks passed\npy_compile: passed\ngit diff --check: passed\n```\n\nNo production, profile, evidence, service, plan, todo, live-state, or Git metadata files were changed. Existing unrelated workspace changes were preserved. No requested case already passed, so all eight tests were retained.","run_stats":{"runtime_ms":282583,"turns":19,"tool_calls":51,"output_tokens":13670,"total_tokens":2064227,"generation_ms":271472,"tokens_per_second":50,"cost_usd":2.188773,"cache_hit_rate_last":0.9640077883521723,"cache_hit_rate_run":0.918353403489881}}