{"task_id":"st_01a01361","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":"2026-08-18T05:38:14.754Z","updated_at":"2026-08-19T11:56:02.399Z","notification":{"run_epoch":1,"notified_epoch":1},"name":"customer-surface-receipt","task_summary":"Implement outbound customer surface receipt","description":"Implement outbound customer surface receipt","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: test-first implement a production redacted outbound customer-surface receipt at the actual Telegram customer transport boundary. Work only in `/home/cube/projects/richard/hermes-agent`; preserve unrelated changes. No live/services/profile dualcoachtest/Git/plan/todo/evidence. Use programming/debugging discipline.\n\nContract: after the real delivery claim is durably consumed and the fake/real Telegram transport returns a provider message ID, production can persist one private append-only surface receipt bound to delivery claim/idempotency key, customer route digest, provider message ID, approved canonical payload digest, UTF-16 length, redaction algorithm/version, redacted bytes digest, candidate/customer/draft/generation/approval/check-in bindings, and transport receipt digest. Raw customer text must not enter public evidence; receipt must allow an independent verifier with private fake transport log to reproduce redacted bytes/digest. Exactly-once/idempotent for same binding; conflicting duplicate fails; symlink/path/mode fail closed. It is corroboration, never delivery authority, and cannot create/advance sent state.\n\nFind the actual delivery receipt boundary and integrate minimally only after authoritative provider receipt; on receipt-write failure preserve truthful delivery state and report error without retrying provider transport. Add RED tests including wrong route/message/payload, duplicate/conflict, receipt failure after confirmed send, and private modes. Run focused/related delivery tests, ruff, ty, compileall and minimal fake adapter QA. Return files/counts/contract. Stop source-ready; do not edit harness scripts.\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 a reporting request - I’ll provide the exact paths and pytest command without edits.\n\n**Production files**\n- `/home/cube/projects/richard/hermes-agent/gateway/platforms/telegram_customer_surface_receipts.py`\n- `/home/cube/projects/richard/hermes-agent/gateway/platforms/nutrition_coaching.py`\n- `/home/cube/projects/richard/hermes-agent/gateway/platforms/telegram.py`\n\n**Test file**\n- `/home/cube/projects/richard/hermes-agent/tests/gateway/test_telegram_customer_surface_receipts.py`\n\n**Command that produced `49 passed`**\n```bash\ncd '/home/cube/projects/richard/hermes-agent' && .venv/bin/pytest -q tests/gateway/test_telegram_customer_surface_receipts.py tests/gateway/test_delivery.py tests/gateway/test_restart_redelivery_dedup.py tests/gateway/test_post_delivery_callback_chaining.py\n```","run_stats":{"runtime_ms":5685,"turns":1,"tool_calls":0,"output_tokens":197,"total_tokens":193533,"generation_ms":5339,"tokens_per_second":37,"cost_usd":0.10859,"cache_hit_rate_last":0.9930897504862002,"cache_hit_rate_run":0.9930897504862002}}