{"task_id":"st_01a05929","status":"completed","residency_state":"resident","parent_session_id":"01a04e1a-4e0a-7c69-845d-0b5d1e71f82d","root_session_id":"01a04e1a-4e0a-7c69-845d-0b5d1e71f82d","depth":1,"execution_mode":"in-process","model":"openai-codex/gpt-5.6-sol","notify_on_terminal":true,"created_at":"2026-08-31T18:51:55.079Z","updated_at":"2026-08-31T19:09:18.167Z","notification":{"run_epoch":1,"notified_epoch":1},"name":"verify-wave2-stepper","task_summary":"Verify durable stepper state machine","description":"Adversarially verify Todo 4 stepper","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":"TASK: Independently adversarially verify approved plan Todo 4; you did not implement it. DELIVERABLE: Write `/home/cube/projects/richard/traning coach/.omo/evidence/nutricoach-telegram-checkin-stepper/task-4-adversarial-verify.json` and return AdversarialVerify JSON with verdict/confidence/evidence/repro. SCOPE: Read Todo 4 plan, task-4 implementation evidence, actual new `gateway/platforms/telegram_physique_checkin_stepper.py`, dedicated tests, and unchanged Wave 1 bridge/binding contracts. Do not edit product/tests. VERIFY: hash-match files; inspect typed ingress/transport/outcome contracts, all six phases and legal transitions, lock-free network boundary, no customer data persistence, ingress-terminal unknown/failure with recoverable UI, exactly one happy transport call and zero automatic sends after pre-call failure/rejection/uncertainty/restart/expiry/corruption. Independently run 23+ dedicated tests and Wave 1 profile/projection/card/UX/bridge/coaching regression matrix. Fault-probe duplicate before commit, crash after commit, pre-call failure, definite rejection, send-started without receipt, delivered receipt, restart each phase, explicit resume observation-only, stale callback, typed observation after uncertainty, terminal save receipt failure without domain rollback/duplicate, expiry, corrupt/conflicting state. MANUAL QA: create isolated `/tmp/ulw-verify-task4.py`, run actual stepper with fake transport/TemporaryDirectory, require JSON status PASS/happy_sends1/automatic_recovery_sends0/no customer data; delete and prove absent. Run LSP/Ruff/ty/basedpyright/compile on strict new module/test. ADVERSARIAL: malformed input, stale state, dirty hash inventory, misleading output, deterministic/flaky, cancel/resume, repeated interruptions; N/A reasons for prompt injection/hung network. No commit/network/customer messages. STOP WHEN: every criterion is independently confirmed or one reproducible blocker is found.\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":1353625,"final_response":"I read this as a completed delta-only verification - both strict typing blockers are closed with no regressions.\n\n{\"verdict\":\"confirmed\",\"confidence\":0.99,\"blocker_count\":0,\"evidence_path\":\"/home/cube/projects/richard/traning coach/.omo/evidence/nutricoach-telegram-checkin-stepper/task-4-adversarial-verify.json\",\"evidence_sha256\":\"df4c1625d8c8cfc992acc02462367c15c44570cd0a036ebb2f4df988aebe6eb2\",\"ty\":\"PASS\",\"basedpyright\":\"PASS: 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 notes\",\"dedicated\":\"23 passed\",\"combined\":\"303 passed\",\"production_hash_unchanged\":true,\"manual_evidence_valid\":true}","run_stats":{"runtime_ms":225507,"turns":7,"tool_calls":15,"output_tokens":4935,"input_tokens":14754,"cache_read_tokens":689664,"total_tokens":709353,"generation_ms":185814,"tokens_per_second":27,"cost_usd":0.566652,"cache_hit_rate_last":0.9893296020255671,"cache_hit_rate_run":0.9790550497006039,"token_status":"complete","cost_status":"reported","duration_status":"monotonic"},"task_seq":39,"config_generation":0,"background_mode":"background"}