149 lines
6.4 KiB
Markdown
149 lines
6.4 KiB
Markdown
# The Inner Loop — Assimilate and Surpass
|
||
|
||
Status: **v0.1 draft** — becomes v1.0 only after surviving its first full
|
||
pass (CB-WP-0001-T09 retrospective).
|
||
|
||
Normative process for building every Clay-Borg capability. Referenced by
|
||
all workplans. The loop's own optimization target is **agentic efficiency**:
|
||
every artifact it produces must be small enough to load whole, structured
|
||
enough to act on without interpretation, and falsifiable enough that an
|
||
agent can judge its own work without a human in the iteration.
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
## The five steps
|
||
|
||
```text
|
||
1 RESEARCH → research/CB-RES-NNNN-<slug>.md (survey, baselines)
|
||
2 APPROVE → decision recorded in the ADR (gate: survey complete?)
|
||
3 DECIDE → decisions/ADR-NNNN-<slug>.md (assimilate/reimplement/hybrid)
|
||
4 SPECIFY → specs/<Capability>.md (contracts + acceptance metrics)
|
||
5 CODE LOOP → code + scenarios + benchmarks (iterate until metrics beat baseline)
|
||
```
|
||
|
||
**Hard gate: no implementation code for a capability exists before its ADR
|
||
(step 3) is committed.** Steps 1–3 may be compressed into one session for
|
||
small capabilities, but their artifacts are never skipped.
|
||
|
||
### Step 1 — Research
|
||
|
||
Identify the best implementation in existence for this capability. Produce
|
||
`research/CB-RES-NNNN-<slug>.md` following the survey template (below).
|
||
The survey is done when it can name, per dimension, a concrete
|
||
**benchmark-to-beat**: a number, a property, or a reproducible comparison —
|
||
not an impression.
|
||
|
||
### Step 2 — Approve
|
||
|
||
An explicit recorded judgment inside the ADR: the survey is complete, the
|
||
candidates were the right ones, the baselines are trustworthy enough to
|
||
measure against. If not approvable, the loop returns to step 1 with the
|
||
named gap. Approval is cheap to record and expensive to skip — it is the
|
||
point where "we looked at X" becomes contestable.
|
||
|
||
### Step 3 — Decide
|
||
|
||
`decisions/ADR-NNNN-<slug>.md`: assimilate behind a port, reimplement, or
|
||
hybrid — with the **expected advantage stated per dimension** (see rubric).
|
||
An honest "worse here, better there, and why that trade is right" beats a
|
||
claimed sweep of all four dimensions.
|
||
|
||
### Step 4 — Specify
|
||
|
||
`specs/<Capability>.md`: the contracts, invariants, and — mandatory — the
|
||
**acceptance metrics table**, each row tied to a baseline from step 1.
|
||
A spec without measurable acceptance criteria is not done. Metrics follow
|
||
the conventions in [MetricsAndScenarios.md](MetricsAndScenarios.md),
|
||
including the rule that metric selection itself passes through a mini
|
||
research step (metric provenance).
|
||
|
||
### Step 5 — Code loop
|
||
|
||
Implement iteratively. Each iteration:
|
||
|
||
```text
|
||
change → cb-check (fmt, clippy, tests) → scenarios → benchmarks
|
||
→ compare against acceptance table → evidence row appended
|
||
```
|
||
|
||
Done when every acceptance metric meets or beats its baseline and the
|
||
comparison numbers are committed as an evidence file
|
||
(`evidence/CB-EV-NNNN-<slug>.md`). A failed scenario must yield a replay
|
||
artifact an agent can re-execute locally.
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
## The four-dimension rubric
|
||
|
||
Every survey, ADR, and acceptance table is organized by these dimensions:
|
||
|
||
| Dimension | Question | Example measurable proxies |
|
||
|---|---|---|
|
||
| **D1 Ease of specification** | How simply can behavior be stated, tested, understood? | rules-to-scenario coverage %, spec lines per rule, time-to-first-correct-scenario for a fresh agent session |
|
||
| **D2 Efficiency of implementation** | How cheap to build and keep building? | source LOC, dependency count/weight, clean-build and incremental-build time, tokens-per-completed-task |
|
||
| **D3 Speed of execution** | How fast does it run? | benchmark wall-time vs baseline, events/sec, memory footprint, determinism overhead |
|
||
| **D4 Optionality** | How cleanly does it integrate, extend, get replaced? | public API surface size, count of leaked foreign types (must be 0), effort-to-swap measured by null/reference impl existence, WIT-expressibility |
|
||
|
||
Scoring is always **relative to the step-1 baseline**, never absolute:
|
||
`better / parity / worse / unmeasured` per proxy, with the number attached.
|
||
`unmeasured` is legal in a survey, illegal in an evidence file.
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
## Survey template (research/CB-RES-NNNN-<slug>.md)
|
||
|
||
```markdown
|
||
# CB-RES-NNNN: <capability>
|
||
capability: <canonical.capability.id>
|
||
status: draft | approved
|
||
|
||
## Candidates
|
||
Per candidate: origin, license, maturity, adoption; data model; mutation
|
||
mechanism; determinism/replay story; relevant performance (measured if
|
||
runnable locally, cited with source otherwise).
|
||
|
||
## Baselines (benchmark-to-beat)
|
||
| Dimension | Baseline holder | Metric | Value | Provenance |
|
||
(one row minimum per dimension; provenance = measured / cited / estimated)
|
||
|
||
## Verdict
|
||
Which candidate leads per dimension; what none of them do well
|
||
(the surpass opportunity); risks in the baselines themselves.
|
||
```
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
## Agentic-efficiency requirements
|
||
|
||
The loop exists to be driven by agents. Therefore:
|
||
|
||
1. **Whole-file loadability** — every loop artifact stays under ~400 lines;
|
||
split before exceeding, link with relative paths.
|
||
2. **Structured over prose** — tables and fenced blocks for anything a
|
||
later step must parse (baselines, acceptance metrics, evidence rows).
|
||
3. **One command surface** — all checks runnable through repo-root
|
||
commands (eventually `cb *`; until then, `make`/`cargo` aliases declared
|
||
in one place), each supporting deterministic, greppable output.
|
||
4. **Self-contained tasks** — a workplan task names its input artifacts and
|
||
output artifacts; a fresh session must be able to execute it from the
|
||
task text plus linked files alone.
|
||
5. **Evidence or it didn't happen** — claims of "better" live in committed
|
||
evidence files with numbers, never only in commit messages or chat.
|
||
6. **Token discipline** — per the global budget policy, a loop iteration
|
||
that exceeds its budget without measurable progress is stopped and
|
||
decomposed, not pushed through.
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
## Definition of done — one loop pass
|
||
|
||
A capability has completed the loop when all of the following are committed:
|
||
|
||
- [ ] research/CB-RES-NNNN with approved status and full baseline table
|
||
- [ ] decisions/ADR-NNNN with per-dimension expected advantage
|
||
- [ ] specs/<Capability>.md with acceptance-metrics table
|
||
- [ ] passing scenarios covering every numbered spec rule
|
||
- [ ] evidence/CB-EV-NNNN with final comparison vs baseline, no `unmeasured`
|
||
- [ ] retrospective note (may be one paragraph appended to the evidence
|
||
file): what the loop itself should change
|
||
```
|