tegwick
b79ea9690d
Scope cut first, on the maintainer's decision after a spend review: the project is 38% product / 62% loop-meta, cost per response is 2.9x worse than its best window, and INTENT stage 0 still lacks a CLI player and bots. CB-WP-0005 and CB-WP-0006 cost ~$74 — 31% of all spend — for zero measured efficiency gain. T02 and T04 are cancelled unstarted. T01: SH-1/SH-2/SH-3 now report over the window since the last commit, and the cumulative figure is retained but labelled "history, NOT the metric". The prediction held decisively — window 655,744 mean context against cumulative 255,307, a 2.6x gap against a 20% refutation threshold. A cumulative mean over 1,094 responses cannot detect a worsening trend because the history outvotes the present. T03: `make shape-budget`, modelled on CB-01/CB-02. Soft thresholds are the existing SessionShape targets; hard is 1.5x, set before the next measurement per §Step 4. Deliberately not in `make all` — failing the build on context would block committing, and committing is what closes the attribution window and is the natural point to compact, so a gate that blocks the remedy is a trap. It fires HARD on its first run: 656,574 against a 300,000 ceiling. InnerLoop v1.5 establishes the soft 25% meta budget. Workplans declare kind: product|meta|mixed and `make status` reports the share; mixed splits 50/50 and says so. Soft on purpose — a task already started may be finished, because stopping mid-task to satisfy a ratio wastes the work. What it forbids is opening new meta work above the line. A pass that exceeds it must say so in its evidence and name the product work displaced. First reading: 68% OVER, of $74.22 attributed. Product reads $0.00 because the only product workplan, CB-WP-0001, predates qualified task ids and its bare T## labels collide across passes — stated in the output rather than papered over. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|---|---|---|
| .forgejo/workflows | ||
| benchmarks | ||
| crates | ||
| decisions | ||
| evidence | ||
| games/ground | ||
| history | ||
| research | ||
| scenarios | ||
| specs | ||
| tools | ||
| workplans | ||
| .custodian-brief.md | ||
| .gitignore | ||
| Cargo.lock | ||
| Cargo.toml | ||
| clippy.toml | ||
| facts.toml | ||
| INTENT.md | ||
| LICENSE | ||
| Makefile | ||
| README.md | ||
| rust-toolchain.toml | ||
| WORK-RECORDS.md | ||
clay-borg
A rebuild from scratch simulation and games engine framework set up to assimilate and optimize techniques and implementations useful for games, simulations, robotics.
Licensed under the Target Revenue Source License (TRSL V1C1) — see LICENSE; canonical text lives in the org's target-revenue repository.
Running the gates
make all # every gate, from a clean shell
make -C /path/to/clay-borg all # …or from any other directory
There is no environment setup step. No cd, no export PATH, no
activation script. make locates the repo from its own path and cargo
from the standard rustup locations; the Python tools do the same via
tools/repo.py. The only prerequisites are a rustup toolchain and Python
3.11+.
This is deliberate and enforced: make env-test runs every tool from /
with a PATH containing no cargo, and make all includes it. CB-RES-0003
measured 84 agent turns and $15.33 spent prefixing commands with cd and
export PATH before that friction was fixed at the root (CB-WP-0004 T01).
Other useful targets: make cost (spend per task), make cost-budget
(spend since the last commit), make cost-mix (mechanical vs judgment
turns), make loop-lint (executable InnerLoop rules), make self-tests
(every tool's positive control).
GROUND
The first product vertical is a virtual tabletop implementation of GROUND — A Game of Bonds and Rivalry: DARVO Edition. The boardgame itself (rules, editions, content) is at home in the sister repository ground-game — that repo is authoritative for what GROUND is; clay-borg implements the engine that runs it.