RFC: capable manager and semantic work handoff / 强能力管家与语义工作交接

[huangruiteng]

Manager conversations currently constrain investigation and lose meaning across handoffs. This bilingual RFC proposes a capable host manager using ordinary tools, plus semantic work requests that preserve intent, decisions, evidence, receiver-owned replanning and automatic return. It permits a cohesive TypeScript refactor while retaining existing work-state authority.

管家应具备充分的本机调查能力，交接应延续工作语义。本双语 RFC 融合强智能管家、通用语义交接与长程目标推进，并同步修正共享权威、共享目标对齐/修订、TS 迁移三篇 RFC 和目录的实现状态与执行依赖。

• Long-horizon / 长程： distinguish availability from Goal/Vision/Todo/evidence-driven continuation, with replacement-session and actual cross-day acceptance.
• Grok Bot study / 竞品印照： official product/deployment documentation informs selected tool, collaboration and recovery patterns. No authenticated trial, hidden runtime implementation or comparative performance is claimed.
• Four contracts / 四份契约： manager owns the exchange; alignment owns intent-change legality and future qualified amendment commits; shared authority owns reviewed work-state transactions; TS migration owns complete transaction replacement and old-rule retirement. Raw chats, briefs and transport state do not enter the coordination head.
• Verified status / 实现状态： alignment Stage 1/2 reader and proposal admission exist, with no canonical amendment effect. Shared authority has real foundations and merged SQLite candidate feat(coordination): add opt-in SQLite authority provider #4121, without provider promotion. Correct the TS lease-fence reference to merged fix(todos): support lease-fenced canonical text and note updates #4152. Source checkpoint: 7eb4b7bb1661bd5eff63a8725a33169792d5964b; rebased to 6b337bcbde8457bc3268ec7d2780367ace3c6147, preserving merged refactor(coordination): unify command recovery and isolate archive transactions #4286 recovery/conformance documentation and naming that owner as reusable M2 foundation.
• Execution / 执行： M1 host capabilities and independent reply recovery proceed now; M2 replaces a complete request transaction and qualifies manager→worker plus worker→worker; M3 closes automatic return/frontends; M4 promotes a named cohort. A1–A16 cover continuation, artifacts, selected authority sources, crash reconciliation and amendment boundaries. Storage promotion and Stage 3 amendment commits retain separate qualification requirements.
• feat(todos): explicit revision-guarded cross-agent session continuation (Stage A) #4094 integration / 显式接续整合： New §5.13 maps shipped rich/legacy continuation notes into semantic context and retains typed Todo transfer authority. Receiver assessment is distinct from ownership adoption; current notes can expire/be replaced. The existing CLI becomes the worker→worker adapter only after shared request/result/return qualification. Its bilingual Stage A RFC and index now link the successor; frontend/Lark/automatic continuation remain explicit M2/M3 work.
• Existing work / 既有工作： fix(manager): read repository evidence before handoff #4306 is closed as the superseded approach; its user issue remains an acceptance obligation. fix(scheduler): dispatch stranded peer handoffs #4312 remains migration input. Extend existing engineering Todos rather than creating a parallel task ledger.

Validation / 验证：

• examples/docs-governance-smoke.py passed with repository Python.
• New relative links, reciprocal language links, manager section/A1–A16 parity, public-diff private-marker review and git diff --check passed.
• Independent Luna/max cross-RFC review; corrected admission-versus-consultation wording, work-effect qualification, future commit-owner naming and TS review-artifact definition.
• Public documentation only. No runtime/frontend/Lark implementation change or completed end-to-end acceptance is claimed. Entry points and companion work are explicit implementation milestones.

RFC remains under review; do not self-merge. 本 PR 保持待审阅，不自合并。

[huangruiteng]

可以提个pr | | huangrt01 | | ***@***.*** | ---- 回复的原邮件 ---- | 发件人 | ***@***.***> | | 发送日期 | 2026年09月13日 20:39 | | 收件人 | ***@***.***> | | 抄送人 | huangruiteng ***@***.***>, Mention ***@***.***> | | 主题 | Re: [huangruiteng/loopx] RFC: capable manager and semantic work handoff / 强能力管家与语义工作交接 (PR #4330) | Duang777 left a comment (loopx-project/loopx#4330) @huangruiteng Thanks for the detailed RFC. A post-merge independent review of f72bdd1 found five contract gaps that should be corrected before M1/M2 implementation; the Chinese mirror carries the same clauses. P1: late work receipts cannot be reconciled after a request revision advances. The minimum Observation has no dispatch/effect-attempt reference, yet every observation is CAS-bound to the request revision (§5.10). If r1 commits a Todo or external effect, a correction/cancellation advances the request to r2, and recovery then links the r1 receipt as required by §5.12, the CAS rejects the proof; rebinding it to r2 misattributes the old effect. Define an independently versioned dispatch/effect relation that can append proof against immutable r1 after the request head advances. Use request-head CAS to authorize new effects, not to reject evidence for effects already committed. P1: effectful pre-Todo reassignment has no execution fence. Pre-Todo work is legal and delegation does not claim a Todo (§5.2 and §5.6, §5.6), while reassignment only preserves an existing execution claim. A slow worker A and reassigned worker B can therefore execute the same semantic external effect under different effect-intent IDs. Add a request-level exclusive execution-attempt fence for effectful delegation, or require acknowledged cancellation/expiry of A before B can execute; consultation can remain multi-recipient. P1: the manager RFC overstates the Stage 3 amendment authority.§5.12 routes objective, acceptance, non-goal, permission and stop-condition changes to the qualified Stage 3 owner. The alignment RFC says the first Stage 3 class is only an intent-preserving work-graph amendment and that acceptance/operational-objective changes require a separately reviewed policy/verifier (§9.1 and Stage 3). State that each amendment class needs its own qualified commit owner; the initial Stage 3 slice cannot authorize the broader classes. P1: a request-derived amendment can commit after its source request is corrected or cancelled. The integration admits request-derived proposals (alignment §9.1), but the proposed commit checks only proposal/Goal policy and base (commit flow). If r2 supersedes or cancels r1 while its Goal base is still current, the old proposal can still change canonical intent. Bind request-derived proposal lifecycle to the source request revision, CAS revocation/supersession against commit, and add a combined A7+A16 race case. P2: several acceptance rows can pass without proving the advertised capability. A3 can pass with reads only, so M1 can satisfy A1-A3/A12 while the manager remains planning-only; add one reversible non-Core host mutation with readback and revocation before execution. The security rule that untrusted repo/web text cannot alter grants or instructions (§7) has no adversarial acceptance case despite M1 expanding shell/web/tool access. A14 also permits a no-read reason in the only cross-host artifact journey, so an implementation with no successful remote artifact retrieval can pass; split positive retrieval/use from denied/unavailable negative cases. Finally, A6 should require the same identity construction and invariants, not the same ID across manager→worker and worker→worker origins (A1-A16). The documentation governance smoke, local-link checks and git diff --check pass. The next step is a follow-up RFC correction that closes these identities/fences and makes the positive and negative acceptance cases explicit before implementation treats A1-A16 as promotion gates. — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or unsubscribe. You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: ***@***.***>

[huangruiteng]

Implementation reconciliation / 实现线对齐

The open implementation queue has been reconciled to this RFC and the pending cross-session amendment #4344:

• fix(scheduler): dispatch stranded peer handoffs #4312 was closed as superseded. Its same-Goal, pre-existing-Todo and manager_context inbox constraints are retained only as M2 migration/characterization fixtures.
• feat(manager): deliver RFC M1 private-owner host profile #4337 was rebased and narrowed to private-owner M1. External Lark audiences no longer inherit trusted host tools without an existing scoped audience/resource grant.
• fix(lark): preserve context without granting Turn authority #4319 was rebased and narrowed to an early M3/A10 Lark Observation adapter. Historical mentions no longer re-enter live attention/reply authority; durable context retention remains an explicit gate.
• refactor(coordination): unify canonical handoff mode authority and recovery #4304, fix(quota): preserve action and monitor receipt identities #4335 and fix(quota): recover host turns from exact Todo lifecycle reads #4342 remain separate Todo/quota/authority transaction fixes. They do not own WorkRequest/SemanticContext/Assessment/Result and are not being closed merely because their names mention handoff or host Turns.
• Existing canonical M2 and M3 Todos now include the RFC: cross-session restoration and semantic handoff / 跨会话续接与语义交接 #4344 ordering and A13/A17-A20 obligations: no-provider same-Agent session replacement with real fencing; feat(todos): explicit revision-guarded cross-agent session continuation (Stage A) #4094-based cross-Agent reassessment/transfer and original-path return; optional agent-turn-recall only after separate qualification.

No runtime/permission/authority PR was self-merged during this reconciliation.

[huangruiteng]

Post-#4344 implementation reconciliation / #4344 合入后的实现对齐：

• Main baseline is now f4d7c9d; A17-A20 are canonical.
• fix(scheduler): dispatch stranded peer handoffs #4312 remains closed as superseded. Its dispatch/no-peer/restart/stale-claim/duplicate-effect cases are migration fixtures for M2, not a competing same-Goal or manager_context architecture.
• feat(manager): deliver RFC M1 private-owner host profile #4337 is rebased at f0215b3 and narrowed to private-owner M1 (A1-A3, A12). External audiences such as Lark resolve visibly to restricted without an existing scoped audience/resource grant.
• fix(lark): preserve context without granting Turn authority #4319 is rebased at 75d1524 and narrowed to an early M3/A10 Lark Observation adapter. Historical addressing is provenance only; durable retention/expiry/compaction remains an explicit gate.
• refactor(coordination): unify canonical handoff mode authority and recovery #4304, fix(quota): preserve action and monitor receipt identities #4335 and fix(quota): recover host turns from exact Todo lifecycle reads #4342 remain independent generic Todo/quota/authority fixes.
• The Goal M2/M3 implementation sequence is now: no-provider same-Agent replacement plus effect fencing/readback; typed cross-Agent note/grant/claim plus automatic return; optional qualified same-Agent/session recall last.

Both rewritten PR heads have local Python/static/maintainability/dashboard/package-smoke evidence. Because they affect runtime permissions or Lark authority, they remain independent-review required and were not self-merged.

[luw2007]

Review: changes requested on the Chinese RFC mirror

Reviewed the requested diff (capable-manager-semantic-handoff-v0.zh-CN.md, merged as f72bdd1fa) against its English mirror, the alignment RFC, and the post-merge #4344 amendments. The documentation checks may pass, but five contract gaps remain load-bearing before M2 treats A1–A20 as promotion gates:

1. P1 — Late effect proof is rejected after the request head advances. Observation still contains only request_id + request_revision, and §5.10 still CASes every observation against that revision. A receipt produced under r1 cannot be appended after correction/cancellation creates r2 without either failing CAS or being falsely attributed to r2. Add an immutable dispatch_attempt/effect_attempt relation whose evidence may settle late; use request-head CAS only when authorizing new effects.

2. P1 — Effectful pre-Todo reassignment lacks a request-level execution fence. The RFC permits work without a Todo and says delegation does not claim the worker Todo. The new RFC: cross-session restoration and semantic handoff / 跨会话续接与语义交接 #4344 session/runtime fencing covers session replacement and existing work ownership, but it does not define exclusivity between two receivers of effectful pre-Todo work. Require one active effectful attempt per request revision, or acknowledged cancellation/expiry of the old attempt before another receiver may execute. Consultation may remain multi-recipient.

3. P1 — §5.12 still overstates Stage 3 authority. It says broader objective/acceptance/non-goal/permission/stop-condition changes may use the qualified Stage 3 owner, while the alignment RFC limits the first Stage 3 slice to intent-preserving shared_work_graph. State that each amendment class needs its own qualified policy/verifier/commit path; the first Stage 3 owner cannot authorize broader classes.

4. P1 — Request-derived amendments are not revoked atomically with their source request revision. Stage 2 may retain request-derived proposals, but the amendment commit contract does not bind commit eligibility to the live source request revision. A proposal from r1 can therefore commit after r2 corrects or cancels it if the Goal basis remains current. Persist the source request revision, CAS its non-revoked/non-superseded state at commit, and add the correction/cancellation race to A7+A16.

5. P2 — Acceptance permits false-positive qualification. A3 does not require an actual reversible host mutation/readback/revocation-before-execution; §7's untrusted repo/web instruction boundary has no adversarial acceptance row; A14 permits only a no-read result in the sole cross-host artifact case. Split positive and negative journeys: prove one reversible non-Core mutation, prove prompt-injection cannot alter grants/instructions, and prove successful authorized remote artifact retrieval/use separately from denied/unavailable handling. Also clarify A6 as the same identity construction/invariants, not literal identical IDs across distinct requests.

#4344 materially improves cross-session restoration and adds A17–A20, but does not close these request/effect/amendment identity gaps. Recommend a small bilingual RFC correction before M2 implementation freezes the schema.

[huangruiteng]

@luw2007 谢谢，这条评论指出的是会影响实现正确性的契约缺口，尤其“旧请求回执”和“来源请求取消与 Goal commit 竞态”，不只是文案问题。

已在你的后续 PR #4367 上继续更新（f8ffacbdf822ef7b0dd742b7a3ac022fe1d928d2），保留原贡献与署名，并同步管家/目标对齐两篇 RFC 的中英版本：

• 保留你补齐的 immutable attempt、跨 revision 单 effectful fence、Stage 3 class 收窄，以及 A3/A6/A14 的真实正负向验收。
• 针对 docs(rfc): close semantic handoff contract gaps #4367 复审剩余阻塞，新增 alignment §5.1：请求 owner CAS 预留精确 operation；后来的取消由 Goal owner 对同一 operation 做条件 abort，与 commit 在同一终局记录上竞争。先读请求状态再单独 Goal CAS 不再被描述为能解决竞态。
• 明确提交先赢、取消先赢、预留后崩溃、提交后响应丢失、lease 过期及晚到执行者的结果。未知状态不能释放 fence；中止记录阻止旧执行者重放或另换 operation ID；已提交效果不能被说成已取消或已回滚。
• A7/A16 联合验收要求贯穿两个 owner；前端/飞书/CLI 区分“请求取消”“待结算”和“已结算但效果已发生”。

文档治理检查、JSON/链接/新增锚点、双语验收 ID 和 diff 检查通过。协议仍是待验收设计，没有将文档修改当作运行时实现。欢迎复审 #4367，尤其是两个明确的本地线性化边界和 crash recovery。

English: updated your #4367 rather than duplicating it. The correction retains your five-gap fixes and replaces the remaining source-read/Goal-CAS race with an exact request reservation plus Goal-owner commit/conditional-abort terminal receipt. Unknown outcomes retain the fence; late execution cannot bypass a terminal abort. Both RFC language pairs and the combined A7/A16 matrix are updated. Documentation checks pass; implementation and real runtime qualification remain pending.