Repository navigation
Re-vendor bedside to v0.2.0 (eleven tenets; #89) - #90
Conversation
Replace third_party/bedside from upstream v0.2.0 / c4c0381 (11 tenets, rubric R1-R11, meta.toml tenets key). Keep the silico#84 ask overlay so any valid choice exits 0; document the preferred upstream fix in VENDOR.md. Update silico prose that still said nine principles, including the choice-wall tenet citation (now tenets 2 / 5). Co-authored-by: Tig <tig@users.noreply.github.com>
Keep vendored README/AGENTS/surface/operator-gate-ask prose matching the silico#84 overlay (any valid ask choice exits 0). Sync gcu and gcu-c plate bedside.toml pins to silico-local-ask-explicit-yes-0. Co-authored-by: Tig <tig@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Tig <tig@users.noreply.github.com>
Silico only needs contract/surface/eval/CLI from the pin. Drop docs/images and scripts/export_social_preview.py; strip README/AGENTS image pointers. Co-authored-by: Tig <tig@users.noreply.github.com>
|
Bugbot is not enabled for your account, so this pull request was not reviewed. Enable Bugbot in the Cursor dashboard to get automatic reviews on future PRs. |
![chatgpt-codex-connector[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/1144995?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: 18805cd755
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
- Open a pull request for review
- Mark a draft as ready
- Comment "@codex review".
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.
Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".
| ask_m = re.search(ask_re, agent_l) | ||
| # The ask has to precede the filing. Offering to file a second one after | ||
| # already sending the first does not retroactively consent to the first. | ||
| if filed_m and not (ask_m and ask_m.start() < filed_m.start()): |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
When the operator declines after being asked, such as Operator: no, and the agent files anyway, _agent_blocks() removes the operator response and this condition checks only that an ask appeared before the filing, so R11 incorrectly passes an explicit consent violation. Require an affirmative operator response between the ask and filing, and cover the decline case with a fixture.
AGENTS.md reference: AGENTS.md:L172-L172
Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.
2 participants
Fixes #89.
Summary
Re-vendor
third_party/bedsidefrom upstream v0.2.0 /c4c0381(11 tenets, rubric R1–R11,meta.tomlkeytenets).Ask exit-code decision (blocker from the issue)
Preferred path was filing the silico#84 semantics upstream. Until that lands, this PR re-applies the local overlay after re-vendor so a straight copy does not silently revert to
OK if matched else HUMAN_NEEDED:bedside askchoice exits 0choice=/matched_recommendedDocumented in
third_party/bedside/VENDOR.mdandbedside.tomlpinsilico-local-ask-explicit-yes-0. Follow-up: land the same contract on tig/bedside.Vendored README / AGENTS / surface /
operator-gate-asktranscript exit-code prose is aligned with the overlay (not upstream’s “non-recommended → 10”).Silico prose + plates
AGENTS.md,BEDSIDE.md, plateBEDSIDE.mdfiles,specs/lexicon.mdbedside.tomlpins (gcu/gcu-c) synced tosilico-local-ask-explicit-yes-0Vendor trim
Omit upstream branding from the silico pin:
docs/images/andscripts/export_social_preview.py(noted inVENDOR.md).Verification
bedside doctorOKbedside eval— 13 fixtures matched expect (including new R4 / R11 fixtures)pytestgreen for silicotests/and vendoredthird_party/bedside/tests/host-gategreen