added claude context files
This commit is contained in:
@@ -0,0 +1,77 @@
|
||||
# Architecture Guardrails
|
||||
|
||||
## Hard boundary for UX tasks
|
||||
|
||||
When a task is described as UI, UX, layout, styling, loading feedback or
|
||||
presentation work, do not modify:
|
||||
|
||||
- reasoning algorithms;
|
||||
- unknown selection;
|
||||
- reasoning-pattern selection;
|
||||
- question formulation;
|
||||
- atomicity or answerability assessment;
|
||||
- graph mutation;
|
||||
- graph schemas;
|
||||
- API request or response contracts;
|
||||
- reconstruction prompts;
|
||||
- provider configuration;
|
||||
- confidence propagation;
|
||||
- compatibility validation.
|
||||
|
||||
If a UX request appears to require one of those changes, stop and report the
|
||||
dependency rather than changing it silently.
|
||||
|
||||
## Reasoning invariants
|
||||
|
||||
Preserve these invariants:
|
||||
|
||||
- The LLM proposes information; deterministic code owns graph mutation.
|
||||
- Every user-facing question comes from an explicit unresolved graph node.
|
||||
- Questions contain one primary concept and seek one coherent answer.
|
||||
- Unknowns must be atomic or decomposed.
|
||||
- Atomic wording alone is insufficient; a selected unknown must be independently
|
||||
answerable.
|
||||
- Question family must match the active reasoning pattern.
|
||||
- Active investigation nodes must be compatible with the reasoning pattern.
|
||||
- Relationship classification cannot outrun comparability assessment.
|
||||
- Ambiguity remains explicit rather than being resolved alphabetically.
|
||||
- Parent unknowns do not resolve before their completion rule is satisfied.
|
||||
- Confidence must not outrun evidence or completeness.
|
||||
- Duplicate evidence must not increase confidence.
|
||||
- Conflicting evidence caps conclusion confidence.
|
||||
- A successful update must rerun deterministic next-question selection when
|
||||
eligible unknowns remain.
|
||||
- No question is preferable to an unjustified question.
|
||||
|
||||
## Current architecture, simplified
|
||||
|
||||
Scenario
|
||||
→ reconstruction
|
||||
→ situation graph
|
||||
→ unknown selection
|
||||
→ atomicity
|
||||
→ answerability
|
||||
→ reasoning pattern
|
||||
→ investigation strategy
|
||||
→ question family
|
||||
→ question formulation
|
||||
→ complexity validation
|
||||
→ user answer
|
||||
→ proposed graph update
|
||||
→ deterministic validation/application
|
||||
→ propagation
|
||||
→ confidence/completeness update
|
||||
→ next unknown
|
||||
|
||||
## Compatibility discipline
|
||||
|
||||
Do not expand schemas merely because a model emits a synonym.
|
||||
|
||||
Prefer:
|
||||
|
||||
1. identify the source;
|
||||
2. determine whether it is a synonym;
|
||||
3. normalise deterministically when justified;
|
||||
4. retain strict validation.
|
||||
|
||||
Do not weaken validation globally to fix a single malformed response.
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user