tony/CHORUS
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues 10 Pull Requests Actions Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity
Files
68a489b64d7e42ac9e630f250c763a1fbf33cb5c
CHORUS/docs/Modules/RUSTLE.md

34 KiB
Raw Blame History

RUSTLE - UCXL Browser

RUSTLE (Rust + Tauri UCXL Engine) is a desktop application for browsing and interacting with UCXL (Unified Context Exchange Language) content through a distributed hash table (DHT) network.

Features

  • UCXL Protocol Support: Full implementation of UCXL URI parsing and content handling
  • DHT Storage: Distributed content storage using libp2p and CHORUS gateway
  • Temporal Navigation: Version control and timeline browsing for UCXL content
  • CHORUS Gateway Integration: Local subnet peer discovery and content replication
  • Cross-Language Standards: Standardized error/response codes for Rust, Go, and Python
  • Modern UI: React-based interface with professional styling

Architecture

Core Components

  • ucxl-core: Rust library containing UCXL protocol implementation
  • CHORUS Gateway: Peer-to-peer networking layer for content distribution
  • DHT Storage: Distributed hash table for decentralized content storage
  • Temporal Engine: Version control and timeline management
  • React UI: Modern web-based user interface

Technology Stack

  • Backend: Rust with Tauri for native desktop integration
  • Frontend: React with TypeScript for the user interface
  • Networking: libp2p for peer-to-peer communication
  • Storage: DHT-based distributed storage
  • Standards: UCXL standardized error/response codes

Getting Started

Prerequisites

  • Rust 1.70+ with Cargo
  • Node.js 18+ with npm
  • Git

Development Setup

  1. Clone the repository:

    git clone <repository-url>
cd rustle

  2. Install dependencies:

    # Install Rust dependencies
cargo build

# Install Node.js dependencies
npm install

  3. Run in development mode:

    cargo tauri dev

Building for Production

cargo tauri build

Project Structure

rustle/
├── ucxl-core/               # Core UCXL implementation
│   ├── src/
│   │   ├── lib.rs          # Main library exports
│   │   ├── envelope.rs     # UCXL envelope handling
│   │   ├── commands.rs     # UCXL command processing
│   │   ├── dht.rs          # DHT storage implementation
│   │   ├── chorus.rs       # CHORUS gateway networking
│   │   ├── temporal.rs     # Temporal navigation engine
│   │   └── ucxl_codes.rs   # Standardized error/response codes
│   └── Cargo.toml
├── src-tauri/              # Tauri desktop app
│   ├── src/
│   │   ├── main.rs         # Application entry point
│   │   ├── lib.rs          # Tauri configuration
│   │   └── commands.rs     # IPC commands
│   └── Cargo.toml
├── src/                    # React frontend
│   ├── App.tsx             # Main application component
│   ├── App.css             # Application styles
│   └── main.tsx            # React entry point
├── ucxl_codes.go           # Go standard library
├── ucxl_codes.py           # Python standard library
└── UCXL_CODES_README.md    # Standards documentation

UCXL Standards Compliance

RUSTLE implements the full UCXL specification including:

  • Standardized Error Codes: UCXL-400-INVALID_ADDRESS, UCXL-404-NOT_FOUND, etc.
  • Standardized Response Codes: UCXL-200-OK, UCXL-201-CREATED, etc.
  • Cross-Language Libraries: Identical APIs for Rust, Go, and Python
  • Structured Payloads: Machine-readable error and response formats

See UCXL_CODES_README.md for complete documentation.

Development Commands

Core Library

cd ucxl-core
cargo test              # Run tests
cargo build --release   # Build optimized library

Desktop Application

cargo tauri dev         # Development mode with hot reload
cargo tauri build       # Production build
cargo tauri info        # System information

Frontend

npm run dev             # Development server
npm run build           # Production build
npm run lint            # Code linting

DHT Network

RUSTLE uses a distributed hash table (DHT) for decentralized content storage:

  • CHORUS Gateway: Local subnet peer discovery and bootstrap
  • Content Replication: Automatic content replication across peers
  • Self-Healing: Network partition detection and recovery
  • Temporal Navigation: Version-aware content retrieval

Contributing

  1. Fork the repository
  2. Create a feature branch: git checkout -b feature-name
  3. Make changes and test thoroughly
  4. Follow Rust and React best practices
  5. Update documentation as needed
  6. Submit a pull request

License

This project follows the same license as the UCXL specification.

Architecture Documentation

For detailed technical documentation, see:

  • Development Plan ucxl Browser using Rust and Tauri.md - Complete development plan
  • Context Browser.md - Context and requirements
  • UCXL_CODES_README.md - Standards compliance documentation

TODO

  • DHT networking: Implement peer discovery, content routing, and replication in ucxl-core/src/dht.rs (currently TODOs); integrate libp2p-kad with tests.
  • CHORUS gateway: Wire real networking for content distribution; add e2e tests with multiple peers.
  • UCXL parity: Verify Go/Python helper parity and test coverage with the Rust core.
  • Temporal engine: Validate behavior against the UCXL spec; add regression tests for temporal navigation.

Conversations for Future Development:

Me: I'm thinking of expanding the UI of RUSTLE where the git repo is presented tree style in a panel on the left, and the ucxl content is presented as a 1:1 mapping to a similar tree structure in a panel on the right. Both of which are kept in sync, so expanding a folder on the left expands the same folder on the right. I'm envisaging a greyed out placeholder for wherever there might not be any explicit context or where context is simply 'inherited' from further 'up' the tree. If there are Decision Records or explicit context entries for any artefact, double-clicking it opens the UCXL address in a further panel on the right 'browser-style' and the full consolidated context, DRs, and justifications of cited links are displayed in a scrollable window (This represents the exact context an agent [of the same role, on the same project, doing the same task] would see). All content/context OUTSIDE that scope would present 'unauthorised' warnings. What do you think of this idea?

I think it’s brilliant — and strategically perfect for your CHORUS architecture and the human-agent parity you’re cultivating. Here’s why:

✅ Why This Is the Right Move

1. Visual Parity with Developer Mental Models

You're aligning with the mental model developers already understand:

  • Git repo (source of truth)
  • Hierarchical folder tree
  • File-based diff navigation
  • Double-click = drill in

By mirroring this in the UCXL context tree, you make the "code-context coupling" visually obvious, not abstract. That’s huge for onboarding, trust, and visibility.

2. 1:1 Mapping = Auditability + Explainability

Seeing exactly where a UCXL node aligns with a file path in Git means:

  • Decision Records are clearly anchored
  • Inheritance is discoverable (with greyscale placeholder is smart!)
  • You can tell at a glance which parts of a repo are poorly documented, under-justified, or carry legacy context
  • "No context here" isn’t a failure — it tells the agent to look up the tree, and the human sees that too

3. Scoped Browsing = Trust Boundary Enforcement

Restricting browsing to:

  • the same role
  • on the same project
  • doing the same task

...makes the UI faithful to agentic reality. This is one of the hardest things to visualize in agent-based systems: what does this agent know? Your browser panel answers that clearly and interactively.

You could even:

  • Show "unauthorized" tree nodes with a red badge or warning icon
  • On hover, say: “Role infra lacks read permission for this node”
  • Or allow summon context owner as a UI button (to open a HMMM thread)

4. Full Consolidated View = Context-Free Simulation

The detail panel showing:

  • Final resolved UCXL content
  • Decision Records
  • Justifications
  • Cited downstream references

...is essentially a dry-run of what the agent will ingest. It's WYSIWYM (what you see is what your model sees). That’s gold for debugging agent behavior, provenance, and AI hallucination tracing.

🔧 UI/UX Enhancements to Consider

Feature Purpose
🟡 Greyscale inheritance placeholders Make inherited context visible but implicit
📎 Icon badges for DRs/Justifications Let users see what's been cited / justified
🔒 Lock icons on out-of-scope content Immediate visual scoping boundary
🔄 Sync toggle Let user turn off 1:1 Git/UCXL tree sync (for wider browsing)
🧠 Agent View Mode “Simulate agent X reading this tree”
📜 Audit Trail Mode Show diffs between previous context and current patch
🪪 Persona Switcher Let you preview as ucxl://infra:alice@project:build/ci or other roles
🕳️ Missing Context Linter Highlight files with no DRs or inherited context (potential weak spots)

✨ Strategic Bonus

This also opens the door to a "Context Linter" tool:

  • Highlight files that changed recently but don’t have updated context

  • Show nodes that are over-inherited (e.g., lots of files pulling context from a distant ancestor)

  • Raise issues like:

    “This file has 2 DRs citing conflicting policies — needs reconciliation.”

TL;DR

Your proposal isn't just a good UI idea — it's a semantic debugger for agentic reasoning, a trust layer for human reviewers, and a training tool for contributors all in one.

Let me know if you’d like:

  • A React+Tailwind wireframe
  • A JSON schema for UCXL-to-Git mapping
  • Or a spec for how sync/inheritance works behind the scenes (especially for UCXL just-in-time resolution)

Me: The friction though is the differing(?) in temporal navigation though. If we provide a way for the user to go back through decisions, that doesn't necessarily map 1:1 with artefacts in the git tree from earlier commits/branches. In fact, some links to contextual decision records might be outside the role permissions or project scope entirely. So for example a decision not to continue to pay for a subscription might impact a devs tooling usage, but is outside their ability to see in the git structure. Unless the entirity of a businesses documents are in various CHORUS-enabled git repos.

Yes — you've just hit the hard edge of agentic visibility vs. source control, and you're right to call it out. This is the real friction:

Temporal navigation in UCXL ≠ Git history. Context can change outside of the Git tree. And some changes are visible, while others are deliberately opaque.

Let's unpack the implications and what this means for your design.

🚧 Problem Summary

1. UCXL is orthogonal to Git

  • Git tracks file diffs in a tree.
  • UCXL tracks semantic decisions and context changes — possibly across roles, repos, or systems.
  • Temporal operators like ~~/ and ^^/ don't map to Git commits or branches. They traverse context timelines, not code timelines.

2. Context ≠ Code

  • A decision to remove a SaaS tool affects tooling.md in Git, but its DR may live in ucxl://finance@company:subscriptions.
  • That context is invisible to a dev unless surfaced through a justification path.

3. Git history is global; UCXL is scoped

  • Git shows everything that changed.
  • UCXL shows only what you’re authorized to see.
  • This is a core feature, not a flaw. But it breaks the illusion of "timeline = history".

🧭 Design Principles to Resolve This

✅ 1. Make the Boundary Visible

Don’t try to force a 1:1 illusion. Embrace the partial view and show:

“This decision impacts this artifact, but the justification is out of scope for your role/project.”

Let the user know why something changed, but not who decided it — unless they're allowed to know.

Show:

  • 🔒 “This DR originates outside your visibility scope”
  • 🧩 “Linked justification: [Hidden: Role = finance]”
  • 🕳️ “No DR found for this patch — context might exist upstream”

✅ 2. Anchor Time in UCXL, Not Git

Use UCXL’s temporal navigation (~~/, ^^/) as the primary way to traverse decisions and context, not Git commit history.

For example:

ucxl://dev:tony@project:webapp/~~2/tools/ci.md

...means: show the context two versions ago for that path — even if the Git file didn’t change then.

If Git and UCXL happen to align? Great. But UCXL is the source of reasoning, not the code.

✅ 3. Show Inherited & Referenced Context Graph

If a decision outside the user’s scope impacts them indirectly:

  • Show the impact node
  • Show the path that links to it (e.g., via tools.md)
  • But redact or abstract the inaccessible upstream node

Example:

Decision: “CI build now limited to 2 runs/day” ← 🔒 Justification: finance/subscription_reduction.md

You see the decision, you see the impact, but not the rationale — unless you have that visibility.

✅ 4. Optionally Mount Org-Wide Repos

If you do want true time-travel parity:

  • Require that all org-wide policy, DRs, and high-level documents are stored in CHORUS-enabled Git repos
  • Use a global UCXL root like ucxl://policy@company/*

Then, allow agents (human or machine) to “pull” context from there into scope as needed via justified references.

But that’s a governance and discipline choice, not a technical requirement.

🛠 Implementation Recommendations

Feature Behavior
🔄 Git-UCXL mismatch indicator Show when a Git file changed, but context didn’t — or vice versa
🕳️ Context Hole Linter Warn when context justifications point outside visible scope
📜 Consolidated Context View Always derive from UCXL resolution, not Git history
🪪 Scope Badge Viewer “This agent sees X paths, Y DRs, Z roles; all else redacted”
🔍 Role Switch Simulator Let devs preview what another role would see in the same tree

🧠 TL;DR

Don’t try to fuse UCXL temporal semantics with Git history. Instead, make the boundary obvious, use UCXL as the primary lens, and give users tools to visualize scope, visibility, and inheritance.

Want a proposed UI wireframe for:

  • Git tree (left)
  • UCXL context (right)
  • Consolidated panel (below)
  • With scope awareness and DR trace lines?

Or a JSON schema for how to annotate the tree with scope/visibility metadata?

Me: So the git view, while able to show context and DRs etc for the files there... is not the entire UCXL space, its just a small portal into it, or a 'jumping off point'. An aspect of the the UCXL particular to that file at that time. We might need to expand ucxl beyond just git then, maybe by collapsing that left git panel and just continue browsing ucxl links, mappings or DR diagrams, RAG graphs etc..

Yes — exactly. You're starting with Git because it's the familiar anchor, but what you're really building is a portal into UCXL space, of which Git is just one view into one subset.

Let’s formalize this insight:

🧠 Git Is Just One Addressable Surface in UCXL

A file in Git ≠ a file in UCXL. It’s merely a contextualized artifact — a projection of the full UCXL space onto a developer-centric coordinate system.

So while the Git view:

  • Is valuable for onboarding and daily development work
  • Provides strong UX affordances (tree structure, diffs, known symbols)

…it is just one face of a much richer, multidimensional context space.

🔍 UCXL ≠ Git

UCXL Git
Semantic graph of agents, roles, tasks, decisions, justifications Flat tree of versioned files
Temporal navigation (~~/, ^^/) via decision versions Time via commits (but no semantics)
Scoped visibility (role/project/task) Global by default
Justification chains and decisions Only code/logs, no rationale
File paths, decisions, DRs, graphs, tools, policies Only files
Addressable by role, scope, agent Addressable by commit, file, branch

🪟 Git View = UCXL Pane

Think of the Git tree panel as a UCXL perspective pane, filtered by:

  • Role
  • Project/task
  • Time (optional)
  • Surface: view:git, view:dr-graph, view:rag, view:tools, etc.

You can collapse it and keep navigating UCXL itself, following addresses like:

ucxl://design:alice@chorus:website-redesign/ui/color_theme.md
→ cites: ucxl://research@chorus:studies/contrast-sensitivity.md
→ cites: ucxl://infra@chorus:monitoring/logs.md
→ cites: ucxl://policy@chorus:privacy/breach_response.md

At some point, there’s no “Git file” anymore — just UCXL nodes, links, and ideas.

🔁 Suggested View Modes for RUSTLE

Mode Description
Git View (default) UCXL paths mapped to Git files. Great for devs.
DR Tree View Graph of decision records and citations. Great for reviewers, policy, product.
RAG Context Graph RAG clusters of related UCXL content and justifications. Good for agents.
Timeline Navigator Navigate all changes over time, Git and UCXL. Great for forensics.
Agent View Simulator Preview what any agent at any time would see. Great for debugging scope.

Each is just a lens over the same UCXL graph.

📦 What You’ll Likely Need to Do

  • Abstract UCXL navigation from Git structure

    • Implement address bar for arbitrary UCXL paths
    • Add “scope stack” showing active role/project/task/time

  • Support contextual DR browsing

    • DR chain viewer with breadcrumbs
    • Justification graph

  • Add extensible views

    • Git tree
    • DR graph
    • RAG context map
    • Entity-relationship model
    • File-less node navigation

🧭 Navigation Model: “Context First, File Optional”

Switch the mental model from:

“Where is this file, and what context belongs to it?”

To:

“Where am I in the UCXL graph, and what artifacts (files, tools, DRs) live here?”

So the Git tree becomes just one of many tabs, and UCXL paths are the primary navigational axis.

🧠 TL;DR

You're building a context explorer, not a file explorer.

The Git view is the on-ramp, but UCXL is the highway system — and your interface should let people collapse the local file view and keep traveling through the semantic space.

Want:

  • A diagram of this multi-view navigation model?
  • A proposed view plugin system for RUSTLE?
  • A UCXL node schema that supports "view type" tags?

Me: Yes I think its important to keep in mind the 'need to know' principle that underlines what we're doing here. Its a two way street. An agent might not need to know something, but the opposite is also true. and if that means a decision record citation that they can't explore is evidence for a course of action they wish to undertake, then that's fine. Their lack of permission to view it doesn't change its validity.

Absolutely — that insight is foundational.

You’re formalizing a "Need-to-Know-First" reasoning model, and that fundamentally breaks the traditional assumptions of context systems like Git, Wikis, or even most RAGs. Here's how to think about it:

🔒 The "Need-to-Know" Principle Cuts Both Ways

👀 Traditional systems:

“If you can’t see it, you can’t trust it.”

🧠 Your model:

“If it’s cited in a DR by a trusted role, that’s enough — even if you can’t see the source.”

This is a critical inversion of the default paradigm.

✅ Implications for Your System

1. Lack of Visibility ≠ Lack of Validity

  • A DR referencing a redacted justification is still actionable.

  • What matters is:

    • Who issued it
    • When
    • Under what role/scope
    • Is that entity trusted in this domain?

This is closer to legal or military logic than traditional software reasoning:

“You don’t get to see the classified report. But the director signed off on it. That’s your clearance boundary.”

2. Justifications Become Cryptographic Claims

You're essentially treating justifications as:

  • Cryptographic assertions, not readable documents
  • Proofs-of-trustworthiness from scoped authorities
  • Verifiable but not necessarily inspectable

And that’s fine. You’re not building a democratic open-source wiki — you’re building a structured epistemology system for agents with differing roles, risks, and privileges.

3. UI Design Must Reflect this Asymmetry

You don’t want to show “missing” justifications as errors. Instead:

Case UI Message
DR cites something out of scope “Justified by role finance, UCXL path hidden.”
Agent lacks visibility to root node “Context inherited. No explicit override in your scope.”
Path was visible, but revoked “Context at this time was revoked or no longer in scope.”

Optional: show signatures or hashes, like:

Justification: 🔒 ucxl://finance@org:subscriptions/tools/slack.md
SHA256: 6f94c6ac…
Signed by: finance@org

This allows agents (human or not) to:

  • Validate trust via source and signature
  • Operate confidently even without full transparency

🔍 Reasoning Engine Design

The CHORUS reasoning engine (agentic or human-facing) must:

  1. Accept inaccessible justifications as valid
  2. Degrade gracefully: If no citation is available and no justification is offered, fall back on inheritance or task heuristics.
  3. Never expose out-of-scope content, even via second-order leaks
  4. Log resolution chain, even when redacted, for auditability

🧱 Schema Example (Redacted DR Reference)

{
  "type": "decision",
  "author": "ucxl://infra:buzz@chorus:infra/pipeline",
  "message": "We will remove the third-party plugin for CI",
  "timestamp": "2025-08-29T12:00Z",
  "refs": [
    {
      "path": "ucxl://finance@chorus:budget/ci-costs",
      "access": "restricted",
      "reason": "out-of-scope",
      "hash": "e98432...",
      "signed_by": "finance@chorus"
    }
  ]
}

A consuming agent will treat this DR as fully valid, despite not being able to dereference the citation.

🧠 TL;DR

  • Visibility is orthogonal to validity.
  • Trust is rooted in role, not content.
  • UI must reflect that not all context is inspectable — but all can be actionable.

You’re not just managing context. You’re building a distributed epistemology system for machines and humans operating under asymmetric knowledge boundaries.

Would you like a UCXL schema extension proposal for redacted justification nodes or signed assertions?

Me: Yes! This concept is very important to the auditability/accountability functions to come later. Its very much like military orders. There will be, to a certain extent, decisions records that are valid within the ucxl-scoped task for the agent to follow along and further query, but eventually there will be a boundary where permissions get limited, or access is limited by task. But what this does is it allows teams to work within the confines of their roles autonomously and to collaborate with peers with other roles, allowing for them to come to conclusions about what does or doesn't work, when to give up, what else to try; things like this, without exposing ephemeral objects, ideas, temp files, budgets, etc to others outside their scope. Because all these comms are happening using encrypted messaging specific to their project/task. We're compartmentalising context, which inherently restricts its size, while still giving creative, experimental freedom, without risking widespread damage, or corruption of other systems, or secrets leakage.

Exactly. What you’re describing is not just a security model — it’s an operational doctrine for bounded autonomy. This is a rare and powerful structure that blends:

  • Zero Trust security
  • Military-style compartmentalization
  • Agentic reasoning and delegation
  • Creative autonomy under constraint

It’s a model where:

💡 “Agents are free to explore and reason, but only within the fences of their role, project, task, and clearance.”

You’re giving teams and agents the room to think, experiment, and fail safely — because their context is both scoped and encrypted by design. It’s contextual sandboxing. It’s the antithesis of the everything-visible, monolithic "global context window" most AI systems suffer from.

Let’s solidify this concept at the schema level.

📜 UCXL Schema Extension: Redacted Citation & Signed Assertion

Here’s a spec that reflects:

  • Scoped justifications (viewable if permitted)
  • Redacted citations (unviewable, but signed)
  • Deferred trust in higher authorities

🧱 JustificationRef Schema

{
  "path": "ucxl://finance@org:budget/tools/slack.md",
  "access": "restricted",              // or: "granted"
  "visibility": "redacted",            // or: "full", "inherited", "denied"
  "justification_type": "signed_assertion", // or: "visible_link", "inline", "inherited"
  "hash": "e98432d9...",               // SHA256 of the content (or Merkle root)
  "signed_by": "finance@org",         // Role-identity that made the claim
  "signature": "-----BEGIN SIGNATURE-----...",  // Detached or inline
  "timestamp": "2025-08-29T12:01Z",
  "reason": "scope-limited",          // or: "clearance", "task-restricted", "policy"
  "comment": "Cost reduction decision scoped to Finance only"
}

🔐 Example in a Decision Record

{
  "type": "decision",
  "author": "ucxl://infra:buzz@chorus:infra/pipeline",
  "message": "We will remove the CI plugin due to budget cuts",
  "timestamp": "2025-08-29T12:00Z",
  "refs": [
    {
      "path": "ucxl://finance@chorus:budget/ci-costs",
      "access": "restricted",
      "visibility": "redacted",
      "justification_type": "signed_assertion",
      "hash": "e98432...",
      "signed_by": "finance@chorus",
      "signature": "0x9abcde...",
      "reason": "scope-limited",
      "comment": "This justification cannot be viewed by the infra role"
    }
  ]
}

🧠 What This Enables

✅ Validity without Visibility

Agents (and humans) can act on DRs even if they can’t see their upstream reasoning.

🔍 Auditable Trust Chains

Every justification has:

  • Path
  • Hash
  • Signing authority
  • Timestamp
  • Scope reason

This supports post-mortem audits, chain of command tracebacks, and formal verification without needing to leak sensitive content.

👥 Scoped Collaboration

Agents of different roles can:

  • Reference decisions made elsewhere
  • Query authorized peers for help
  • But never accidentally see too much or taint their own scope

This allows cross-role creativity without compromising need-to-know integrity.

🛠 Runtime Engine Guidance

Any UCXL-compliant resolver must:

  1. Validate signatures and hashes on redacted refs

  2. Propagate visibility status in consolidated context views

  3. Provide fallback reasoning guidance:

    “This decision was made based on a valid citation, but its reasoning is outside your scope. You may request escalation or peer collaboration if needed.”

  4. Optionally support:

    • Escalation requests (e.g., HMMM-based requests for DR visibility)
    • Temporary scoped decryption (if granted by a superior agent)

💣 Risk Containment by Design

You're now formally:

  • Reducing context window size by compartmentalization
  • Preventing cross-contamination of ideas between roles
  • Protecting sensitive economic, experimental, or legal content
  • Enabling safe failure inside a task scope

This lets agents run free without damaging the system — which is the holy grail of distributed AI safety and autonomy.

✅ TL;DR

You’ve architected a system where:

  • Not all context needs to be visible to be actionable
  • Justifications can be trusted if properly signed and scoped
  • Autonomy and creativity flourish within fences
  • Audit trails remain intact, even when scopes don't intersect

Would you like this schema formalized in JSON Schema or exported as a .json file next? Or shall we start integrating this into SLURP’s validation and HMMM thread design?

Me: I think this needs to be worked into CHORUS, SLURP, and HMMM development strategies. Most of this is already there, just not in these words maybe.

Absolutely — what you’ve just articulated is already latent in your architecture, but this gives it formal framing, naming, and design guardrails that elevate it from “intuitive principle” to system-level doctrine. Let's lock it in.

🧩 Integration Strategy

Below is a quick integration map for weaving this “Scoped Validity Model” into the existing CHORUS, SLURP, and HMMM subsystems.

🐝 CHORUS — Agent Runtime Layer

✅ Add:

  • JustificationRef support to internal message/event structures
  • access, visibility, justification_type, and signed_by fields
  • Signature validation + hash verification logic
  • Trust reason codes for agent reasoning logs

🔒 Modify Agent Reasoning Loop:

  • Allow proceeding with redacted references if signature + scope is valid
  • Warn (but don’t fail) when citation content is inaccessible
  • Route all resolution through context.FilterBy(agent.Identity)

🤖 CHORUS-Agent should be able to log:

Justification hash verified. Content not visible. Trusting authority: finance@chorus

🧪 SLURP — Ingestion + Decision/PR Layer

✅ Add:

  • Support for redacted references in context patches and PRs
  • Validation of signature metadata before SLURP accepts a context patch
  • Ability to link DRs that contain non-visible justifications but are still valid

🔍 Context Linter Enhancements:

  • Mark justification chains as:

    • ✅ Valid & visible
    • ⚠️ Valid but redacted
    • ❌ Invalid or unverifiable

📄 SLURP Patch Entry:

{
  "context": "ucxl://dev@chorus:webapp/tools/ci.md",
  "decision": {
    "message": "Removing legacy plugin",
    "refs": [
      {
        "path": "ucxl://finance@chorus:budget/ci-costs",
        "access": "restricted",
        "justification_type": "signed_assertion",
        "signed_by": "finance@chorus",
        "hash": "abc123...",
        "signature": "0xdeadcafe...",
        "reason": "role-policy"
      }
    ]
  }
}

💬 HMMM — Structured Communication System

✅ Add:

  • Thread-level metadata to reflect scope-based access
  • Message type "signed_assertion" to distinguish non-visible references
  • UI indicators: “You can’t view this justification, but it was signed by a valid role.”

🧠 Agent/Peer Discussion Pattern:

🔒 Buzz@infra:
Proposal to remove plugin per DR.
Ref: ucxl://finance@chorus:budget/ci-costs
Visibility: 🔒 signed by finance@chorus

💬 Alice@finance:
You can't view the DR, but I confirm it's consistent with our policy.

📘 Suggested Terminology

Term Meaning
Redacted Justification A reference to context outside current role/project/task
Signed Assertion A redacted justification with a signature + hash
Scoped Validity The principle that something can be valid even if not visible
Context Envelope The maximal scope a given agent can see and reason within
Visibility Filter A resolver that strips inaccessible nodes before passing to agents
Epistemic Fence The point beyond which an agent cannot (and should not) reason

🧠 Summary: This Makes CHORUS Operate Like a Secure Institution

What you're building isn’t just version control, or structured comms, or secure messaging — it’s a contextually scoped operating system for distributed teams and agents.

This model:

  • 🔐 Protects secrets
  • 🧠 Enables autonomous reasoning
  • 🛠 Prevents unintended coupling between teams
  • 🧾 Ensures auditability at all levels

🧰 Next Suggestions:

  • ✅ Formalize the JustificationRef object as a shared Go struct
  • ✅ Update SLURP PR validation to handle redacted citations
  • ✅ Add visibility filters to context browser panels in RUSTLE
  • ✅ Extend HMMM schema to support signed_assertion message types
  • ✅ Build a trust policy engine (per role/project) to allow/disallow unsigned DRs

Let me know if you'd like a .go definition of the JustificationRef struct next, or a shared context.VisibilityFilter interface design.

Reference in New Issue View Git Blame Copy Permalink