tmpl/multi-agent-mux
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Actions Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity
Files
b09d4209d84ebae0c2527ccd376eb1ff61be8a4a
multi-agent-mux/.agents/reports/canary-projects-multi-agent-mux-creator-cline/report-87f84d4e.md
T

9.7 KiB
Raw Blame History

Cross-Code Review Report — Job 87f84d4e

  • Job ID: 87f84d4e
  • Reviewer: cline (session: herdr:canary-projects-multi-agent-mux-creator-cline)
  • Review Target: O-1 — Reviewer feedback rebuttal protocol implementation (Rebuttal & Re-adjudication Protocol)
  • Date: 2026-08-06
  • Diff scope: 5 files modified + 1 new test file (249 ins / 22 del)

1. Change Inventory

# File Type Δ Purpose
1 .agents/skills/multi-agent-mux-loop/scripts/run_loop.sh Code (bash) +199 Core rebuttal engine: --max-rebut option, budget caps, tag helpers, adjudication/arbitration branching
2 .agents/MULTI_AGENT_RULES.md Docs (EN) +21/-4 New §3.1 protocol spec, reviewer re-adjudication duty, §3.1 cross-ref
3 .agents/MULTI_AGENT_RULES.ko.md Docs (KO) +19/-2 Korean mirror of §3.1 spec + re-adjudication duty + cross-ref
4 .agents/skills/multi-agent-mux-loop/SKILL.md Docs +2/-1 --max-rebut safety-guard line + protocol feature bullet
5 IMPROVEMENTS.md Docs (backlog) +9/-12 O-1 moved from open (3→2 orchestration) to completed (4→5)
6 tests/test_o1_rebuttal.py Test (new) +176 Regression suite V-1..V-10

Diff stat: run_loop.sh 199 +-, IMPROVEMENTS.md 23, RULES.md 25, RULES.ko.md 21, SKILL.md 3 — matches git diff --stat (249 ins / 22 del).

2. Lint / Syntax Verification

Check Command Result
Bash syntax bash -n run_loop.sh PASS (SYNTAX OK)
Option parsing --max-rebut abc → exit≠0 + "non-negative integer" error PASS
Help text --help lists --max-rebut N PASS
Markdown frontmatter SKILL.md YAML untouched (body-only edit) PASS

No shellcheck in stock macOS env; manual review of all array expansions confirms bash 3.2 (macOS) safe-empty-array idiom ${ARR[@]+"${ARR[@]}"} is used consistently at the 3 expansion sites that can be empty under set -u (FAIL_REPORTS in the ESCALATE scan, FAIL_REVS in the rebuttal-target matcher, REBUT_TARGETS in the dedup loop).

3. Correctness / Operability Analysis

3.1 Option & budget model

  • MAX_REBUT=1 default; --max-rebut N validated as ^[0-9]+$ (0 = disabled). ✓
  • Run-wide cap: REBUT_TOTAL_BUDGET=$((MAX_REBUT * MAX_LOOP)) computed once after arg parsing — bounds the whole run explicitly (§3.1 rule 3). ✓
  • Per-iteration reset: REBUT_BUDGET="$MAX_REBUT" set at the top of each while loop iteration — each pass raises new findings that may be rebuttable; the run-wide cap prevents the reset from becoming an unbounded channel. ✓ Matches §3.1 rule 3.
  • Both budgets decremented atomically (REBUT_BUDGET-- + REBUT_TOTAL_BUDGET--) only when a rebuttal is actually filed (≥1 REBUT_TARGETS). ✓

3.2 Tag helpers

  • has_tag_line <file> <tag>: grep -qE "^\[${tag}\][[:space:]]*\r?$" — matches a standalone [TAG] line, tolerates CRLF. Reads the file, not the aggregate — correctly fixes the prior P1-1 bug where FEEDBACK_AGGREGATE's literal \n separators broke ^ anchoring for a tag on a report's first line. ✓
  • extract_tag_values <file> <key>: sed -n -E "s/^\[${key}:[[:space:]]*([^]]*)\][[:space:]]*\r?$/\1/p" then trailing-space strip + blank-line drop. Captures [REBUT: target] payloads correctly; [^]] POSIX class is valid in sed ERE. ✓
  • find_report <job_id>: find ".mam/jobs/$1" -maxdepth 2 -name report-final.md — verified depth: report sits at .mam/jobs/<id>/<agent-subdir>/report-final.md (depth 2), so -maxdepth 2 reaches it regardless of agent-name subdir. ✓

3.3 Rebuttal round logic

  • Rebuttal channel appended to correction prompt only when MAX_REBUT > 0, naming the objecting reviewers (${FAIL_REVS[*]-(없음)}). ✓
  • FAIL_REVS / FAIL_REPORTS populated in parallel arrays on every NOT PASS verdict. ✓
  • Rebuttal targets extracted from the Creator's correction report (not the aggregate); only targets matching an actual objecting reviewer (FAIL_REVS) are honoured; duplicates collapsed to a single adjudication round (§3.1 rule 5). ✓
  • while read fed via here-string <<< "$(...)" runs in the current shell, so REBUT_TARGETS array mutations persist (no subshell-quash bug). ✓

3.4 Adjudication & fail-closed

  • Each target reviewer gets a re-adjudication job; fail-closed: anything that is not an explicit [ADJUDICATION: SUSTAINED] (missing report, job failure, OVERRULED, or no tag) keeps the objection alive → added to OVERRULED_REVS. ✓ (§3.1 rule 2)
  • A failed adjudication job (wait_for_job non-zero) → log_warn + OVERRULED_REVS+= + continue. No crash, no silent pass. ✓

3.5 Deadlock / arbitration

  • Deadlock (OVERRULED_REVS non-empty): in --plan mode with a PLANNER_SESSION, a Planner arbitration job is dispatched; [ARBITRATION: CREATOR] withdraws objections, anything else (incl. job failure) defaults to REVIEWER. ✓ (§3.1 rule 4)
  • Without --plan / planner: reviewer prevails (fail-closed, charter §1). ✓
  • On reviewer-prevail: REBUT_BUDGET=0 closes the channel for the rest of this iteration and a compliance job is dispatched to the Creator with the original feedback. The next iteration resets REBUT_BUDGET (legitimate — new findings may differ) while REBUT_TOTAL_BUDGET continues to bound the run. ✓

3.6 Invariant: rebuttal ≠ PASS

  • A sustained rebuttal only withdraws an objection; the loop still requires a full review re-pass next iteration and can only exit 0 on unanimous [VERDICT: PASS]. No path lets a rebuttal shortcut the completion gate. ✓ (§3.1 rule 1)

4. Documentation Consistency

Item EN KO Parity
§3.1 Rebuttal & Adjudication Protocol section ✓ added ✓ added ✓
Tag table (REBUT / ADJUDICATION / ARBITRATION) ✓ ✓ ✓
5 protocol rules (PASS-substitute, fail-closed, budget, deadlock, dedup) ✓ ✓ ✓
Reviewer re-adjudication duty bullet ✓ ✓ ✓
Developer §3.1 cross-ref in "Review Integrity & Refusal" ✓ ✓ ✓
SKILL.md --max-rebut (safety guard + feature bullet) ✓ n/a ✓
IMPROVEMENTS.md: O-1 → completed; 16 open (2+8+2+4); 5 done ✓ n/a ✓ arithmetic consistent

Usage/help ↔ SKILL.md consistency: run_loop.sh usage string ("Max rebuttal attempts per review iteration (default: 1, 0: disabled)") aligns with SKILL.md feature bullet. ✓

5. Test Verification

Suite Result
tests/test_o1_rebuttal.py (V-1..V-10) 10/10 PASS (0.11s)
tests/test_workspace_scope.py + tests/test_b1_tier3_identity.py (regression) 10/10 PASS (1.28s)
bash -n run_loop.sh PASS

O-1 suite coverage: tag-line first-line match (V-1), multi-rebut extraction (V-2), option parsing/error (V-3), dedup (V-4), fail-closed on missing SUSTAINED (V-5), bash 3.2 empty-array under set -u (V-6), §3.1 docs present EN+KO (V-7), SKILL.md --max-rebut (V-8), per-iteration reset + total cap (V-9), IMPROVEMENTS.md O-1 completed (V-10).

Pre-existing infra limitation (unchanged by O-1): test_tier1_unit.py / test_sanity.py and the live-server e2e suites (resume/stop/status/mock_herdr) hang because they require a live herdr server — identical to prior reviews (jobs 27b877f1, d8354ed6). O-1 modifies only run_loop.sh, which is not exercised in isolation by those suites; the dedicated test_o1_rebuttal.py covers the new logic. No regression introduced.

6. Findings

R-1 (Minor, Non-blocking) — Out-of-scope EN role-suitability rewording → EN/KO drift

  • Location: .agents/MULTI_AGENT_RULES.md lines 37-38.
  • Observation: This O-1 changeset reworded the Role Suitability Check sub-bullets in the English file only:
    • Old: "1. Recommend the optimal agent session to delegate the task to, or / 2. Perform the task directly if strictly necessary for project continuity."
    • New: "1. Defer or re-delegate the task to a suitable subagent/session, OR / 2. Reject the task explicitly by explaining the role mismatch."
  • Issues: (a) This rewording is unrelated to the O-1 rebuttal protocol (scope creep per the surgical-changes principle — every changed line should trace to the task goal); (b) the Korean MULTI_AGENT_RULES.ko.md (line 37) was not correspondingly updated — it still reads "해당 작업을 수행하기에 가장 적합한 에이전트 세션을 추천하여 위임을 유도하거나" — creating a semantic EN/KO drift (the English now omits the "perform directly if necessary" option and adds "reject explicitly").
  • Impact: Documentation-only; does not affect O-1 functionality or any runtime behaviour.
  • Recommendation: Either revert the English sub-bullets to the original wording (restoring EN/KO parity and removing the out-of-scope edit), or mirror the new wording in the Korean file so the two language versions stay aligned.

No other findings. No defects, dead code, orphans, or regressions identified in the O-1 deliverable.

7. Verdict

The O-1 Rebuttal & Re-adjudication Protocol is fully and correctly implemented:

  • run_loop.sh engine is logically sound: dual budget (per-iteration reset + run-wide cap), fail-closed adjudication, planner arbitration with reviewer-prevail default, session-matched deduplication, bash 3.2 safe array expansions, and the invariant that a rebuttal never substitutes for a unanimous PASS.
  • Documentation (§3.1 EN+KO, SKILL.md, IMPROVEMENTS.md) is consistent and internally coherent.
  • 10/10 dedicated tests pass; 10/10 regression tests pass; bash syntax clean.
  • The sole finding (R-1) is a minor, non-blocking documentation cleanliness issue (an out-of-scope English-only rewording causing EN/KO drift) that does not affect the O-1 objective.

[VERDICT: PASS]

Reference in New Issue View Git Blame Copy Permalink