alkdev/alknet

0 Fork 0

Files

T

glm-5.2 5941280bca fix(agents): break the hedging-at-the-root pattern — deferred(unclear), impacts field, reviewer detection

Address the root cause of rework-causing hedging: the architect was
put in a logical bind where it couldn't express justified uncertainty
('the pieces exist but the shape isn't clear yet'). The only options
were 'decide now' (premature) or 'deferred(scope)' (false — the
information isn't missing, it's un-synthesized). The agent picked
deferred(scope) with a circular blocking condition (OQ-64 blocked on
OQ-55, OQ-55 needs OQ-64) because there was no honest way to say 'I
can see the pieces but I can't see the shape.'

Changes to the architect role spec:
- Add deferred(unclear) state: the pieces exist but the composition
  isn't clear; resolution requires investigation (work through
  examples, POC), not waiting. Has an investigation target and an
  impacts field.
- Add 'Impacts' field to the OQ format: what does this block
  downstream? Be specific ('blocks the first hub deployment because
  the hub dials workers' not 'blocks the hub crate'). The triage
  signal that makes deferral urgency visible — the field that would
  have made the AlknetClient circular hedge visible.
- Add circular-reasoning guard to self-review: 'check that your
  blocking condition isn't a prerequisite of the thing you're
  deferring.'
- Trim anti-patterns #9-#11 (hedging synonyms catalog, ~40 lines):
  detection belongs in the reviewer, not the architect's self-review.
  The architect is too close to its own reasoning to see its own
  circular hedges.
- Trim door-types section (30→10 lines): keep the one-paragraph
  summary, cut the elaboration.

Changes to the architecture-reviewer role spec:
- Add Decision Quality (F) category: false-deferral check
  distinguishing three cases — (1) hedging on a resolved decision, (2)
  false deferral / circular hedge (the blocking condition is a
  prerequisite of the thing being deferred), (3) legitimate deferral.
- Add Impacts Field Coverage (G) category: check that unresolved OQs
  have specific impacts fields.
- Note: the Decision Quality category is often the highest-value
  check on poorly-defined projects — the architect cannot self-review
  it (circular reasoning is invisible from inside the circle).

Retrofit existing OQs:
- Add Impacts field to all 16 unresolved OQs (10 deferred, 6 open).
- Update OQ-63 (TlsError shape) to reflect ADR-087's client-side
  addition — the error type now covers both server and client
  variants.
- Move OQ-65 (WebSocket carrying channels) to alknet-http theme
  (done in prior commit; this commit adds its impacts field).
- Verified: no circular reasoning found in existing deferrals. The
  AlknetClient hedge (OQ-64) was the circular one; it's already
  resolved by ADR-087.

2026-07-15 07:35:55 +00:00

4.6 KiB

Raw Blame History

OQ-65: Should WebSocket Carry the Channels Protocol (Not Just the Call Protocol)?

Origin: docs/architecture/crates/http/websocket.md (ADR-048 specifies WebSocket carries the native call-protocol session — the EventEnvelope wire format over a WebSocket text/binary frame stream); docs/architecture/decisions/086-endpoint-types-and-entry-points.md §3 (the web config advertises alknet/channels for the WebSocket-carrying-channels path — a path ADR-048 does not specify).
Status: open
Door type: one-way (this supersedes or extends ADR-048's "WebSocket carries the native call-protocol session" decision. If WebSocket carries channels, a browser opens one WebSocket and gets the full channels substrate — channel/open, data-channel ALPNs, the relay path through the hub — instead of only the call-protocol session. This is a browser-wire-format one-way door: once browsers depend on the channels-over-WebSocket framing, changing it is a breaking change for every browser client.)
Priority: medium (the browser story works without this — ADR-048's call-protocol-only WebSocket is functional — but channels-over-WebSocket makes the browser a first-class channels participant, which simplifies the hub relay and the browser's access to data-channel ALPNs like TTY and tunnels. The question is whether the simplification is worth the one-way-door commitment now, or whether the call-protocol-only path suffices until a concrete browser-needs-a-data-channel use case arrives.)
Impacts: Does not block the browser path (ADR-048 works). Would simplify the hub relay (one model, not two) and unblock browser access to data-channel ALPNs (TTY, tunnels) over a single WebSocket if resolved to "WebSocket carries channels."
Resolution: Not yet decided. The two options:

Option A — WebSocket carries call only (ADR-048 unchanged). The browser opens a WebSocket and gets a call-protocol session (EventEnvelope over WebSocket frames). Data-channel ALPNs (TTY, tunnels) are not accessible from the browser — the browser can invoke call operations but cannot open a alknet/tty channel. A browser needing a TTY would use a separate WebSocket per session, each carrying the TTY wire format directly (not via channel/open). Simpler; the browser is a call-protocol client, not a channels client.

Option B — WebSocket carries channels (extends/supersedes ADR-048). The browser opens a WebSocket and gets a channels connection — the 9-byte chunk format (ADR-071) over WebSocket binary frames, with channel 0 as alknet/call and data channels opened via channel/open. The browser is a full channels participant: it can open TTY channels, tunnels, etc. through the same WebSocket. The hub relay (ADR-079) works unchanged — the browser leg is a channels connection, same as a native leg. This is the "browser as channels client" path.

The trade-off: Option B commits to the channels-over-WebSocket framing as a browser wire format (one-way door), but makes the browser a first-class channels participant and simplifies the hub (one relay model, not two). Option A keeps the browser simpler but means the browser cannot use data-channel ALPNs over the same connection — each data-channel ALPN needs its own WebSocket and its own browser-side implementation.

This question is decision-ready when the first browser-needs-a- data-channel use case arrives (e.g., a browser-based terminal that needs alknet/tty over the hub). Until then, ADR-048's call-protocol-only path is the implemented browser path, and the web config advertises alknet/channels by default (per ADR-086 §3, so the hub is ready for Option B if chosen).

Note: this is distinct from the WebTransport path (deferred per ADR-044). WebTransport, when revived, would carry channels natively (a WT bidi stream = a channels connection). WebSocket-carrying- channels is the WebSocket equivalent — same substrate, different transport. If Option B is chosen, the WebSocket-channels framing and the WebTransport-channels framing share the channels wire format (ADR-071); only the transport differs.
Cross-references: ADR-048 (WebSocket carries the native call-protocol session — the current decision this OQ may supersede or extend), ADR-071 (channels wire format — the 9-byte chunk format that would ride over WebSocket binary frames), ADR-079 (hub relay — unchanged if the browser is a channels client), ADR-086 §3 (the web config advertises alknet/channels for this path), ADR-044 (WebTransport deferred; WebSocket is the v1 browser path)

4.6 KiB Raw Blame History

OQ-65: Should WebSocket Carry the Channels Protocol (Not Just the Call Protocol)?

4.6 KiB

Raw Blame History