3cfaa1e1d3
Phase 1 delivers the complete durability and storage layer:
- WAL with crash recovery: Append-only journal with BLAKE3 checksums,
fsync guarantees, and proper seek-to-EOF on reopen
- Storage engine: sled-backed KVStore with scan_prefix for range queries
- Content-addressed storage: H:{hash}, V:{hash}, E:{hash} key patterns
- Ingestor: Background worker tailing WAL, writing to KV with 8-byte
aligned record headers for rkyv zero-copy deserialization
- Comprehensive tests: 31 tests covering crash recovery, round-trips,
and multi-cycle durability
New crates: stemedb-wal, stemedb-storage, stemedb-ingest
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
72 lines
1.9 KiB
Markdown
72 lines
1.9 KiB
Markdown
# Lifecycle Stages
|
|
|
|
> **Quick Ref:** Assertions have lifecycle state: Proposed → UnderReview → Approved | Deprecated | Rejected
|
|
|
|
## The Problem
|
|
|
|
AI agents can't distinguish proposals from decisions. An RFC saying "we should use ES256" looks the same as an approved policy saying "use ES256." Agents query, get proposals, treat them as truth.
|
|
|
|
## The Solution
|
|
|
|
```rust
|
|
enum LifecycleStage {
|
|
Proposed, // Idea, RFC, suggestion
|
|
UnderReview, // Being evaluated
|
|
Approved, // Accepted as current truth
|
|
Deprecated, // Was true, now superseded
|
|
Rejected, // Considered and declined
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
struct Assertion {
|
|
// ... existing fields
|
|
pub lifecycle: LifecycleStage,
|
|
}
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
## Query Integration
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
# Only approved patterns (safe for implementation)
|
|
GET /query?subject=auth/jwt&predicate=algo&lifecycle=approved
|
|
|
|
# All stages (for research/context)
|
|
GET /query?subject=auth/jwt&predicate=algo&lifecycle=any
|
|
|
|
# Show proposals needing review
|
|
GET /query?predicate=*&lifecycle=under_review
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
## State Transitions
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
Proposed → UnderReview → Approved → Deprecated
|
|
↘ Rejected
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
Transitions are new assertions, not mutations:
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
POST /assert
|
|
{
|
|
"subject": "auth/jwt",
|
|
"predicate": "signing_algorithm",
|
|
"object": { "Text": "ES256" },
|
|
"lifecycle": "Approved",
|
|
"parent_hash": "proposal_hash...", # Links to original proposal
|
|
"signatures": [{ "agent_id": "security_lead", ... }]
|
|
}
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
## Lens Interaction
|
|
|
|
| Lens | Lifecycle Behavior |
|
|
|------|-------------------|
|
|
| Recency | Returns most recent matching lifecycle filter |
|
|
| Consensus | Counts votes within lifecycle stage |
|
|
| Authority | Weights by signer reputation, respects lifecycle |
|
|
| EpochAware | Filters by epoch AND lifecycle |
|
|
|
|
## Origin
|
|
|
|
This feature emerged from user research (see `.claude/agents/perspective-*.md`). The Implementation Agent's core need: "If proposed and approved look the same, I can't use this."
|