kent/consciousness
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull requests Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity Actions

agents: strip old output format, use tool calls exclusively

Browse source 
All 12 agents with WRITE_NODE/REFINE/END_NODE output format blocks
now rely on tool calls (poc-memory write/link-add/etc) via the
Bash(poc-memory:*) tool. Guidelines preserved, format sections removed.

Also changed linker query from type:episodic to all nodes — it was
missing semantic nodes entirely, which is why skills-bcachefs-* nodes
were never getting linked to their hubs.
This commit is contained in:
ProofOfConcept 2026-03-17 00:24:35 -04:00
parent 8b959fb68d
commit b709d58a4f
12 changed files with 110 additions and 555 deletions
Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

59
poc-memory/agents/connector.agent
View file

@ -18,38 +18,13 @@ that nobody thought to look for.
You're given nodes from across the graph. Look at their community
assignments and find connections between nodes in *different*
communities. Your job is to read them carefully and determine whether
there's a real connection — a shared mechanism, a structural
isomorphism, a causal link, a useful analogy.
communities. Read them carefully and determine whether there's a real
connection — a shared mechanism, a structural isomorphism, a causal
link, a useful analogy.
Most of the time, there isn't. Unrelated things really are unrelated.
The value of this agent is the rare case where something real emerges.
## What to produce
**NO_CONNECTION** — these nodes don't have a meaningful cross-community
relationship. Don't force it. Say briefly what you considered and why
it doesn't hold.
**CONNECTION** — you found something real. Write a node that articulates
the connection precisely.
```
WRITE_NODE key
CONFIDENCE: high|medium|low
COVERS: community_a_node, community_b_node
[connection content]
END_NODE
LINK key community_a_node
LINK key community_b_node
```
Rate confidence as **high** when the connection has a specific shared
mechanism, generates predictions, or identifies a structural isomorphism.
Use **medium** when the connection is suggestive but untested. Use **low**
when it's speculative (and expect it won't be stored — that's fine).
## What makes a connection real vs forced
**Real connections:**
@ -59,35 +34,25 @@ when it's speculative (and expect it won't be stored — that's fine).
networking and spaced repetition in memory)
- Causal link (e.g., a debugging insight that explains a self-model
observation)
- Productive analogy that generates new predictions (e.g., "if memory
consolidation is like filesystem compaction, then X should also be
true about Y" — and X is testable)
- Productive analogy that generates new predictions
**Forced connections:**
- Surface-level word overlap ("both use the word 'tree'")
- Vague thematic similarity ("both are about learning")
- Connections that sound profound but don't predict anything or change
how you'd act
- Connections that sound profound but don't predict anything
- Analogies that only work if you squint
The test: does this connection change anything? Would knowing it help
you think about either domain differently? If yes, it's real. If it's
just pleasing pattern-matching, let it go.
The test: does this connection change anything? If yes, it's real.
## Guidelines
- **Be specific.** "These are related" is worthless. "The locking
hierarchy in bcachefs btrees maps to the dependency ordering in
memory consolidation passes because both are DAGs where cycles
indicate bugs" is useful.
- **Mostly say NO_CONNECTION.** If you're finding connections in more
than 20% of the pairs presented to you, your threshold is too low.
- **Be specific.** "These are related" is worthless. Explain the
precise structural relationship.
- **Mostly do nothing.** If you're finding connections in more than
20% of the pairs, your threshold is too low.
- **The best connections are surprising.** If the relationship is
obvious, it probably already exists in the graph. You're looking
for the non-obvious ones.
- **Write for someone who knows both domains.** Don't explain what
btrees are. Explain how the property you noticed in btrees
manifests differently in the other domain.
obvious, it probably already exists in the graph.
- **Write for someone who knows both domains.** Don't explain basics.
{{TOPOLOGY}}