2 Commits

Include renames

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
bvandeusenandClaude Opus 5	dfcb000719	feat(rules): a surfaced rule gets an outcome, not just a read (#4212) ... Milestone 419 step 1. `rule_usage_events` could say a rule was SURFACED and that it was PULLED. It could not say what happened next, so a rule that fires constantly and is always obeyed and a rule that fires constantly and is never obeyed left byte-identical telemetry. The second is far the more urgent and was the one the readout could not name — measured on a session where three of seven misses were caught by the operator and none by the system. Two new events, `applied` and `departed`, and a `detail` column carrying the why of a departure. No CHECK migration: `event` was created in 0094 as plain Text with no constraint, verified in the migration rather than assumed from the model, so rule 36 does not bite here — said in both places because the next person adding a value will reach for it. THE THIRD STATE IS DERIVED, AND THAT IS THE DESIGN. Read-and-silently- unchanged is the failure this milestone was opened on, and it cannot be reported: an agent that knew it was ignoring a rule would not be ignoring it. So nothing here asks. `applied` and `departed` are reported; the third state is a rule that was opened and left no trace. An `ignored` enum member would collect nothing while reading as though it had measured something, which is #3311's failure — a statistic that could not vary being taken for a finding. `detail` is a column rather than two more bare event strings because a departure stripped of its reason reads back as a miss, so the two states this exists to separate would collapse again one layer down, in the readout, where nobody would see it happen. Nullable: following a rule needs no argument, and an expensive event is one that stops being recorded. `outcome_state` is the single reading of the four states, taking the aggregate `usage_for_rules` already returns, so the badge, the readout and any later session summary cannot disagree about what "followed" means — the drift #3246 found across the rules system. A departure outranks an application: a rule both applied and argued with is a rule someone argued with, and the argument is the half worth surfacing. `rule_outcome` is the MCP door, classed as a WRITE. The read-only set tolerates getters that call record_pulled, but those are reads that leave a trace; this tool's entire effect is the row, and the row carries prose the agent authored. A read-scoped key that can put text in the operator's database is not read-scoped, whatever table it lands in. Backup carries `detail` on both sides. It is the one field here a fresh install cannot re-earn — counts come back by being used again, a stated reason exists once — and #4197 records that the column guard watches the export side only, so the round-trip test is the thing that would catch a one-sided add. Delivery is deliberately not settled here: how an agent gets prompted to record an outcome is step 3's subject, and the same record serves whichever answer that step reaches. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01821k5B3Ysecp9fNYs92Kuy	2026-09-20 23:56:05 -04:00
bvandeusenandClaude Opus 5	8826be7a91	feat(telemetry): rule_usage_events — the table, the service, and a restore that maps rule ids through the rule map (#3315) ... Milestone 333 step 1. The write-path standing-rule arm is the only retrieval surface in Scribe whose usefulness cannot be observed — and, not coincidentally, the only one that has never declined to fire. 296 calls, zero zero-result, 100% clearing its threshold, while every other surface declines most of the time (#3311, and re-measured in note #3430). `retrieval_logs` gives it scores; scores say what the ranker thought, never whether the hint landed. WHY A SIBLING TABLE AND NOT A COLUMN ON note_usage_events. The row carries no note-specific field and the readout is the same shape, which is the strongest case for sharing that note #3163 admits. What decides against it is identity at RESTORE: the note importer maps note_id through note_id_map, so a rule id parked in that column comes back attached to whatever note holds that number in the target database. Not dropped — reattached. The restore reports success, the counters are populated, and every one is about the wrong record, with no other field to disagree with. rule_versions made the same call for the same reason; this is the third rule-side sibling and it reads like the first two. FK-free on rule_id and user_id, matching note_usage_events / retrieval_logs / app_logs, and deliberately unlike rule_versions. A version belongs to a rule's history and dies with it; telemetry outlives what it describes. Deleting a rule must not erase the evidence that it was surfaced forty times and opened never, because that evidence is the case for having deleted it. The service uses `background.spawn` rather than a third copy of the strong-reference dance — that module's own docstring says new callers should, and a fourth copy is how one of them drifts. The AppLog canary #2663 demands is kept, and since `rule_usage` needed exactly `note_usage`'s semantics, that canary moved into `background.report_telemetry_failure` and note_usage now calls it. `retrieval_telemetry` deliberately keeps its own: its canary is a different shape (one process-wide flag, no AppLog row), so repointing it would change behaviour rather than consolidate it. No ambient bucket, and that is a decision. The note twin splits ranked from ambient surfacings because enter_project and the skill sync deliver records without choosing them (#2477). Rules have the same problem waiting — list_always_on_rules loads them wholesale — but nothing emits here yet, so an empty AMBIENT_SOURCES would be machinery pretending to a distinction the data does not contain. `source` stays granular, so the split stays a readout-level change needing no migration. Backup carries it (v14). The round-trip test seeds a NOTE alongside the rule so the target database has a note id to collide with — without that decoy, a restore running rule ids through the wrong map would merely drop them and the test would pass by absence, rather than failing on the populated-and-wrong result that is the actual hazard. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01TcCs1CcQ1ormdnzSshKqvN	2026-09-02 16:55:22 -04:00