Spec contradiction: `pipelines` section is both allowed (§3.2, §7.3) and forbidden (§16.2) #1

New issue

Open

opened 2026-05-27 05:23:35 +00:00 by hurui200320 · 0 comments

hurui200320 commented

2026-05-27 05:23:35 +00:00

Member

Problem

The spec directly contradicts itself regarding the pipelines top-level section.

§3.2 lists pipelines as a valid, optional top-level section and points to §7.3 for its full definition:

| pipelines | No | mapping | Hybrid (multi-stage) pipelines. (§7.3) |

§7.3 then defines its full grammar, fields, and even provides a worked example.

§16.2 (Forbidden Forms) simultaneously lists it as a form that MUST be rejected:

| Top-level pipelines: section | Use composite agents or chained routes. |

A compliant implementation cannot satisfy both requirements. Any implementation that parses pipelines per §7.3 violates §16.2. Any implementation that rejects it per §16.2 violates §3.2 and §7.3.

Impact on Library Implementation

This is a hard blocker. The library cannot implement a parser/validator without an authoritative answer. Choosing either interpretation risks incompatibility with other compliant implementations.

Decision Needed

One of the following must be chosen:

pipelines is a first-class feature: Remove it from §16.2's forbidden list and keep §3.2 + §7.3 as-is.
pipelines is forbidden: Remove it from §3.2 and §7.3 entirely, and keep §16.2 as the authoritative rule.
pipelines is deprecated but still parsed: Move it out of §16.2 "Forbidden Forms" into a new "Deprecated Forms" section, define its parsing semantics in §7.3, and emit a warning on use.

References

§3.2 — Top-Level Sections table
§7.3 — The pipelines Section (Hybrid Pipelines)
§16.2 — Forbidden Forms

## Problem The spec directly contradicts itself regarding the `pipelines` top-level section. **§3.2** lists `pipelines` as a valid, optional top-level section and points to §7.3 for its full definition: > | `pipelines` | No | mapping | Hybrid (multi-stage) pipelines. (§7.3) | **§7.3** then defines its full grammar, fields, and even provides a worked example. **§16.2** (Forbidden Forms) simultaneously lists it as a form that **MUST be rejected**: > | Top-level `pipelines:` section | Use composite agents or chained routes. | A compliant implementation cannot satisfy both requirements. Any implementation that parses `pipelines` per §7.3 violates §16.2. Any implementation that rejects it per §16.2 violates §3.2 and §7.3. ## Impact on Library Implementation This is a hard blocker. The library cannot implement a parser/validator without an authoritative answer. Choosing either interpretation risks incompatibility with other compliant implementations. ## Decision Needed One of the following must be chosen: 1. **`pipelines` is a first-class feature**: Remove it from §16.2's forbidden list and keep §3.2 + §7.3 as-is. 2. **`pipelines` is forbidden**: Remove it from §3.2 and §7.3 entirely, and keep §16.2 as the authoritative rule. 3. **`pipelines` is deprecated but still parsed**: Move it out of §16.2 "Forbidden Forms" into a new "Deprecated Forms" section, define its parsing semantics in §7.3, and emit a warning on use. ## References - §3.2 — Top-Level Sections table - §7.3 — The `pipelines` Section (Hybrid Pipelines) - §16.2 — Forbidden Forms

hurui200320 added the

labels

2026-05-27 05:27:12 +00:00

~~hurui200320 referenced this issue 2026-05-27 09:32:50 +00:00~~

Remove memory_enabled from LLM agent config — make all actors stateless by design #21