feat(service): add decision recording and snapshot store #433
Merged
hamza.khyari
merged 9 commits from 2026-03-03 12:58:17 +00:00
feature/m4-decision-service into master
Labels
Clear labels
auto/needs-reevaluation
controller-managed
overdue
auto/blocked-by-deps
auto/ci-timeout
auto/claimed-implementer
auto/claimed-merge
auto/claimed-reviewer
auto/driver-down
auto/invariant-violation
auto/last-attempt-tier-0
auto/last-attempt-tier-1
auto/last-attempt-tier-2
auto/last-attempt-tier-min
Automation Tracking
auto/needs-conflict-resolution
auto/needs-implementer
auto/postmortem
auto/ready-to-merge
auto/restart-throttled
auto/revert
auto/sentinel
auto/stale-inactivity
auto/unstable
Blocked
Needs Feedback
Signed-off: Owner
Signed-off: Scrum Master
Signed-off: Tech Lead
Spike
Controller deferred this PR; awaiting Phase 6+ scope-evaluator or operator re-enablement.
Auto-agents controller manages this PR/issue (see tools/controller/deploy/RUNBOOK.md). Remove this label to abandon controller management.
PR blocked by an open issue dependency. Operator must close the dep (or remove the dependency link) before the merge driver can act. Auto-cleared by merge_drive when no open deps remain.
Most recent merge cycle hit CI timeout. Driver excludes this PR while last merge_cycle row is < 30 min old; label persists thereafter as visible history.
Currently being processed by an implementer worker.
Currently being processed by the merge driver.
Currently being processed by a reviewer worker.
Merge driver heartbeat stale; pipeline halted. Closed automatically on next clean tick.
Detected master commit violating the strict merge invariant. Tracked as an issue (not a PR label); kept here for label completeness.
In-cycle escalation: most recent attempt ran at the Tier 0 slot (`tier-0`). Slot's model defined in .opencode/models/tiers.yaml.
In-cycle escalation: most recent attempt ran at the Tier 1 slot (`tier-1`). Slot's model defined in .opencode/models/tiers.yaml.
In-cycle escalation: most recent attempt ran at the Tier 2 slot (`tier-2`). Slot's model defined in .opencode/models/tiers.yaml. Gated behind IMPLEMENTER_ESCALATION_TIER2_ENABLED.
In-cycle escalation: most recent attempt ran at the Tier -1 slot (`tier-min`). Slot's model defined in .opencode/models/tiers.yaml. Suffix is ``-min`` (not ``--1``) so the Forgejo UI reads naturally.
Tracking issues used by the AI Automation system for agents to communicate and report.
Rebase conflict needs LLM conflict-resolver.
Failing CI needs implementer attention.
Documenting a driver incident or rollback.
Reviewer has APPROVED this PR and no later REQUEST_CHANGES is outstanding. The merge driver requires this label to even consider a PR for merging. Set by the reviewer worker on APPROVE; cleared on REQUEST_CHANGES.
Train repeatedly lost master-tempo races. Driver excludes via merge_cycle until cooldown elapses; label persists as visible history.
Revert PR backing out an invariant violation. Fast-tracked through the merge driver.
Sentinel PR duplicated from upstream into a personal fork by tools/duplicate_prs_to_fork.py for pipeline testing. Lives only in the fork; the canonical pipeline never sees it.
No implementer activity for N days. Flagged for human review. Auto-cleared on next push to head branch.
Repeatedly fails on current master (>= 3 ci-fail-on-rebased-sha releases in 12 h). Excluded from driver until human triage.
A ticket in a blocked state and unable to complete until some other task is completed first.
Bounty
$100
A bounty of $100 for any open-source contributor who provides a MR that solves this issue
Bounty
$1000
A bounty of $1000 for any open-source contributor who provides a MR that solves this issue
Bounty
$10000
A bounty of $10000 for any open-source contributor who provides a MR that solves this issue
Bounty
$20
A bounty of $20 for any open-source contributor who provides a MR that solves this issue
Bounty
$2000
A bounty of $2000 for any open-source contributor who provides a MR that solves this issue
Bounty
$250
A bounty of $250 for any open-source contributor who provides a MR that solves this issue
Bounty
$50
A bounty of $50 for any open-source contributor who provides a MR that solves this issue
Bounty
$500
A bounty of $500 for any open-source contributor who provides a MR that solves this issue
Bounty
$5000
A bounty of $5000 for any open-source contributor who provides a MR that solves this issue
Bounty
$750
A bounty of $750 for any open-source contributor who provides a MR that solves this issue
MoSCoW
Could have
Could have feature in order to satisfy the epic/legendary.
MoSCoW
Must have
Must have feature in order to satisfy the epic/legendary.
MoSCoW
Should have
Should have feature in order to satisfy the epic/legendary.
There are questions in the ticket that can not be completed until the project owner provides clarity.
Points
1
1 man-hours worth of work for an expert with no learning curve.
Points
13
13 man-hours worth of work for an expert with no learning curve.
Points
2
2 man-hours worth of work for an expert with no learning curve.
Points
21
21 man-hours worth of work for an expert with no learning curve.
Points
3
3 man-hours worth of work for an expert with no learning curve.
Points
34
34 man-hours worth of work for an expert with no learning curve.
Points
5
5 man-hours worth of work for an expert with no learning curve.
Points
55
55 man-hours worth of work for an expert with no learning curve.
Points
8
8 man-hours worth of work for an expert with no learning curve.
Points
88
88 man-hours worth of work for an expert with no learning curve.
Priority
Backlog
This ticket has backlogged priority and is not to be worked on yet
Priority
CI Blocker
Critical priority issue that blocks CI/CD pipeline and prevents PR merges
Priority
Critical
The priority is critical
Priority
High
The priority is high
Priority
Low
The priority is low
Priority
Medium
The priority is medium
When an epic or legendary is in review it must be signed off by owner, tech lead, and scrum master before being marked as completed.
When an epic or legendary is in review it must be signed off by owner, tech lead, and scrum master before being marked as completed.
When an epic or legendary is in review it must be signed off by owner, tech lead, and scrum master before being marked as completed.
A ticket for learning a tool or technology that is needed to be able to do future planning and design.
State
Completed
The ticket has been fully implemented, completed, and merged with the source code. This label should only be applied once a ticket is closed.
State
Duplicate
A ticket that represents the same content as an existing ticket.
State
In Progress
A ticket that is actively being developed.
State
In Review
A ticket that has had some code completed to implement but is waiting to pass peer review and is not yet merged in.
State
Paused
This ticket's work started but wasn't finished. It's on hold (likely in a feature branch) and will be resumed later, either due to a blocker or a delay.
State
Unverified
All new tickets start in this state. A developer may set it to show the ticket is unverified. This means we haven't agreed to work on it. It will either move to a verified state or be closed as wontdo.
State
Verified
The issue has been verified by a developer as legitimate. It will be worked on and verified tickets are now considered part of the backlog.
State
Wont Do
This ticket has been decided it wont be done. This may mean the bug has been determined to not be real (cant verify) or the feature is one we have decided we dont want to adopt.
Type
Automation
Any edits or discussion about the AI automated coding system.
Type
Bug
Something that doesnt work as intended.
Type
Discussion
Anytime a ticket represents a discussion about a subject and doesnt fall into one of the other categories.
Type
Documentation
An error or improvement needed in the documentation.
Type
Epic
Any first tier epic. That is, an epic which contains only issues as children and will not have sub-epics.
Type
Feature
Some new functionality not present.
Type
Legendary
A type of Epic which will contain other Epics.
Type
Refactor
A code change that restructures existing code without changing its external behavior.
Type
Support
Someone needs help using the project.
Type
Task
A generic task that doesnt fit into the other type categories.
Type
Testing
Work exclusively focusing on fixing or expanding testing.
Projects
Clear projects
No project
Assignees
aditya (Aditya Chhabra)
aleenaumair (Aleena Umair)
brent.edwards (Brent Edwards)
CoreRasurae (Luis Mendes)
drew (Drew Morris)
eugen.thaci (Eugen Thaci)
freemo (Jeffrey Phillips Freeman)
HAL9000 (HAL 9000)
HAL9001 (HAL9001)
hamza.khyari (Hamza Khyari)
hurui200320 (Rui Hu)
justin.morris
khird (Kyle Hird)
org.cleveragents
Clear assignees
No Assignees
hamza.khyari
Notifications
Due Date
No due date set.
Blocks
#172 feat(service): add decision recording and snapshot store
cleveragents/cleveragents-core
Reference: cleveragents/cleveragents-core#433
Reference in New Issue
Block a user
Blocking a user prevents them from interacting with repositories, such as opening or commenting on pull requests or issues. Learn more about blocking a user.
Delete Branch "feature/m4-decision-service"
Deleting a branch is permanent. Although the deleted branch may continue to exist for a short time before it actually gets removed, it CANNOT be undone in most cases. Continue?
Summary
Implements
DecisionServicewith record/list/tree helpers andSnapshotStorefor Forgejo issue #172.What
DecisionService— dual-mode (in-memory / DB-backed) service with:record_decision()with auto-sequencing, auto-snapshot capture, string-to-enum coercionget_decision(),list_decisions(),list_by_type()retrievalget_tree()(BFS),get_path_to_root()tree navigationmark_superseded(),get_superseded()supersession supportdelete_decision()with snapshot cleanupcount_decisions(),get_next_sequence()statisticsSnapshotStore— hash-based deduplication index forContextSnapshotobjectsDuplicateDecisionError,DecisionNotFoundError,SequenceConflictErrorTests
features/decision_recording.feature(all passing)robot/decision_recording.robotwith helper scriptDocs
docs/reference/decision_service.mdcovering all public API, dual-mode persistence, and exceptionsNote on cherry-picked commits
This branch includes 2 cherry-picked commits from PR #131 (decision persistence) to provide
DecisionRepositoryfor the UoW code paths. When #131 merges to master, a rebase will make these cherry-picks disappear cleanly.Closes #172
Dependencies
cd5ad39642to0f4b8a967fCode Review — PR #433 / Issue #172:
feat(service): add decision recording and snapshot storeBranch:
feature/m4-decision-serviceReviewed commit:
cd641a8(last by Hamza, 7-commit chain from5539fd0..cd641a8)Scope: 15 files changed, ~2600 insertions, ~160 deletions
Review focus: bugs, security, performance, test coverage/quality, spec conformance
1. Issue #172 Acceptance Criteria Compliance
DecisionServicewith record/list/tree helpers + snapshot storagedecision_service.pydocs/reference/decision_service.mdfeatures/decision_recording.featurerobot/decision_recording.robotbenchmarks/decision_recording_bench.pynox -s coverage_reportnox(all sessions), fix any errors2. Bugs
BUG-1 [HIGH] — Sequence numbers not rehydrated from DB on restart
File:
decision_service.py:203, 622-626_plan_sequenceis an in-memorydictinitialized to{}. In persisted mode, if the service restarts against an existing database with decisions already recorded,_next_sequence()starts from 0 again, causingsequence_numbercollisions. The spec (line 18398, 18470) requiressequence_numberto be monotonically increasing per plan.BUG-2 [HIGH] —
SequenceConflictErrordefined but never raisedFile:
decision_service.py:74-82This exception is defined, exported in
__all__, and whitelisted in vulture — but never actually raised anywhere. If BUG-1 causes a collision, there is no guard to catch it. The error exists as dead code suggesting uniqueness enforcement was intended but never implemented.BUG-3 [MEDIUM] —
delete_decisioninconsistent between modesFile:
decision_service.py:537-560In persisted mode, if the underlying repository's
delete()silently succeeds for a non-existent ID (does not raise), the method returnsTruewithout error. In in-memory mode, it correctly raisesDecisionNotFoundError. The behavior diverges depending on the backend.BUG-4 [MEDIUM] —
mark_supersededdoes not validatenew_decision_idexistsFile:
decision_service.py:483-523The spec (line 18196) states "the original and all its descendants are marked
superseded_by = <new_decision_id>." The service only marks the single targeted decision but never verifies the replacement decision actually exists — this can create dangling references.BUG-5 [MEDIUM] —
get_treesilently drops orphaned subtreesFile:
decision_service.py:383-425If a decision's
parent_decision_idreferences a deleted parent, BFS from roots never reaches it. Theif not rootsfallback only triggers when there are zero roots. Orphaned subtrees are silently omitted from the returned tree, violating the spec's "Reachability" invariant (spec line 18203).BUG-6 [LOW] —
SnapshotStoreis purely in-memory, lost on restartFile:
decision_service.py:90-164Snapshots stored in
SnapshotStore(the hash-indexed secondary store) are never persisted to the database. After a service restart,get_snapshot()andget_snapshots_for_plan()returnNone/empty even though the decisions (with embedded snapshots) still exist in the DB. The spec (line 18421-18425) describes the context snapshot as a replay-critical artifact.BUG-7 [LOW] — Dead code in
PlanLifecycleServiceFile:
plan_lifecycle_service.py:177-188_decision_seqdict and_next_seq()method are never called anywhere in the service._try_record_decisiondelegates sequence numbering toDecisionService.record_decision(). These are dead code, masked by vulture whitelist entries atvulture_whitelist.py:339-340.3. Security Issues
SEC-1 [MEDIUM] — No size limits on
actor_reasoningfieldFile:
decision_service.py:249Raw LLM reasoning traces can be arbitrarily large. No bounds are enforced before storage or logging. This creates risk for log injection and storage exhaustion attacks.
SEC-2 [LOW] — Truncated SHA-256 hash with misleading prefix
File:
decision_service.py:672_auto_capture_snapshottruncates the SHA-256 to 16 hex chars (64 bits) but prefixes it withsha256:, implying a full cryptographic hash. If any downstream code relies on this for integrity verification, the collision resistance is far lower than expected.SEC-3 [LOW] —
SnapshotStore._hash_indexgrows without boundFile:
decision_service.py:99No eviction policy. A caller generating many unique snapshots causes unbounded memory growth.
SEC-4 [LOW] —
tempfile.mktempusage in test step fileFile:
features/steps/decision_recording_steps.py:966tempfile.mktempis deprecated due to a TOCTOU race condition. This is test-only but is a pattern repeated across 17 places in the test suite.4. Performance Issues
PERF-1 [MEDIUM] —
count_decisionsloads all objects just to count themFile:
decision_service.py:593-602count_decisions(plan_id)callslist_decisions(plan_id)which deserializes every decision from the DB, builds a Python list, then takeslen(). Should delegate toCOUNT(*)in persisted mode.PERF-2 [MEDIUM] — No pagination on any list method
Files:
decision_service.py—list_decisions,list_by_type,get_tree,get_superseded,get_snapshots_for_planNone of these support
limit/offset. For plans with hundreds or thousands of decisions, this returns unbounded result sets.PERF-3 [LOW] —
get_treeandget_supersededload full decision setFile:
decision_service.py:395, 476Both call
list_decisions()to load the entire plan's decisions into memory, then perform in-memory filtering/traversal.PERF-4 [LOW] —
SnapshotStore._hash_indexuseslistinstead ofsetFile:
decision_service.py:99, 145list.remove(decision_id)is O(n) for each removal. Using asetwould be O(1).5. Test Coverage and Quality Issues
TEST-1 [HIGH] — BFS order not actually verified in tree tests
Files:
features/decision_recording.feature:103,robot/helper_decision_recording.py:99The "Get tree returns BFS order from root" scenario asserts count and root-first, but never verifies actual BFS ordering. The level-order property (all depth-1 children before depth-2 grandchildren) is not checked. A broken BFS that returns DFS order would pass.
TEST-2 [HIGH] — No test for sequence rehydration after restart
Files: All test files
No test creates decisions, destroys the service, recreates it against the same DB, and verifies that sequence numbers continue from where they left off. This is exactly the scenario where BUG-1 manifests.
TEST-3 [HIGH] —
MagicMock()withoutspec=hides bugsFiles:
decision_di_wiring_steps.py:111,helper_decision_di.py:87,decision_di_bench.py:153All use
MagicMock()forsettingswithoutspec=Settings. This silently creates auto-attributes on access, meaning code that readssettings.nonexistent_propertygets a silent mock object instead of failing. Should usecreate_autospec(Settings).TEST-4 [MEDIUM] —
UnitOfWork.__new__()anti-pattern in 4 placesFiles:
decision_di_wiring_steps.py:82,helper_decision_di.py:37,decision_di_bench.py:67,decision_recording_bench.pyAll bypass
UnitOfWork.__init__()to directly set private attributes. If__init__changes, all 4 break silently. Should be a shared fixture factory.TEST-5 [MEDIUM] — DI wiring assertions are too weak (
>= 1)Files:
decision_di_wiring_steps.py:145, 194len(strategy_decisions) >= 1passes even if 100 spurious decisions are recorded. Should assert the exact expected count.TEST-6 [MEDIUM] — No test for invalid
decision_typestringNo scenario passes an invalid string like
"garbage"torecord_decision(decision_type=...)and asserts aValueErroris raised.TEST-7 [MEDIUM] —
confidence_scoreboundary values never testedTests only use
0.85. Never exercises0.0,1.0, negative, or>1.0. The domain model hasge=0.0, le=1.0validators — untested at boundaries.TEST-8 [LOW] —
get_decisionreturn not validated beyonddecision_idFile:
decision_recording_steps.py:652step_match_recordedonly comparesdecision_id, notquestion,chosen_option,decision_type, or any other field. A buggyget_decisionreturning a corrupted object would pass.TEST-9 [LOW] — Robot tests are strict subset of Behave tests
File:
robot/decision_recording.robot7 Robot test cases duplicate existing Behave scenarios with no unique coverage. No error-path, persisted-mode, or negative tests in Robot.
TEST-10 [LOW] — No benchmarks for persisted (DB-backed) mode
Files:
benchmarks/decision_recording_bench.py,benchmarks/decision_di_bench.pyAll benchmarks use in-memory
DecisionService(). The DB-backed path (with SQLAlchemy overhead, transactions, and serialization) has fundamentally different performance characteristics and is not benchmarked.6. Specification Conformance Issues
SPEC-1 [MEDIUM] — Missing uniqueness enforcement per spec schema
The spec (line 18470) defines
sequence_number INTEGER NOT NULLin the decisions table. The existence ofSequenceConflictErrorin the codebase implies uniqueness enforcement was planned. It is not implemented, and BUG-1 makes collisions possible.SPEC-2 [LOW] —
__init__.pymissingSequenceConflictErrorexportFile:
src/cleveragents/application/services/__init__.pySequenceConflictErroris indecision_service.__all__but not re-exported from the services package__init__.py. Also,PlanLifecycleServiceand its exceptions are absent from__init__.pydespite being a peer service.SPEC-3 [LOW] — Doc claim that retrieval methods raise
DecisionNotFoundErrorFile:
docs/reference/decision_service.md:75States "All raise
DecisionNotFoundErrorwhen the target decision does not exist (where applicable)." However,list_decisionsandlist_by_typereturn empty lists, not exceptions.SPEC-4 [LOW] —
artifacts_producedtyped aslist[Any]vs spec'slist[ArtifactRef]File:
decision_service.py:230The
record_decisionmethod acceptslist[Any]forartifacts_produced, but the spec (line 18442) and domain model both define it aslist[ArtifactRef]. The loose typing defeats compile-time checks.7. Last Commit Review (
cd641a8)The final commit ("fix(service): align test and doc refs with DecisionService API") is a clean-up commit that fixes stale references to old method names (
get_decisions_for_plan->list_decisions,get_decision_tree->get_tree) across 4 files. The diff is correct and no stale references remain.One note: the commit message contains
ISSUES CLOSED: #172, which will auto-close the issue on merge, but the issue's acceptance criteria (coverage >= 97%, fullnoxpass) are not confirmed in the commit chain.Summary — Priority Ranking
_plan_sequencenot rehydrated from DB — sequence collisions after restartSequenceConflictErrordead code — no uniqueness guard existsMagicMock()withoutspec=silently hides bugs in 3 filesdelete_decisionbehavior diverges between persisted/in-memory modesmark_supersededdoesn't validate replacement decision existsget_treesilently drops orphaned decisionsactor_reasoning(log injection / storage exhaustion)count_decisionsloads all objects just to countUnitOfWork.__new__()anti-pattern in 4 places>= 1instead of exact countsdecision_typestring never testedconfidence_scoreboundaries never testedSnapshotStorelost on restart (not persisted)_decision_seq/_next_seqinPlanLifecycleServicetempfile.mktempRecommendation: The HIGH-severity items (BUG-1, BUG-2, TEST-1, TEST-2, TEST-3) should be addressed before merge. BUG-1 in particular is a data integrity risk in any deployment that restarts the service, and the lack of a test for it (TEST-2) means it would go undetected until production.
cd641a8931to2a9606cb722a9606cb72toc2f8bc0eafNew commits pushed, approval review dismissed automatically according to repository settings
c2f8bc0eafto33a9d1e7d833a9d1e7d8to0e36755db9