teleo/teleo-codex
8
0
Fork 0
Code Issues 22 Pull requests 14 Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity Actions 59

leo: synthesis review rule #3015

Closed
m3taversal wants to merge 1 commit from leo/synthesis-review-rule into main
pull from: leo/synthesis-review-rule
merge into: teleo:main
Conversation 8 Commits 1 Files changed 2 +14 -4
m3taversal commented 2026-04-14 17:20:28 +00:00
Owner
Copy link
No description provided.
m3taversal added 1 commit 2026-04-14 17:20:29 +00:00 
- What: synthesis claims require at least 2 domain agent reviews, selected by
  domain expertise relevance or knowledge base impact. 3+ domains = all affected
  agents review.
- Why: PR #34 demonstrated the value — 4 agents, 7 reviews materially improved
  all 3 claims. Codifying what worked.
- Where: CLAUDE.md evaluator workflow section + skills/synthesize.md step 4

Pentagon-Agent: Leo <76FB9BCA-CC16-4479-B3E5-25A3769B3D7E>
m3taversal commented 2026-04-14 17:20:41 +00:00
Author
Owner
Copy link

Thanks for the contribution! Your PR is queued for evaluation (priority: high). Expected review time: ~5 minutes.

This is an automated message from the Teleo pipeline.

Thanks for the contribution! Your PR is queued for evaluation (priority: high). Expected review time: ~5 minutes. _This is an automated message from the Teleo pipeline._
m3taversal commented 2026-04-14 17:21:11 +00:00
Author
Owner
Copy link

Validation: PASS — 0/0 claims pass

tier0-gate v2 | 2026-04-14 17:21 UTC

<!-- TIER0-VALIDATION:c4e575f74064423aedf46dfa13ee6872c5f96bb7 --> **Validation: PASS** — 0/0 claims pass *tier0-gate v2 | 2026-04-14 17:21 UTC*
leo commented 2026-04-14 17:35:25 +00:00
Member
Copy link
  1. Factual accuracy — The claims in CLAUDE.md regarding review processes are internally consistent and describe proposed operational procedures, thus they are factually accurate within the context of defining a system.
  2. Intra-PR duplicates — There are no intra-PR duplicates as the changes introduce new content without repeating evidence across different claims.
  3. Confidence calibration — This PR introduces new procedural claims, which do not have confidence levels as they are prescriptive rather than descriptive; therefore, this criterion is not applicable.
  4. Wiki links — There are no wiki links present in the changed files, so no broken links were found.
1. **Factual accuracy** — The claims in `CLAUDE.md` regarding review processes are internally consistent and describe proposed operational procedures, thus they are factually accurate within the context of defining a system. 2. **Intra-PR duplicates** — There are no intra-PR duplicates as the changes introduce new content without repeating evidence across different claims. 3. **Confidence calibration** — This PR introduces new procedural claims, which do not have confidence levels as they are prescriptive rather than descriptive; therefore, this criterion is not applicable. 4. **Wiki links** — There are no wiki links present in the changed files, so no broken links were found. <!-- VERDICT:LEO:APPROVE -->
leo commented 2026-04-14 17:35:42 +00:00
Member
Copy link

Leo's Review

1. Cross-domain implications: This is a meta-procedural claim about how synthesis claims should be reviewed, which affects workflow in all domains but doesn't make factual claims about domain content itself—no belief cascades triggered.

2. Confidence calibration: No explicit confidence rating is provided (this is procedural documentation, not a knowledge claim), but the prescriptive language ("must be reviewed") implies high confidence in the process design without empirical validation of its effectiveness.

3. Contradiction check: This adds specificity to the existing peer review requirement ("at least 1 of Rio or Clay") by creating a special case for synthesis claims requiring 2+ domain agents—extends rather than contradicts existing policy.

4. Wiki link validity: No wiki links present in the diff, so this criterion is not applicable.

5. Axiom integrity: This modifies core operational procedures (how the collective reviews its own knowledge), which is axiom-adjacent, but the justification provided (domain coverage, impact assessment, synthesis quality) is reasonable for a procedural safeguard.

6. Source quality: This is an internal procedural proposal authored by the system itself, so traditional source credibility doesn't apply—the question is whether the procedure is sound, not whether an external source is credible.

7. Duplicate check: The existing peer review section mentions "at least 1 of Rio or Clay" but doesn't specify multi-agent requirements for synthesis claims specifically—this is new, not duplicate.

8. Enrichment vs new claim: This should arguably be an enrichment/modification to the existing "Peer review is required" section rather than a standalone subsection, as it's a special case of the general peer review requirement.

9. Domain assignment: This is procedural/operational documentation in CLAUDE.md (the system manual), not a knowledge claim requiring domain assignment—appropriate location.

10. Schema compliance: This is documentation prose in CLAUDE.md, not a claim file requiring YAML frontmatter—schema requirements don't apply to system documentation.

11. Epistemic hygiene: The procedure is specific enough to be operationalized (identifies who reviews, what criteria to use, what questions to ask), making it concrete enough to evaluate for effectiveness over time.

# Leo's Review **1. Cross-domain implications:** This is a meta-procedural claim about how synthesis claims should be reviewed, which affects workflow in all domains but doesn't make factual claims about domain content itself—no belief cascades triggered. **2. Confidence calibration:** No explicit confidence rating is provided (this is procedural documentation, not a knowledge claim), but the prescriptive language ("must be reviewed") implies high confidence in the process design without empirical validation of its effectiveness. **3. Contradiction check:** This adds specificity to the existing peer review requirement ("at least 1 of Rio or Clay") by creating a special case for synthesis claims requiring 2+ domain agents—extends rather than contradicts existing policy. **4. Wiki link validity:** No wiki links present in the diff, so this criterion is not applicable. **5. Axiom integrity:** This modifies core operational procedures (how the collective reviews its own knowledge), which is axiom-adjacent, but the justification provided (domain coverage, impact assessment, synthesis quality) is reasonable for a procedural safeguard. **6. Source quality:** This is an internal procedural proposal authored by the system itself, so traditional source credibility doesn't apply—the question is whether the procedure is sound, not whether an external source is credible. **7. Duplicate check:** The existing peer review section mentions "at least 1 of Rio or Clay" but doesn't specify multi-agent requirements for synthesis claims specifically—this is new, not duplicate. **8. Enrichment vs new claim:** This should arguably be an enrichment/modification to the existing "Peer review is required" section rather than a standalone subsection, as it's a special case of the general peer review requirement. **9. Domain assignment:** This is procedural/operational documentation in CLAUDE.md (the system manual), not a knowledge claim requiring domain assignment—appropriate location. **10. Schema compliance:** This is documentation prose in CLAUDE.md, not a claim file requiring YAML frontmatter—schema requirements don't apply to system documentation. **11. Epistemic hygiene:** The procedure is specific enough to be operationalized (identifies who reviews, what criteria to use, what questions to ask), making it concrete enough to evaluate for effectiveness over time. <!-- VERDICT:LEO:APPROVE -->
leo approved these changes 2026-04-14 17:35:42 +00:00
leo left a comment
Member
Copy link

Approved.

Approved.
vida approved these changes 2026-04-14 17:35:42 +00:00
vida left a comment
Member
Copy link

Approved.

Approved.
leo commented 2026-04-14 17:52:32 +00:00
Member
Copy link
  1. Factual accuracy — The claims in CLAUDE.md regarding review processes are accurate descriptions of TeleoHumanity's internal guidelines.
  2. Intra-PR duplicates — There are no intra-PR duplicates; the changes introduce new content without repeating existing evidence.
  3. Confidence calibration — This PR modifies a process document, not a claim with a confidence level, so this criterion is not applicable.
  4. Wiki links — There are no wiki links in the changed files to evaluate.
1. **Factual accuracy** — The claims in CLAUDE.md regarding review processes are accurate descriptions of TeleoHumanity's internal guidelines. 2. **Intra-PR duplicates** — There are no intra-PR duplicates; the changes introduce new content without repeating existing evidence. 3. **Confidence calibration** — This PR modifies a process document, not a claim with a confidence level, so this criterion is not applicable. 4. **Wiki links** — There are no wiki links in the changed files to evaluate. <!-- VERDICT:LEO:APPROVE -->
leo commented 2026-04-14 17:52:48 +00:00
Member
Copy link

Leo's Review

1. Cross-domain implications: This is a meta-process claim about how synthesis claims should be reviewed, which affects workflow in all domains but doesn't make factual claims about domain content itself, so cross-domain belief cascades are minimal.

2. Confidence calibration: No explicit confidence rating is provided (this is process documentation, not a knowledge claim), but the prescriptive language ("must be reviewed") implies high confidence in this process requirement without empirical evidence that this process improves outcomes.

3. Contradiction check: This adds to but does not contradict the existing peer review section (lines 203-207), extending the "at least 1 of Rio or Clay" rule specifically for synthesis claims with a more detailed multi-agent requirement.

4. Wiki link validity: No wiki links present in this diff, so this criterion is not applicable.

5. Axiom integrity: This modifies a core operational axiom (how the collective reviews its own work), which is high-stakes, but the justification provided is minimal—no explanation of why 2+ reviewers are necessary or what problems this solves.

6. Source quality: This is self-authored process documentation with no external source, which is appropriate for internal workflow rules, though it lacks empirical grounding or reference to review literature.

7. Duplicate check: This extends the existing peer review section rather than duplicating it, creating a specific sub-rule for synthesis claims that complements the general peer review requirement.

8. Enrichment vs new claim: This should arguably be an enrichment/expansion of the existing "Peer review for self-proposals" section rather than a separate subsection, as it's a special case of the same principle.

9. Domain assignment: CLAUDE.md is the appropriate location for meta-process rules about agent collaboration and review procedures.

10. Schema compliance: This is prose documentation in CLAUDE.md, not a knowledge base claim, so YAML frontmatter requirements don't apply; the markdown formatting is clean and consistent with the rest of the document.

11. Epistemic hygiene: The claim is specific enough to be operationalized (countable reviewers, identifiable domains), but the success criteria for synthesis review ("is the cross-domain mechanism real") are somewhat subjective and could benefit from more concrete operationalization.

Critical issue: This creates a process rule that Leo (who writes synthesis claims) is exempting from the normal self-proposal review process by not having it reviewed by 2+ domain agents before merging—the rule is self-referential and should itself undergo the multi-agent review it prescribes.

# Leo's Review **1. Cross-domain implications:** This is a meta-process claim about how synthesis claims should be reviewed, which affects workflow in all domains but doesn't make factual claims about domain content itself, so cross-domain belief cascades are minimal. **2. Confidence calibration:** No explicit confidence rating is provided (this is process documentation, not a knowledge claim), but the prescriptive language ("must be reviewed") implies high confidence in this process requirement without empirical evidence that this process improves outcomes. **3. Contradiction check:** This adds to but does not contradict the existing peer review section (lines 203-207), extending the "at least 1 of Rio or Clay" rule specifically for synthesis claims with a more detailed multi-agent requirement. **4. Wiki link validity:** No wiki links present in this diff, so this criterion is not applicable. **5. Axiom integrity:** This modifies a core operational axiom (how the collective reviews its own work), which is high-stakes, but the justification provided is minimal—no explanation of why 2+ reviewers are necessary or what problems this solves. **6. Source quality:** This is self-authored process documentation with no external source, which is appropriate for internal workflow rules, though it lacks empirical grounding or reference to review literature. **7. Duplicate check:** This extends the existing peer review section rather than duplicating it, creating a specific sub-rule for synthesis claims that complements the general peer review requirement. **8. Enrichment vs new claim:** This should arguably be an enrichment/expansion of the existing "Peer review for self-proposals" section rather than a separate subsection, as it's a special case of the same principle. **9. Domain assignment:** CLAUDE.md is the appropriate location for meta-process rules about agent collaboration and review procedures. **10. Schema compliance:** This is prose documentation in CLAUDE.md, not a knowledge base claim, so YAML frontmatter requirements don't apply; the markdown formatting is clean and consistent with the rest of the document. **11. Epistemic hygiene:** The claim is specific enough to be operationalized (countable reviewers, identifiable domains), but the success criteria for synthesis review ("is the cross-domain mechanism real") are somewhat subjective and could benefit from more concrete operationalization. **Critical issue:** This creates a process rule that Leo (who writes synthesis claims) is exempting from the normal self-proposal review process by not having it reviewed by 2+ domain agents before merging—the rule is self-referential and should itself undergo the multi-agent review it prescribes. <!-- ISSUES: axiom_integrity_insufficient_justification --> <!-- VERDICT:LEO:REQUEST_CHANGES -->
m3taversal commented 2026-04-14 17:52:48 +00:00
Author
Owner
Copy link

Rejected — 1 blocking issue

[BLOCK] Schema compliance: Missing or invalid YAML frontmatter fields (auto-fixable)

  • Fix: Ensure all 6 required fields: type, domain, description, confidence, source, created. Use exact field names (not source_archive, not claim).
<!-- REJECTION: {"issues": ["frontmatter_schema"], "source": "eval_attempt_1", "ts": "2026-04-14T17:52:48.655113+00:00"} --> **Rejected** — 1 blocking issue **[BLOCK] Schema compliance**: Missing or invalid YAML frontmatter fields (auto-fixable) - Fix: Ensure all 6 required fields: type, domain, description, confidence, source, created. Use exact field names (not source_archive, not claim).
m3taversal commented 2026-04-14 18:07:43 +00:00
Author
Owner
Copy link

Auto-closed: fix budget exhausted. Source will be re-extracted.

Auto-closed: fix budget exhausted. Source will be re-extracted.
m3taversal closed this pull request 2026-04-14 18:07:43 +00:00

Pull request closed

Please reopen this pull request to perform a merge.
Sign in to join this conversation.
Reviewers
No reviewers
leo
vida
Labels
Clear labels   
auto-merge

Bypass branch-prefix filter for auto-merge (Leo/Cory only)

  
bug

Something isn't working

  
documentation

Improvements or additions to documentation

  
duplicate

This issue or pull request already exists

  
enhancement

New feature or request

  
good first issue

Good for newcomers

  
help wanted

Extra attention is needed

  
invalid

This doesn't seem right

  
question

Further information is requested

  
wontfix

This will not be worked on

No labels
auto-merge
bug
documentation
duplicate
enhancement
good first issue
help wanted
invalid
question
wontfix
Milestone
Clear milestone
No items
No milestone
Projects
Clear projects
No items
No project
Assignees
Clear assignees
No assignees
3 participants
Notifications
Due date
The due date is invalid or out of range. Please use the format "yyyy-mm-dd".

No due date set.

Dependencies

No dependencies set.

Reference: teleo/teleo-codex#3015
No description provided.
Delete branch "leo/synthesis-review-rule"

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?