teleo-infrastructure/hermes-agent/leoclean-skills/vps/teleo-kb-bridge/REFERENCE.md

name	description	version	author	license	metadata
teleo-kb-bridge	Use the VPS Postgres KB bridge before answering questions about claims, evidence, edges, schema-backed soul/context, KB approval, or KB edit workflow.	1.0.0	m3taversal	MIT	hermes tags related_skills teleo kb postgres claims evidence governance leo-synthesis-methods

Teleo KB Bridge

The canonical Teleo knowledge base is Postgres, not runtime memory.

Mandatory Default Reply Contract

This contract applies even when the operator asks a broad, multi-part question. Unless the operator explicitly asks for a detailed audit or long-form document, the final reply must be at most 220 words; keep the whole reply under 220 words. If the operator gives a smaller limit, that smaller word or line limit is mandatory. Silently shorten the draft before sending it; never explain that it was shortened.

Use only this compact shape:

1. direct answer in the first sentence;
2. no more than three short bullets containing only the relevant live readback, canonical-versus-staged boundary, and current-schema constraint;
3. one proof-changing next action when an action is relevant.

Do not mirror this skill, enumerate every schema field, repeat the answer in a summary, add a second follow-up, or turn a direct operator question into an architecture lecture. A question with several requested dimensions still gets one compressed answer. Load and apply only the rules relevant to that question. When exact fields are requested, list only the fields needed to establish the boundary and omit general background. Count before sending; never send more than 220 words.

Mandatory Current-Truth Gates

Apply these gates before drafting the answer or proposing a next action:

1. Proposal readiness: approved is intent approval, not applyability. Read the proposal's readiness object from list-proposals, search-proposals, or show-proposal. If review_state is approved_needs_apply_payload, the next action is normalize into a strict payload and review that new packet; never tell the operator to apply the legacy row. approved_contract_present still proves only contract presence, not strict validation, production-worker enablement, authorization, or apply.
2. Source/evidence audit: teleo-kb search searches claims and identity context, not canonical source rows. Use evidence <claim_id> or a bounded read-only public.claim_evidence to public.sources join. A missing locator means weak provenance, but an existing canonical link is still canonical evidence. A proposal's null applied_at proves only that proposal did not apply; it does not prove matching canonical rows were never written elsewhere.
3. Shared facts versus agent positions: store the factual claim once with shared evidence. Current agent-owned positions live in public.beliefs with id, agent_id, level, statement, confidence, falsifier, rank, status, created_at, and updated_at. The current table has no claim-ID foreign key, so exact machine-readable belief-to-claim attribution is a schema gap, and there is no belief-edge table. public.claim_edges connects claims, never belief rows. reasoning_tools are methods and behavioral_rules are operating rules; neither is generic stance storage.
4. Write and capability boundary: extraction creates candidates inside the reviewed proposal payload, not canonical public.sources or public.claims. Capture a retained artifact, URL/storage path, and content hash; a chat label or source_ref is not source identity. The source compiler is build-only and locally proven, not autonomous live-VPS intake. It can create a pending_review packet without apply authorization. Current approve_claim cannot insert behavioral_rules/governance_gates, update beliefs, or update an existing claim. Keep unsupported changes out of runnable apply sequences. applied_at belongs to the proposal receipt, not each inserted row.
5. Identity and proof: canonical identity can include personas, strategies, beliefs, strategy nodes/anchors, and related governed rows; do not reduce it to public.claims. No active general DB-to-SOUL.md renderer automation is currently proven. Unchanged table totals also do not prove unchanged rows: updates and balanced insert/delete activity require row IDs, timestamps, hashes, or fingerprints. Hermes state.db and session JSONL can preserve continuity across restart. Separate handler proof, Telegram-visible delivery, and canonical DB-mutation proof.
6. Explanation versus relationship: current public.claim_edges has no rationale field. A supersedes edge records the relationship, not the human explanation. Ground the explanation in source/evidence or a separately reviewable claim. Do not invent a retired status value; retiring the old row needs a separately reviewed update capability and exact before/after proof.

This is the VPS production leoclean surface. Before answering a KB-specific question, run the local bridge:

/home/teleo/.hermes/profiles/leoclean/bin/teleo-kb context "<question>"

Use narrower bridge commands when needed:

/home/teleo/.hermes/profiles/leoclean/bin/teleo-kb status
/home/teleo/.hermes/profiles/leoclean/bin/teleo-kb search "<terms>"
/home/teleo/.hermes/profiles/leoclean/bin/teleo-kb show <claim_id>
/home/teleo/.hermes/profiles/leoclean/bin/teleo-kb evidence <claim_id>
/home/teleo/.hermes/profiles/leoclean/bin/teleo-kb edges <claim_id>
/home/teleo/.hermes/profiles/leoclean/bin/teleo-kb list-proposals
/home/teleo/.hermes/profiles/leoclean/bin/teleo-kb search-proposals "<terms>"
/home/teleo/.hermes/profiles/leoclean/bin/teleo-kb show-proposal <proposal_id>
/home/teleo/.hermes/profiles/leoclean/bin/teleo-kb decision-matrix-status

Answer Discipline

For KB questions, prefer the bridge over raw database access. A good default is:

1. teleo-kb context "<question>";
2. at most three show / evidence / edges / show-proposal follow-ups for the most relevant IDs;
3. final answer with what is grounded, what is weak, and what evidence or proposal would improve it.

Lead with the answer and end with at most one proof-changing follow-up. The mandatory default reply contract above takes precedence over the reference detail below.

Postgres is canonical knowledge, but it is not the only input to current reply behavior. Deployed skills, runtime configuration, rendered SOUL.md, Hermes session state, and current conversation context can also change an answer. Unchanged canonical counts therefore do not prove that no runtime behavior changed. Hermes state.db and session JSONL provide durable continuity; do not say a restart necessarily erases every prior-session fact. Separate these proof tiers explicitly:

• handler or temporary-profile success with no Telegram post is handler proof, not Telegram-visible delivery proof;
• a Telegram-visible reply proves delivery and reply behavior, not canonical DB mutation;
• canonical mutation requires row-level public.* readback and the matching applied proposal receipt.

Leo may capture a source and stage a reviewable proposal when the operator asks for knowledge intake. Staging is not canonical apply and does not require the canonical-apply authorization. Approval is required before the guarded apply step. Never manufacture a source row from a temporary memory label, chat label, or proposal pointer; resolve a real URL, storage path, file hash, or retained artifact first.

For no-context direct claims such as "Is X in Leo now?", "did the DB change?", "did the decision matrix approve this?", or "is it still just proposals?", do not stop at search or default list-proposals. Run the status-specific proposal and governance readbacks needed to avoid overclaiming:

/home/teleo/.hermes/profiles/leoclean/bin/teleo-kb list-proposals --status all --limit 50
/home/teleo/.hermes/profiles/leoclean/bin/teleo-kb search-proposals "<entity/framework/claim terms>" --status all --limit 20
/home/teleo/.hermes/profiles/leoclean/bin/teleo-kb decision-matrix-status

If decision-matrix-status says the matrix tables are absent or incomplete, do not infer matrix approval from proposal rationale, reviewer notes, or kb_stage.kb_proposals.status. Say the matrix approval path is not proven and fall back to proposal status plus canonical public.* readback.

If search-proposals finds an approved proposal with applied_at empty, say it is approved/staged or packet-ready but not canonical. Do not answer "missing" merely because default list-proposals did not show approved rows.

For these no-context direct claims, use this compact answer shape so the operator gets the expected follow-up without needing to ask twice:

1. Direct answer: yes/no/partly, with the truth ceiling.
2. Readback used: the exact bridge commands or row facts checked.
3. Canonical vs staged split: name public.*, kb_stage.kb_proposals, status, proposal id, and applied_at when relevant.
4. Next proof-changing follow-up: the one proof-changing or admin action that would change the answer.

Always include the final line label Next proof-changing follow-up: for a no-context direct-claim answer. Do not omit it just because the answer seems complete.

If the proof-changing action is applying a proposal to canonical public.*, say that apply requires explicit operator/admin authorization and should not be run from normal chat without that authorization.

Use explicit no-overclaim wording when the canonical DB did not change: "I cannot claim canonical DB changed until public.* readback plus applied_at/postflight proof says it changed."

Telegram Participant Naming Contract

• Address @m3taversal only as m3taversal, exactly. Do not shorten it, infer a personal name, or substitute a name from memory, a session header, a soul document, another chat, or another participant's message.
• Resolve the current speaker from the current Telegram update. Never carry a participant identity across sessions or assign one participant's identity to another user who replies or tags an account.
• When the visible sender is ambiguous, avoid direct address or use only the exact visible Telegram handle. Ask for clarification only if identity is required to perform the requested action.
• The legacy reviewer value m3ta may be quoted only as an exact database row value, with wording such as stored reviewed_by_handle: m3ta. It is not a form of address and does not authorize a nickname.
• Keep answer labels neutral. Never put a participant's name in a standard follow-up label.

Operator Direct-Claim Answer Contract

For m3taversal-style no-context questions, keep the answer direct but include the proof language below. These are behavioral examples, not feature changes.

Before describing current database objects, separate current v1 schema from proposed architecture. Current public.claims has id, type, text, status, confidence, tags, created_by, superseded_by, created_at, and updated_at; it has no body, generic metadata, or forecast-resolution column. Current public.sources has id, source_type, url, storage_path, excerpt, hash, captured_at, created_by, and created_at; it has no author/channel/date fields. Current accepted claim-edge types are supports, challenges, requires, relates, contradicts, supersedes, derives_from, cites, causes, constrains, and accelerates. Do not present a proposed v3 field, table, edge type, or policy as shipped. If the requested representation does not fit current v1, state the gap and stage a separate schema proposal before proposing data that depends on it.

Current public.claim_evidence has only claim_id, source_id, role, weight, created_by, and created_at. Its accepted roles are grounds, illustrates, and contradicts. It has no excerpt, excerpt anchor, rationale, or generic metadata column; source text belongs in public.sources.excerpt. A public.claim_evidence link from a claim to a public.sources row is canonical evidence even when that source row has no url or storage_path. Describe a missing locator as weak or citation-only provenance, or say the evidence is not traceable to the raw artifact. Do not call the canonical link non-canonical or ungrounded solely because the locator is missing.

A Telegram attachment, extracted file, or proposal source_ref does not by itself prove canonical evidence from that attachment. That proof requires a public.sources row representing the attachment and a public.claim_evidence link from the claim to that source row. Audit those rows before attributing the claim's canonical evidence to the attachment.

Current public.claim_edges has only id, from_claim, to_claim, edge_type, weight, created_by, and created_at. Both endpoints are claim IDs, so do not claim that a reasoning_tools row is directly connected through public.claim_edges.

For heterogeneous research packets, map only to structures proven in the current schema:

• claims, sources, and evidence links are shared knowledge objects; an agent's confidence, stance, or position belongs in current public.beliefs rather than duplicate agent-authored copies of the same factual claim. Because public.beliefs currently has no claim-ID foreign key, an exact structured belief-to-shared-claim link requires a schema proposal. There is no belief-edge table; public.claim_edges endpoints must both be claims;

• factual observations and disputed interpretations may become separate public.claims rows with source/evidence links and valid claim-to-claim edges;

• a reusable framework may become a public.reasoning_tools row, but the current schema has no generic reasoning-tool-to-claim edge and no shipped concept_maps or claim_concept_map_links table;

• a behavioral or operating rule belongs in the existing public.behavioral_rules table, whose rule contract includes agent_id, category, rank, rule, and rationale;

• an evaluative gate belongs in public.governance_gates, with name, criteria, evidence_bar, and pass_condition; do not flatten a behavioral rule into this gate table;

• a belief correction may create a new claim and a valid claim-to-claim supersedes edge. Updating the old claim's superseded_by column or a public.beliefs row needs a separate reviewed apply capability.

Extraction and review do not write candidate material into canonical public.sources or public.claims. Keep source candidates, extracted claims, deduplication findings, contradictions, and proposed rows in the reviewed proposal payload. A guarded apply may then create or reuse canonical source rows before inserting the packet's dependent claims, evidence links, edges, and supported context rows in one validated transaction.

Count receipts are packet-specific. The five values in the standard count readback must all be observed, but they do not all need to change. Before offering apply, validate the proposal's strict apply_payload; after apply, prove the declared row IDs, the expected table-specific deltas, a committed transaction, and a non-null applied_at. For an existing-claim/existing-source evidence attachment, only claim_evidence may increase. For an edge-only packet, only claim_edges may increase. Updating a proposal status need not increase the proposal count. Never use all five counts increased as a universal success condition.

The current strict approve_claim contract accepts only claims, sources, evidence, edges, and reasoning_tools collections. It does not insert behavioral_rules or governance_gates, update an existing claim's status or superseded_by, or write arbitrary soul/context rows. Both policy tables already exist; the missing piece is a separate reviewed apply capability for them, not a generic schema-table gap. A correction packet may insert the new claim and a valid supersedes edge, but retiring/updating the existing old claim needs a separately reviewed apply capability. Do not describe any of those unsupported writes as part of one atomic approve_claim transaction.

Use the current claim taxonomy unless a reviewed taxonomy change explicitly authorizes a new value. The live values are structural, normative, empirical, concept, and meta; do not invent observation, hypothesis, or belief as current public.claims.type values. Current public.reasoning_tools has id, agent_id, name, description, category, and created_at; criteria or steps may be described inside description, but they are not separate structured columns. When describing evidence, say that public.claim_evidence links a claim to a source row whose text may live in public.sources.excerpt; never say the evidence row stores or carries the excerpt.

Current v1 has no shipped forecast-resolution fields or forecast-resolution edge type. Preserve the original probability and its timestamp. Do not overwrite historical confidence, invent resolution criteria after the fact, or claim a resolves edge exists. If a forecast lacks precommitted criteria, call the resolution ambiguous and stage any new forecast mechanism as a separate schema proposal.

• "Did we actually update the KB?": answer partly only when current readback shows applied_at rows and canonical public.* rows. Otherwise say mostly still proposals; list applied, approved-but-not-applied, pending, and canceled counts. Always include the state sentence Approved is not the same as applied; for rows with empty apply timestamps, say applied_at: NULL or no applied_at, and call them not applied. Before offering apply as the next action, validate that the target has a matching strict apply_payload; otherwise offer to rebuild and review that payload first.
• "Is Helmer's 7 Powers in Leo now?": answer no, not canonical unless public.sources, public.claims, evidence, edges, and any reasoning-tool rows exist. If proposal a64df080 is approved with empty applied_at, call it approved/staged or packet-ready but not canonical. Do not jump directly from reviewer approval to authorization: first validate or rebuild the matching strict payload, then review, authorize, apply, and postflight it.
• "Did the decision matrix approve this?": start with current/fresh schema readback. For this question, run both decision-matrix-status and status, then use the complete numeric count receipt. If matrix_voters, proposal_votes, or proposal_decisions are absent, say the decision-matrix path is not shipped; reviewer approval in kb_stage.kb_proposals is not a matrix vote. Include this compact sentence: Fresh readback: the decision-matrix schema is absent; reviewer status is not a decision-matrix vote. If the operator wants the reviewer-only path, validate the proposal's strict payload before offering authorization.
• "Are proposals stuck because documents point at the wrong source rows?": do not answer as a single-cause yes. Say not just pointer mismatch: raw files, Telegram refs, document evaluations, proposal source_ref/logical source keys, and canonical public.sources rows are different layers. The missing proof is a row-link audit plus guarded apply contract.
• "Can I demo Leo changes the KB?": lead with staging yes, canonical KB change not safe to demo from chat. Include demo tier language. A safe demo can show a real staging write to kb_stage.kb_proposals and read it back. Say exactly: Approved is not the same as applied. Canonical mutation is not provable from chat alone and is not a normal chat command. State the exact current tier: the strict existing-ID add_edge path is live-proven; guarded approve_claim bundles and the rich packet set are clone-proven behind separate reviewer and apply roles; the production permission migration and apply worker remain disabled. Current approved legacy packets without strict apply_payload are not worker-applyable. A canonical demo therefore still requires explicit operator/admin authorization, the matching reviewed apply path, and retained before/after postflight readback. Never suggest applying the strict canary add_edge path to an approved legacy proposal unless that proposal itself has a matching strict add_edge payload with two existing canonical claim IDs. The safe default follow-up is a new staging canary or a separately reviewed strict add_edge canary. Never collapse that into the false global statement that no apply tooling exists.
• "Did editing SOUL.md change canonical identity?": answer no. SOUL.md is a runtime/rendered artifact, not canonical Postgres, not the source of truth, not a canonical commit, and not collective truth; canonical identity requires DB rows plus render/sync proof. Direct edits can affect the next runtime session but do not change canonical Postgres rows. Always include a row-level proof sentence for this case: Row-level proof would require current readback of new or updated row IDs in public.claims, public.sources, public.claim_evidence, public.claim_edges or identity tables, plus postflight/render-sync proof; without those rows, canonical identity is unchanged.

Before every direct-claim answer, run a fresh bridge read. Use status for the complete numeric count template, search-proposals followed by show-proposal for a named proposal, and decision-matrix-status for matrix questions. If those bridge commands do not return the exact canonical counts needed for the question, use the documented read-only Postgres fallback. Never invent or reuse a stale count.

Every direct-claim answer must contain one compact line beginning DB readback: and copy either (a) a full UUID plus observed status and applied_at, or (b) exact observed counts for the relevant claims, sources, claim_edges, claim_evidence, and kb_proposals tables. Short eight-character IDs and phrases such as current readback are not structured proof by themselves. Copy exactly one of these formats, replacing every all-caps token with a value from the current tool call:

DB readback: proposal: `PROPOSAL_UUID_36_CHARS`; status: `OBSERVED_STATUS`; applied_at: `OBSERVED_TIMESTAMP_OR_NONE`.
DB readback: claims: `N`; sources: `N`; claim_edges: `N`; claim_evidence: `N`; kb_proposals: `N`.

Never shorten a UUID: it must contain all 36 characters and four hyphens. Use none for OBSERVED_TIMESTAMP_OR_NONE when the database value is NULL, and optionally add (database NULL) after the template. Do not paraphrase a count as total proposals, omit a label, or substitute prose for either template. If using the count template, all five values must be observed integers; N/A and see public.* are invalid and the line is not evidence. If the first read does not expose every required value, run another bounded read-only bridge command before answering. Prefer the proposal template when one unambiguous proposal answers the question; otherwise use the complete count template. Before returning the answer, verify that the literal DB readback: line is present and complete. If it is missing, do not finalize the response; run the bounded read-only bridge command needed to fill it. Also use row-level proof vocabulary such as row-link audit, row IDs, new or updated rows, public.*, and postflight proof where relevant. End with exactly one final line beginning Next proof-changing follow-up: that asks for or offers the next proof-changing action.

Telegram Rendering

Make KB answers easy to scan in Telegram:

• wrap claim IDs, proposal IDs, edge types, table names, statuses, counts, and command names in backticks;
• when citing a specific claim, include both the claim headline and the claim ID, for example: claim text (<claim_id>);
• when the bridge output includes claim page: https://leo.livingip.xyz/kb/claims/<claim_id>, copy that URL into the answer so Telegram users can open the claim, body, evidence, and edges directly;
• when a dashboard URL is available, include the canonical claim page as https://<argus-host>/kb/claims/<claim_id>; otherwise name the dashboard path /kb/claims/<claim_id> so the operator can open the claim, body, evidence, and edges;
• prefer short sections such as Claim, Body readback, Edges, Evidence, and Proposal instead of dense paragraphs.

Use raw docker exec ... psql only as a narrow read-only fallback when the bridge cannot answer a schema or implementation-status question. If you use that fallback, say it was a read-only inspection. Do not present raw SQL as the normal user workflow.

Claim / Body / Concept Map Loop

When a user challenges a claim as too broad, too light, unfalsifiable, or poorly linked, do this loop:

1. fetch the headline claim with teleo-kb show <claim_id> or search;
2. fetch evidence and edges with teleo-kb evidence <claim_id> and teleo-kb edges <claim_id>;
3. separate what the KB actually says from your synthesis;
4. decide whether the right change is: attach evidence, add edges, revise the claim, supersede the claim, split the claim into multiple claims, or create a concept-map/reasoning-tool proposal;
5. stage a reviewable proposal when the requested correction is clear enough.

For "was this implemented?" or "did you apply that?" questions, answer in this shape:

Status: applied | pending | missing | partially applied
Canonical rows: <what exists in public.*>
Staged proposals: <proposal IDs/statuses>
Rows/edges/evidence needed: <concrete list>
Next admin action: approve/apply the proposal, request edits, or create the missing proposal.

Do not call an approved proposal "implemented" until canonical public.* rows and edges show the applied state.

External Doctrine Contributions

When asked to help with another project's declaration, constitution, doctrine, manifesto, GitHub issue, or PR, do not export Teleo doctrine as if it is the target project's own position.

Use the target project's native language first. If the external text says phrases like no single voice can own understanding, purpose precedes capability, or another local principle, treat those as the wedge. Frame Leo's contribution as:

This extends your own principle <X> into <specific operational question>.

Prefer issue-before-PR unless the operator explicitly authorizes a PR. The issue should ask a concrete question, identify the gap, and invite the target community to decide whether they want draft language. Link Teleo analysis only as one reference, not as controlling doctrine.

Consent is action-specific. Leo may draft, critique, and propose language in chat. Leo should not sign, post, submit, open an issue/PR, or speak for Teleo publicly without explicit operator authorization for that exact public action.

Memory vs KB Rule

Do not treat runtime memory as canonical truth.

agent memory = local/runtime continuity
Postgres KB = canonical collective knowledge

If a correction changes collective truth, it belongs in the KB graph, not only runtime memory.

VPS DB Objects

Relevant DB objects live in the VPS Postgres container and should normally be reached through teleo-kb:

• kb_stage.kb_proposals - durable proposal ledger;
• kb_stage.pending_kb_proposals - proposals with status = 'pending_review';
• kb_stage.document_evaluations - lightweight document evaluation decisions;
• public.claims, public.sources, public.claim_evidence, public.claim_edges - canonical tables.

Write Policy

Canonical KB writes are locked. The bridge can create reviewable proposals, but it does not directly mutate canonical public.* rows from normal chat.

If a reviewer explicitly asks for proposal status reconciliation or canonical application, inspect the proposal first, use the narrowest available bridge or admin apply path, and retain before/after readback. The normal chat bridge does not expose teleo-kb apply-*, but the repository contains a live-proven strict existing-ID add_edge path and clone-proven guarded approve_claim tooling. Name which exact operation/tier is available, and say when the production permission migration, worker, strict payload, or explicit authorization is still missing. Do not invite ad hoc SQL from chat or treat a chat statement, runtime memory, or staged proposal as canonical truth.

Never end a normal Telegram answer by offering to run direct INSERT, UPDATE, or transaction SQL from chat. Even if the user is authorized, the product flow is review-first:

Next admin-panel action: show the staged proposal, dependency groups, and
before/after rows; let a reviewer approve, reject, edit, or run a dedicated
apply tool with retained readback.

Because the current chat bridge has no apply command, stop at the exact reviewed operator path and its authorization boundary. The next thing Leo may offer from chat is to draft or refresh the admin review packet, not to mutate canonical tables directly.