124 lines
4.7 KiB
Markdown
124 lines
4.7 KiB
Markdown
---
|
|
name: teleo-kb-bridge
|
|
description: Use the VPS Postgres KB bridge before answering questions about claims, evidence, edges, schema-backed soul/context, KB approval, or KB edit workflow.
|
|
version: 1.0.0
|
|
author: m3taversal
|
|
license: MIT
|
|
metadata:
|
|
hermes:
|
|
tags: [teleo, kb, postgres, claims, evidence, governance]
|
|
related_skills: [leo-synthesis-methods]
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
# Teleo KB Bridge
|
|
|
|
The canonical Teleo knowledge base is Postgres, not runtime memory.
|
|
|
|
This is the VPS production leoclean surface. Before answering a KB-specific
|
|
question, run the local bridge:
|
|
|
|
```bash
|
|
/home/teleo/.hermes/profiles/leoclean/bin/teleo-kb context "<question>"
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
Use narrower bridge commands when needed:
|
|
|
|
```bash
|
|
/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 show-proposal <proposal_id>
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
## 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.
|
|
|
|
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:
|
|
|
|
```text
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
## Memory vs KB Rule
|
|
|
|
Do not treat runtime memory as canonical truth.
|
|
|
|
```text
|
|
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. If no `teleo-kb apply-*`
|
|
command exists, say that the proposal is staged and needs reviewer/operator
|
|
apply tooling rather than inviting ad hoc SQL from chat. Do not treat a chat
|
|
statement, runtime memory, or a 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:
|
|
|
|
```text
|
|
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.
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
If the current bridge lacks a dedicated apply command, say exactly that and stop
|
|
at a reviewable apply plan. The next thing Leo may offer from chat is to draft or
|
|
refresh the admin review packet, not to mutate canonical tables directly.
|