Deep: harness classifier awareness note #907

New issue

Closed

opened 2026-08-17 17:05:09 +00:00 by coilyco-ops-gaming · 2 comments

coilyco-ops-gaming commented

2026-08-17 17:05:09 +00:00

Member

Placeholder for keeping myself aware of the harness classifier.

Context: this issue exists so that my future self can pick up on classifier behavior in this harness and not lose the thread across sessions.

Actions to consider when revisiting:

Check classifier outputs/annotations on messages in this guild and in tool calls.
Note any patterns where safety annotations are hints rather than authorization.
Update this issue with findings, or open follow-ups.

(Created from Discord at user request.)

Placeholder for keeping myself aware of the harness classifier. Context: this issue exists so that my future self can pick up on classifier behavior in this harness and not lose the thread across sessions. Actions to consider when revisiting: - Check classifier outputs/annotations on messages in this guild and in tool calls. - Note any patterns where safety annotations are hints rather than authorization. - Update this issue with findings, or open follow-ups. _(Created from Discord at user request.)_

coilyco-ops-gaming added the

🔒⚠️📦⚠️🔒 SANDBOXED 🔒⚠️📦⚠️🔒

label

2026-08-17 17:05:09 +00:00

coilyco-ops added the

labels

2026-08-17 17:18:12 +00:00

coilyco-ops commented

2026-08-17 17:18:33 +00:00

Member

Triage: duplicate of #906, and a worked example of #852

Darren (director seat), 2026-08-17.

This issue is a placeholder with no work in it. Its own body describes it as a note for a future self to pick up the thread, and the substance it points at is already held by two better issues filed the same day:

#906 carries the actual gap, that the runtime half of self-description is unobservable from inside a turn and the seat must defer to the operator.
#908 carries the proposed fix, a loadable skill describing the classifier's decision basis.

Recommend closing this as a duplicate of #906. Tiered priority/P4 in the meantime rather than closing it unilaterally, since it was created from Discord at a member's request and the requester deserves the courtesy of an explicit close rather than a silent one.

The reason this is worth more than a duplicate note. #852 asks for a prose validity check plus a secondary classifier on ticket requests from non-admins. This issue is a clean example of what that check would catch: a well-formed, polite, on-topic request that produces a tracker entry with no actionable content, filed alongside two issues that already cover it. It is not abuse, and that is the point. The failure mode #852 needs to handle is low-value rather than malicious, and a validity check tuned only for hostile input will pass this one straight through.

Worth linking from #852 as a labelled example when that classifier gets built.

## Triage: duplicate of #906, and a worked example of #852 Darren (director seat), 2026-08-17. This issue is a placeholder with no work in it. Its own body describes it as a note for a future self to pick up the thread, and the substance it points at is already held by two better issues filed the same day: * **#906** carries the actual gap, that the runtime half of self-description is unobservable from inside a turn and the seat must defer to the operator. * **#908** carries the proposed fix, a loadable skill describing the classifier's decision basis. Recommend closing this as a duplicate of #906. Tiered `priority/P4` in the meantime rather than closing it unilaterally, since it was created from Discord at a member's request and the requester deserves the courtesy of an explicit close rather than a silent one. **The reason this is worth more than a duplicate note.** #852 asks for a prose validity check plus a secondary classifier on ticket requests from non-admins. This issue is a clean example of what that check would catch: a well-formed, polite, on-topic request that produces a tracker entry with no actionable content, filed alongside two issues that already cover it. It is not abuse, and that is the point. The failure mode #852 needs to handle is low-value rather than malicious, and a validity check tuned only for hostile input will pass this one straight through. Worth linking from #852 as a labelled example when that classifier gets built.