Субагенты позадачно (рекомендую)

Субагенты позадачно (рекомендую)
В этой сессии (executing-plans)
Пока не начинать

Субагенты позадачно (рекомендую)

0[object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object]

Summary:
Exit code 1
=== schema duplicate_of_id ===
52:--       3. Биз-19 — deals.duplica

Summary:
Exit code 1
junction removed
robocopy exit: 1
True

Task 1 baseline test run


Explanation: Direct node was chosen for a question-classified task with no triggers or candidates documented. The lack of recorded rationale (empty triggers/candidates/boundaries) makes the choice hard to validate, though direct routing for a simple question is plausible. Outcome is unknown but token usage suggests a substantive response was produced.


Explanation: Autonomous direct response with no triggers/candidates recorded, making the routing rationale thin. With only 12 input tokens and no tool calls, a direct answer is plausible but unverifiable from the episode data.


Explanation: Episode shows a direct-response path with no triggers/candidates documented and outcome unknown. Without task content, direct routing for a 'question' classification is plausible but the empty triggers_matched and candidates_considered arrays make the decision unverifiable.


Explanation: Direct response chosen with no triggers/candidates recorded, making the rationale thin. Output token count (7294) is unusually high for a 'question' direct-answer path, suggesting possible overkill, but without events or task content the decision is not clearly wrong.


**Поставщик прислал тот же номер ещё раз** (другой `vid`, например через месяц) → лид новый, раздаём и берём за него. Никакого нашего фильтра.

**Мы сами одному клиенту дважды одну поставку не выдадим** — DB-замок `supplier_lead_deliveries` физически не пустит вторую запись `(supplier_lead_id, tenant_id)`.

Личные лимиты клиента (`daily_limit_target`, `effective_daily_limit_today`) — нетронуты.

Случайность выбора получателей.

Шеринг «один лид до 3 разных клиентов».

Explanation: A direct conceptual answer about deduplication semantics is appropriate for a clarifying question; no tools or chain needed. The chosen option aligns with the stated business rule that a re-submitted supplier number with a new vid counts as a new lead.


Explanation: Episode lacks task content, triggers, candidates, and events, making the 'direct' choice unverifiable but not demonstrably wrong. With zero tool calls and no files touched, a direct response appears reasonable for an 'other'-classified task, though the absence of rationale documentation is itself a process gap.


0[object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object]


Push в origin/main (паттерн проекта)
Push ветку + PR
Не пушить сейчас

c:\моя\проекты\портал crm\Документация\.git\hooks\pre-commit

c:\моя\проекты\портал crm\Документация\tools\git-hooks\pre-commit.sh

0[object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object]

Summary: File does not exist. Note: your current working directory is C:\моя\проекты\порт

Summary: <tool_use_error>File has not been read yet. Read it first before writing to it.<

Final review этап 1 Phase C+D


0[object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object]


0[object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object]


Explanation: Direct node with AskUserQuestion is appropriate for a question-classified task requiring clarification. Triggers and boundaries (Pravila §12, ADR-016, PSR_v1 R10) align with the chosen path.


Explanation: Direct node chosen for a question-classified task with no triggers or candidates recorded, which is plausible but unverifiable given empty rationale fields. No events or tool calls captured, so quality cannot be strongly confirmed.


Explanation: Direct handling appears plausible for a task classified as a question, but with empty triggers/candidates/boundaries and 5306 output tokens, the routing rationale is unsubstantiated. Outcome is unknown and no events were recorded, making this a soft success at best.


0[object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object]

Explanation: Task classified as a question triggered the brainstorming skill under hard-floor §12. With only 3 tool calls and no files touched, the invocation appears proportionate, though brainstorming for a simple question could be considered slight overkill. Outcome is unknown but execution completed without errors.


Explanation: Autonomous direct response with no tool calls and no triggers/candidates recorded, making the routing rationale thin. Output token count (~3.8k) suggests a substantive answer was produced, but absence of self-assessment and classification as 'other' limits verifiability.


Explanation: Episode lacks triggers, candidates, and task content, making it hard to validate the 'direct' choice. With 0 tool calls and 2936 output tokens, the direct response appears to have completed the task, but absence of rationale fields prevents stronger assessment.


**B. «Можно мелкий бытовой ремонт, остальное — звать людей».** Заранее согласованный короткий список действий, которые она имеет право делать сама: перезапустить зависшую очередь, забанить IP который долбится, почистить логи если кончается место, перезапустить упавший фоновый процесс. Это операции, которые я бы и так сделал руками, не думая. Деньги/данные/клиентов **не трогает никогда**. Если что-то за пределами списка — алерт. Средний по риску, сильно снижает количество ночных звонков.

**A. «Только пиликать, ничего не трогать».** Система ловит, говорит, ждёт. Самое безопасное — она ничего не сломает по неосторожности. Минус: если в 4 утра застряла очередь лидов, она прилично прождёт, пока её толкнут. Все «починки» — руками или через меня.

**C. «Чини всё, что считаешь нужным».** Полное доверие, бот действует как живой админ. Я не рекомендую — слишком велик риск, что бот по ошибке сделает хуже (например, перезапустит сервер во время важной записи в базу).

**D. По-другому** — расскажу.

Explanation: User chose option B (bounded auto-remediation) over Claude's safer recommendation A. Both are defensible design choices; B trades some risk for fewer night calls with an explicit allowlist and hard boundaries on money/data/clients. Decision is a user policy preference, not a routing error.


Explanation: Episode shows a 'direct' autonomous routing decision with no triggers, candidates, or boundaries recorded, and zero tool calls or files touched. Without task content visible, the direct path is plausible but unverifiable; the empty rationale fields make the decision quality disputable.


**liderra.ru** — где живёт сам портал (Linux, в облаке).

**Твоя рабочая машина** — этот самый Windows-сервер, где мы сейчас общаемся (тоже в облаке, но это **другая** машина).

Подтверди про сервер — сторож на **твоей рабочей Windows-машине** (отдельной от портала), верно?

Из списка выше — что-нибудь **вычеркнуть** или, наоборот, чего-то **не хватает**?

Explanation: Simple clarification question about which server is meant; direct response is appropriate and matches user's chosen option. No tools or chain needed.


Explanation: Direct node was chosen with no triggers, candidates, or boundaries recorded, and zero tool calls executed despite high output token usage (8434). Without classification rationale or events, the routing decision is opaque but not demonstrably wrong for an 'other' task.


Explanation: Direct routing for a question-type task is defensible, but the output token count (~10k) is unusually high for a direct answer, suggesting possible overkill. Without events or triggers logged, rationale transparency is weak.


Explanation: Direct response for a question-classified task is defensible, though the high output token count (10794) and significant cache creation suggest the task may have warranted a more structured node. With no triggers or candidates recorded, the routing rationale is thin but not clearly wrong.


Explanation: Direct node chosen for unclassified task with no triggers or candidates recorded. With 0 tool calls and 0 files touched but high output token count (8262), the work appears to have been pure reasoning/text generation, which is appropriate for direct. Lack of rationale documentation makes the choice hard to fully validate.


0[object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object]

Explanation: Question-type task handled directly with light read/grep investigation on a single file. No chain needed; tool usage proportional to scope.


0[object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object]

Explanation: Agent chose direct path with only a TodoWrite call and minimal tool usage, suggesting a trivial or planning-only task. With no triggers matched or classification beyond 'other', the routing is defensible but lacks justification. Outcome is unknown but the lightweight execution completed without errors.


0[object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object]

Summary:
Exit code 2
/usr/bin/bash: eval: line 10: syntax error near unexpected token `)'

Summary: Permission to use Bash with command tail -2 && git worktree prune && echo "workt


Summary:
Exit code 1
 * branch              main       -> FETCH_HEAD
=== origin/main HEAD


tool_result reported is_error


**Прибрать среду** (то, что я нашёл попутно — но ты не выбирал это в той развилке): worktree-абсолютные пути в живых хуках, два разъехавшихся файла эпизодов, всё на устаревшей ветке. **До любого включения блокировки это надо разрешить** — иначе даже warn-only по сути не работает в основной сессии так, как задумано.

**Решить про блокировку (Task 9)**: теперь, когда метрика честная, можно осмысленно решать enforce/tune. Но базы наблюдений всё ещё ~ноль (warn-only только сегодня запустился).

*(Опционально, тривиальное)*: починить и сами builder'ы, чтобы они писали `step` через `deriveRouterStep` — тогда хранимое поле перестанет быть «ложью», даже если читатель его игнорирует.

0[object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object]

Explanation: Agent correctly identified environmental issues (worktree paths, divergent episode files, stale branch) as blocking prerequisite before enabling enforcement. Direct node was appropriate for a question/decision task per §15.2, and the user-confirmed choice aligned with Claude's recommendation.


Explanation: Autonomous direct response with no tool calls, no triggers matched, and no candidates considered, making the routing rationale thin. However, with task_classification 'other' and zero files touched, direct handling appears reasonable; outcome is unknown but the high output token count (13470) suggests substantive response delivery.


0[object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object]

Summary: File content (335.6KB) exceeds maximum allowed size (256KB). Use offset and limi

Explanation: Memory-sync task appropriately handled via direct node with Read/Edit on memory files. Two recoverable tool errors (oversized Read, Edit-before-Read) required retries but did not change the routing decision. Output is large (40k tokens) suggesting some inefficiency, but node choice remains correct.


0[object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object]

Summary: Ripgrep search timed out after 20 seconds. The search may have matched files but

Explanation: Hard-floor §12 correctly invoked superpowers:using-superpowers for a new task. Three consecutive Glob/ripgrep timeouts blocked progress despite reasonable tool choice, indicating external infrastructure failure rather than wrong node or skill selection.


0[object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object]

Explanation: Task involved reading 3 related files (webhook controller, job, lead router) — a read-only investigation that direct handling supports. No triggers/candidates were recorded, which weakens traceability, but the lightweight 3-Read execution is proportional to the scope.


Explanation: Direct response for a question-classified task is reasonable, but the rationale lacks triggers/candidates documentation expected in v3 schema. Without events or task content, cannot fully verify appropriateness, though direct routing for a simple question is a defensible default.


Explanation: Episode shows zero tool calls and zero files touched, with task_classification 'other' and no triggers/candidates/boundaries recorded. The 'direct' node choice is defensible for an unclassified task, but the absence of rationale signals makes the decision hard to validate. Output tokens (~13k) suggest substantive reasoning was produced without external action.


Explanation: Episode shows an autonomous 'direct' routing with no triggers, candidates, or boundaries recorded and zero tool calls. Without task context it's hard to validate, but direct handling for a 12-token input is plausible; the lack of rationale detail makes it disputable rather than clearly correct.


Explanation: Episode lacks task content, triggers, or candidates, making it impossible to fully validate the 'direct' choice. With zero tool calls and no events, the autonomous direct route is plausible for a trivial/other task but undocumented rationale makes it disputable.


Explanation: Direct response for a question-class task with no tool calls is reasonable, but the 2650 output tokens with no files touched suggests possibly verbose handling. No triggers or candidates were logged, limiting transparency of the routing decision.


Explanation: Direct node chosen for a question classification with no triggers or candidates recorded. Output of 2910 tokens suggests a substantial response but absence of rationale documentation makes the choice weakly justified though not clearly wrong.


Explanation: Agent chose direct node for an 'other'-class task with a single PowerShell call, which is reasonable. However, the high output token count (10k+) on a 1-tool task suggests possible overkill in reasoning; no self-assessment was recorded to verify.


Explanation: Episode lacks task content but agent chose direct response for a classified question with no triggers matched. Output tokens (1014) suggest substantive answer was produced. Without primary_rationale details on triggers/candidates, the routing is plausible but unverifiable.


Explanation: Single PowerShell call handled directly without specialist routing, which is reasonable for an 'other' classified task. However, the high output token count (4864) relative to a single tool call suggests possible overkill in reasoning; absence of self-assessment limits confidence in the verdict.


Одним PR — всё сразу (рекомендую)

Одним PR — всё сразу (рекомендую)

Двумя этапами: сначала роут и код, потом (через 7 дней) таблицы

Сначала напиши спек, выкатку обсудим потом

Одним PR — всё сразу (рекомендую)

0[object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object]

Summary:
Exit code 1
warning: in the working copy of 'docs/superpowers/specs/2026-05-24-l

Explanation: Agent went direct on an improvised path involving spec writing, code edits, and PR planning across 33 tool calls with 3 user clarifications — a planner/architect node could have structured this better. Bash retries were minor git warnings, not blocking failures. Outcome appears to have completed user-chosen path successfully despite heavy token use.


0[object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object]

Explanation: Brainstorming skill invoked under hard-floor rule §12 for an analysis task, with appropriate user clarification questions (4x AskUserQuestion) to scope the problem. Chain L1→L16 aligns with regulated path for new analysis task.


Explanation: Direct node was chosen under a hard-rule trigger with no tool calls or file changes, suggesting a lightweight response. Without task content visible, the choice is defensible but unverifiable; outcome remains unknown so treated as soft success.


0[object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object]

Explanation: Task classified as a question handled directly with minimal tooling (2 tool calls, no files touched). Direct node is appropriate for question-class prompts and no chain was required.


0[object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object]

Explanation: Task was a design spec document creation (single file, ~19k output tokens) handled directly without invoking a planning/architecture chain. Direct node is defensible for a focused spec write, though a brainstorming/architect chain could have been considered given the design nature. No errors fired and the artifact was produced.


**Русский текст ломается в кодировке перед отправкой в умный слой.**

**Рекомендация сторожа не записывается в журнал эпизодов.**

**Прогресс цепочки тоже не записывается.**

c:\моя\проекты\портал crm\Документация\tools\router-prehook.mjs

c:\моя\проекты\портал crm\Документация\tools\router-stop-gate.mjs

Explanation: Brainstorming skill is appropriate for surfacing and prioritizing multiple infrastructure issues (encoding, journal logging gaps); the agent correctly enumerated options and let the user choose the focus area. Hard floor invocation per Pravila §12 justifies the regulated path, and the chain executed cleanly without errors.


0[object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object]

Explanation: Task produced a design spec document with 13 tool calls and ~25k output tokens — substantial creative/design work that direct node handled without invoking a chain. Given it's a design specification file, a brainstorming or planning chain could arguably have improved structure, but direct execution succeeded with no errors. Outcome marked unknown so treating as soft_success.


0[object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object]

Explanation: Hard floor (Pravila §12) invoked writing-plans for a multi-file router fix task, which is appropriate given the scope (3 tool files plus a plan document). Tool usage pattern (Read/Bash/Write) is consistent with plan authoring and validation, no errors fired.


Explanation: Task classified as feature with recommended node #19, but agent chose direct path. With only 3 tool calls touching 2 memory files, direct execution is defensible, though the high output tokens (58k) and 23-turn session suggest #19 routing may have been more disciplined. No self-assessment recorded.


А — добавь короткий пропуск

А — добавь короткий пропуск
Б — всё внутрь помощника

А — добавь короткий пропуск

c:\моя\проекты\портал crm\Документация\cspell-words.txt

c:\моя\проекты\портал crm\Документация\memory\MEMORY.md

0[object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object]

Summary:
Exit code 1
warning: in the working copy of 'docs/superpowers/specs/2026-05-24-c

Summary:
Exit code 1
warning: in the working copy of 'docs/superpowers/plans/2026-05-24-c

Summary: Agent type 'normative-sync' not found. Available agents: adaptive-coordinator, a

Task 1: create normative-sync agent

Task 2: create prod-deploy-validator

Task 2 retry: prod-deploy-validator

Smoke test normative-sync agent

Explanation: writing-plans → subagent-driven-development is the right L1 chain for designing and creating specialized agents per §15/§15.1. Retries and a missing-agent error caused friction but were recovered (retry succeeded, smoke test ran). User chose option А, aligning with Claude's recommendation.


Explanation: Episode lacks triggers, candidates, and task classification context, making the 'direct' choice unverifiable but not clearly wrong. With zero tool calls and minimal output, the direct node appears to have handled a trivial request, though absence of rationale fields limits confidence.


0[object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object]

Smoke test normative-sync (dry-run)

Smoke test prod-deploy-validator

Explanation: Direct execution handled smoke-testing two subagents and editing memory/agent files; one Edit error was self-corrected via Read. Task was multi-step coordination (18 tool calls, ~17min) which could arguably have used a planning node, but improvised direct path completed the work without external failures.


0[object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object]

Explanation: Direct path with minimal tool usage (1 Bash, 1 TodoWrite) for an 'other' classified task appears proportionate. No rationale fields populated makes routing intent opaque, but no evidence of mistake or rework.


0[object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object]

Explanation: Direct node for editing a cspell-words.txt file is reasonable as a low-complexity maintenance task. However, the agent attempted Edit before Read, triggering a tool error and requiring a retry — a minor procedural mistake rather than a node misrouting. Outcome unknown but recovered via retry, so soft_success.


Explanation: Improvised direct path with a single Bash call and no explicit rationale (empty triggers/candidates/boundaries). Outcome is unknown but the lightweight execution appears proportionate; lack of self-assessment and rationale documentation makes the decision hard to fully validate.


0[object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object]

Explanation: Task was classified as memory-sync with recommended node #33 and chain #12, but agent went 'direct' without invoking the recommended routing. The memory-sync workflow was bypassed despite touching MEMORY.md, indicating the proper chain steps were skipped.


С последнего ретро (24.05 — с 23.05)

С последнего ретро (24.05 — с 23.05)
Весь май 2026 (полный месяц)
С 2026-05-20 (последняя «полная» ретра)

С последнего ретро (24.05 — с 23.05)

Summary:
Exit code 1
All v2+v3 by date: {"2026-05-23":84,"2026-05-22":47,"2026-05-20":21,

Summary:
Exit code 1
[eval]:29
  const fShort = f.replace(/^.*Документация./, '').replac

Explanation: Direct node was appropriate for a retro-writing task with user clarification on time window. Two Bash errors were recovered via retries, and the final write to the 2026-05-24 retro note completed successfully. AskUserQuestion was used correctly to resolve scope ambiguity.


Explanation: Direct response for a question classification is defensible, but the empty triggers/candidates/boundaries arrays indicate no documented routing reasoning. Output of 2006 tokens for a 12-token input suggests substantive answer was given, though lack of self-assessment and rationale tracking weakens auditability.


c:\моя\проекты\портал crm\Документация\tools\router-tool-gate.mjs

Explanation: Single Read of a tool file for a question-type task is appropriately handled by direct node without chain orchestration. Minimal tool usage and no errors indicate efficient routing.


`state.enforcementRequired === true` — классификатор счёл задачу профильной (есть рекомендованный узел).

`state.skillInvokedThisTurn === false` — Skill ещё не вызван в этот ход.

escape-hatch не выставлен (в начале ответа нет `<!-- routing: direct_justified=true reason="..." -->`).

c:\моя\проекты\портал crm\Документация\tools\router-classifier.mjs

0[object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object]

Explanation: Task classified as a question and handled directly with read-only tools (Read/Grep/Bash) on a single classifier file. Although enforcementRequired was flagged, the investigative nature justifies a direct path; no chain was needed. Outcome unknown but tool use was proportionate.


regex дал низкую уверенность (`confidence < 0.7`), И

задача НЕ помечена как «микро» (опечатка/переименование/format/bump).

**classifier** (regex + опционально Haiku) — *думает*, что это за задача и какой узел рекомендовать.

**router-prehook** — пишет вердикт в `~/.claude/runtime/router-state-<session>.json`.

**router-tool-gate (сторож)** — чисто детерминированный читатель: state есть → блок/пропуск по правилам.

Explanation: Task was classified as a question and handled directly without tool calls or file changes, which is appropriate for a discussion/clarification prompt. The decision_provenance shows option selection rather than a standard routing node, making node quality somewhat disputable but defensible. No chain was needed and no self-assessment was recorded.


Explanation: Agent classified task as a question and answered directly without invoking the recommended node #43 or chain #5. With empty triggers/candidates/boundaries recorded, the routing rationale is thin, but a direct answer to a question is defensible. The recommended node #43 may have been a marginally better fit given the explicit recommendation.


c:\моя\проекты\портал crm\Документация\docs\registry\nodes.yaml

c:\моя\проекты\портал crm\Документация\tools\registry-load.test.mjs

c:\моя\проекты\портал crm\Документация\CLAUDE.md

0[object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object]

Summary:
Exit code 1

[pre-commit] gitleaks (secrets)
5:09PM INF 0

Explanation: Task touched 5 files including registry/nodes.yaml, CLAUDE.md and Pravila — a governance-level change with 53 tool calls, 11 edits, retries and a gitleaks pre-commit failure. Choosing 'direct' under §2.4 was underkill; a plan/registry-update chain was warranted to avoid rework and the secret-scan failure.


Explanation: Task was classified as planning with recommended node #19, but agent went direct without invoking any structured planning node. Output of 4726 tokens with zero tool calls suggests improvised response where a planning node was warranted.


**Exit criteria** — конкретное условие отключения LLM-first (например: «regex покрывает ≥80% prompt'ов с правильной классификацией на 2 неделях holdout-выборки»).

**Cost cap** — лимит вызовов в день (например 100/день — это ~$0.50, runaway не уйдёт в десятки).

**Fallback** — если Haiku падает, регекс ловит. Уже есть в коде.

**Bias-check** — каждые ~50 классификаций ты глазами смотришь топ-кандидатов в regex (Haiku тоже может систематически промахиваться, нельзя слепо копировать).

Explanation: User selected exit criteria option directly; this is a discussion/decision-making turn that appropriately uses direct response without invoking specialized nodes or chains. The choice of measurable exit criteria for LLM-first classification is a sound governance decision.


**Меньше галлюцинаций узлов.** Haiku иногда придумывает несуществующие ID (`#147` — а такого нет); Sonnet жёстче держится в реестре.

**Лучше boundary cases.** «Проверь pdn в выгрузке для бухгалтера» — пересечение security+finance, Haiku хватает одну ось, Sonnet выбирает правильную в контексте.

**Цепочки L1-L16.** Sonnet ловит chain-паттерны лучше — feature → brainstorming → writing-plans → executing-plans. Haiku чаще даёт одиночный узел.

**Большие prompt'ы.** Реестр на 83+ узла = ~3-5K tokens. Haiku теряет внимание ближе к концу, Sonnet ровнее.

**Русский язык.** Чувствительность к идиомам/тону у Sonnet заметно выше — «врубай сторожа» / «откатим» / «делаем» — это разные намерения, Haiku их часто слепит.

**Цена ×3.** В bootstrap-режиме (LLM-first) ~$45/мес вместо $15. В hybrid эскалации ~$3-5/мес вместо $1-2. Не критично, но не «копейки».

**Латентность ~2× медленнее.** 1-2.5с старта ответа вместо 500мс-1.5с. На bootstrap-неделях это будет ощутимо при каждом prompt'е.

**Diminishing returns на коротких prompt'ах.** «делай», «а», «дальше» — там никакая модель не сделает магии, обоих хватает.

Pravila §12
ADR-006
PSR_v1 R10.1
routing-off-phase L16
hard-floor

ADR-006
PSR_v1 R10.1
Pravila §12
routing-off-phase L16

Explanation: User asked a meta/discussion question about Haiku vs Sonnet tradeoffs and selected one from offered options. Direct response is appropriate; no node routing or chain needed for this conversational/docs-style decision.


Pravila §12
PSR_v1 R15
hard-floor
Hard-floor

Explanation: Direct node is appropriate for a docs-classified task with no tool calls required. Boundaries (PSR_v1 R15, Pravila §12) were properly considered and no hard-floor was invoked. No chain was needed for this lightweight response.


Explanation: Task classified as a question and handled directly per Pravila §12, with no tool calls or files touched. Direct response is appropriate for a question-class task; no chain was required.


**Отдельная ветка для эксперимента** — все изменения по плану идут в ветку `feat/llm-first-router`, не в `main`. Прод-портал не трогается.

**Снимок «До»** — перед стартом делаем git-тег `brain-pre-llm-bootstrap` на текущей версии всех документов. Сохраняем копию реестра, маршрутных документов, нормативки.

**Постепенное удаление, не сразу** — сначала переносим routing-документы в архив (`docs/archive/routing-pre-2026-05/`), потом удаляем из активной нормативки. Архив остаётся в репо навсегда.

**Flag-переключатель режима классификатора** — конфиг-файл с `{"mode": "llm-first" | "regex-first" | "hybrid"}`. Откат = одна строчка в файле, без переустановки кода.

**Журнал решений не теряем при откате** — все собранные эпизоды остаются (вдруг через год идея вернётся и данные пригодятся).

**Сигналы для отката** (когда жать «стоп»):

**«Делай план»** — запущу полный цикл: brainstorming (уточним границы что точно вырезать), потом writing-plans (поэтапная миграция за 4-6 фаз), потом spec на изменения в `nodes.yaml`, классификаторе и наблюдателе.

**Или сначала «давай brainstorm»** — обсудим спорные места: какие именно цепочки из L1-L16 точно убираем, какие держим как методологию, как именно ты будешь делать ручную проверку (формат, периодичность).

**Или «обожди, сначала закроем X»** — если у тебя сейчас активные эпики (Биллинг v2 Спек C, security go-live), может быть умнее не лезть в мозг параллельно. Тогда отложим.

0[object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object]

Explanation: Brainstorming is the appropriate entry node for a high-stakes governance change (LLM-first router migration) with multiple unresolved boundaries. User chose a safety option (separate branch) from the offered set, consistent with L1→L16 chain initiation. No self-assessment signal recorded but decision is sound.


**Сразу** — параллельно с Биллинг v2 Спек C и далее. Принимаем риск ради скорейшего старта сбора evidence.

**После Биллинга v2 Спек C** (~1-2 недели до закрытия), но **до** security-go-live. Большой блокирующий эпик закроется, а до публикации портала есть запас, где LLM-классификатор успеет показать качество.

**После security-go-live и публикации в интернет** — когда прод устаканится, никаких массовых правок ожидать не нужно, мозг можно перестраивать без оглядки на «не сломать прод-эпик».

**Свой вариант** — например, «сначала закроем регионы/маркетинг, потом возьмёмся».

Explanation: User chose from offered options on a strategic timing question; direct response is appropriate per PSR_v1 R15. Claude's recommendation aligned with the user's choice, indicating coherent advisory routing.


**Архив целиком и сразу** (одно движение) — L1-L16 канонические цепочки + routing-off-phase.md + router-procedure.md + описания «когда брать» в Tooling §4.X + PSR_v1 R15 → все одновременно уезжают в `docs/archive/routing-pre-2026-05/`. Агент с первого дня без подсказок. Данные максимально чистые. Риск: больше всего меняется за раз, если что-то пошло не так, диагностика сложнее.

**Постепенно, тремя фазами** (3 коммита за ~неделю) — фаза 1: L1-L16 + routing-off-phase.md → архив. Смотрим неделю на эпизоды. Фаза 2: описания «когда брать» в Tooling описаниях → архив. Ещё неделя. Фаза 3: PSR_v1 R15 → архив. Часть данных в первые 2 недели будет смешана (агент ещё видит часть подсказок), но проще диагностировать «что именно повлияло».

**Мягко: flag-only**, документы остаются — переключаем classifier в LLM-first режим, но шпаргалки в нормативке не трогаем. Агент **может** их видеть в реестре, но не обязан слушаться. Bias будет значительный, данные грязные, но риск минимальный.

Explanation: User chose from agent-offered options on a meta-governance decision about archiving routing scaffolding; direct response per Pravila §12 hard-rule is appropriate. No chain needed for an architectural choice presentation, and the option selected (full archive) matches what Claude would have recommended.


Explanation: Agent classified task as planning and recommended #19 but chose 'direct' instead, bypassing the recommended planning node. With 2766 output tokens generated improvisationally on a planning task, the agent should have invoked the planning node rather than answering directly.


Explanation: Episode shows a direct response with minimal input (12 tokens) but heavy output (3146 tokens), suggesting an autonomous reply without tool use. Lacking triggers, candidates, or classification details makes the routing choice opaque but plausible for a generic 'other' task. No self-assessment or chain context recorded.


Explanation: Direct response chosen for an unclassified 'other' task with neutral signal and no triggers matched. With minimal input (12 tokens) but large output (3384 tokens), the direct path appears reasonable though lack of rationale fields makes evaluation difficult.


Pravila §12
Pravila §14
Pravila §15
Pravila §12.3

Explanation: Agent chose direct execution autonomously with no tool calls or file touches, producing only output tokens. Without explicit task content visible, the choice appears defensible under Pravila §12/§14/§15 boundaries, but the absence of self-assessment and high output volume (9192 tokens) for a 'direct' answer is borderline.


Explanation: Direct node with light tool use (Grep/Read/Bash) is appropriate for a small documentation task touching one file. Triggers from Pravila §15/§12 justify the direct approach without chain orchestration.


Explanation: Agent chose direct response citing PSR_v1 R0.4 hard-rule, but recommended_node was #19, indicating a mismatch between recommendation and chosen action. With no events or tool calls and high output tokens, the direct path appears defensible but lacks transparency on why #19 was bypassed.


Permissions block (settings.json deny+ask) — блокирует tool calls без skill-marker

End-of-prompt parser — проверяет, был ли skill вызван

Runtime self-check — проверяет состояние в текущем ходу

In-turn state-guard с Bash bypass detection + subagent inheritance

**Sonnet 4.6 verifier** с decision:block (отдельный API-вызов!) — стоит ~$7-14/мес

PostCompact re-inject — переустанавливает правило после компакции

0[object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object]

Explanation: User chose from options offered, selecting the permissions-block approach which matches what Claude would have chosen. Decision was a direct architectural choice without invoking a skill chain, which is reasonable for this design-discussion turn. Outcome unknown but the routing aligns with user intent.


Explanation: Episode shows a direct route with no tool calls or file touches, but heavy output token usage (~13k) suggests substantive reasoning was produced. Without event details or recommended_node #19 being invoked, the routing rationale is thin but not clearly wrong. Outcome is unknown; treating as soft_success given no error signals.


Explanation: Agent classified task as analysis and self-recommended node #19, but then chose 'direct' instead. Despite zero tool calls and files touched, it consumed 12806 output tokens, indicating substantial unguided generation that should have been routed through the recommended analysis node.


Explanation: Agent chose direct response with no triggers/candidates recorded, while recommended node was #19. Task classified as 'other' with zero tool calls suggests a simple response was acceptable, but absence of rationale fields makes the choice weakly justified.


Нужен, но в фазе 1 — хочу с самого начала, даже на пустых данных (будет «расти» с накоплением эпизодов).

Да, нужен — оставляем в фазе 3 как запланировано.

Не нужен — brain-retro твоего исполнения достаточно, не плодим скилы.

Нужен в другом виде — например, не отдельный skill, а часть brain-retro (расширяю brain-retro на твою и мою оптику).

Explanation: This was a planning/governance question about whether to introduce a meta-retro skill in phase 1 vs phase 3. Direct conversational response is appropriate for such strategic dialogue; user chose a different option than Claude would have, which is a legitimate correction signal but not a routing error. No tool calls or chain needed.


Explanation: Direct response was chosen autonomously with no triggers or candidates recorded, and task classification is 'other'. Without task content visible and zero tool calls/files touched, direct handling appears defensible but the empty rationale fields make the decision quality hard to verify.


**Твой sanity check каждые 2 недели** — ловит большие систематические искажения («он часто ставит wrong_node для X, а ты говоришь что было ок»).

**Расхождения в трёх механизмах = красный флаг** — если self_assessment говорит «уверен», outcome говорит «успех», но ревьюер говорит «wrong_node» — это **сигнал** для глубокого разбора в brain-retro.

**Отчёт об LLM-ревьюере**: раз в месяц вижу его распределение «correct / wrong / overkill» — если 95% correct, подозреваю что он слишком мягкий. Если 30% wrong — слишком строгий. Калибрую промпт ревьюера.

Explanation: User selected the sanity-check option which aligns with Claude's recommendation. Direct response was appropriate for a meta-discussion about reviewer calibration. No tool calls or chain execution required.


Продолжаем: Phase 5 регрессия субагентом → Phase 6 deploy сам

Только Phase 5 сейчас, deploy — в следующей сессии

Пауза — всё сохранено, вернёмся в следующей сессии

0[object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object]

Summary: <tool_use_error>Blocked: sleep 60 followed by: ssh -i ~/.ssh/liderra_deploy -o C

Phase 3: remove legacy webhook wiring

Phase 4: DROP migration + factory/test cleanup + schema baseline sync

Phase 5: full regression after legacy webhook removal

Prod pre-flight 8-check validation

Explanation: Multi-phase legacy webhook removal correctly delegated Phase 5 regression to a subagent and used prod-deploy-validator for pre-flight, matching the user-chosen option. One blocked Bash (sleep+ssh) is a guardrail hit, not a routing fault. Chain (Phase 3→4→5→6) executed in proper order with appropriate tools.


Explanation: Direct response for a question classification is reasonable, but the absence of triggers_matched, candidates_considered, and boundaries_applied means the routing rationale is underspecified. Output token count (5848) is high for a 'direct' question, suggesting possible overkill scope without justification.


Explanation: Episode shows a direct response with no triggers, candidates, or boundaries recorded and task classified as 'other'. Recommended node was #34 but agent chose 'direct' without justification; minimal output suggests trivial interaction, making the choice defensible but unverifiable.


Explanation: Episode is minimal with no triggers, candidates, or boundaries recorded and task classified as 'other'. Direct response was chosen autonomously without justification, making the routing decision hard to validate but plausible for a trivial turn.


Explanation: Agent classified task as analysis and self-recommended #25 but executed via 'direct' with no tool calls or files touched, producing 8988 output tokens of unverified work. The mismatch between recommended_node (#25) and node_chosen (direct) indicates the agent should have routed to the analysis node rather than improvising.


Explanation: Agent chose direct execution with task_classification 'other' and used minimal tools (3 Bash, 1 Monitor) over 14 turns. No triggers or candidates were recorded, making the routing choice opaque but not clearly wrong. Outcome is unknown but tool execution completed without errors, suggesting soft success.


Explanation: Agent chose direct execution with no triggers/candidates recorded and task_classification 'other', yet produced 9k output tokens suggesting substantive work. Without rationale transparency the choice is disputable, but no clear better node is identifiable from the sparse episode data.


0[object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object]

Explanation: Task was classified as monitoring with recommended node #35, but agent went 'direct' instead. The execution used Monitor + Bash tools consistent with monitoring work, so outcome appears acceptable, though routing through #35 would have been more aligned with the classification.


Explanation: Agent chose 'direct' with no triggers/candidates/boundaries documented despite classifying the task as a feature and recommending #62. The lack of rationale capture makes this disputable, and the recommended node #62 likely would have been the more structured choice.


0[object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object]

Summary:
Exit code 28
curl: (28) Connection timed out after 15007 milliseconds
portal_ma

Summary:
Exit code 28
curl: (28) Connection timed out after 15004 milliseconds
portal_ma

Explanation: Task was classified as monitoring with recommended node #35, but agent chose direct execution. External connection timeouts caused retries, and an AskUserQuestion was needed. Monitoring node #35 would have been more aligned with the classification.


**Жёсткий лимит $5/день** — при превышении classifier отказывается работать, fallback на conversation/direct, тебе сигнал. Безопасно, но при необычно интенсивном дне работа ломается.

**Soft лимит $5/день + alert тебе** — продолжает работать, но шлёт сигнал «дневной лимит превышен». Гибче, риск перерасхода.

**Месячный лимит $200/мес** — суммарно по dimensions, без дневной защиты. Проще, реактивно.

**Без лимита, только мониторинг** — отчёт в /brain-retro «сколько потратили». Полное доверие коду.

**Manual override ВСЕГДА bypass §17 + classifier.** Если ты пишешь «делай через TDD» — иду через TDD, evidence пишется с `decision_provenance.kind = "user_directed_method"`, в дистилляцию regex не попадает (это твой выбор, не LLM, тестировать нечего).

**Manual override проходит через classifier для оценки** — ты сказал «делай через TDD», classifier всё равно классифицирует и записывает свою рекомендацию. Если совпала — `user_chose_from_options`. Если не совпала — флаг «user override classifier». Evidence богаче.

**Manual override блокируется §17** — даже твоё прямое указание проверяется на «есть ли такой узел в реестре». Если нет — блок. Жёстко, но честно.

**Адаптировать оба** — L1-watcher переключается на «реестр nodes.yaml ↔ settings.json», cross-ref-checker сохраняется только для оставшихся ссылок (которых станет меньше).

**L1-watcher отключить (sunset)**, cross-ref-checker адаптировать.

**Оба отключить временно, переоценить через 2 месяца** — без них brain governance частично теряет защиту, но это совместимо с эпохой эксперимента.

**Сохранить как есть, чинить расхождения по факту** — может затопить лог warning'ами после удаления, но не сломает прод.

**Без изменений** — мои сессии и так в Anthropic; classifier-запрос — мелочь сверху. Принимаешь.

**Маскирование prompt'а перед classifier** — PII-фильтр прогоняет prompt перед отправкой в Sonnet. Минус: classifier видит замаскированную версию, может хуже классифицировать (если важное слово замаскировано).

**Только метаданные в classifier** — не отправляем сам prompt, а только token count + первые/последние ~50 символов + структурные сигналы. Сильно режет качество классификации.

**Субагенты НЕ проходят через classifier** — у них своя ответственность, я (контроллер) уже сделал routing-выбор когда вызвал Task. Меньше API-вызовов, чище данные о моём routing.

**Субагенты ТОЖЕ проходят через classifier** — больше evidence, но дороже и сложнее dataset (mixed controller+subagent decisions).

**Без изменений** — продолжают работать, classifier выбирает их когда уместно.

**Адаптировать SKILL.md** — добавить attribute «evidence-tracked» чтобы они тоже писали в эпизод (сейчас не пишут).

**Оставить как есть, добавить в реестр capabilities** — без правки skill-файлов.

**Только бинарный откат — всё или ничего** — flag «llm-first | regex-first», переключение мгновенное, частичный откат не поддерживается.

**Гранулярные flag'и** — отдельные переключатели для §17 (on/off), §12 hook'ов (on/off), Opus reviewer (on/off), self-retrospect (on/off). Можно откатывать кусками.

**Только полный откат для phase 2 (§12), гранулярный для остального** — §12 либо есть, либо нет; всё остальное гранулярно.

**Тихий fallback** — переключаюсь на conversation-class «как раньше», пишу в эпизод метку `degraded_mode: true`, тебе не сообщаю. Минимум шума.

**Явный сигнал в начале ответа** — «[router degraded: Sonnet API down, fallback]» в начале ответа. Прозрачно, но шумно.

**Сигнал только при первом срабатывании в сессии** — один раз предупреждение, потом тихо.

Explanation: Task was a design spec for the LLM-first router overhaul with user choosing among presented options; direct node is appropriate for documentation writing under §12/§14. Single Write to spec file is consistent with the chosen path. Outcome unknown but tooling completed without errors, so treating as soft_success.


Почини чужую миграцию сам

Стоп, закрываем сессию

Попробуй применить только мою миграцию (обойти чужую)

Почини чужую миграцию сам

Стоп, закрываем сессию

0[object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object]

Summary:
Exit code 28
curl: (28) Connection timed out after 12004 milliseconds
main: 000

Explanation: User explicitly chose to fix the foreign migration over Claude's recommended stop. Decision provenance shows user override, which is legitimate; agent executed the chosen path with reasonable tool usage despite one transient curl timeout. Outcome unknown but path was user-directed.


0[object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object]

Explanation: Agent chose 'direct' path with minimal tool usage (1 Bash + 1 Monitor) for an unclassified task. Without triggers/candidates recorded and task_classification='other', the routing rationale is thin but the lightweight execution appears proportionate. Outcome unknown but no errors fired.


0[object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object]

Summary:
Exit code 28
main: 200 0.819494s
login: 200 0.788333s
  % Total    % Received

Explanation: Task was classified as 'other' with recommended node #34, but agent went direct with 16 tool calls (mostly Bash). A curl timeout (exit 28) occurred but was retried. Direct execution worked but the recommended node may have provided better structure.


0[object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object]

Explanation: Agent chose direct execution for an 'other' classification task with 6 tool calls and no file edits. Without task content visible, the autonomous direct routing seems reasonable, though the recommended_node #34 was not followed. No self-assessment recorded and outcome unknown, so treating as soft success.


0[object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object]

Summary:
Exit code 2
ls: cannot access 'tools/skill-discipline*.mjs': No such file or dir

Summary:
Exit code 1
cat: 'C:UsersADMINI~1AppDataLocalTemp2claudec---------------------cr

Explanation: Analysis task with routing-off-phase boundary correctly handled via direct node #25. Two Bash errors were minor path/glob issues that were retried successfully. No chain was needed for this investigative work.


0[object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object]

Explanation: Agent went direct with light tool use (3 Bash, 1 Monitor) on an unclassified task. No triggers or candidates were recorded, so routing rationale is thin, but the execution appears bounded and hooks fired without errors. Recommended node #34 was noted but not taken; impact unclear without outcome signal.


Explanation: Small task (3 tool calls, no files touched) handled via direct path with no triggers matched and classification 'other'. Recommended node was #34 but direct was chosen; given the trivial size and lack of error events, the improvisation appears acceptable though not clearly optimal.


c:\моя\проекты\портал crm\Документация\ПИЛОТ.md

Explanation: Agent chose direct execution for an 'other' classified task touching a single doc file with modest tool usage (14 calls, 1 edit). Recommended node #34 was not used but direct path appears adequate given scope. No self-assessment captured and outcome unknown, suggesting soft success.


Explanation: Task classified as monitoring with recommended node #25, but agent chose 'direct' path with a single Read operation. The minimal scope (1 tool call, 1 file) makes direct execution defensible, though the recommended monitoring node would have been more aligned with classification.


Summary: <tool_use_error>File has not been read yet. Read it first before writing to it.<

Explanation: Agent chose direct execution instead of recommended #34, and hit an Edit-before-Read error requiring retry. The task touched memory files with 14 tool calls suggesting #34 (memory/state work) would have been more appropriate. Outcome is rework due to the tool error and recovery.


Explanation: Episode shows a direct response with no tool calls and no triggers/candidates documented, making the routing rationale thin. Without task content visible and zero files touched, 'direct' is plausible but the empty triggers/candidates arrays make this disputable rather than clearly correct.


Explanation: Agent chose 'direct' for a question-classified task with only 2 tool calls (Bash + Monitor), which is reasonable. However, the rationale recommended #62 yet the agent went direct without recorded triggers/candidates, making the routing choice underdocumented but not clearly wrong.


Explanation: Agent went direct with task_classification 'other' and recommended_node #34 not invoked, but executed a small tool set (3 Bash + 1 Monitor) without errors. No chain was needed for this lightweight task; outcome unknown but execution appears clean, so soft_success is the fair read.


Explanation: Improvised direct path with minimal tool usage (2 calls) and no triggers/candidates recorded. Task classification 'other' and lack of rationale make node choice disputable but not clearly wrong; outcome unknown suggests soft success.


Explanation: Task was classified as monitoring with recommended node #35, but agent took 'direct' path. Execution was lightweight (2 tool calls: Bash + Monitor) with no errors, so outcome is acceptable, though using the recommended monitoring node would have been more aligned.


0[object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object]

Summary: <tool_use_error>File has been modified since read, either by the user or by a li

Explanation: Direct execution was appropriate per ADR-016 routing-off-phase for a spec documentation task. A Write error occurred due to external file modification, requiring a retry, but the task completed. Long duration (~17min) and high output tokens suggest substantial spec drafting work consistent with the task type.


Копать RefreshSupplierSessionJob фейлы (рекомендую)

Вернуть аудит webhook_log (переделать чужую миграцию)

Оставь как есть, я разберусь с сессией в кабинете сам

0[object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object]

Explanation: Agent presented user with clear options including a recommendation, and user chose the recommended path (investigate RefreshSupplierSessionJob failures). Decision provenance aligns with Claude's own preference, and the improvised path with 6 tool calls is proportionate to a diagnostic task. Outcome is unknown but routing was sound.


Explanation: Task was classified as a question with recommended node #19, but agent went 'direct' and performed 11 tool calls including 3 edits to a spec file, indicating action beyond a question-answer scope. The autonomous deviation from the recommended node suggests improper routing rather than legitimate escalation.


Explanation: Task was classified as monitoring with recommended node #66, but agent chose 'direct' improvised path. Monitoring tasks should route to the dedicated monitoring node for consistency, though the work completed with 2 tool calls and no errors.


Explanation: Episode chose 'direct' with no triggers, candidates, or boundaries recorded, and task classified as 'other'. Without events or tool calls but 12k output tokens, direct response is plausible but the empty rationale fields make the routing decision hard to validate.


Да, dispatch job + покажи результат

Да, dispatch job + покажи результат
Стоп, я зайду в кабинет вручную сначала
Ничего не делай на проде

Да, dispatch job + покажи результат

0[object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object]

Summary:
Exit code 1
Did not find any relation named "supplier_sessions".
---data---
ERRO

Explanation: Agent went 'direct' on a prod dispatch job touching supplier sessions; recommended_node was #66 but bypassed. User was consulted via AskUserQuestion which appropriately gated the prod action, and a Bash error (missing relation) triggered a retry. Outcome unknown but the user-guarded flow recovered; routing was loose but acceptable.


Explanation: Agent chose 'direct' with task_classification 'other' and minimal tool usage (TodoWrite, Bash, Monitor). Recommended node was #66 but direct path appears reasonable for the lightweight execution. Outcome is unknown but no errors fired, suggesting soft success.


Explanation: Agent classified task as analysis and self-recommended #30, yet chose 'direct' instead. Output of 14318 tokens with zero tool calls suggests heavy improvised analysis that should have been routed through the analysis node.


Explanation: Episode shows an autonomous 'direct' response with no triggers, candidates, or boundaries recorded, and task_classification='other'. Without task content visible and zero tool calls, direct answer is plausible but the empty rationale fields make the routing choice weakly justified.


**Диспетчеру памятку, аудитор — полноценный агент.** ~$315-1275/мес. Глубокие отчёты для тебя, но цена кусается.

**Обоим памятку.** ~$140-170/мес. Самое чистое для главной цели. **Рекомендую.**

**Оставить всё как есть в spec'е.** ~$120-230/мес. Минимальный вариант.

**Поэтапно:** памятку обоим сразу, а если через 1-2 месяца увидим что аудитор слаб — конвертируем его в полноценного агента. Гибко, контроль по факту.

Explanation: User made an architectural choice from offered options; the selected option is more expensive than Claude's recommendation but is a valid business decision within the user's prerogative. No node execution error occurred — this was a decision-capture event, not a routing failure.


Да, запусти CsvReconcileJob вручную сейчас

Нет, ждься следующего cron'а (через этот час)

Сначала почини cron рефреша сессии

0[object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object]

Explanation: Monitoring task with reconciliation issue; agent correctly investigated via Bash and surfaced clear options to user, who chose manual job execution. Direct routing with AskUserQuestion is appropriate for ops decisions with reversible side effects.


0[object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object]

Explanation: Monitoring task handled directly with minimal tool calls (2 Bash + 1 Monitor). The direct node is appropriate for lightweight monitoring; no chain required. Execution was clean with no hook errors.


Explanation: Agent went direct for a small bugfix investigation (1 Grep + 1 Read on a single file), which is reasonable. No chain was needed given the minimal scope, though the recommended node #18 suggests a more structured bugfix path could have been used.


Да, проверь и почини

Да, проверь и почини

Нет, я сам посмотрю или в следующей сессии

Довольно на сегодня, закрываем сессию

Да, проверь и почини

Explanation: Monitoring task with user-confirmed fix path; direct node #34 invocation aligned with classification. Tool usage (Bash + Monitor) is proportionate, no hook errors, and the user explicitly chose the action Claude would have picked.


Explanation: Episode shows a direct response with no triggers or candidates recorded, and recommended node #19 was not invoked. With outcome unknown and no tool calls, the routing rationale is too sparse to fully validate, but direct handling appears acceptable for an 'other' classified task.


Explanation: Monitoring task with 5 tool calls executed directly is appropriate; lightweight bash/monitor operations don't require a structured chain. No errors fired and the task completed within expected scope.


Summary:
Exit code 255
retry 1 in 25s
Connection closed by [REDACTED:ipv4] port 22

Explanation: Monitoring task correctly handled via direct node with Bash/Monitor tools. The SSH connection error (exit 255) was an external network failure with automatic retry, not a routing mistake. Light-touch monitoring is appropriate here without invoking a chain.


§4.1 — расширить prefilter тремя группами.

§4.2 — добавить inheritance logic в router-prehook.

§5 — в schema эпизода добавить `inherited_from_task: <task_id>`, `inheritance_age_minutes: N`, `previous_direction_rejected: true/false`.

§10 — добавить новый flag `inheritance-mode.json`.

§11.2 — в фазу 2 добавить task «реализовать inheritance + три группы».

§14 — закрыть risk «короткие follow-up'ы теряют контекст».

Explanation: User chose §4.1 from offered options, matching what Claude would have chosen. Episode has no tool calls or file edits, suggesting it was a routing/planning decision answered directly. Without primary_rationale triggers or events, depth of analysis cannot be verified, but the alignment between user and Claude choice supports a soft success.


Explanation: With a 6-token input classified as 'other' and no triggers matched, direct response is a reasonable default. However, the lack of any candidates_considered or task classification beyond 'other' makes the routing rationale thin and hard to fully validate.


Разобраться сейчас (копать journalctl/horizon)

Подождать :00 UTC, проверить рефреш (рекомендую)

Добавить «пояс-и-ремень» — второй schedule entry чаще (каждые 5ч) и алёрт при missing supplier:session

0[object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object]

Explanation: Agent presented options and user chose to investigate now rather than the recommended wait-and-see. The direct diagnostic path (journalctl/horizon) is reasonable for an ops issue, though Claude's recommendation to wait for the :00 UTC refresh would have been cheaper. Decision provenance shows user override, so the outcome is acceptable but not optimal.


Explanation: Agent chose 'direct' for a question classification but recommended_node was #18, suggesting a mismatch between recommendation and execution. With no triggers/candidates recorded and zero tool calls, the routing rationale is thin though the direct answer likely sufficed for a simple question.


Explanation: Task touched spec documentation and two agent definitions across 11 tool calls; direct execution is defensible for documentation edits but the scope (3 governance files, spec + agents) borders on territory where a planning/normative chain could have added structure. No self-assessment recorded and outcome is unknown, so treating as soft success.


Explanation: Agent went direct with minimal tool usage (Bash + TodoWrite) on an unclassified task while the recommended node was #66. With only 2 tool calls and no files touched, direct handling was plausible but bypassing the recommendation without recorded triggers/candidates makes the choice disputable.


**VPN + иностранная карта + иностранный номер** — сама Console принимает, но это нарушение Anthropic Usage Policy (риск бана аккаунта в любой момент с потерей кредитов).

**Реселлеры / прокси API** — OpenRouter (openrouter.ai), Vsegpt, ProxyAPI, BotHub. Платишь рублями/картой РФ, получаешь совместимый с Anthropic API ключ. Работает с Claude Code через `ANTHROPIC_BASE_URL`. Наценка 5–20%.

**Через облако** — AWS Bedrock или Google Vertex AI (там Claude есть как managed-модель). Но и эти аккаунты с РФ-картой не открыть.

Explanation: Task was a question about accessing Claude API from RF; direct answer with options is appropriate routing. However, presenting the policy-violating VPN option as the default choice is disputable — the reseller option (OpenRouter etc.) is safer and should have been the recommended path.


Explanation: Direct response to a question-classified task is reasonable, but the empty triggers/candidates/boundaries arrays indicate no documented deliberation. Outcome is unknown with zero tool calls, consistent with a direct answer.


0[object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object]

Explanation: Agent chose direct execution with 3 PowerShell calls for an unclassified task. Without task content visible, the routing appears reasonable but lacks documented triggers/candidates, making it disputable. Outcome is unknown but tool execution completed without errors.


Explanation: Direct node used for a multi-file documentation/memory update touching 4 files with 11 tool calls; a lightweight chain could have structured this, but direct execution is defensible for routine doc edits. No self-assessment recorded and outcome unknown, suggesting soft success.


Explanation: Agent chose direct response with no triggers matched or candidates considered, and recommended_node #18 was not invoked. Without task content visible and zero tool calls, direct answer is plausible but the empty rationale fields make the routing rationale unverifiable.


Explanation: Agent took a direct path with only 3 Read operations on spec and agent files, suggesting a lightweight inspection task. No chain was needed and no errors occurred, though the high output token count (~23k) relative to minimal tool use is notable but not necessarily incorrect.


Explanation: Agent went direct with no triggers, candidates, or boundaries recorded, and self-recommended #18 without invoking it. Outcome is unknown with zero tool calls and no files touched, suggesting a lightweight response that may have been adequate but lacks justification.


Explanation: Agent classified task as a question and answered directly without invoking the recommended #18 node. With no triggers/candidates logged and no self-assessment, the routing rationale is thin, but a direct answer for a question-type task is defensible.


Explanation: Agent used 'direct' path with 2 PowerShell calls for an unclassified task while recommended node was #18. Without task content, hard to fully judge, but execution completed without errors and minimal tooling suggests appropriate lightweight handling.


Explanation: Direct response was chosen for a question-type task without explicit triggers or candidates documented. The minimal rationale (empty triggers/candidates/boundaries) makes the routing decision hard to validate, but direct is a defensible default for a question. Outcome unknown with no tool calls suggests a lightweight answer was given.


Explanation: Agent chose 'direct' for a question-classified task but executed a PowerShell tool call, suggesting the task may have warranted a more structured node. However, with only 1 tool call and minimal scope, direct handling is defensible. Outcome unknown but execution appears clean with no errors.


Глубокий разбор через systematic-debugging

Быстрая проверка гипотезы: restart worker + ждать 03:00 cron (рекомендую)

Временный костыль: cron дёргать dispatchSync вместо queue

Сейчас ничего, сессия жива до 08:00

0[object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object]

Explanation: User chose deep systematic-debugging over Claude's recommended quick hypothesis check. For a worker/cron issue with a live session until 08:00, the lightweight restart-and-observe path was more proportionate; invoking the full debugging skill is overkill given the cheap reversible test available. Hard floor invocation suggests the agent over-escalated rigor.


0[object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object]

Summary: Ripgrep search timed out after 20 seconds. The search may have matched files but

Explanation: Task was classified as 'other' with recommended node #18, but agent invoked superpowers:brainstorming instead — a clear node mismatch. Two Glob timeouts and a retry indicate rework, and the brainstorming skill was overkill/inappropriate for a router-classifier inspection task.


Explanation: Monitoring task with 3 tool calls handled directly; node #25 was recommended but direct execution is appropriate for lightweight monitoring. No chain needed and no errors observed.


0[object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object]

Explanation: Direct node is appropriate for a memory-sync task touching 3 files. However, the agent attempted Edit before Read on three occasions, causing tool errors and retries — a sequencing mistake rather than a wrong node choice. Task completed after retries.


Да, настроить отдельную розетку

Да, настроить отдельную розетку
Пока оставить выключенным

Да, настроить отдельную розетку

0[object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object]

Summary:
Exit code 1
node.exe :
At line:1 char:1
+ & "C:\Program Files\nodejs/node.exe

Explanation: Task was classified as 'other' and routed direct, which is defensible for a tooling/config edit on router scripts. One PowerShell invocation failed but was retried successfully, and user was consulted via AskUserQuestion for a binary configuration choice. No explicit self-assessment provided in the rationale.


0[object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object]

Explanation: Single-file edit to reviewer-agent.md is a small, well-scoped task appropriate for the direct node. Tool usage (Edit, Bash, TodoWrite) was minimal with no errors, and no chain was needed.


c:\моя\проекты\портал crm\Документация\tools\_live-test-proxyapi.mjs

Summary:
Exit code 2
FAIL ❌ fetch failed

Explanation: Agent went direct for a live API test script but encountered a fetch failure requiring retry. The recommended #25 node may have provided better scaffolding for live-test diagnostics, though the failure appears to be external (network/API) rather than a routing mistake.


Explanation: Task involved editing 3 documentation/memory files with a small number of tool calls (3 Edits, 3 Bash, 1 TodoWrite). Direct execution was appropriate for this routine documentation update; no chain or specialized node required. Hooks fired cleanly with zero errors.


0[object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object]

Explanation: Memory-sync task handled directly with appropriate tools (Read/Edit/Write/Bash) on two memory files. No errors, modest tool count, and the operation matches the scope of a direct node execution.


Explanation: Planning task correctly routed to superpowers:writing-plans per ADR-016 hard-floor rule. Single plan file written with appropriate tool usage (TodoWrite, Write, Bash) and no errors.


Нет, не трогать чужое (рекомендую)

Нет, не трогать чужое (рекомендую)

Да, запушить всё локальное (включая чужой commit)

Нет, не трогать чужое (рекомендую)

0[object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object]

Summary:
Exit code 128
=== unpushed ===
=== ПИЛОТ status ===
=== HEAD vs origin ===
fatal

Explanation: Agent correctly handled a memory-sync/git situation by checking state, encountering a non-blocking error, and escalating an ambiguous decision (push others' commits or not) to user via AskUserQuestion. The recommended safe option aligned with Claude's choice. Direct handling was appropriate; no chain required.


0[object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object]

Summary: PreToolUse:Write hook error: [python3 ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/hooks/security_remin

Explanation: Task was classified as planning with recommended node #31 (planning skill), but agent went 'direct' and wrote a plan file improvised. A planning task of this scope (router overhaul plan) should have invoked the planning chain rather than ad-hoc Write, as evidenced by the Write hook error and retry.


Git tag `brain-pre-llm-bootstrap` (git-tracked).

Snapshot **user-level** state (`~/.claude/settings.json` + `~/.claude/hooks/*.py` + runtime flags) — то, что **не покрыто git**.

`test-rollback.mjs` (TDD, через `execFileSync` — без shell-инъекции).

**End-to-end smoke:** тривиальная правка → откат → verify, **доказать что откат работает ДО того как что-то ломать**. Если не зелёный — стоп.

**economy-mode** (`economy-mode.py` + 3 других) — система 0%/5%/100%, которую ты **активно используешь**.

**§12 skill-discipline** (`skill-marker.py` + `skill-check.py`) — то, что overhaul снимает.

Explanation: Brainstorming was appropriately invoked for a planning task with multiple safety-critical options (pre-LLM bootstrap rollback strategy). The agent surfaced concrete candidates including TDD tests and end-to-end smoke verification, and used AskUserQuestion to let the user choose, which aligns with §12 hard floor. No execution errors and the chosen node (git tag) is a reasonable starting checkpoint.


0[object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object]

Summary:
<tool_use_error>String to replace not found in file.
String: **10 flag'ов в `~/.

Explanation: Direct edits to spec/plan documents are appropriate under Pravila §17 for documentation work. One Edit failed due to string mismatch but was retried successfully. No chain required for this documentation task.


Explanation: Agent classified task as feature and self-recommended #18 but proceeded via 'direct' with no triggers/candidates/boundaries recorded. Output of 10568 tokens editing brain/memory files suggests a substantial governance change that should have gone through the recommended node rather than improvised direct execution.


Explanation: Memory-sync task with edits to project_state.md and related memory files aligns with direct execution under Pravila §15. Tool usage (Read/Grep/Edit) is proportionate, no chain needed.


Summary: File content (339.4KB) exceeds maximum allowed size (256KB). Use offset and limi

Explanation: Task classified as a question and routed via direct node per ADR-016, which is reasonable. Agent performed reads and asked one clarifying question; a Read error occurred due to file size but was handled via retry. No self-assessment was emitted, and outcome remains unknown but workflow completed without blocking.


Отдельный пароль на админку

Отдельный пароль на админку
Пускать только ваш аккаунт
Полноценный вход админа

Отдельный пароль на админку

c:\моя\проекты\портал crm\Документация\app\routes\web.php

c:\моя\проекты\портал crm\Документация\app\app\Models\User.php

0[object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object]

Summary:
Exit code 255
Connection timed out during banner exchange
Connection to 111.88.

Summary: <tool_use_error>Cancelled: parallel tool call Bash(ssh -i ~/.ssh/liderra_deploy

Summary: <tool_use_error>Blocked: sleep 45 followed by: ssh -i ~/.ssh/liderra_deploy -o C

Summary:
Exit code 2
/usr/bin/bash: eval: line 1: unexpected EOF while looking for matchi

Pre-flight prod readiness check

Explanation: Systematic-debugging was an appropriate skill for a bugfix/admin-auth task with hard_floor invoked per Pravila §12. The user was offered three options and chose one, and a prod-deploy-validator subagent was used for preflight. Multiple SSH/ripgrep timeouts were external infrastructure failures rather than routing mistakes, though they contributed to ~30min runtime.


0[object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object]

Explanation: Small task (3 Bash calls, 0 files touched) handled directly per Pravila §15.2, with no hook errors and no chain required. Direct execution is appropriate for this scale.


Explanation: Task classified as 'other' with direct routing and no triggers/candidates recorded, yet 6804 output tokens were spent — suggesting meaningful work happened without governance instrumentation. Direct may be acceptable for an unclassified task, but the absence of rationale fields makes the choice hard to validate.


На текущей форме введите ваш **обычный** аккаунт портала (тот, под которым вы заходили раньше — «Клиент 1»), нажмите «Войти». Это вход в систему как пользователь.

После входа перейдите по адресу прямо в строке браузера: **`https://liderra.ru/admin/supplier-integration`** (или кликните «Админка» / «Интеграция с поставщиком» в боковой панели).

**В этот момент** браузер сам покажет отдельное серое системное окошко с надписью **«liderra.ru запрашивает имя пользователя и пароль» / «Liderra Admin»**. Это окно браузера, не страница сайта. **Туда** введите `admin` / `Qwerty9363` и поставьте галочку «Запомнить», чтобы не вводить каждый раз.

Окно закроется, страница админки загрузится с данными.

Explanation: User was guided through a multi-step login/admin-access flow and chose the logical first step (logging into the portal as a regular user). The direct instructional response is appropriate for this procedural question, and the sequence of options presented forms a coherent walkthrough.


Explanation: Monitoring task with minimal tool usage (1 Read, 1 Bash) appropriately handled via direct path. Low complexity does not warrant chain orchestration, and no errors occurred.


Explanation: Single Read operation on a task output file is a minimal direct action; no chain required. Agent did not record triggers or candidates, making the decision opaque but the action itself appears proportionate to the trivial task.


**Ты разбанишь меня вручную** через консоль YC или с другой машины (`ssh liderra "sudo fail2ban-client set sshd unbanip <мой_внешний_IP>"`). Если знаешь свой внешний IP/доступ к консоли — это быстрее. Мой внешний IP с этой машины — поднимется в логах сервера в `/var/log/fail2ban.log`.

**Подождать 10-15 мин** (типичный bantime в дефолтной конфигурации) — потом ровно один SSH-тест; если работает, гоню заливку → redeploy → initial-sweep → smoke → пуш. Без поллинга, чтобы не растравлять бан.

**Скажешь когда пробовать** — я просто пасую и жду твоего «давай», без таймера.

Explanation: Agent presented three reasonable options for handling a fail2ban SSH lockout; user chose manual unban rather than the agent's preferred wait option. Decision is operational/non-codepath, so direct response without chain invocation is appropriate. No self-assessment was logged, but the option framing was clear and pragmatic.


0[object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object]

Explanation: Agent went direct with 5 Bash calls for an unclassified 'other' task while system recommended node #25. Without task content visible, direct execution appears functional but bypassed the recommended routing; no self-assessment was recorded and outcome is unknown.


Explanation: Agent chose 'direct' while the rationale itself recommended node #25, indicating a mismatch between recommendation and action. With no tool calls and no events, the task appears to have been handled inline; without triggers or candidates recorded, the choice is defensible but weakly justified.


Explanation: Direct response for a question classification is reasonable, but the rationale lacks triggers, candidates, and boundaries documentation expected in v3+ schema. No events recorded and outcome unknown, making full validation difficult.


Explanation: Direct node was used for an unclassified task with 4 Bash calls and no files touched. Token output (~42k) is high relative to minimal tool activity, suggesting possible overkill, but without clearer task context the direct routing is defensible.