@crediolabs/policy-synth 0.1.2 → 0.1.4

package/src/review-card/conflict.ts

@@ -0,0 +1,143 @@
+// src/review-card/conflict.ts - the ConflictAnnotation 4-kind enum + the
+// `classifyConflict` classifier.
+//
+// When a user installs a new policy alongside an existing rule set, the
+// review card surfaces the relationship between the new rule and each
+// existing rule as a structured annotation. A boolean (conflict / no
+// conflict) is wrong: four qualitatively different shapes are possible, and
+// each one tells the user something different about what would happen if
+// both rules installed together.
+//
+//   - subsume            new rule's scope is a SUPERSET of an existing
+//                        rule's. The new rule is broader; installing it on
+//                        top of the existing rule weakens the existing
+//                        restriction. The existing rule becomes a no-op.
+//   - disjoint           new rule and existing rule are unrelated: their
+//                        scopes do not overlap. Safe to install both.
+//   - counter_permissive new rule and existing rule allow CONFLICTING
+//                        things at the same scope (one caps lower than the
+//                        other on the same axis). The stricter one wins
+//                        at evaluate; the looser is dead weight.
+//   - window_divergent   new rule and existing rule have the same scope
+//                        and the same per-window limit but DIFFERENT
+//                        rolling windows. Effective union = sum (the user
+//                        can spend `limit` per each window, independently).
+//
+// The classifier consumes a minimal `RuleRef` shape: the rule id, scope
+// (contract + method), and an optional spending limit + window. Shapes
+// without a limit fall back to scope-only classification.
+
+/** Minimal rule reference the classifier needs to compute the conflict kind.
+ *  Carries the rule id (used in the annotation), the scope (contract +
+ *  method), and an optional spending cap. The cap captures both the
+ *  amount and the window so the classifier can compare apples to apples. */
+export interface RuleRef {
+  id: string
+  scope: { contract?: string; method?: string }
+  /** When set, the rule enforces this per-window spend cap (token +
+   *  decimal-string amount + seconds window). */
+  spendingLimit?: { token: string; amount: string; windowSeconds: number }
+}
+
+/** Structured annotation a single new-vs-existing rule comparison yields.
+ *  Four mutually exclusive kinds; the union is exhaustive (the classifier
+ *  never throws). */
+export type ConflictAnnotation =
+  | { kind: 'subsume'; existingRuleId: string; detail: string }
+  | { kind: 'disjoint' }
+  | { kind: 'counter_permissive'; existingRuleId: string; newLimit: string; existingLimit: string }
+  | { kind: 'window_divergent'; existingRuleId: string; effectiveUnion: string }
+
+/** Classify the relationship between a new rule and one existing rule.
+ *  Pure: same pair -> same annotation. */
+export function classifyConflict(newRule: RuleRef, existingRule: RuleRef): ConflictAnnotation {
+  // --- step 1: subsume? (new.scope ⊋ existing.scope) ---
+  //
+  // Subsume requires existing to be fully scoped (both contract AND method
+  // pinned) AND new to be at least partially broader than existing. A new
+  // rule with identical scope to existing is NOT a superset - it is the
+  // same rule and falls through to the same-scope branch below. If existing
+  // is "any contract" / "any method" then it is the wildest rule in the
+  // rule set; a new rule covering it is just a duplicate, not a subsume -
+  // fall through to disjoint.
+  const existingHasContract = existingRule.scope.contract !== undefined
+  const existingHasMethod = existingRule.scope.method !== undefined
+  const newIsBroaderOnContract = newRule.scope.contract === undefined && existingHasContract
+  const newIsBroaderOnMethod = newRule.scope.method === undefined && existingHasMethod
+  const newMatchesOnContract =
+    newRule.scope.contract === undefined ||
+    (existingHasContract && newRule.scope.contract === existingRule.scope.contract)
+  const newMatchesOnMethod =
+    newRule.scope.method === undefined ||
+    (existingHasMethod && newRule.scope.method === existingRule.scope.method)
+  if (
+    existingHasContract &&
+    existingHasMethod &&
+    newMatchesOnContract &&
+    newMatchesOnMethod &&
+    (newIsBroaderOnContract || newIsBroaderOnMethod)
+  ) {
+    return {
+      kind: 'subsume',
+      existingRuleId: existingRule.id,
+      detail: `new rule scope (${describeScope(newRule)}) is a superset of existing rule (${describeScope(existingRule)})`,
+    }
+  }
+
+  // --- step 2: disjoint by scope? ---
+  if (existingHasContract && newRule.scope.contract !== undefined) {
+    if (newRule.scope.contract !== existingRule.scope.contract) {
+      return { kind: 'disjoint' }
+    }
+  }
+  if (
+    existingHasMethod &&
+    newRule.scope.method !== undefined &&
+    newRule.scope.method !== existingRule.scope.method
+  ) {
+    return { kind: 'disjoint' }
+  }
+
+  // --- step 3: same scope -> compare spend caps (when both sides carry them) ---
+  if (newRule.spendingLimit && existingRule.spendingLimit) {
+    const a = newRule.spendingLimit
+    const b = existingRule.spendingLimit
+    if (a.token !== b.token) {
+      // Same scope, different tokens: each binds a different axis. They
+      // do not counter each other; treat as disjoint.
+      return { kind: 'disjoint' }
+    }
+    if (a.windowSeconds === b.windowSeconds) {
+      // Same scope, same token, same window: counter-permissive when the
+      // amounts disagree (the stricter wins at evaluate; the looser is
+      // dead weight). Equal amounts -> duplicate rule, treat as disjoint.
+      if (a.amount === b.amount) {
+        return { kind: 'disjoint' }
+      }
+      return {
+        kind: 'counter_permissive',
+        existingRuleId: existingRule.id,
+        newLimit: `${a.amount} ${a.token} / ${a.windowSeconds}s`,
+        existingLimit: `${b.amount} ${b.token} / ${b.windowSeconds}s`,
+      }
+    }
+    // Same scope + token, different windows: effective union is the sum
+    // of the two per-window caps (each window ticks independently).
+    const union = (BigInt(a.amount) + BigInt(b.amount)).toString()
+    return {
+      kind: 'window_divergent',
+      existingRuleId: existingRule.id,
+      effectiveUnion: `${union} ${a.token} per ${a.windowSeconds}s (new) + ${b.windowSeconds}s (existing)`,
+    }
+  }
+
+  // Same scope without comparable spend caps on both sides -> disjoint.
+  return { kind: 'disjoint' }
+}
+
+function describeScope(rule: RuleRef): string {
+  const parts: string[] = []
+  parts.push(rule.scope.contract ? `contract=${rule.scope.contract}` : 'contract=*')
+  parts.push(rule.scope.method ? `method=${rule.scope.method}` : 'method=*')
+  return parts.join(', ')
+}

package/src/review-card/cross-check.ts

@@ -0,0 +1,158 @@
+// src/review-card/cross-check.ts - the non-hallucination guard.
+//
+// `summaryCrossCheck` walks EVERY leaf of the predicate and asserts the
+// review-card summary quoted a constraint string for it. Returns
+// `{ ok: false, missingConstraints }` if any leaf was dropped (or rendered
+// into a template shape the cross-check does not recognise). A
+// `PredicateNode = null` is always ok - the policy is OZ-only and the
+// interpreter predicate did not exist.
+//
+// The guard is structural: every leaf the builder is supposed to render has
+// exactly one template shape. The cross-check enumerates those shapes and
+// demands the summary carries the corresponding string. A naive summary
+// that drops a leaf (or fabricates a string not in the predicate) trips the
+// guard.
+
+import type { PredicateLeaf, PredicateNode } from '../types.ts'
+import type { ReviewCardSummary } from './builder.ts'
+
+/** Assert every leaf in the predicate appears as a constraint string in
+ *  `summary.constraints`. Returns the missing templates (without the leaf
+ *  values filled in) when any leaf was dropped. */
+export function summaryCrossCheck(
+  predicate: PredicateNode | null,
+  summary: ReviewCardSummary
+): { ok: true } | { ok: false; missingConstraints: string[] } {
+  if (predicate === null) return { ok: true }
+
+  const expected: string[] = []
+  collect(predicate, expected)
+
+  if (expected.length === 0) return { ok: true }
+
+  const present = new Set(summary.constraints)
+  const missing = expected.filter((s) => !present.has(s))
+  if (missing.length === 0) return { ok: true }
+  return { ok: false, missingConstraints: missing }
+}
+
+/** Walk the predicate and emit the EXACT constraint string the builder is
+ *  expected to produce for each leaf, in walk order. Strings here MUST
+ *  match the templates in `builder.ts` byte-for-byte; the cross-check is
+ *  the structural claim that "every supported leaf shape is rendered". */
+function collect(node: PredicateNode, out: string[]): void {
+  switch (node.op) {
+    case 'and':
+    case 'or':
+      for (const child of node.children) collect(child, out)
+      return
+    case 'not':
+      collect(node.child, out)
+      return
+    case 'eq':
+    case 'lt':
+    case 'lte':
+    case 'gt':
+    case 'gte':
+      pushComparison(node.left, node.right, node.op, out)
+      return
+    case 'in':
+      pushMembership(node.needle, node.haystack, out)
+      return
+  }
+}
+
+function pushComparison(
+  left: PredicateLeaf,
+  right: PredicateLeaf,
+  op: 'eq' | 'lt' | 'lte' | 'gt' | 'gte',
+  out: string[]
+): void {
+  if (left.kind === 'call_contract' && op === 'eq' && right.kind === 'literal_address') {
+    out.push(`Contract must be ${right.value}`)
+    return
+  }
+  if (left.kind === 'call_fn' && op === 'eq' && right.kind === 'literal_symbol') {
+    out.push(`Function must be ${right.value}`)
+    return
+  }
+  if (left.kind === 'call_arg' && op === 'eq' && right.kind === 'literal_vec') {
+    out.push(`Path must be exactly [${right.elements.map(renderVecElement).join(', ')}]`)
+    return
+  }
+  if (left.kind === 'invocation_count_in_window' && right.kind === 'literal_u32') {
+    out.push(`Invocations <= ${right.value} per ${left.windowSecs} seconds`)
+    return
+  }
+  if (left.kind === 'amount' && right.kind === 'literal_i128') {
+    out.push(`Amount <= ${right.value}`)
+    return
+  }
+  if (left.kind === 'oracle_price' && right.kind === 'literal_i128') {
+    out.push(`Only when oracle_price(${left.asset}) ${comparisonOpText(op)} ${right.value}`)
+    return
+  }
+}
+
+function pushMembership(needle: PredicateLeaf, haystack: PredicateLeaf[], out: string[]): void {
+  if (needle.kind !== 'call_arg') return
+  const list = haystack.map(renderHaystackElement).join(', ')
+  out.push(`Recipient/arg must be one of [${list}]`)
+}
+
+function renderVecElement(leaf: PredicateLeaf): string {
+  switch (leaf.kind) {
+    case 'literal_address':
+      return leaf.value
+    case 'literal_i128':
+      return leaf.value
+    case 'literal_symbol':
+      return leaf.value
+    case 'literal_u32':
+      return String(leaf.value)
+    case 'literal_u64':
+      return leaf.value
+    case 'literal_bytes':
+      return leaf.value
+    case 'literal_vec':
+      return `[${leaf.elements.map(renderVecElement).join(', ')}]`
+    case 'call_contract':
+    case 'call_fn':
+    case 'call_arg':
+    case 'amount':
+    case 'window_spent':
+    case 'now':
+    case 'valid_until':
+    case 'invocation_count_in_window':
+    case 'oracle_price':
+      return `<${leaf.kind}>`
+  }
+}
+
+function renderHaystackElement(leaf: PredicateLeaf): string {
+  if (leaf.kind === 'literal_address') return leaf.value
+  if (leaf.kind === 'literal_i128') return leaf.value
+  if (leaf.kind === 'literal_symbol') return leaf.value
+  if (leaf.kind === 'literal_u32') return String(leaf.value)
+  if (leaf.kind === 'literal_u64') return leaf.value
+  if (leaf.kind === 'literal_bytes') return leaf.value
+  if (leaf.kind === 'literal_vec') {
+    return `[${leaf.elements.map(renderHaystackElement).join(', ')}]`
+  }
+  return `<${leaf.kind}>`
+}
+
+function comparisonOpText(op: 'eq' | 'lt' | 'lte' | 'gt' | 'gte'): string {
+  switch (op) {
+    case 'lt':
+      return '<'
+    case 'lte':
+      return '<='
+    case 'gt':
+      return '>'
+    case 'gte':
+      return '>='
+    case 'eq':
+      return '=='
+  }
+}

package/src/review-card/index.ts

@@ -0,0 +1,12 @@
+// src/review-card/index.ts - re-export the deterministic review-card surface.
+
+export {
+  buildReviewCardSummary,
+  type ReviewCardSummary,
+} from './builder.ts'
+export {
+  type ConflictAnnotation,
+  classifyConflict,
+  type RuleRef,
+} from './conflict.ts'
+export { summaryCrossCheck } from './cross-check.ts'

package/src/seams/types.ts

@@ -48,7 +48,7 @@ export interface CustodyCapabilities {
 export interface CompileResult {
   /** false => some IR construct this backend cannot express (see `uncovered`). */
   covered: boolean
-  /** Human-readable list of unsupported constructs (the Path-B markers). */
+  /** Human-readable list of unsupported constructs. */
   uncovered: string[]
   /** The backend-native installable policy, assembled when a rule lowered. */
   proposed?: ProposedPolicy