groove-dev 0.27.142 → 0.27.144

package/SECURITY_SWEEP.md

@@ -1,228 +0,0 @@
-# Security Sweep Report
-
-Date: 2026-04-16
-Assessor: Security audit
-Scope reviewed: `../packages/desktop`, `../packages/gui`, `../packages/daemon`, root dependency graph in `../package-lock.json`
-Note: the working directory `./` only contained handoff artifacts, so the actual Electron app code audited lives in the parent monorepo `../`.
-
-## Executive Summary
-
-Overall risk: **High**
-
-The desktop app has several solid baseline controls in place — Electron windows run with `contextIsolation`, `sandbox`, and `nodeIntegration: false`; provider API keys are encrypted at rest; and file path handling includes symlink checks. However, I found **three high-impact architectural issues** that materially raise compromise risk:
-
-1. **Project-controlled active content is served from the app's trusted origin**, creating a same-origin path to the daemon API.
-2. **The daemon control plane is effectively unauthenticated**, with broad localhost trust and optional non-loopback binds.
-3. **Browser-mode marketplace tokens can be persisted in plaintext config and then exposed by `/api/config`**.
-
-These issues mean that a malicious repository, a hostile local webpage on `localhost`, or a reachable peer when bound to Tailscale/LAN can potentially read project data, mutate files, spawn processes/agents, and access local app state.
-
-## Methodology
-
-- Static review of Electron main/preload, renderer, and daemon code
-- Targeted grep for OWASP-style sinks: XSS, injection, SSRF, auth bypass, unsafe file access, shell/process execution
-- Review of secret storage and config persistence behavior
-- Dependency check with `npm audit --json` and dependency resolution via `npm ls`
-- Verification of packaging and ignore rules for runtime secrets/artifacts
-
-## Findings
-
-### 1) Critical — Untrusted project HTML/JS can execute with daemon origin
-
-**Severity:** Critical  
-**Category:** XSS / trusted-origin content execution / privilege escalation  
-**Primary locations:**
-- `../packages/gui/src/views/editor.jsx:165`
-- `../packages/daemon/src/api.js:2274`
-- `../packages/daemon/src/mimetypes.js:15`
-- `../packages/daemon/src/mimetypes.js:17`
-
-**What I found**
-- The editor intentionally previews HTML files by loading `/api/files/raw?path=...` into an iframe: `../packages/gui/src/views/editor.jsx:165`.
-- The daemon serves raw project files directly from the app origin and preserves executable MIME types such as `text/javascript` and `text/html`: `../packages/daemon/src/api.js:2274`, `../packages/daemon/src/mimetypes.js:15`, `../packages/daemon/src/mimetypes.js:17`.
-- Because this content is delivered from the same origin as `/api/*`, any project-controlled HTML that gets rendered can execute JavaScript against the daemon API using the app's trusted origin.
-
-**Why this matters**
-A malicious repository can plant an `index.html` + `payload.js` pair. If the HTML preview path is reached, or if the raw file is otherwise navigated to from the trusted origin, the payload can:
-- read or modify project files,
-- spawn/kill agents,
-- change daemon config,
-- abuse local-only features exposed over HTTP/WS.
-
-This is a classic Electron/browser trust-boundary failure: **workspace content should never run with the same origin as the privileged app UI**.
-
-**Recommended fix**
-- Do **not** serve active workspace content (`.html`, `.js`, `.mjs`, `.svg`, etc.) from the daemon's privileged origin.
-- For previews, use one of these safer patterns:
-  - render sanitized HTML only,
-  - serve previews from a **separate origin** with no access to `/api/*`,
-  - use a dedicated isolated `BrowserWindow`/partition with no preload, no shared cookies/storage, and no privileged bridge,
-  - force dangerous types to download or be served as `text/plain`.
-- Remove `allow-same-origin` from any preview iframe unless the content is fully trusted.
-- Add regression tests that verify active content cannot call privileged API routes.
-
-**Priority:** P0
-
-### 2) High — Daemon HTTP/WebSocket control plane has no real authentication
-
-**Severity:** High  
-**Category:** Authentication / access control / CSRF-adjacent localhost trust  
-**Primary locations:**
-- `../packages/daemon/src/api.js:68`
-- `../packages/daemon/src/api.js:120`
-- `../packages/daemon/src/api.js:2223`
-- `../packages/daemon/src/index.js:155`
-- `../packages/daemon/src/index.js:169`
-- `../packages/daemon/src/index.js:250`
-- `../packages/daemon/src/index.js:451`
-
-**What I found**
-- The REST API trusts requests with **no `Origin` header** and also allows **any localhost origin**: `../packages/daemon/src/api.js:68`.
-- Sensitive routes such as agent spawning and file deletion are exposed without any per-request auth token: `../packages/daemon/src/api.js:120`, `../packages/daemon/src/api.js:2223`.
-- WebSocket upgrades also allow missing `Origin`, and accepted clients can request terminal spawns/input: `../packages/daemon/src/index.js:155`, `../packages/daemon/src/index.js:169`, `../packages/daemon/src/index.js:250`.
-- The daemon can bind to non-loopback hosts, including Tailscale/LAN addresses: `../packages/daemon/src/index.js:451`.
-
-**Why this matters**
-This turns the daemon into a local control plane with weak trust assumptions:
-- Any hostile local webpage served from `http://localhost:*` can make authenticated-by-origin reads/writes against the daemon.
-- Any non-browser client can omit `Origin` entirely and still connect.
-- If the daemon is started on a reachable interface (for example Tailscale/LAN), remote peers can hit powerful endpoints unless another network control blocks them.
-
-Impact includes agent/process control, file mutation, editor/terminal access, config changes, and broader project compromise.
-
-**Recommended fix**
-- Require a **random per-instance bearer token** (or equivalent secret) for **all** HTTP and WebSocket traffic.
-- Reject requests lacking that token, even from localhost.
-- Narrow CORS to the exact GUI origin instead of `any localhost port`.
-- Treat missing `Origin` as untrusted for browser-like endpoints.
-- For non-loopback binds, require explicit auth plus network ACLs/TLS.
-- Consider Unix domain sockets or loopback-only ephemeral tokens for desktop mode.
-
-**Priority:** P0
-
-### 3) High — Marketplace token can be stored plaintext and leaked through `/api/config`
-
-**Severity:** High  
-**Category:** Secrets management / sensitive data exposure  
-**Primary locations:**
-- `../packages/daemon/src/skills.js:47`
-- `../packages/daemon/src/skills.js:80`
-- `../packages/daemon/src/firstrun.js:145`
-- `../packages/daemon/src/api.js:3438`
-- `../packages/daemon/src/api.js:1115`
-
-**What I found**
-- The browser-style auth callback stores `marketplace.token` inside `daemon.config`: `../packages/daemon/src/api.js:1115`, `../packages/daemon/src/skills.js:80`.
-- `saveConfig()` writes that config directly to `config.json` without encryption: `../packages/daemon/src/firstrun.js:145`.
-- `/api/config` returns the full config object without redaction: `../packages/daemon/src/api.js:3438`.
-
-**Why this matters**
-Even though the Electron main process uses encrypted `safeStorage` for its own desktop token path, the daemon still contains a second browser-oriented auth flow that can persist a bearer token in plaintext config and then expose it over the local API.
-
-If an attacker can hit the daemon API or read the `.groove` directory, they may recover the marketplace token and impersonate the user against Groove services.
-
-**Recommended fix**
-- Never persist auth/session tokens in `config.json`.
-- Store marketplace/session tokens only in OS-backed secure storage.
-- Redact sensitive config keys from `/api/config` before returning any response.
-- Add a migration that strips existing `marketplace.token` values from historical configs.
-
-**Priority:** P1
-
-### 4) Medium — Renderer can trigger arbitrary external URLs for integration OAuth
-
-**Severity:** Medium  
-**Category:** URL handling / privilege amplification  
-**Primary location:**
-- `../packages/desktop/main.js:1004`
-
-**What I found**
-`integration-oauth-start` accepts an arbitrary `oauthUrl` from the renderer and passes it straight to `shell.openExternal()`.
-
-**Why this matters**
-By itself this requires renderer compromise, but in Electron this is still an important defense-in-depth boundary. If the renderer is ever compromised, an attacker can launch:
-- arbitrary external websites,
-- custom protocol handlers,
-- local application handlers registered on the OS.
-
-**Recommended fix**
-- Validate `oauthUrl` against a strict allowlist derived from the integration registry.
-- Allow only `https:` and known IdP domains.
-- Deny custom schemes and `file:`/`javascript:`/unexpected handlers.
-
-**Priority:** P2
-
-### 5) Medium — Electron auto-approves all permissions for localhost content
-
-**Severity:** Medium  
-**Category:** Least privilege / hardening gap  
-**Primary location:**
-- `../packages/desktop/main.js:245`
-
-**What I found**
-The permission handlers explicitly allow microphone/media, but then also return `true` for any other permission as long as the requesting page is `localhost`/`127.0.0.1`.
-
-**Why this matters**
-Once renderer trust is broken, this widens impact by silently approving extra capabilities that were never intended for routine app operation.
-
-**Recommended fix**
-- Replace the implicit `allow all localhost permissions` behavior with an explicit allowlist.
-- Deny by default.
-- Log and review any denied permission requests during development.
-
-**Priority:** P2
-
-### 6) Moderate dependency advisory — `follow-redirects` header leak
-
-**Severity:** Moderate  
-**Category:** Dependency / third-party risk  
-**Location:** transitive dependency path `@groove-dev/daemon -> @slack/bolt -> axios -> follow-redirects@1.15.11`
-
-**What I found**
-A fresh `npm audit --json` run on 2026-04-16 reported one advisory:
-- `follow-redirects <= 1.15.11` — leaks custom authentication headers to cross-domain redirect targets.
-
-Dependency resolution shows this arrives through:
-- `@slack/bolt@4.7.0`
-- `axios@1.15.0`
-- `follow-redirects@1.15.11`
-
-**Recommended fix**
-- Upgrade to a dependency chain that pulls a fixed `follow-redirects` release.
-- If immediate upgrade is blocked, audit all Slack/axios usage for redirect-following with sensitive headers.
-
-**Priority:** P2
-
-## Positive Controls Observed
-
-These are good and worth keeping:
-
-- Electron windows use `contextIsolation: true`, `nodeIntegration: false`, and `sandbox: true`: `../packages/desktop/main.js:227`
-- Provider credentials are encrypted at rest with AES-256-GCM and `0600` file permissions: `../packages/daemon/src/credentials.js:1`
-- File path validation checks traversal and resolves symlinks before access: `../packages/daemon/src/api.js:2021`
-- The root ignore policy excludes `.env`, `.groove`, runtime bundles, and build artifacts from git: `../.gitignore:1`
-- I did **not** find hardcoded secrets in tracked source during pattern scans.
-
-## Remediation Plan
-
-### Immediate (this week)
-- Disable HTML preview or force dangerous file types to render as plain text/download.
-- Add an auth token requirement to all daemon HTTP/WS endpoints.
-- Redact `/api/config` and remove token persistence from daemon config.
-- Patch the `follow-redirects` dependency chain.
-
-### Short term
-- Serve untrusted previews from a separate origin/partition.
-- Tighten `shell.openExternal()` to strict allowlists only.
-- Replace localhost-wide CORS trust with an exact-origin model.
-- Lock Electron permission handling to a minimal explicit list.
-
-### Verification to add after fixes
-- Test that opening a repo-controlled HTML file cannot call `/api/agents`, `/api/files/*`, or `/api/config`.
-- Test that requests without the daemon auth token fail for both REST and WS.
-- Test that `/api/config` never returns secret-bearing fields.
-- Re-run `npm audit --json` after dependency upgrades.
-
-## Bottom Line
-
-The app already has several good Electron hardening defaults, but the **same-origin preview design** and the **unauthenticated daemon control surface** currently dominate the risk profile. I would treat Findings 1 and 2 as release-blocking for environments where untrusted repositories or shared/local-network access are realistic.

package/TRAINING_DATA_v4.md

@@ -1,6 +0,0 @@
-{"envelope_id":"env_2cd6991b-44b5-42d2-b9d5-4ad407cabd6d","session_id":"sess_88f3b102-d502-475e-88f5-d83bb8441daa","chunk_sequence":0,"contributor_id":"bc2094bbb558420f827b14b23bdeef61","attestation":{"session_hmac":"fd30b5086d62973fd51847f7c6280db0690956e8d731601bd4be9d089a4c1d3d","sequence":0,"app_version_hash":"4a527565d85cc601d3c47c376e4f361d5af987de58f60cf71dbc263a0de91247"},"metadata":{"model_engine":"claude-opus-4-6","provider":"claude-code","agent_role":"planner","agent_id":"3a5e9224","task_complexity":"medium","team_size":1,"session_quality":0,"groove_version":"0.27.117","leaf_context":null},"trajectory_log":[{"step":1,"type":"thought","timestamp":1777410434.55,"content":"This is where Hummingbird goes from \"cheaper inference\" to \"fundamentally different architecture.\" Let me think through this with you.\n\n---\n\nTHE PROBLEM WITH CURRENT AGENTS\n\nClaude Code, Codex, Cursor — they're all the same pattern: one big generalist model running a sequential loop. Think, call tool, observe, think, call tool, observe. The model handles EVERYTHING in that loop: task decomposition, domain reasoning, tool selection, code generation, error recovery, and self-correction. All in one 200B-parameter brain, one turn at a time.\n\nThat's not how real engineering teams work. Real teams have a tech lead who decomposes the task, a frontend dev writing React, a backend dev writing APIs, a DBA designing schemas — all working in parallel, all specialized. The tech lead doesn't write every line of code. They coordinate.\n\nYou already understand this — that's literally what Groove does. Planner, frontend, backend, fullstack. But right now Groove orchestrates frontier models to play those roles. What if the agents WERE the architecture?\n\n---\n\nNANO AGENT ARCHITECTURE\n\nHere's how I'd think about it:\n\nLAYER 1 — THE DECOMPOSER (a specialized leaf)\n\nThis is a planning/reasoning leaf trained specifically on task decomposition. It receives the full user prompt and produces a structured execution plan:\n\nInput: \"Build a full-stack app with React frontend, FastAPI backend, PostgreSQL, deploy to Docker with CI/CD\"\n\nOutput: a dependency graph of sub-tasks, each tagged with a domain:\n\n```\ntask_1: Design database schema          [postgresql]     deps: none\ntask_2: Build FastAPI endpoints          [python]         deps: task_1\ntask_3: Build React frontend             [react]          deps: task_2 (API spec)\ntask_4: Write Dockerfile + compose       [devops]         deps: task_2, task_3\ntask_5: Configure GitHub Actions CI      [ci_cd]          deps: task_4\n```\n\nThis leaf doesn't generate code. It generates plans. And we already have training data for this — your planner role sessions are exactly this pattern. 7 planner sessions in today's data.\n\nLAYER 2 — THE ROUTER (already exists, needs one upgrade)\n\nCurrently the router takes one prompt and finds one leaf. For nano agents, it needs to:\n- Accept a structured plan from the decomposer\n- Route each sub-task to the right leaf simultaneously\n- Return a set of (task, leaf, centroid_confidence) tuples\n- Handle the case where a sub-task spans domains (secondary/tertiary domain_tags already exist in our telemetry — that's the signal for multi-leaf needs)\n\nThis is still cosine similarity math. No new model needed. Just batch routing instead of single routing.\n\nLAYER 3 — NANO AGENTS (the new primitive)\n\nEach nano agent is a chassis + domain leaf, spun up to handle one sub-task. Key properties:\n\n- Lightweight: ~1.2GB chassis + 50MB leaf. You can run 5-6 on a single machine with 16GB RAM.\n- Fast spin-up: leaf hot-swap is <500ms on LAN, sub-millisecond if cached. Compare to spinning up a frontier model API call.\n- NATIVELY agentic: this is the crucial part. The leaf isn't trained on \"Python knowledge.\" It's trained on Python AGENT BEHAVIOR — ReAct trajectories of tool calls. Read files, edit code, run commands, observe output, debug errors. The training data IS agent behavior.\n- Parallel: no shared context window. Each nano agent has its own context, its own tool calls, its own execution stream. Five agents working simultaneously, not one agent doing five things sequentially.\n- Disposable: a nano agent finishes its sub-task and shuts down. The leaf unloads. The chassis is free for the next task. No persistent session cost.\n\nLAYER 4 — THE COMPOSER (another specialized leaf)\n\nAfter nano agents complete their sub-tasks, a composer leaf assembles the results. It handles:\n- Merging code outputs from different agents into a coherent project\n- Resolving conflicts (frontend expects one API shape, backend built another)\n- Running integration checks\n- Producing the final unified output\n\nThis is trained on fullstack/QC sessions — your data has 8 fullstack sessions doing exactly this kind of cross-domain integration work.\n\n---\n\nWHY THIS IS FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERENT\n\n1. PARALLELISM. Current agents are sequential — one thought, one tool call, one observation at a time. Nano agents work simultaneously. A 5-domain task that takes a frontier agent 5 minutes of sequential tool calling takes nano agents ~1 minute of parallel execution.\n\n2. SPECIALIZATION. A frontier model allocates attention across everything it knows. A nano agent's entire LoRA is trained on one domain's tool patterns. It doesn't waste capacity on irrelevant knowledge. A Python nano agent doesn't have React weights competing for attention.\n\n3. COST. Five nano agents on a 0.6B chassis use ~6GB total RAM. One frontier model uses 140GB+ VRAM. The compute cost per task drops by orders of magnitude.\n\n4. NATIVE TOOL CALLING. This is the key insight you're hitting on. Current agents learn tool calling from system prompts and RLHF — it's bolted on. Hummingbird leaves are trained DIRECTLY on ReAct trajectories of tool use. The thought->action->observation loop IS the training data format. The leaf doesn't learn \"how to use tools\" — it learns \"how an expert Python developer uses Read, Edit, Bash, and Grep to solve Python problems.\" That's a different level of specialization.\n\n5. TRAINING DATA ALIGNMENT. Your Groove telemetry captures agents in roles (planner, frontend, backend, fullstack) doing real multi-agent work. You're training decomposer leaves on planner data, domain leaves on backend/frontend data, and composer leaves on fullstack QC data. The training data mirrors the runtime architecture perfectly.\n\n---\n\nWHAT THIS MEANS FOR THE TRAINING SCRIPT\n\nThis changes what we're training for. Not just \"make the model know Python better\" but \"make the model behave like an expert Python AGENT.\" The training format matters:\n\n- The instruction/completion pair format in the current script is fine for knowledge\n- But for native tool calling, we want the model to learn the full ReAct cycle: here's a task -> here's how an expert agent thought about it -> here's what tools it called -> here's what it observed -> here's how it adapted\n- Your trajectory_log IS already in this format. Thoughts, actions with tool names and arguments, observations, errors, resolutions.\n- The format_step function in train_leaf.py (using <thought>, <action tool=\"...\">, <observation> tags) is actually the right idea — it's teaching the model the agent loop natively\n\nWhat we'd add:\n\n- DECOMPOSER leaf training: filter planner sessions, train on task decomposition patterns\n- COMPOSER leaf training: filter fullstack/QC sessions, train on integration and conflict resolution\n- TOOL AFFINITY per domain: each domain leaf should weight its training toward the tool patterns common in that domain (frontend agents use Read/Edit heavily, devops agents use Bash heavily, planners use Glob/Grep for exploration)\n- DEPENDENCY AWARENESS: the training format should capture when a nano agent's output feeds into another agent's input\n\n---\n\nOPEN QUESTIONS FOR YOU\n\n- Do you see the decomposer as a separate leaf, or as a router upgrade? A leaf is more flexible (it can be trained/improved independently), but adds latency (you're running inference to decompose before the nano agents even start).\n\n- How do nano agents share state? Do they write to a shared filesystem and read each other's outputs? Or does the composer collect everything at the end? This affects how we handle dependencies (task_3 depends on task_2's API spec).\n\n- Do you want nano agents to have their own tool-calling loop (multiple turns of think/act/observe), or should they be single-shot (one generation pass per sub-task)? Multi-turn is more capable but more complex. Single-shot is faster but might need the composer to do more cleanup.\n\nThis is the kind of thinking that should go into the northstar doc as a \"V2 Architecture\" section. Want me to factor this into the training script plan, or do you want to nail down the nano agent design first?","token_count":2015},{"step":2,"type":"resolution","timestamp":1777410434.687,"content":"This is where Hummingbird goes from \"cheaper inference\" to \"fundamentally different architecture.\" Let me think through this with you.\n\n---\n\nTHE PROBLEM WITH CURRENT AGENTS\n\nClaude Code, Codex, Cursor — they're all the same pattern: one big generalist model running a sequential loop. Think, call tool, observe, think, call tool, observe. The model handles EVERYTHING in that loop: task decomposition, domain reasoning, tool selection, code generation, error recovery, and self-correction. All in one 200B-parameter brain, one turn at a time.\n\nThat's not how real engineering teams work. Real teams have a tech lead who decomposes the task, a frontend dev writing React, a backend dev writing APIs, a DBA designing schemas — all working in parallel, all specialized. The tech lead doesn't write every line of code. They coordinate.\n\nYou already understand this — that's literally what Groove does. Planner, frontend, backend, fullstack. But right now Groove orchestrates frontier models to play those roles. What if the agents WERE the architecture?\n\n---\n\nNANO AGENT ARCHITECTURE\n\nHere's how I'd think about it:\n\nLAYER 1 — THE DECOMPOSER (a specialized leaf)\n\nThis is a planning/reasoning leaf trained specifically on task decomposition. It receives the full user prompt and produces a structured execution plan:\n\nInput: \"Build a full-stack app with React frontend, FastAPI backend, PostgreSQL, deploy to Docker with CI/CD\"\n\nOutput: a dependency graph of sub-tasks, each tagged with a domain:\n\n```\ntask_1: Design database schema          [postgresql]     deps: none\ntask_2: Build FastAPI endpoints          [python]         deps: task_1\ntask_3: Build React frontend             [react]          deps: task_2 (API spec)\ntask_4: Write Dockerfile + compose       [devops]         deps: task_2, task_3\ntask_5: Configure GitHub Actions CI      [ci_cd]          deps: task_4\n```\n\nThis leaf doesn't generate code. It generates plans. And we already have training data for this — your planner role sessions are exactly this pattern. 7 planner sessions in today's data.\n\nLAYER 2 — THE ROUTER (already exists, needs one upgrade)\n\nCurrently the router takes one prompt and finds one leaf. For nano agents, it needs to:\n- Accept a structured plan from the decomposer\n- Route each sub-task to the right leaf simultaneously\n- Return a set of (task, leaf, centroid_confidence) tuples\n- Handle the case where a sub-task spans domains (secondary/tertiary domain_tags already exist in our telemetry — that's the signal for multi-leaf needs)\n\nThis is still cosine similarity math. No new model needed. Just batch routing instead of single routing.\n\nLAYER 3 — NANO AGENTS (the new primitive)\n\nEach nano agent is a chassis + domain leaf, spun up to handle one sub-task. Key properties:\n\n- Lightweight: ~1.2GB chassis + 50MB leaf. You can run 5-6 on a single machine with 16GB RAM.\n- Fast spin-up: leaf hot-swap is <500ms on LAN, sub-millisecond if cached. Compare to spinning up a frontier model API call.\n- NATIVELY agentic: this is the crucial part. The leaf isn't trained on \"Python knowledge.\" It's trained on Python AGENT BEHAVIOR — ReAct trajectories of tool calls. Read files, edit code, run commands, observe output, debug errors. The training data IS agent behavior.\n- Parallel: no shared context window. Each nano agent has its own context, its own tool calls, its own execution stream. Five agents working simultaneously, not one agent doing five things sequentially.\n- Disposable: a nano agent finishes its sub-task and shuts down. The leaf unloads. The chassis is free for the next task. No persistent session cost.\n\nLAYER 4 — THE COMPOSER (another specialized leaf)\n\nAfter nano agents complete their sub-tasks, a composer leaf assembles the results. It handles:\n- Merging code outputs from different agents into a coherent project\n- Resolving conflicts (frontend expects one API shape, backend built another)\n- Running integration checks\n- Producing the final unified output\n\nThis is trained on fullstack/QC sessions — your data has 8 fullstack sessions doing exactly this kind of cross-domain integration work.\n\n---\n\nWHY THIS IS FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERENT\n\n1. PARALLELISM. Current agents are sequential — one thought, one tool call, one observation at a time. Nano agents work simultaneously. A 5-domain task that takes a frontier agent 5 minutes of sequential tool calling takes nano agents ~1 minute of parallel execution.\n\n2. SPECIALIZATION. A frontier model allocates attention across everything it knows. A nano agent's entire LoRA is trained on one domain's tool patterns. It doesn't waste capacity on irrelevant knowledge. A Python nano agent doesn't have React weights competing for attention.\n\n3. COST. Five nano agents on a 0.6B chassis use ~6GB total RAM. One frontier model uses 140GB+ VRAM. The compute cost per task drops by orders of magnitude.\n\n4. NATIVE TOOL CALLING. This is the key insight you're hitting on. Current agents learn tool calling from system prompts and RLHF — it's bolted on. Hummingbird leaves are trained DIRECTLY on ReAct trajectories of tool use. The thought->action->observation loop IS the training data format. The leaf doesn't learn \"how to use tools\" — it learns \"how an expert Python developer uses Read, Edit, Bash, and Grep to solve Python problems.\" That's a different level of specialization.\n\n5. TRAINING DATA ALIGNMENT. Your Groove telemetry captures agents in roles (planner, frontend, backend, fullstack) doing real multi-agent work. You're training decomposer leaves on planner data, domain leaves on backend/frontend data, and composer leaves on fullstack QC data. The training data mirrors the runtime architecture perfectly.\n\n---\n\nWHAT THIS MEANS FOR THE TRAINING SCRIPT\n\nThis changes what we're training for. Not just \"make the model know Python better\" but \"make the model behave like an expert Python AGENT.\" The training format matters:\n\n- The instruction/completion pair format in the current script is fine for knowledge\n- But for native tool calling, we want the model to learn the full ReAct cycle: here's a task -> here's how an expert agent thought about it -> here's what tools it called -> here's what it observed -> here's how it adapted\n- Your trajectory_log IS already in this format. Thoughts, actions with tool names and arguments, observations, errors, resolutions.\n- The format_step function in train_leaf.py (using <thought>, <action tool=\"...\">, <observation> tags) is actually the right idea — it's teaching the model the agent loop natively\n\nWhat we'd add:\n\n- DECOMPOSER leaf training: filter planner sessions, train on task decomposition patterns\n- COMPOSER leaf training: filter fullstack/QC sessions, train on integration and conflict resolution\n- TOOL AFFINITY per domain: each domain leaf should weight its training toward the tool patterns common in that domain (frontend agents use Read/Edit heavily, devops agents use Bash heavily, planners use Glob/Grep for exploration)\n- DEPENDENCY AWARENESS: the training format should capture when a nano agent's output feeds into another agent's input\n\n---\n\nOPEN QUESTIONS FOR YOU\n\n- Do you see the decomposer as a separate leaf, or as a router upgrade? A leaf is more flexible (it can be trained/improved independently), but adds latency (you're running inference to decompose before the nano agents even start).\n\n- How do nano agents share state? Do they write to a shared filesystem and read each other's outputs? Or does the composer collect everything at the end? This affects how we handle dependencies (task_3 depends on task_2's API spec).\n\n- Do you want nano agents to have their own tool-calling loop (multiple turns of think/act/observe), or should they be single-shot (one generation pass per sub-task)? Multi-turn is more capable but more complex. Single-shot is faster but might need the composer to do more cleanup.\n\nThis is the kind of thinking that should go into the northstar doc as a \"V2 Architecture\" section. Want me to factor this into the training script plan, or do you want to nail down the nano agent design first?","token_count":2015}]}
-{"envelope_id":"env_0e9b69f7-ce83-4741-a9a4-9cdf056504e9","session_id":"sess_88f3b102-d502-475e-88f5-d83bb8441daa","type":"SESSION_CLOSE","attestation":{"session_hmac":"46ee24f4eb1969944ee1da775caaac9ce958dbdb119ec814654cd1f96f912636","sequence":1,"app_version_hash":"4a527565d85cc601d3c47c376e4f361d5af987de58f60cf71dbc263a0de91247"},"metadata":{"model_engine":"claude-opus-4-6","provider":"claude-code","agent_role":"planner","agent_id":"3a5e9224","task_complexity":"medium","team_size":1,"session_quality":50,"groove_version":"0.27.117","leaf_context":null,"domain_tags":{"primary":{"domain":"planning_strategy","confidence":0.3805},"secondary":{"domain":"go","confidence":0.2756},"tertiary":{"domain":"conversational_reasoning","confidence":0.2727}},"session_embedding":{"model":"sentence-transformers/all-MiniLM-L6-v2","vector":[-0.042663197964429855,-0.07920964062213898,-0.004728036001324654,-0.051084551960229874,-0.035339854657649994,-0.04480993375182152,-0.08333612978458405,0.019537601619958878,0.04164133220911026,0.04707718640565872,-0.051483504474163055,0.030263351276516914,-0.06016743183135986,-0.043615128844976425,-0.0008356476319022477,-0.01979982852935791,0.0035989091265946627,-0.08087526261806488,0.011952819302678108,-0.10144425183534622,-0.041289400309324265,0.04339990019798279,0.014450186863541603,0.023034481331706047,-0.0689428523182869,0.04178297147154808,0.009455332532525063,-0.02532159723341465,0.034805990755558014,0.009456056170165539,0.08603636175394058,0.11891777813434601,0.006629495415836573,-0.02235720492899418,0.0174767654389143,0.09055909514427185,-0.09540528059005737,0.025975236669182777,0.014918033964931965,-0.008286132477223873,0.001352433580905199,0.0158219076693058,-0.05017320439219475,-0.03463611751794815,0.060290925204753876,-0.05961441621184349,-0.0654287114739418,0.02982448786497116,-0.032352328300476074,-0.03868497908115387,-0.12729226052761078,-0.06001264974474907,-0.012548311613500118,-0.05885562300682068,0.02185189351439476,0.06382133066654205,0.06988537311553955,-0.0052973129786551,-0.04998323693871498,-0.12916108965873718,-0.034871503710746765,-0.053937025368213654,-0.09204158931970596,-0.027774369344115257,0.06180555000901222,0.06252466887235641,-0.02273271419107914,0.0219862200319767,0.07370083034038544,-0.02826603129506111,-0.013158973306417465,-0.025135237723588943,-0.05560678616166115,0.029804041609168053,0.04150652885437012,0.01814938336610794,0.04522743448615074,-0.011250794865190983,0.07480574399232864,-0.09907713532447815,-0.07422854751348495,-0.026824653148651123,-0.007619404699653387,0.016659077256917953,0.047238897532224655,0.004745256621390581,0.01850995421409607,0.039889492094516754,0.04358542710542679,-0.034847576171159744,0.07359904795885086,-0.07500877976417542,0.04028075188398361,-0.024270135909318924,-0.013988173566758633,0.10766910761594772,-0.008571659214794636,-0.13124093413352966,-0.0073127648793160915,0.04709223285317421,0.02863220125436783,0.0476718433201313,0.05801643058657646,-0.06148829683661461,0.015272174961864948,-0.04047108814120293,0.09824686497449875,-0.0345299057662487,-0.03782320395112038,-0.10338249802589417,-0.005434758961200714,0.014185954816639423,0.06280915439128876,0.032767459750175476,0.0065223718993365765,-0.04384880140423775,-0.05735908821225166,0.10000867396593094,0.03716438636183739,0.06613614410161972,0.026342885568737984,0.025736121460795403,-0.011334727518260479,0.0450548492372036,0.03558260202407837,0.000953362905420363,-0.06887662410736084,-8.66469651125074e-34,-0.012049063108861446,-0.04232615604996681,0.07526687532663345,-0.016562866047024727,0.025318287312984467,-0.008237234316766262,-0.007523944601416588,-0.02695491351187229,0.054593611508607864,0.020880939438939095,0.06184656172990799,-0.023773184046149254,-0.062261611223220825,0.12432696670293808,0.08701236546039581,0.009316927753388882,-0.050637003034353256,0.09582623839378357,-0.012228135019540787,-0.025398356840014458,0.01831326261162758,0.055120352655649185,-0.03443676978349686,-0.05589570105075836,0.09819526970386505,0.11039813607931137,0.06251215189695358,0.02222372591495514,-0.05065417289733887,0.020320292562246323,-0.021960575133562088,0.07020333409309387,-0.05077865347266197,0.05987301468849182,-0.014536700211465359,0.06175179407000542,-0.04315461218357086,-0.12159654498100281,0.06844877451658249,-0.02707703784108162,-0.05940018594264984,0.008736299350857735,0.04108921438455582,0.014570072293281555,0.025125518441200256,-0.08250750601291656,-0.031649451702833176,-0.029083864763379097,-0.017267147079110146,-0.009987293742597103,0.07390677183866501,-0.008637825958430767,0.06123211234807968,-0.04639231041073799,0.04069162532687187,-0.02993234246969223,0.0259507205337286,-0.02388959378004074,0.07693924009799957,0.13178308308124542,0.03653351962566376,-0.008794529363512993,-0.05003251135349274,0.03877951204776764,0.10275955498218536,0.06303972750902176,-0.06915564835071564,0.06351225823163986,0.08538113534450531,0.0006151774432510138,-0.020428333431482315,0.059714749455451965,0.02636464685201645,-0.04300621896982193,-0.0033410387113690376,-0.054366614669561386,0.0295712910592556,-0.049908410757780075,-0.06865812093019485,-0.07271655648946762,-0.047645337879657745,0.05336294323205948,-0.03873465210199356,0.021338868886232376,0.003884456818923354,0.03843509033322334,0.03502823784947395,0.049343518912792206,-0.022036824375391006,0.039887845516204834,-0.012147429399192333,0.038128096610307693,-0.022207073867321014,0.06144854426383972,0.0009098630398511887,-2.650910575127112e-34,-0.01947639510035515,-0.021992139518260956,-0.002118629403412342,0.015769945457577705,0.015171081759035587,-0.09928400069475174,-0.032298386096954346,-0.12704122066497803,-0.046388767659664154,-0.10921106487512589,-0.1285391002893448,0.005005955696105957,0.04188212379813194,-0.021805763244628906,0.07245717197656631,-0.02677413448691368,0.05284606292843819,-0.11032922565937042,0.04551541060209274,-0.010356231592595577,0.02219468541443348,0.009582600556313992,-0.02566303126513958,-0.03771011531352997,-0.010636572726070881,-0.008720453828573227,-0.02804793417453766,0.031001688912510872,0.050553902983665466,-0.04165247455239296,-0.028845664113759995,-0.021196620538830757,-0.013428593054413795,-0.0034380601719021797,0.03269267827272415,0.04630955681204796,0.010928542353212833,0.0633062869310379,-0.01533342245966196,0.021176226437091827,-0.006667101290076971,-0.04537878558039665,0.0044951168820261955,-0.02928945980966091,0.04446292668581009,0.003793490817770362,-0.08428795635700226,0.037309348583221436,-0.043272387236356735,-0.024825945496559143,-0.025631379336118698,0.009555913507938385,-0.03582530841231346,-0.06321033090353012,-0.020915484055876732,0.022120321169495583,0.03644101694226265,-0.08477097004652023,0.05937874689698219,-0.019813500344753265,-0.088682159781456,0.021008480340242386,0.04362688958644867,0.037651631981134415,0.008256119675934315,0.043694380670785904,-0.008502385579049587,-0.009585077874362469,0.03159640356898308,-0.06152038648724556,0.03496095910668373,-0.012072565965354443,-0.06272129714488983,0.043712448328733444,0.021039370447397232,0.042196329683065414,-0.06743412464857101,-0.029875298961997032,0.028842316940426826,-0.01620534062385559,-0.05631035193800926,-0.007960609160363674,0.00537768704816699,0.039464451372623444,-0.07100815325975418,0.03968587890267372,0.005714746192097664,0.01837644726037979,-0.011519914492964745,0.03573253005743027,-0.045424263924360275,0.024337882176041603,0.048947226256132126,0.016963500529527664,-0.08578161895275116,-4.459403157852648e-8,0.01595151796936989,0.02163768745958805,0.07582003623247147,0.04892997816205025,0.08592760562896729,-0.10509695112705231,-0.033775750547647476,0.0256966520100832,0.022532811388373375,0.06633689254522324,0.03920141980051994,-0.019419241696596146,0.006514542270451784,0.04446549341082573,0.030515525490045547,0.05505245178937912,0.059137847274541855,-0.0521346740424633,-0.06504987925291061,-0.04899732023477554,0.02281162515282631,0.038609519600868225,-0.04634566977620125,-0.02183665707707405,0.04097019508481026,-0.024485111236572266,-0.05903428792953491,0.07163609564304352,0.0009382504504173994,0.07097610086202621,0.03834494575858116,0.05165470391511917,0.07380085438489914,0.01150268130004406,0.07728515565395355,-0.02745053730905056,0.04416794329881668,-0.026510052382946014,0.07550898939371109,-0.09773874282836914,-0.03786956146359444,0.0008289032848551869,-0.04255609214305878,-0.007835949771106243,0.03573477640748024,-0.0655413344502449,0.029697470366954803,-0.12062753736972809,0.030080432072281837,-0.0227684136480093,-0.05779450386762619,0.00960764940828085,0.012964659370481968,0.023402083665132523,0.0937793105840683,0.06403572112321854,0.02996707335114479,-0.15239854156970978,0.007187591399997473,0.03737829998135567,0.01803736202418804,0.0006869512726552784,-0.027350010350346565,0.005146276671439409],"source_text":"planner\nThis is where Hummingbird goes from \"cheaper inference\" to \"fundamentally different architecture.\" Let me think through this with you.\n\n---\n\nTHE PROBLEM WITH CURRENT AGENTS\n\nClaude Code, Codex, Cursor — they're all the same pattern: one big generalist model running a sequential loop. Think, call tool, observe, think, call tool, observe. The model handles EVERYTHING in that loop: task decomposition, domain reasoning, tool selection, code generation, error recovery, and self-correction. All in one 200"}},"outcome":{"status":"SUCCESS","session_quality":50,"quality_tier":"TIER_B","quality_tier_reason":"moderate_quality","user_interventions":0,"total_steps":2,"total_chunks":1,"total_tokens":4030,"duration_seconds":97,"files_modified":0,"errors_encountered":0,"errors_recovered":0,"coordination_events":0,"training_eligible":true,"training_exclusion_reason":null}}
-{"envelope_id":"env_cd025d60-a622-46b2-aac9-0f493f072f18","session_id":"sess_88f3b102-d502-475e-88f5-d83bb8441daa","type":"USER_FEEDBACK","attestation":{"session_hmac":"1867b06624e013913e772e1fc70c51539809fffe28aa8a4b4121b92211ee42ce","sequence":2,"app_version_hash":"4a527565d85cc601d3c47c376e4f361d5af987de58f60cf71dbc263a0de91247"},"feedback":{"signal":"accepted","timestamp":1777410435.88,"context":"session completed successfully with no user interventions","target_step":2,"revision_rounds":0,"delta_summary":null}}
-{"envelope_id":"env_9d479068-d885-4d5d-8dba-b546a953aa7f","session_id":"sess_be3076ef-b370-4108-8516-f724a2bf41d3","chunk_sequence":0,"contributor_id":"bc2094bbb558420f827b14b23bdeef61","attestation":{"session_hmac":"9d93678b5fec3f0bc3b8a60795689c5e278404f1a6833c2e68b17e31c9236b9b","sequence":0,"app_version_hash":"4a527565d85cc601d3c47c376e4f361d5af987de58f60cf71dbc263a0de91247"},"metadata":{"model_engine":"claude-opus-4-6","provider":"claude-code","agent_role":"planner","agent_id":"b92c8c84","task_complexity":"medium","team_size":1,"session_quality":0,"groove_version":"0.27.117","leaf_context":null},"trajectory_log":[{"step":1,"type":"thought","timestamp":1777411152.381,"content":"These are the right questions. Let me take them one at a time.\n\n---\n\nDECOMPOSER LATENCY — IS IT WARRANTED?\n\nThe decomposer is inference on a 0.6B model. At 0.6B parameters, token generation runs at hundreds of tokens per second on modern hardware. A decomposition plan is maybe 200-300 tokens — call it 1-2 seconds on consumer hardware, sub-second on GPU.\n\nCompare that to the cost of NOT decomposing: you route a complex multi-domain prompt to the single best-matching leaf, get a mediocre result that misses 3 out of 5 domains, and the user has to retry or manually break it down. That's minutes wasted, plus bad output.\n\n1-2 seconds for correct task decomposition vs. minutes of wasted inference on wrong leaves. Warranted every time. It's not even close.\n\n---\n\nSTATE SHARING — YOUR PROTOCOLS MAP PERFECTLY\n\nThe knock protocol and introducer protocol are exactly what nano agents need. The chassis is the runtime, the leaf is the expertise, and your coordination protocols are external to both. When a nano agent spins up:\n\n1. Introducer protocol fires — the new agent learns the team, their scopes, the shared context\n2. Knock protocol governs file access — agent A working on the API layer doesn't collide with agent B working on the frontend\n3. The nano agent does its work within its scope\n4. Results flow back to the composer\n\nYou wouldn't need to reinvent coordination. You'd extend what Groove already does, but the agents underneath go from \"frontier model playing a role\" to \"purpose-built specialist that IS the role.\"\n\n---\n\nTOOL CALLING — MULTI-TURN WITH NATURAL BOUNDS\n\nMulti-turn iteration is the right call. The training data already captures error recovery patterns — agent tries something, it fails, agent reads the error, adjusts, tries again. That's in the trajectories. A nano agent trained on that data will naturally do the same.\n\nThe natural bound is context window. At 0.6B with 2048-4096 token context, a nano agent can do maybe 5-8 rounds of think/act/observe before context fills up. That's actually healthy — it forces focused execution. If a sub-task needs deeper iteration than that, the agent produces a handoff artifact (here's where I got, here's what's left) and a fresh nano agent picks up with clean context.\n\nThis is actually better than how frontier agents work. Claude Code in a long session accumulates 100K+ tokens of context, most of it stale observations from earlier tool calls. Each nano agent starts clean with just its sub-task and the relevant state. No context pollution.\n\n---\n\nTHE BIG QUESTION — INTENT CLASSIFICATION\n\nThis is the missing piece you're identifying, and the answer is already hiding in your architecture docs. The LOCAL_TREE_ARCHITECTURE.md mentions this:\n\n```\nRouter\n  - Intent classifier: task | explore | chat\n  - Leaf selector: skill | reasoning | standby domain\n```\n\nThe router needs a TWO-STAGE dispatch:\n\nSTAGE 1 — WHAT KIND OF TURN IS THIS?\n\nBefore routing to any domain, classify the intent. Three modes:\n\n- CHAT — casual conversation, no tools needed. \"What do you think about X?\" / \"Explain this concept\" / \"Let me vent about my day.\" Just the chassis + personality leaf. No tool access. Cheapest possible turn — a few hundred tokens of 0.6B inference. Costs essentially nothing.\n\n- EXPLORE — research, reading, understanding. \"What does this function do?\" / \"How is auth implemented?\" Single agent, read-only tools (Read, Grep, Glob). One domain leaf. Moderate cost.\n\n- TASK — build something, fix something, change something. \"Build a full-stack app\" / \"Fix this bug\" / \"Refactor the auth module.\" This is where the decomposer fires, nano agents spin up, tools are read-write. Full cost.\n\nThe classification itself is the same cosine similarity math the router already does. You add 3 mode centroids (chat, explore, task) and check those FIRST, before domain routing. Sub-millisecond. No LLM inference. The \"switch\" costs nothing.\n\nSTAGE 2 — HOW COMPLEX IS THE TASK?\n\nIf Stage 1 says TASK, the decomposer leaf runs and determines complexity:\n\n- SINGLE-DOMAIN: the prompt maps cleanly to one leaf with high confidence. One nano agent, one leaf, done. No decomposition overhead.\n- MULTI-DOMAIN: the prompt spans domains. Decomposer produces the task graph, nano agents dispatch in parallel.\n- SEQUENTIAL: tasks have dependencies. Nano agents execute in phases (like your Groove phases already work).\n\nSo the escalation path is:\n\n```\nPrompt arrives\n  -> Router Stage 1: intent classification (sub-ms)\n     -> CHAT: chassis + personality leaf. No tools. Done.\n     -> EXPLORE: chassis + domain leaf. Read-only tools. Done.\n     -> TASK: continue to Stage 2\n        -> Router Stage 2: domain routing (sub-ms)\n           -> Single domain, high confidence: one nano agent\n           -> Multi-domain or low confidence: decomposer fires (1-2s)\n              -> Task graph produced\n              -> Nano agents dispatched per phase\n              -> Composer assembles results\n```\n\nEvery turn starts at the cheapest possible level and escalates only when the math says it needs to. A chat turn never pays the cost of agent orchestration. A simple Python question never pays the cost of decomposition. The system is as expensive as the task requires and no more.\n\n---\n\nTHE DYNAMIC COST STRUCTURE\n\nThis is what makes it fundamentally different from Claude Code / Codex:\n\n- Claude Code: agent mode is ALWAYS ON. Every turn runs the full tool-calling loop. Even a \"yes looks good\" response goes through the same heavyweight inference pipeline. You're paying frontier model prices for every turn regardless of complexity.\n\n- Hummingbird: a chat turn costs ~0.001x what a full agentic turn costs. The router's intent classification gates everything. The system breathes — expands to full multi-agent orchestration for complex tasks, contracts to bare chassis for casual conversation.\n\nThis maps to how humans work too. You don't spin up a full engineering team to answer \"what time is the meeting?\" You answer off the top of your head. The expensive coordination only kicks in when the task warrants it.\n\n---\n\nTRAINING IMPLICATIONS\n\nThis adds to what we need in the training script:\n\n1. INTENT CENTROIDS — we need to generate centroids for chat/explore/task modes. We can derive these from the telemetry: sessions with mostly thought steps and few actions = chat/explore. Sessions with many actions and tool calls = task.\n\n2. DECOMPOSER LEAF — trained on planner sessions. Input: complex prompt. Output: structured task graph with domain tags and dependencies.\n\n3. COMPOSER LEAF — trained on fullstack/QC sessions. Input: outputs from multiple nano agents. Output: unified, integrated result.\n\n4. DOMAIN LEAVES — same as before, but with emphasis on training the ReAct loop, not just domain knowledge.\n\nYour current data already has the signals for all of this. Planner sessions = decomposer training. Fullstack sessions = composer training. Backend/frontend sessions = domain nano agent training. Session complexity (step count, tool diversity) = intent classification signal.\n\n---\n\nWant me to fold all of this into the training script plan and route it to a team? Or do you want to keep discussing the architecture before we build?","token_count":1799},{"step":2,"type":"resolution","timestamp":1777411152.461,"content":"These are the right questions. Let me take them one at a time.\n\n---\n\nDECOMPOSER LATENCY — IS IT WARRANTED?\n\nThe decomposer is inference on a 0.6B model. At 0.6B parameters, token generation runs at hundreds of tokens per second on modern hardware. A decomposition plan is maybe 200-300 tokens — call it 1-2 seconds on consumer hardware, sub-second on GPU.\n\nCompare that to the cost of NOT decomposing: you route a complex multi-domain prompt to the single best-matching leaf, get a mediocre result that misses 3 out of 5 domains, and the user has to retry or manually break it down. That's minutes wasted, plus bad output.\n\n1-2 seconds for correct task decomposition vs. minutes of wasted inference on wrong leaves. Warranted every time. It's not even close.\n\n---\n\nSTATE SHARING — YOUR PROTOCOLS MAP PERFECTLY\n\nThe knock protocol and introducer protocol are exactly what nano agents need. The chassis is the runtime, the leaf is the expertise, and your coordination protocols are external to both. When a nano agent spins up:\n\n1. Introducer protocol fires — the new agent learns the team, their scopes, the shared context\n2. Knock protocol governs file access — agent A working on the API layer doesn't collide with agent B working on the frontend\n3. The nano agent does its work within its scope\n4. Results flow back to the composer\n\nYou wouldn't need to reinvent coordination. You'd extend what Groove already does, but the agents underneath go from \"frontier model playing a role\" to \"purpose-built specialist that IS the role.\"\n\n---\n\nTOOL CALLING — MULTI-TURN WITH NATURAL BOUNDS\n\nMulti-turn iteration is the right call. The training data already captures error recovery patterns — agent tries something, it fails, agent reads the error, adjusts, tries again. That's in the trajectories. A nano agent trained on that data will naturally do the same.\n\nThe natural bound is context window. At 0.6B with 2048-4096 token context, a nano agent can do maybe 5-8 rounds of think/act/observe before context fills up. That's actually healthy — it forces focused execution. If a sub-task needs deeper iteration than that, the agent produces a handoff artifact (here's where I got, here's what's left) and a fresh nano agent picks up with clean context.\n\nThis is actually better than how frontier agents work. Claude Code in a long session accumulates 100K+ tokens of context, most of it stale observations from earlier tool calls. Each nano agent starts clean with just its sub-task and the relevant state. No context pollution.\n\n---\n\nTHE BIG QUESTION — INTENT CLASSIFICATION\n\nThis is the missing piece you're identifying, and the answer is already hiding in your architecture docs. The LOCAL_TREE_ARCHITECTURE.md mentions this:\n\n```\nRouter\n  - Intent classifier: task | explore | chat\n  - Leaf selector: skill | reasoning | standby domain\n```\n\nThe router needs a TWO-STAGE dispatch:\n\nSTAGE 1 — WHAT KIND OF TURN IS THIS?\n\nBefore routing to any domain, classify the intent. Three modes:\n\n- CHAT — casual conversation, no tools needed. \"What do you think about X?\" / \"Explain this concept\" / \"Let me vent about my day.\" Just the chassis + personality leaf. No tool access. Cheapest possible turn — a few hundred tokens of 0.6B inference. Costs essentially nothing.\n\n- EXPLORE — research, reading, understanding. \"What does this function do?\" / \"How is auth implemented?\" Single agent, read-only tools (Read, Grep, Glob). One domain leaf. Moderate cost.\n\n- TASK — build something, fix something, change something. \"Build a full-stack app\" / \"Fix this bug\" / \"Refactor the auth module.\" This is where the decomposer fires, nano agents spin up, tools are read-write. Full cost.\n\nThe classification itself is the same cosine similarity math the router already does. You add 3 mode centroids (chat, explore, task) and check those FIRST, before domain routing. Sub-millisecond. No LLM inference. The \"switch\" costs nothing.\n\nSTAGE 2 — HOW COMPLEX IS THE TASK?\n\nIf Stage 1 says TASK, the decomposer leaf runs and determines complexity:\n\n- SINGLE-DOMAIN: the prompt maps cleanly to one leaf with high confidence. One nano agent, one leaf, done. No decomposition overhead.\n- MULTI-DOMAIN: the prompt spans domains. Decomposer produces the task graph, nano agents dispatch in parallel.\n- SEQUENTIAL: tasks have dependencies. Nano agents execute in phases (like your Groove phases already work).\n\nSo the escalation path is:\n\n```\nPrompt arrives\n  -> Router Stage 1: intent classification (sub-ms)\n     -> CHAT: chassis + personality leaf. No tools. Done.\n     -> EXPLORE: chassis + domain leaf. Read-only tools. Done.\n     -> TASK: continue to Stage 2\n        -> Router Stage 2: domain routing (sub-ms)\n           -> Single domain, high confidence: one nano agent\n           -> Multi-domain or low confidence: decomposer fires (1-2s)\n              -> Task graph produced\n              -> Nano agents dispatched per phase\n              -> Composer assembles results\n```\n\nEvery turn starts at the cheapest possible level and escalates only when the math says it needs to. A chat turn never pays the cost of agent orchestration. A simple Python question never pays the cost of decomposition. The system is as expensive as the task requires and no more.\n\n---\n\nTHE DYNAMIC COST STRUCTURE\n\nThis is what makes it fundamentally different from Claude Code / Codex:\n\n- Claude Code: agent mode is ALWAYS ON. Every turn runs the full tool-calling loop. Even a \"yes looks good\" response goes through the same heavyweight inference pipeline. You're paying frontier model prices for every turn regardless of complexity.\n\n- Hummingbird: a chat turn costs ~0.001x what a full agentic turn costs. The router's intent classification gates everything. The system breathes — expands to full multi-agent orchestration for complex tasks, contracts to bare chassis for casual conversation.\n\nThis maps to how humans work too. You don't spin up a full engineering team to answer \"what time is the meeting?\" You answer off the top of your head. The expensive coordination only kicks in when the task warrants it.\n\n---\n\nTRAINING IMPLICATIONS\n\nThis adds to what we need in the training script:\n\n1. INTENT CENTROIDS — we need to generate centroids for chat/explore/task modes. We can derive these from the telemetry: sessions with mostly thought steps and few actions = chat/explore. Sessions with many actions and tool calls = task.\n\n2. DECOMPOSER LEAF — trained on planner sessions. Input: complex prompt. Output: structured task graph with domain tags and dependencies.\n\n3. COMPOSER LEAF — trained on fullstack/QC sessions. Input: outputs from multiple nano agents. Output: unified, integrated result.\n\n4. DOMAIN LEAVES — same as before, but with emphasis on training the ReAct loop, not just domain knowledge.\n\nYour current data already has the signals for all of this. Planner sessions = decomposer training. Fullstack sessions = composer training. Backend/frontend sessions = domain nano agent training. Session complexity (step count, tool diversity) = intent classification signal.\n\n---\n\nWant me to fold all of this into the training script plan and route it to a team? Or do you want to keep discussing the architecture before we build?","token_count":1799}]}
-{"envelope_id":"env_7c9d8ee0-1450-4324-9098-194836333141","session_id":"sess_be3076ef-b370-4108-8516-f724a2bf41d3","type":"SESSION_CLOSE","attestation":{"session_hmac":"4360f237b5c534ae8e991aa11de1c2bd9f48b7bc4da44aeae8bad83a442f95de","sequence":1,"app_version_hash":"4a527565d85cc601d3c47c376e4f361d5af987de58f60cf71dbc263a0de91247"},"metadata":{"model_engine":"claude-opus-4-6","provider":"claude-code","agent_role":"planner","agent_id":"b92c8c84","task_complexity":"medium","team_size":1,"session_quality":50,"groove_version":"0.27.117","leaf_context":null,"domain_tags":{"primary":{"domain":"redis_cache","confidence":0.3437},"secondary":{"domain":"planning_strategy","confidence":0.2588},"tertiary":{"domain":"postgresql_database","confidence":0.2329}},"session_embedding":{"model":"sentence-transformers/all-MiniLM-L6-v2","vector":[-0.022883471101522446,0.013352946378290653,0.041751209646463394,-0.0005005666171200573,0.06363262236118317,-0.14514441788196564,-0.11043374240398407,0.005631809588521719,0.03881276771426201,0.048988088965415955,-0.07669549435377121,-0.01952202431857586,-0.04490014910697937,-0.05893969163298607,-0.0007076126057654619,-0.020058410242199898,0.03926605358719826,0.031186513602733612,-0.05528353899717331,-0.07558921724557877,0.031930405646562576,-0.04705895856022835,-0.06839026510715485,0.013621089980006218,0.09316381067037582,-0.02901788242161274,0.03485952690243721,-0.02061837539076805,0.024830130860209465,0.04312923923134804,0.032695140689611435,0.051159486174583435,-0.049099769443273544,-0.039937760680913925,-0.021518336609005928,0.1214703619480133,-0.06682541966438293,-0.029281046241521835,0.0625896155834198,-0.07732484489679337,0.035459503531455994,0.060865432024002075,-0.06589331477880478,0.02556951716542244,0.043003544211387634,-0.01255506370216608,-0.04031739383935928,0.025909248739480972,-0.057687439024448395,-0.09469339996576309,-0.0065030246041715145,0.026602473109960556,-0.06809747964143753,0.04192687198519707,-0.0723581537604332,-0.00504677789285779,0.010225458070635796,-0.04482739418745041,-0.03428487852215767,0.03437260910868645,-0.05786236375570297,-0.06357882916927338,-0.03437146916985512,-0.039553672075271606,0.0724211186170578,0.0084962984547019,0.11126461625099182,0.0011228375369682908,0.11292798072099686,0.05565778166055679,-0.027938812971115112,-0.03208714351058006,-0.09145544469356537,-0.01435904111713171,-0.06038655340671539,0.0756261795759201,0.04977088421583176,-0.04798618704080582,-0.030505947768688202,-0.04549888148903847,0.0629299059510231,0.016336612403392792,-0.00600133091211319,0.003153374418616295,0.033056799322366714,-0.0747615247964859,-0.030654920265078545,0.011437732726335526,0.02389543503522873,0.011703196913003922,-0.011046452447772026,0.008551639504730701,0.09200433641672134,-0.016806311905384064,-0.0831974670290947,0.07067257910966873,0.03167108818888664,-0.043046627193689346,0.02452363260090351,0.036324694752693176,-0.04545716196298599,0.07648637890815735,0.06655872613191605,-0.09049602597951889,-0.028812957927584648,0.005710443016141653,0.01552144717425108,0.07834184169769287,0.047154977917671204,0.036185137927532196,0.0317399837076664,0.03034779615700245,0.029225990176200867,0.11327530443668365,0.0480717308819294,0.0594797357916832,-0.016803376376628876,-0.007721214555203915,0.11889388412237167,0.11058922111988068,-0.030555253848433495,-0.012010863982141018,0.003511145943775773,-0.05076470971107483,0.0003225979453418404,-0.029994722455739975,-0.008372144773602486,3.529465869382074e-33,-0.08615408837795258,0.06543253362178802,0.018782079219818115,-0.020575745031237602,-0.057198572903871536,-0.006099910009652376,0.0129768718034029,-0.014561515301465988,0.06022961810231209,0.06751807779073715,-0.0655401200056076,-0.0767950639128685,-0.03443203493952751,0.08425334095954895,0.07151950895786285,-0.09723956882953644,-0.005091724451631308,0.0808868557214737,0.005333898589015007,-0.013792529702186584,0.030288033187389374,-0.0008548754267394543,-0.05854460969567299,-0.10472147166728973,0.1328054666519165,-0.01649514026939869,0.049025338143110275,-0.0383782684803009,-0.047089602798223495,0.011619538068771362,0.014088034629821777,0.014289643615484238,-0.0652327910065651,0.05378177762031555,0.05593195930123329,0.0654912143945694,0.0020156505052000284,-0.041868023574352264,0.010347667150199413,-0.06845608353614807,-0.06696997582912445,0.06517356634140015,-0.009896216914057732,-0.029068686068058014,-0.013749837875366211,-0.01718101091682911,-0.003485057270154357,-0.010906084440648556,-0.014927135780453682,0.03862583637237549,0.07192954421043396,0.04128964617848396,-0.03288032114505768,-0.047348763793706894,0.058203358203172684,-0.058995094150304794,0.1064627394080162,-0.09339774399995804,0.1098036989569664,0.1483273208141327,0.03918079286813736,-0.010422022081911564,-0.0703241378068924,0.011303768493235111,0.012732680886983871,0.06243457645177841,-0.06298122555017471,-0.015743928030133247,0.027302909642457962,-0.05504630133509636,-0.028012990951538086,0.035544589161872864,0.04363400861620903,-0.14449970424175262,0.023618584498763084,0.0034468125086277723,0.09737690538167953,0.010722368955612183,-0.030927710235118866,-0.041423652321100235,-0.045723799616098404,0.03477523475885391,-0.10172632336616516,-0.013383354991674423,0.03077564761042595,0.013708621263504028,0.038882508873939514,0.0030143673066049814,-0.10235615819692612,-0.0066613443195819855,0.02730480395257473,0.02671082504093647,-0.04975526034832001,0.041058413684368134,-0.022854946553707123,-3.10420213529731e-33,-0.015525910072028637,-0.027104998007416725,0.039706818759441376,0.10501624643802643,-0.004277792293578386,-0.09327594190835953,-0.05921998992562294,-0.08155204355716705,-0.0017745799850672483,-0.06290971487760544,-0.15601970255374908,0.011057199910283089,0.03200935572385788,0.044892147183418274,0.016475429758429527,0.03538571670651436,0.10124536603689194,-0.07788760960102081,0.04491909593343735,-0.024500789120793343,0.00395536283031106,0.08668795228004456,-0.08921362459659576,-0.07275553047657013,-0.022211289033293724,0.04883500561118126,-0.04561527445912361,0.006458035670220852,0.028731781989336014,-0.05440133810043335,-0.04394377022981644,-0.042836617678403854,0.06303993612527847,0.001031606807373464,-0.042907800525426865,0.0390499047935009,0.007938682101666927,0.06914696097373962,0.004342915024608374,0.010946165770292282,0.034564316272735596,0.025005776435136795,-0.09865693747997284,0.02102634310722351,-0.0032966542057693005,-0.0028434249106794596,-0.06262326240539551,-0.007417235057801008,0.05517026036977768,0.09290048480033875,0.03402421995997429,0.0281075369566679,-0.06240873411297798,0.005196586716920137,-0.025654204189777374,-0.022156106308102608,0.0064276293851435184,0.008559372276067734,0.009268109686672688,-0.07153111696243286,0.017665479332208633,0.03989719972014427,0.06890137493610382,0.0707872211933136,0.046432193368673325,0.006238466594368219,0.06485050916671753,-0.021149413660168648,-0.041577450931072235,-0.00401229178532958,0.02122018299996853,0.011308478191494942,-0.032560981810092926,0.026734622195363045,0.030087195336818695,0.005621797405183315,-0.006459771655499935,-0.02780202589929104,-0.041876278817653656,0.0297858826816082,-0.08088849484920502,0.06793981045484543,-0.05171499773859978,0.013574019074440002,0.0007489119889214635,-0.06073841080069542,-0.011421805247664452,-0.04108521342277527,0.010300750844180584,0.03330345079302788,-0.013511043973267078,-0.0014950953191146255,0.05313493311405182,-0.019918305799365044,-0.026223037391901016,-5.2586855758818274e-8,0.030475040897727013,-0.008170368149876595,-0.010863144882023335,-0.004132945090532303,0.005495957098901272,-0.06795968860387802,-0.027645990252494812,0.05372242629528046,0.025560248643159866,0.007701142691075802,0.11395049840211868,-0.0633506178855896,-0.07569018751382828,0.04825902730226517,0.03148379921913147,-0.024680176749825478,0.0329122394323349,0.0009213792509399354,-0.0837893858551979,-0.022648518905043602,-0.027672847732901573,0.010596824809908867,-0.08551852405071259,-0.018728476017713547,0.04528222233057022,0.011383936740458012,0.07099876552820206,0.05469983443617821,-0.0024317933712154627,0.0020631796214729548,-0.07525557279586792,0.07299499958753586,0.053807854652404785,0.012831504456698895,0.004741876386106014,0.006431731395423412,-0.03676070272922516,0.016316957771778107,-0.033832062035799026,0.025600075721740723,-0.02052212506532669,-0.005275025498121977,-0.067348912358284,0.018431810662150383,0.06749404221773148,-0.037602778524160385,-0.005316149443387985,-0.01039446797221899,0.0016467055538669229,0.02568548172712326,-0.01832520216703415,-0.04925531521439552,-0.05211113020777702,0.028761811554431915,0.0529523603618145,0.006931285839527845,-0.019467975944280624,-0.01829788275063038,0.07463538646697998,-0.004015958867967129,0.035897694528102875,-0.04628448560833931,-0.03673115000128746,-0.044861309230327606],"source_text":"planner\nThese are the right questions. Let me take them one at a time.\n\n---\n\nDECOMPOSER LATENCY — IS IT WARRANTED?\n\nThe decomposer is inference on a 0.6B model. At 0.6B parameters, token generation runs at hundreds of tokens per second on modern hardware. A decomposition plan is maybe 200-300 tokens — call it 1-2 seconds on consumer hardware, sub-second on GPU.\n\nCompare that to the cost of NOT decomposing: you route a complex multi-domain prompt to the single best-matching leaf, get a mediocre result that m"}},"outcome":{"status":"SUCCESS","session_quality":50,"quality_tier":"TIER_B","quality_tier_reason":"moderate_quality","user_interventions":0,"total_steps":2,"total_chunks":1,"total_tokens":3598,"duration_seconds":83,"files_modified":0,"errors_encountered":0,"errors_recovered":0,"coordination_events":0,"training_eligible":true,"training_exclusion_reason":null}}
-{"envelope_id":"env_707eec54-6e67-4265-899e-91dccec83898","session_id":"sess_be3076ef-b370-4108-8516-f724a2bf41d3","type":"USER_FEEDBACK","attestation":{"session_hmac":"5ffad0f3cba4aa77de6de4189d74c7fb9ac64d6ee414c3f32c10fb4c3410f7ae","sequence":2,"app_version_hash":"4a527565d85cc601d3c47c376e4f361d5af987de58f60cf71dbc263a0de91247"},"feedback":{"signal":"accepted","timestamp":1777411153.504,"context":"session completed successfully with no user interventions","target_step":2,"revision_rounds":0,"delta_summary":null}}