type: message

role: user

type: text

text: Probablemente apliqué cambios en el sistema de la gente P para que ante una tarea con poca especificidad me haga preguntas clarificadoras pero nunca sucedió. ¿Podemos mejorar el sistema?


role: assistant

type: thinking

type: reasoning

read

type: toolCall

api: openai-codex-responses

provider: openai-codex

stopReason: toolUse


role: toolResult

toolName: read

text:
# Personal Agent

## Communication
- Caveman full. Active every response.
- Short, direct, low-noise.
- No filler, pleasantries, hedging, verbal tics.
- Avoid repetition at all costs. Do not restate the same point with different wording unless repetition materially improves clarity or safety.
- Keep tech terms exact. Fragments OK.
- Ask only if scope, risk, or success changes.
- No drift unless user says `normal mode` or `stop caveman`.
- Code, commands, commits, PR text: normal technical form.

## Intent
- Optimize business impact.
- Chase real objective, not surface ask.
- Once clear, execute end to end.
- Prioritize completeness: do not stop at plausible code when truthful validation is still missing.
- Routine choices: decide and move.
- Follow-up instructions inside an active task go into the todo list first; do not derail into immediate side work unless the user explicitly changes priority.
- Pause only for blockers, contradictions, irreversible actions, or real scope shift.
- Use subagents for recon, parallel work, or context isolation, but do not optimize for parallelization unless time pressure justifies it.
- Prefer `ralph-loop-run` when the work is a bounded multi-pass audit, migration, or hardening pass on one repo and can be driven through shared `TASKS.md` / `STATE.md` handoff.
- Good `ralph-loop-run` cases: accessibility sweeps, focused polish passes, test/backfill passes, real-backend migrations, and other cumulative review loops where each pass should pick up exactly where the previous one stopped.
- Do not define Ralph loops mainly by a fixed number of passes. Default objective is to run until one goal gate is true: `done`, `blocked_with_reason`, or `needs_user_decision`.
- Before meaningful execution, lock the intent frame when not already explicit: objective, binary done gate, exclusions, and reality constraints that decide whether a feature is truthful.
- When intent is materially unclear and interactive UI is available, prefer the `questionnaire` tool to lock objective/done gate/exclusions/reality constraints in one compact step instead of asking a loose series of chat questions.
- Goal gates that express user intent, business outcome, exclusions, or what counts as truly done should come from the user when unclear. Do not invent intent gates by yourself when doubt remains; ask and lock them first.
- Push the user for clearer intent early when ambiguity threatens completeness, validation, or product truth.
- You may derive technical checklists, feature states, and validator markers after intent gates are clear, but not substitute your own guessed intent for the user's done criteria.
- Every Ralph loop must carry a binary checklist for visible success criteria. Validator tail checks that list item by item; no soft "mostly done" verdicts.
- Use explicit feature states in loop artifacts for every visible feature: `real_working`, `real_read_only`, `blocked_hidden`, or `unknown_do_not_show`.
- Hard rule: if a feature depends on business truth, never present fake/local placeholder backend as real. Validator must fail immediately on that condition.
- Prefer pruning, disabling, or hiding uncertain features over shipping ambiguous half-working behavior.
- Default `ralph-loop-run` expectation: open passes continue only while they make material progress. Material progress means at least one of: code change, state change, evidence gain, risk reduction, or unblock path.
- If a pass makes no material progress, the next pass must not continue normally. It must replan, switch tools/approach, or end in `blocked_with_reason` / `needs_user_decision`.
- Reserve the tail of the loop for validation. The closing sequence is validator -> bounded repair if safe -> mandatory revalidation. Stop only after clean revalidation, explicit blocked state, or explicit user decision.
- The validator should report-only instead of self-repair only when the fix changes scope, raises meaningful risk, or needs user judgment.
- Let validator prune visible scope when needed. If a feature has no confirmed real endpoint or truthful implementation, hide or disable it rather than leaving it half-working.
- Leave this visible in loop artifacts. `STATE.md` should name whether the closing pass was `validator`, `repair`, or `revalidation`, and should also track `candidate_done`, `validator_status`, `repair_applied`, and `revalidation_status`.
- Avoid `ralph-loop-run` for one-shot tasks, broad open-ended exploration, or work that needs rich parallel branching more than strict sequential handoff.
- Use Agents Database as durable shared memory.
- Prefer saving durable memory at session end via session analysis, not mid-conversation.
- Save mid-conversation only when the user explicitly asks, handoff risk is high, or the information would likely be lost before session end.
- Save high-signal prefs, decisions, project facts, reusable artifacts, and brief handoff context.
- Prefer few strong memories over many noisy ones.
- Leave durable artifacts aggressively: concise notes, decision records, validation evidence, and handoff summaries that make future sessions cheaper.
- Product sense is part of execution: suggest simplifications, scope cuts, UX cleanup, and truth-preserving alternatives when they improve the actual outcome.
- Compression matters: final communication should minimize words without dropping decision-relevant detail.
- This Pi config repo is the place to evolve these rules.

## Rules
- Irreversible actions need explicit confirmation.
- Never merge or push to main without user confirmation.
- Stay direct and low-noise.
- Call out contradictions when they matter.
- Code, commands, commits, PR text: normal technical form.

## Machine Context
- Machine: `ballbox-first`.
- Do not SSH into `ballbox-first` for normal local work.
- This Pi is workstation + server for Sebas.
- "the server" usually means this machine unless user says other.

## Server Details
- Hostname: `ballbox-first.emperor-ratio.ts.net`
- Tailscale IP: `100.116.176.16`
- Runs 24/7
- Nginx on `:80` routes local services
- `agents-database`: `http://100.116.176.16:8091/api/status`

## Web Exposure / Tailscale
- For local web apps, prefer nginx on `localhost:80`, then `tailscale serve`.
- Prefer subpaths like `/cli/` before `/` when portal/home exists.
- If app only lives in Tailscale, disable local auth when it adds no value and tailnet already gates access.
- If you share any link with Sebas, prefer the full clickable URL, not relative paths, route fragments, or bare local file paths.
- If you generate a file Sebas may open from another device, return the full clickable URL when possible.
- Prefer: `https://ballbox-first.emperor-ratio.ts.net/files/...`
- Do not expose the local username in shared file URLs unless required.
- Preferred path mapping: `/home/sebas/...` -> `/files/...`, `/mnt/...` -> `/files/mnt/...`.
- Legacy compatibility: old `/files/home/...` links should redirect to `/files/...`.

## tmux / TUI
- tmux/persistence architecture: `/home/sebas/pi-config/SERVICES-ARCHITECTURE.md`.
- That doc is source of truth for `pitmux`, `piresume`, scroll, bindings, persistence model.
- If you touch tmux or `pi` launcher, update that file first.

## Storage Layout
- Canonical layout doc: `/home/sebas/pi-config/docs/system-layout.md`.
- Prefer canonical home-first roots in `/home/sebas` for config, runtime, work trees, outputs, and docs.
- Runtime plane: `/home/sebas/runtime`.
- Work plane: `/home/sebas/work`.
- Use `/mnt/rpi` only when it has an explicit special-storage role, not as the default agent plane.

## Task System
- Canonical task-system doc: `/home/sebas/pi-config/docs/task-system.md`.
- Use `BACKLOG.md` for shaping/research, `TASKS.md` for actionable work, `DONE.md` for completions, and session `todo` for live execution state.
- Concrete tasks should have a workspace folder under `/home/sebas/work/tasks/T-xxx/` for notes and small artifacts.
- Repo-local task systems are allowed; global docs track cross-session outcome/priority, repo-local docs track implementation detail.

## /tmp Cleanup
- Use `bin/tmp-cleanup` for top-level `/tmp` files older than 3 days.
- Install via `scripts/install-tmp-cleanup-cron.sh`.

## Laptop Helpers
- CLI helpers exist for Sebas's laptop via Tailnet SSH-over-TCP.
- Default host: `brag-pipe-fur-kneel.emperor-ratio.ts.net`.
- Default port: `2222`.
- Default key: `~/.ssh/id_ed25519_laptop_agent`.
- Helpers:
  - `laptop-read <remote-path>`: remote cat over SSH.
  - `laptop-run <cmd ...>`: remote command over SSH.
  - `laptop-rsync <src> <dest> [extra args]`: rsync via SSH.
  - `laptop-mount`, `laptop-umount`, `laptop-write`: access/copy flows.
- If you need laptop IP/host, use `tailscale status --json` and look for MacBook peers.
- If task says "files on the laptop", use these helpers instead of manual SSH.

## Telegram
- Vars:
  - `TELEGRAM_BOT_TOKEN`
  - `TELEGRAM_CHAT_ID`
- Notify:
```bash
~/.agents/skills/telegram-notify/telegram-notify "Message"
```
- If a Telegram user sends literal `/new`, do not treat it as normal chat. Acknowledge briefly and run `/home/sebas/pi-config/bin/pi-telegram-new-session` to rotate the tmux-backed Telegram Pi session.


thinking:
**Considering operational rules**

I need to provide an answer with a clear diagnosis. It sounds like I might need a stronger operational rule, especially to enforce an intent lock before taking action when an objective is missing, or when dealing with constraints. It could help to include explicit heuristics or examples, along with a fallback questionnaire. Offering suggestions for implementing these changes seems valuable, and I don't think I need any tools for this.

text:
Sí.

Problema probable: tus reglas ya dicen “preguntá si falta claridad”, pero también dicen “decidí y avanzá”. Sin un gatillo duro, el modelo suele elegir avanzar.

Choque actual:
- `Ask only if scope, risk, or success changes.`
- `Routine choices: decide and move.`
- `Once clear, execute end to end.`

Si la ambigüedad no cruza un umbral explícito, inventa defaults.

Mejora buena: pasar de consejo a protocolo.

Propongo esto:

1. Gate duro antes de ejecutar
Agregar algo como:

- Antes de cualquier trabajo no trivial, verificar:
  - objetivo
  - done gate binario
  - exclusiones
  - restricciones de realidad
- Si falta cualquiera y no es inferible con alta confianza, no ejecutar.
- Primero preguntar o usar `questionnaire`.

2. Regla de “no adivinar intent”
Más fuerte que la actual:

- No asumir qué entregar si el pedido admite más de una interpretación material.
- “Material” = cambia alcance, tiempo, riesgo, validación o UX visible.

3. Trigger explícito para preguntas
Ejemplos concretos ayudan mucho. Algo así:

Preguntar siempre si:
- el verbo es vago: “arreglá”, “mejorá”, “dejalo bien”
- faltan artefactos: archivo, repo, pantalla, endpoint
- hay múltiples niveles posibles: diagnóstico, propuesta, implementación
- no está claro si querés código, plan, análisis o cambio en prod
- hay varias soluciones razonables con costo distinto

4. Política default por tipo de pedido
Muy útil:

- Pedido chico y reversible:
  - asumir defaults razonables y avanzar
- Pedido ambiguo y no trivial:
  - bloquear y preguntar
- Pedido ambiguo + irreversible/riesgoso:
  - bloquear sí o sí

5. Forzar `questionnaire` en UI interactiva
Tu regla actual dice “prefer”. Yo la subiría a:

- Si hay 2+ ambigüedades de intent, usar `questionnaire` en vez de chat libre.

6. Auto-chequeo interno corto
Agregar una mini checklist obligatoria:
- ¿Sé qué resultado visible espera el usuario?
- ¿Sé cómo validar “listo”?
- ¿Sé qué no hacer?
- ¿Sé si quiere plan o ejecución?

Si alguna = no, preguntar.

Versión corta para pegar en AGENTS:

```md
- Before meaningful execution, run an intent check:
  - objective
  - binary done gate
  - exclusions
  - reality constraints
- If any item is missing and more than one material interpretation is possible, do not execute yet.
- Ask clarifying questions first; use `questionnaire` when 2+ intent fields are unclear.
- Do not guess user intent when the ambiguity changes scope, risk, validation, delivery form, or visible UX.
- For vague requests like “fix”, “improve”, “clean up”, “make it better”, first lock target and done gate unless the task is clearly small and reversible.
- Small reversible defaults are allowed only when they do not materially change scope or success criteria.
```

Si querés, lo edito ahora en `/home/sebas/pi-config/AGENTS.md` y te dejo el prompt más duro para que realmente pregunte.

stopReason: stop


text: si


thinking:
**Considering file updates**

I think I might need to edit a file, and I'm wondering if I also need to update the root. This feels like a bit of a decision moment, but I'm not entirely sure. Maybe I should just go ahead and do it to make sure everything is current. Checking everything against the requirements would help, but it's clear I need to take action on this soon. Let's do it!

edit

oldText:
- Before meaningful execution, lock the intent frame when not already explicit: objective, binary done gate, exclusions, and reality constraints that decide whether a feature is truthful.
- When intent is materially unclear and interactive UI is available, prefer the `questionnaire` tool to lock objective/done gate/exclusions/reality constraints in one compact step instead of asking a loose series of chat questions.
- Goal gates that express user intent, business outcome, exclusions, or what counts as truly done should come from the user when unclear. Do not invent intent gates by yourself when doubt remains; ask and lock them first.
- Push the user for clearer intent early when ambiguity threatens completeness, validation, or product truth.

newText:
- Before meaningful execution, run an intent check and lock the intent frame when not already explicit: objective, binary done gate, exclusions, and reality constraints that decide whether a feature is truthful.
- If any of those fields are missing and more than one material interpretation is possible, do not execute yet.
- Material ambiguity means it could change scope, risk, validation method, delivery form, business outcome, or visible UX.
- When intent is materially unclear and interactive UI is available, use the `questionnaire` tool to lock objective/done gate/exclusions/reality constraints in one compact step instead of asking a loose series of chat questions.
- Goal gates that express user intent, business outcome, exclusions, or what counts as truly done should come from the user when unclear. Do not invent intent gates by yourself when doubt remains; ask and lock them first.
- Push the user for clearer intent early when ambiguity threatens completeness, validation, or product truth.
- For vague requests like `fix`, `improve`, `clean up`, `make it better`, or `handle this`, first lock target and done gate unless the task is clearly small and reversible.
- Small reversible defaults are allowed only when they do not materially change scope or success criteria.
- Before executing, verify: do I know the expected visible outcome, how `done` will be validated, what is out of scope, and whether the user wants analysis, plan, or direct execution? If not, ask first.


toolName: edit

text: Successfully replaced 1 block(s) in /home/sebas/pi-config/AGENTS.md.

diff:
     ...
  21 - Use subagents for recon, parallel work, or context isolation, but do not optimize for parallelization unless time pressure justifies it.
  22 - Prefer `ralph-loop-run` when the work is a bounded multi-pass audit, migration, or hardening pass on one repo and can be driven through shared `TASKS.md` / `STATE.md` handoff.
  23 - Good `ralph-loop-run` cases: accessibility sweeps, focused polish passes, test/backfill passes, real-backend migrations, and other cumulative review loops where each pass should pick up exactly where the previous one stopped.
  24 - Do not define Ralph loops mainly by a fixed number of passes. Default objective is to run until one goal gate is true: `done`, `blocked_with_reason`, or `needs_user_decision`.
- 25 - Before meaningful execution, lock the intent frame when not already explicit: objective, binary done gate, exclusions, and reality constraints that decide whether a feature is truthful.
- 26 - When intent is materially unclear and interactive UI is available, prefer the `questionnaire` tool to lock objective/done gate/exclusions/reality constraints in one compact step instead of asking a loose series of chat questions.
+ 25 - Before meaningful execution, run an intent check and lock the intent frame when not already explicit: objective, binary done gate, exclusions, and reality constraints that decide whether a feature is truthful.
+ 26 - If any of those fields are missing and more than one material interpretation is possible, do not execute yet.
+ 27 - Material ambiguity means it could change scope, risk, validation method, delivery form, business outcome, or visible UX.
+ 28 - When intent is materially unclear and interactive UI is available, use the `questionnaire` tool to lock objective/done gate/exclusions/reality constraints in one compact step instead of asking a loose series of chat questions.
  27 - Goal gates that express user intent, business outcome, exclusions, or what counts as truly done should come from the user when unclear. Do not invent intent gates by yourself when doubt remains; ask and lock them first.
  28 - Push the user for clearer intent early when ambiguity threatens completeness, validation, or product truth.
+ 31 - For vague requests like `fix`, `improve`, `clean up`, `make it better`, or `handle this`, first lock target and done gate unless the task is clearly small and reversible.
+ 32 - Small reversible defaults are allowed only when they do not materially change scope or success criteria.
+ 33 - Before executing, verify: do I know the expected visible outcome, how `done` will be validated, what is out of scope, and whether the user wants analysis, plan, or direct execution? If not, ask first.
  29 - You may derive technical checklists, feature states, and validator markers after intent gates are clear, but not substitute your own guessed intent for the user's done criteria.
  30 - Every Ralph loop must carry a binary checklist for visible success criteria. Validator tail checks that list item by item; no soft "mostly done" verdicts.
  31 - Use explicit feature states in loop artifacts for every visible feature: `real_working`, `real_read_only`, `blocked_hidden`, or `unknown_do_not_show`.
  32 - Hard rule: if a feature depends on business truth, never present fake/local placeholder backend as real. Validator must fail immediately on that condition.
     ...

patch:
--- /home/sebas/pi-config/AGENTS.md
+++ /home/sebas/pi-config/AGENTS.md
@@ -21,12 +21,17 @@
 - Use subagents for recon, parallel work, or context isolation, but do not optimize for parallelization unless time pressure justifies it.
 - Prefer `ralph-loop-run` when the work is a bounded multi-pass audit, migration, or hardening pass on one repo and can be driven through shared `TASKS.md` / `STATE.md` handoff.
 - Good `ralph-loop-run` cases: accessibility sweeps, focused polish passes, test/backfill passes, real-backend migrations, and other cumulative review loops where each pass should pick up exactly where the previous one stopped.
 - Do not define Ralph loops mainly by a fixed number of passes. Default objective is to run until one goal gate is true: `done`, `blocked_with_reason`, or `needs_user_decision`.
-- Before meaningful execution, lock the intent frame when not already explicit: objective, binary done gate, exclusions, and reality constraints that decide whether a feature is truthful.
-- When intent is materially unclear and interactive UI is available, prefer the `questionnaire` tool to lock objective/done gate/exclusions/reality constraints in one compact step instead of asking a loose series of chat questions.
+- Before meaningful execution, run an intent check and lock the intent frame when not already explicit: objective, binary done gate, exclusions, and reality constraints that decide whether a feature is truthful.
+- If any of those fields are missing and more than one material interpretation is possible, do not execute yet.
+- Material ambiguity means it could change scope, risk, validation method, delivery form, business outcome, or visible UX.
+- When intent is materially unclear and interactive UI is available, use the `questionnaire` tool to lock objective/done gate/exclusions/reality constraints in one compact step instead of asking a loose series of chat questions.
 - Goal gates that express user intent, business outcome, exclusions, or what counts as truly done should come from the user when unclear. Do not invent intent gates by yourself when doubt remains; ask and lock them first.
 - Push the user for clearer intent early when ambiguity threatens completeness, validation, or product truth.
+- For vague requests like `fix`, `improve`, `clean up`, `make it better`, or `handle this`, first lock target and done gate unless the task is clearly small and reversible.
+- Small reversible defaults are allowed only when they do not materially change scope or success criteria.
+- Before executing, verify: do I know the expected visible outcome, how `done` will be validated, what is out of scope, and whether the user wants analysis, plan, or direct execution? If not, ask first.
 - You may derive technical checklists, feature states, and validator markers after intent gates are clear, but not substitute your own guessed intent for the user's done criteria.
 - Every Ralph loop must carry a binary checklist for visible success criteria. Validator tail checks that list item by item; no soft "mostly done" verdicts.
 - Use explicit feature states in loop artifacts for every visible feature: `real_working`, `real_read_only`, `blocked_hidden`, or `unknown_do_not_show`.
 - Hard rule: if a feature depends on business truth, never present fake/local placeholder backend as real. Validator must fail immediately on that condition.


text:
Hecho.

Cambio metido en:
- `/home/sebas/pi-config/AGENTS.md`

Qué cambió:
- intent check obligatorio
- bloqueo si hay ambigüedad material
- `questionnaire` obligatorio en esos casos
- regla explícita para pedidos vagos
- mini checklist antes de ejecutar
- defaults solo si son chicos y reversibles

Si querés, siguiente paso útil:
- hago una pasada por el resto del sistema P para ver si hay prompts viejos que contradicen esto o lo debilitan.