Skip to content

investigate: harness-layer ideas from @yyz81681981 (PTC, spatiotemporal context, dreaming cycle) #4

Closed

Description

@datashaman

Source

https://x.com/yyz81681981/status/2050010715663257601?s=20 — quoted excerpt:

The real leverage is at the Harness layer:

  • Spatiotemporal management of context (spatial context vs. temporal context)
  • PTC execution model (Plan → Tool → Critique)
  • Sub-agent isolation + proactive memory (similar to Iris's dreaming cycle)
  • Constraint files / Skills as config, rather than rewriting the system prompt every time

Why this matters

The harness skill in this repo already implements adjacent ideas — operating-contract CLAUDE.md, hook-driven feedback loop (Stop → harness-check.sh), auto-memory, slash commands (/plan, /verify). The four bullets above name patterns that may already be present, partially present, or worth borrowing. Worth a structured read-through before deciding what (if anything) to pull in.

Investigation

For each bullet, answer:

  1. Spatiotemporal context management — spatial vs. temporal

    • What does the author mean? Find the original thread or any prior writing they've linked.
    • How does our harness handle each today? (e.g. CLAUDE.md is spatial; auto-memory + post-compact-reinject.sh is temporal.)
    • Gaps?
  2. PTC execution model — Plan → Tool → Critique

    • Compare to the existing /plan command and the verify-before-stop.sh gate. Is "Critique" a missing third leg, or is harness-check.sh already serving that role?
    • Is there a richer critique pattern worth adopting (self-review pass, structured failure modes)?
  3. Sub-agent isolation + proactive memory

    • The Iris "dreaming cycle" reference — find a primary source. What is it?
    • Where would proactive memory updates fit? (Currently auto-memory updates reactively when the agent learns something; a dreaming-cycle style would consolidate/prune on a cadence.)
  4. Constraint files / Skills as config

    • Already aligned: this repo is skills-as-config. Confirm there's nothing implied beyond what we already do.
    • Is the author pointing at a specific format (YAML constraints, policy files) that would extend our model?

Deliverable

A short writeup in docs/notes/ (or comment on this issue) with:

  • One paragraph per bullet
  • Verdict: already-have / worth-borrowing / not-applicable
  • For "worth-borrowing": a follow-up issue draft

Pointers

Activity

  1. self-assigned this
    on May 2, 2026
  2. datashaman commented on May 2, 2026

    @datashaman
    OwnerAuthor

    Spinoffs filed:

    Bullet 4 (skills as config) — verdict: already-have, no action.

  3. datashaman commented on May 2, 2026

    @datashaman
    OwnerAuthor

    Triage complete — all four bullets resolved:

    Closing as the meta-issue's job is done. Follow #7 for the remaining work.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

Labels

questionFurther information is requested

Projects

No projects

    Milestone

    No milestone

    Relationships

    None yet

    Development

    No branches or pull requests

    Issue actions