What happens
build_correction_injection uses one hardcoded template for every verdict, and it ends with:
Ask for permission to take that next step, then stop and wait for the user's answer.
So a Warning injects exactly the same stop order as OffTrack. Across all corrections delivered on our machines (~375, roughly half of them warning), every delivery was advisory at the harness level (exitCode: 0, never a blocking exit) — the stop comes purely from the template text. The practical effect: each correction forces an extra assistant turn (report + wait for the user), which the operator pays for, and on false positives it stalls an authorized session outright.
What we'd like
Either make the correction tail verdict-aware (advisory "take into account and continue" for warning, stop order reserved for off_track), or make the tail configurable. Related gap: the judge prompt lists both "warning" and "off_track" as verdict values but gives no criterion distinguishing them, so in practice they are chosen arbitrarily and behave identically.
What we run locally
We carry a local patch that makes the template advisory for every verdict (mention the flagged step in the next user-facing report, keep working, stop only before a destructive/hard-to-reverse step). Happy to send a PR in whichever shape you prefer — verdict-split, fully advisory, or config-keyed.
Tested against v0.2.2.
What happens
build_correction_injectionuses one hardcoded template for every verdict, and it ends with:So a
Warninginjects exactly the same stop order asOffTrack. Across all corrections delivered on our machines (~375, roughly half of themwarning), every delivery was advisory at the harness level (exitCode: 0, never a blocking exit) — the stop comes purely from the template text. The practical effect: each correction forces an extra assistant turn (report + wait for the user), which the operator pays for, and on false positives it stalls an authorized session outright.What we'd like
Either make the correction tail verdict-aware (advisory "take into account and continue" for
warning, stop order reserved foroff_track), or make the tail configurable. Related gap: the judge prompt lists both"warning"and"off_track"as verdict values but gives no criterion distinguishing them, so in practice they are chosen arbitrarily and behave identically.What we run locally
We carry a local patch that makes the template advisory for every verdict (mention the flagged step in the next user-facing report, keep working, stop only before a destructive/hard-to-reverse step). Happy to send a PR in whichever shape you prefer — verdict-split, fully advisory, or config-keyed.
Tested against v0.2.2.