|
|
|
@@ -34,6 +34,13 @@ keywords:
|
|
|
|
|
- MCP
|
|
|
|
|
- Python sources
|
|
|
|
|
header-includes:
|
|
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
|
|
<style>
|
|
|
|
|
code {
|
|
|
|
|
white-space: pre-wrap;
|
|
|
|
|
word-break: break-word;
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
</style>
|
|
|
|
|
- \usepackage{graphicx}
|
|
|
|
|
- \usepackage{booktabs}
|
|
|
|
|
- \usepackage{hyperref}
|
|
|
|
@@ -41,6 +48,8 @@ header-includes:
|
|
|
|
|
- \usepackage[dvipsnames]{xcolor}
|
|
|
|
|
- \usepackage{fancyhdr}
|
|
|
|
|
- \pagestyle{fancy}
|
|
|
|
|
- \usepackage{fvextra}
|
|
|
|
|
- \fvset{breaklines=true, breaknonspaceingroup=true, breakanywhere=true}
|
|
|
|
|
- \fancyhead[L]{\small lda.chat}
|
|
|
|
|
- \fancyhead[R]{\small\leftmark}
|
|
|
|
|
- \fancyfoot[C]{\thepage}
|
|
|
|
@@ -48,7 +57,7 @@ header-includes:
|
|
|
|
|
- \setlength{\parindent}{0pt}
|
|
|
|
|
- \setkeys{Gin}{width=\linewidth,height=0.55\textheight,keepaspectratio}
|
|
|
|
|
- \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.3}
|
|
|
|
|
- \hypersetup{pdfauthor={lda.chat}, pdftitle={Design and Implementation of lda.chat}}
|
|
|
|
|
# - \hypersetup{pdfauthor={lda.chat}, pdftitle={Design and Implementation of lda.chat}}
|
|
|
|
|
diagram:
|
|
|
|
|
engine:
|
|
|
|
|
mermaid:
|
|
|
|
@@ -57,12 +66,12 @@ diagram:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# Introduction
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
External LLM agents are useful workflow authors and operators, but reusable
|
|
|
|
|
workspace automation needs a typed execution substrate. This report describes
|
|
|
|
|
the design and implementation of `lda.chat`, a prototype platform where agents
|
|
|
|
|
can author, validate, execute, and inspect reusable workspace workflows without
|
|
|
|
|
making the LLM itself responsible for runtime state, validation, source binding,
|
|
|
|
|
or persistence.
|
|
|
|
|
This report assumes a setting in which external LLM agents are used as workflow
|
|
|
|
|
authors and operators, and asks what platform substrate they need for reusable
|
|
|
|
|
workspace automation. It describes the design and implementation of `lda.chat`,
|
|
|
|
|
a prototype platform where agents can author, validate, execute, and inspect
|
|
|
|
|
reusable workspace workflows without making the LLM itself responsible for
|
|
|
|
|
runtime state, validation, source binding, or persistence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The central claim is that agent-facing workflow automation should separate
|
|
|
|
|
planning from execution. The LLM or human author can propose and revise workflow
|
|
|
|
@@ -74,7 +83,7 @@ platform represent, validate, execute, and persist reusable workspace
|
|
|
|
|
automations while keeping planning separate from deterministic execution?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The short version of the thesis is: the LLM plans; the runtime executes; source
|
|
|
|
|
providers expose capabilities; stores preserve durable lifecycle records. The
|
|
|
|
|
providers expose capabilities; stores preserve persisted lifecycle records. The
|
|
|
|
|
implementation demonstrates this model across controlled built-in, MCP, and
|
|
|
|
|
Python source examples.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@@ -98,23 +107,34 @@ discuss limitations and future work. Section 11 concludes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# Problem Statement And Requirements
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Many direct tool-calling agent patterns let an LLM orchestrate side effects
|
|
|
|
|
through sequential tool calls. This pattern can create several practical
|
|
|
|
|
problems for workspace automation:
|
|
|
|
|
A common pattern in agent systems lets an LLM orchestrate side effects
|
|
|
|
|
through sequential tool calls. ReAct-style prompting demonstrates interleaved
|
|
|
|
|
reasoning and action, while Toolformer-style work demonstrates learned external
|
|
|
|
|
API/tool use [@react-2022; @toolformer-2023].
|
|
|
|
|
The problem statement here is narrower: when a tool loop is used as a reusable
|
|
|
|
|
workspace automation substrate, several practical platform concerns appear.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- **Weak validation before execution.** A planner that assembles tool-call
|
|
|
|
|
sequences often lacks a typed contract describing what each step expects and
|
|
|
|
|
produces. Invalid plans reach the runtime and fail at execution time rather
|
|
|
|
|
than during authoring.
|
|
|
|
|
than during authoring. Structured-output work supports the design assumption
|
|
|
|
|
that schema adherence can be treated as an API/runtime contract rather than
|
|
|
|
|
left entirely to planner inference [@openai-structured-outputs-2024].
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- **Poor resumability after interruption.** Raw tool-call loops do not
|
|
|
|
|
checkpoint their progress. If the process restarts, the agent must reconstruct
|
|
|
|
|
its prior state from scratch or lose work.
|
|
|
|
|
its prior state from scratch or lose work. Durable agent frameworks expose
|
|
|
|
|
persistence/checkpoint layers specifically because continuation, failure
|
|
|
|
|
recovery, and memory across interactions are runtime concerns
|
|
|
|
|
[@langgraph-persistence-2026].
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- **Hard-to-audit traces.** Successful tool-call chains leave logs, but the
|
|
|
|
|
causal structure of a multi-step procedure is not separated from the transport
|
|
|
|
|
or provider noise. Inspecting what happened, why a step failed, or what the
|
|
|
|
|
intermediate state was requires manual log parsing.
|
|
|
|
|
intermediate state was requires manual log parsing. Recent
|
|
|
|
|
agent-auditability and LLM-accountability work frames action recoverability,
|
|
|
|
|
lifecycle coverage, and evidence integrity as explicit requirements
|
|
|
|
|
[@auditable-agents-2026; @audit-trails-llm-2026].
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- **Limited reuse.** A successful tool-call procedure is embedded in a
|
|
|
|
|
conversation transcript or script. Extracting it into a named, versioned,
|
|
|
|
@@ -132,7 +152,7 @@ arbitrary office work end-to-end. Examples include document transformation, data
|
|
|
|
|
collection, tool and API calls, report preparation, and monitoring checks.
|
|
|
|
|
Scheduled execution is a future deployment mode, not implemented in this
|
|
|
|
|
prototype. The thesis frames the platform as a response to these pressures: a
|
|
|
|
|
typed execution substrate where durable lifecycle records, validation, source
|
|
|
|
|
typed execution substrate where persisted lifecycle records, validation, source
|
|
|
|
|
binding, and trace inspection are first-class platform concerns rather than
|
|
|
|
|
responsibilities of the planner.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@@ -143,7 +163,7 @@ The design requirements that follow from this problem statement are:
|
|
|
|
|
and designed to admit future source families that can be projected into the
|
|
|
|
|
existing capability/source contract.
|
|
|
|
|
3. Server, API, and CLI surfaces that external agents can drive, backed by
|
|
|
|
|
durable lifecycle stores.
|
|
|
|
|
persisted lifecycle stores.
|
|
|
|
|
4. Validation and inspection mechanisms intended to reduce planner
|
|
|
|
|
trial-and-error.
|
|
|
|
|
5. Next-action guidance that points an agent toward useful lifecycle operations
|
|
|
|
@@ -163,10 +183,13 @@ qualitative positioning, not a benchmark across products.
|
|
|
|
|
Direct tool orchestration through an LLM is the most open-ended approach: the
|
|
|
|
|
planner can choose tools dynamically and adapt immediately. In this report's
|
|
|
|
|
framing, that flexibility becomes a problem when the tool loop is also expected
|
|
|
|
|
to provide durable lifecycle state, validation, audit structure, and
|
|
|
|
|
to provide persisted lifecycle records, validation, audit structure, and
|
|
|
|
|
resumability. The platform argues that reusable workspace automation benefits
|
|
|
|
|
from separating planning from a typed execution substrate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This comparison is to the bare tool-loop pattern, not to a tool loop embedded
|
|
|
|
|
inside an additional workflow, tracing, persistence, or orchestration framework.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## Generated Scripts
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Generated scripts are a serious baseline. For many tasks, a script is simpler,
|
|
|
|
@@ -174,49 +197,49 @@ more maintainable, and easier to debug than a workflow graph. The platform
|
|
|
|
|
argument is that reusable workspace automation benefits from lifecycle
|
|
|
|
|
affordances that scripts do not automatically provide: typed validation, source
|
|
|
|
|
binding, artifact/deployment separation, run records, resumability, trace
|
|
|
|
|
inspection, and repairable diagnostics.
|
|
|
|
|
inspection, and diagnostics with repair hints.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A script can be wrapped with these affordances, but then the comparison shifts
|
|
|
|
|
from "script" to a custom workflow platform assembled around the script.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## Workflow Automation Platforms
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Platforms such as Zapier and RPA tools are stronger today at polished
|
|
|
|
|
Zapier-style automation platforms are stronger today at polished
|
|
|
|
|
non-programmer UIs, large integration catalogs, hosted scheduling and triggers,
|
|
|
|
|
and operational maturity. Zapier's own documentation describes a hosted,
|
|
|
|
|
stateless runtime with explicit execution-time and payload constraints, plus
|
|
|
|
|
published Zap limits and rate limits. The prototype does not claim feature
|
|
|
|
|
parity with these products. Instead, it explores a different trade-off: a
|
|
|
|
|
platform where external AI agents can operate the full lifecycle directly,
|
|
|
|
|
where local Python and MCP sources share one workflow surface, and where
|
|
|
|
|
artifacts, deployments, runs, and traces are first-class inspectable records.
|
|
|
|
|
and operational maturity. This report uses Zapier as a representative hosted
|
|
|
|
|
automation platform rather than surveying the full RPA/workflow market.
|
|
|
|
|
Zapier's own documentation describes a hosted, stateless runtime with explicit
|
|
|
|
|
execution-time and payload constraints, plus published Zap limits and rate
|
|
|
|
|
limits [@zapier-operating-constraints; @zapier-zap-limits]. The prototype does
|
|
|
|
|
not claim feature parity with these products. Instead, it explores a different
|
|
|
|
|
trade-off: a platform where external AI agents can operate the full lifecycle
|
|
|
|
|
directly, where local Python and MCP sources share one workflow surface, and
|
|
|
|
|
where artifacts, deployments, runs, and traces are first-class inspectable
|
|
|
|
|
records.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## Agent Graph Frameworks
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LangGraph-style durable agent graphs share the idea of typed execution
|
|
|
|
|
substrates for agent workflows. LangGraph's official documentation positions it
|
|
|
|
|
as an orchestration runtime for long-running, stateful agents, with persistence,
|
|
|
|
|
human-in-the-loop behavior, and durable execution. The lda.chat platform focuses
|
|
|
|
|
on reusable workspace workflows backed by explicit source providers, where the
|
|
|
|
|
workflow is a deployable artifact independent of any particular agent instance.
|
|
|
|
|
human-in-the-loop behavior, and durable execution [@langgraph-overview-2026;
|
|
|
|
|
@langgraph-persistence-2026]. This is not a claim that `lda.chat` is more
|
|
|
|
|
durable or more general than LangGraph. The difference claimed here is the
|
|
|
|
|
artifact/deployment/run lifecycle and source-provider binding model for
|
|
|
|
|
reusable workspace automations.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## Model Context Protocol
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MCP is a useful protocol for exposing tools, resources, and prompts. Its
|
|
|
|
|
official lifecycle is a client-server connection lifecycle: initialization,
|
|
|
|
|
operation, and shutdown. It is not itself the workflow artifact, deployment, and
|
|
|
|
|
run lifecycle. The lda.chat platform treats MCP as one source family behind a
|
|
|
|
|
provider boundary, not as the product identity. This distinction is important:
|
|
|
|
|
MCP demonstrates why source-provider correctness matters, because a source may
|
|
|
|
|
require persistent sessions, auth context, catalog refresh, and prompt
|
|
|
|
|
inventory. The platform places this complexity behind a neutral
|
|
|
|
|
`CapabilitySource` interface.
|
|
|
|
|
operation, and shutdown [@mcp-tools-2025; @mcp-lifecycle-2025]. It is not
|
|
|
|
|
itself the workflow artifact, deployment, and run lifecycle. The lda.chat
|
|
|
|
|
platform treats MCP as one source family behind a provider boundary, not as the
|
|
|
|
|
product identity. This distinction is important: MCP demonstrates why
|
|
|
|
|
source-provider correctness matters, because a source may require persistent
|
|
|
|
|
sessions, auth context, catalog refresh, and prompt inventory. The platform
|
|
|
|
|
places this complexity behind a neutral `CapabilitySource` interface.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
External references used for this positioning include the MCP tools and
|
|
|
|
|
lifecycle specifications [@mcp-tools-2025; @mcp-lifecycle-2025], LangGraph's
|
|
|
|
|
overview and persistence documentation [@langgraph-overview-2026;
|
|
|
|
|
@langgraph-persistence-2026], Zapier's operating constraints and Zap limits
|
|
|
|
|
[@zapier-operating-constraints; @zapier-zap-limits], and agent evaluation
|
|
|
|
|
discussions such as SWE-bench Verified, NIST CAISI's examples of agent
|
|
|
|
|
evaluation cheating, and OpenAI's SWE-bench Verified audit
|
|
|
|
|
[@swebench-verified; @nist-agent-cheating-2025; @openai-swebench-audit-2026].
|
|
|
|
|
These sources contextualize the comparison; the implementation claims in this
|
|
|
|
|
report remain grounded in repository evidence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@@ -235,6 +258,7 @@ The document uses these terms with specific meanings:
|
|
|
|
|
| Source family | A class of source implementations. | built-in, MCP, Python |
|
|
|
|
|
| Source provider | Server-side code that loads or manages sources for a source family. | Python source loading |
|
|
|
|
|
| Tool | A provider-native operation before projection into workflow form. | MCP tool |
|
|
|
|
|
| Agent-operable | A surface designed for machine clients: structured output, explicit validation, stable commands, inspectability, and bounded summaries. It does not mean independently proven agent success rates. | `wf deploy validate`, `wf run trace` |
|
|
|
|
|
| Outcome | A control-flow label returned by a node and consumed by graph edges. | `ok`, `error`, `submitted` |
|
|
|
|
|
| Output | The data payload returned by a node or workflow. | `{ "report": "..." }` |
|
|
|
|
|
| Reducer | A pure state-merge operation selected by state schema. | `wf.std.replace`, `wf.std.append` |
|
|
|
|
@@ -267,7 +291,7 @@ aggregation. General fork/gather parallelism is future work, so this report
|
|
|
|
|
does not claim complete concurrent graph semantics. Interrupts represent typed
|
|
|
|
|
external input points. Subgraphs compose workflows as nodes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The graph model improves the safety posture by making automation structure
|
|
|
|
|
The graph model improves inspectability by making automation structure
|
|
|
|
|
explicit. Node contracts, source requirements, state writes, outcomes,
|
|
|
|
|
validation gates, and trace records are visible before and after execution. The
|
|
|
|
|
platform does not guarantee safe behavior from provider code, credentials, or
|
|
|
|
@@ -360,9 +384,9 @@ The resolution path for a source reference is:
|
|
|
|
|
4. The concrete source is looked up in the server's source inventory and
|
|
|
|
|
delegated to the appropriate runtime handler.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This design allows workflow portability across environments: the same artifact
|
|
|
|
|
can be deployed with different concrete source bindings, while the workflow
|
|
|
|
|
graph references logical names only.
|
|
|
|
|
This design provides a portability mechanism across environments: the same
|
|
|
|
|
artifact can be deployed with different concrete source bindings, while the
|
|
|
|
|
workflow graph references logical names only.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# System Architecture
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@@ -570,7 +594,7 @@ The implementation is organized into focused packages with clear boundaries:
|
|
|
|
|
| --- | --- |
|
|
|
|
|
| `wf_core` | Deterministic workflow kernel: graph execution, state, outcomes, trace, resume |
|
|
|
|
|
| `wf_authoring` | Authoring primitives: `NodeSpec`, `WorkflowBuilder`, DSL, reducer authoring, recipes |
|
|
|
|
|
| `wf_platform` | Neutral source DTOs, source visibility, permissions, and policy |
|
|
|
|
|
| `wf_platform` | Neutral source DTOs, source visibility, permission metadata, and policy |
|
|
|
|
|
| `wf_artifacts` | Artifact, deployment, and run models; file-backed stores; validation |
|
|
|
|
|
| `wf_api` | Application surface: capabilities, drafts, artifacts, deployments, runs |
|
|
|
|
|
| `wf_server` | `WorkflowServer` composition from config, stores, and source providers |
|
|
|
|
@@ -656,7 +680,7 @@ flowchart LR
|
|
|
|
|
Runs --> Live[Optional Live Source Checker]
|
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The diagram is important because it shows the design contribution at the
|
|
|
|
|
This diagram highlights the design contribution at the
|
|
|
|
|
application layer: drafts, artifacts, deployments, and runs are not independent
|
|
|
|
|
file operations. They share source inventory, stores, event recording, runtime
|
|
|
|
|
execution, validation, and live-source checks through one operation context.
|
|
|
|
@@ -712,9 +736,9 @@ diagnostics and runtime status remain the source of truth.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The `NextActions` object includes `can_continue`, `can_save_now`,
|
|
|
|
|
`recommended_next_tool`, `reason`, `patch_examples` with concrete request
|
|
|
|
|
payloads, and `warnings`. This makes the surface agent-operable: an LLM agent
|
|
|
|
|
can read the hint and execute the suggested operation without reconstructing
|
|
|
|
|
the lifecycle state.
|
|
|
|
|
payloads, and `warnings`. This is intended to make the surface agent-operable:
|
|
|
|
|
an LLM agent can read the hint and execute the suggested operation without
|
|
|
|
|
reconstructing the lifecycle state.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(Evidence: `src/wf_api/next_actions.py`.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@@ -738,10 +762,10 @@ The JSON-RPC-over-HTTP transport exposes the Workflow API Surface to CLI and
|
|
|
|
|
future HTTP clients. The transport is protocol-neutral; it maps JSON-RPC
|
|
|
|
|
method calls to `WorkflowApi` operations and returns structured JSON responses.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The CLI communicates over this transport. CLI commands are designed as
|
|
|
|
|
agent-operable first: structured output, status and inspect commands, validation
|
|
|
|
|
commands, compact summaries, and guarded destructive actions make the CLI a
|
|
|
|
|
practical surface for external agents.
|
|
|
|
|
The CLI communicates over this transport. CLI commands are designed for machine
|
|
|
|
|
clients as well as humans: structured output, status and inspect commands,
|
|
|
|
|
validation commands, compact summaries, and guarded destructive actions make
|
|
|
|
|
the CLI a practical surface for external agents.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(Evidence: `src/wf_transport_rpc_http/`, `src/wf_cli/`, `tests/wf_cli/`.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@@ -808,6 +832,12 @@ expressiveness. Graph features such as interrupts, foreach, subgraphs, joins,
|
|
|
|
|
and reducer behavior are covered by targeted tests and code evidence in the
|
|
|
|
|
evaluation section.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The thesis-critical automated report-workflow run is intentionally narrow: it
|
|
|
|
|
executes a single deterministic extraction node through the artifact,
|
|
|
|
|
deployment, and run lifecycle. The same Python source exposes additional
|
|
|
|
|
capabilities for discovery and extensibility evidence, and the supplemental
|
|
|
|
|
browser-click example covers a serial three-node workflow.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## Case Study Components
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The example bundle lives at
|
|
|
|
@@ -988,7 +1018,7 @@ benchmark.
|
|
|
|
|
| Deployment/source binding | Not inherent | Manual config | Platform-specific | Yes |
|
|
|
|
|
| Typed validation before run | Tool-schema dependent | Custom | Varies | Yes |
|
|
|
|
|
| Durable run record | Not inherent | Custom | Often yes | Yes, at stopped boundaries |
|
|
|
|
|
| Source drift diagnostics | Not inherent | Custom | Varies | Yes, controlled examples |
|
|
|
|
|
| Source drift diagnostics | Not inherent | Custom | Varies | Yes, schema-hash controlled examples |
|
|
|
|
|
| Agent-operable repair hints | Not inherent | Custom | Usually human UI | Prototype support |
|
|
|
|
|
| Scheduling | Depends on agent | External scheduler | Yes | Future work |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@@ -1007,12 +1037,37 @@ The evidence supporting the thesis claims includes:
|
|
|
|
|
| Interrupted runs resume at explicit boundaries | `tests/wf_api/test_run_api.py` and resume-concurrency tests | Stopped run state is persisted and resumed through the run API | Pass in focused test suite |
|
|
|
|
|
| Python source lifecycle works | `tests/examples/test_report_workflow_example.py` | Python capability -> artifact -> deployment -> run completes | Pass in focused test suite |
|
|
|
|
|
| Serial multi-node workflow works | `tests/examples/test_browser_click_workflow_example.py` | `open_click_page` -> `wait_for_click` -> `collect_snapshots` completes with before/after evidence | Pass in focused test suite |
|
|
|
|
|
| Agent challenge harness exists | `examples/agent_challenges/browser_click_challenge/` | Agents can be prompted, classified, and manually audited against a browser-click workflow challenge | Harness tests pass; aggregate model results pending |
|
|
|
|
|
| Agent challenge harness implementation exists; no aggregate agent-performance claim | `examples/agent_challenges/browser_click_challenge/` | Agents can be prompted, classified, and manually audited against a browser-click workflow challenge | Harness tests pass; aggregate model results pending |
|
|
|
|
|
| CLI and JSON-RPC share the API surface | `tests/wf_transport_rpc_http/` and `tests/wf_cli/` | Transport and CLI delegate to the same workflow operations | Pass in focused test suite |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The table summarizes repository evidence; it is not a substitute for rerunning
|
|
|
|
|
the verification commands before final submission.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## Verification Snapshot
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This draft includes one focused verification snapshot to make the evidence
|
|
|
|
|
claims auditable from the text. A final submission should regenerate this table
|
|
|
|
|
from the exact submitted commit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Field | Value |
|
|
|
|
|
| --- | --- |
|
|
|
|
|
| Date run | 2026-06-16 |
|
|
|
|
|
| Baseline commit | `e24f2892` before subsequent document-polish edits |
|
|
|
|
|
| Command | `uv run pytest tests/docs tests/examples/test_report_workflow_example.py tests/examples/test_browser_click_workflow_example.py tests/examples/test_opencode_browser_click_challenge.py tests/artifacts/test_validation.py tests/wf_api/test_run_api.py -q` |
|
|
|
|
|
| Result | `72 passed in 9.22s` |
|
|
|
|
|
| Environment | Local Windows development environment, Python via `uv` |
|
|
|
|
|
| Scope | Documentation links, report workflow, browser-click workflow, challenge harness, deployment validation, and run API tests |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## Implemented Scope Matrix
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Area | Implemented evidence | Not claimed | Future work |
|
|
|
|
|
| --- | ---- | ---- | ---- |
|
|
|
|
|
| Workflow lifecycle | Draft, artifact, deployment, run, trace, and list/inspect/resume surfaces | Exactly-once execution or arbitrary mid-node crash recovery | Transactional stores and richer run debugging |
|
|
|
|
|
| Source providers | Built-in, MCP, and Python source families | Symmetric feature depth across all providers | Provider add/update/remove/reload lifecycle |
|
|
|
|
|
| Execution model | Outcome-routed graph with node, condition, foreach, subgraph, join, interrupt, and end steps | General fork/gather programming model | Parallel fork/gather and aggregation |
|
|
|
|
|
| Agent-operable surface | CLI, JSON-RPC, validation diagnostics, next-action hints, compact output | Measured agent success or token reduction | Broader agent challenge suite and aggregate evaluation |
|
|
|
|
|
| Auth/security | Auth record plumbing and source diagnostics | Production security, encrypted-at-rest secrets, RBAC, sandboxing | Secret-manager integration and policy enforcement |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Architecture And Code Walkthrough
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The four-layer architecture (core, API surface, server composition, transport)
|
|
|
|
@@ -1032,8 +1087,8 @@ from plan to completed run.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tests verify that draft validation catches schema violations, deployment
|
|
|
|
|
validation detects source drift, and diagnostics include repair hints. The
|
|
|
|
|
validation tests demonstrate that failed states are machine-readable and
|
|
|
|
|
repairable.
|
|
|
|
|
validation tests demonstrate that failed states are machine-readable and include
|
|
|
|
|
repair guidance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(Evidence: `tests/artifacts/test_validation.py`, `tests/wf_api/test_source_admin_api.py`.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@@ -1258,11 +1313,11 @@ The following areas are identified as likely future work:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# Conclusion
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
External LLM agents can author and operate workflows, but reusable workflow
|
|
|
|
|
life cycle records should live in a typed platform substrate. This report
|
|
|
|
|
described the design and implementation of `lda.chat`, a prototype platform
|
|
|
|
|
that separates planning from execution across controlled built-in, MCP, and
|
|
|
|
|
Python source examples.
|
|
|
|
|
External LLM agents can be used to author and operate workflows, but reusable
|
|
|
|
|
workflow lifecycle records should live in a typed platform substrate. This
|
|
|
|
|
report described the design and implementation of `lda.chat`, a prototype
|
|
|
|
|
platform that separates planning from execution across controlled built-in,
|
|
|
|
|
MCP, and Python source examples.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The implementation supports five claims:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@@ -1272,10 +1327,10 @@ The implementation supports five claims:
|
|
|
|
|
one workflow surface, and is designed to admit future source families that
|
|
|
|
|
can be projected into the existing capability/source contract without
|
|
|
|
|
core-runtime changes.
|
|
|
|
|
3. Validation and diagnostics produce machine-readable repairable failure
|
|
|
|
|
states intended to reduce planner trial-and-error.
|
|
|
|
|
4. The CLI and JSON-RPC transport provide an agent-operable surface that
|
|
|
|
|
external LLM agents can drive without direct runtime access.
|
|
|
|
|
3. Validation and diagnostics produce machine-readable failure states with
|
|
|
|
|
repair hints, intended to reduce planner trial-and-error.
|
|
|
|
|
4. The CLI and JSON-RPC transport provide a surface designed for external LLM
|
|
|
|
|
agents to drive without direct runtime access.
|
|
|
|
|
5. The deterministic report-workflow case study demonstrates the full lifecycle
|
|
|
|
|
from config validation through run execution and trace inspection.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@@ -1388,18 +1443,119 @@ run trace <run_id> --from 0 --limit 5
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## Appendix B: Evidence Index
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
See [evidence-index.md](evidence-index.md) for the full claim-to-evidence map.
|
|
|
|
|
This appendix maps thesis claims to implementation evidence. It is a guardrail
|
|
|
|
|
against unsupported claims and complements the focused verification snapshot in
|
|
|
|
|
the Evaluation section.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Claim | Evidence |
|
|
|
|
|
| --- | ----- |
|
|
|
|
|
| Workflow lifecycle models | `src/wf_artifacts/models.py`, `src/wf_artifacts/runs/` |
|
|
|
|
|
| Source provider boundary | `src/wf_platform/sources.py`, `src/wf_server/config.py` |
|
|
|
|
|
| JSON-RPC/CLI surface | `src/wf_transport_rpc_http/`, `src/wf_cli/` |
|
|
|
|
|
| Python source case study | `examples/report_workflow/`, `tests/examples/test_report_workflow_example.py` |
|
|
|
|
|
| MCP stateful runtime | `tests/wf_sources_mcp/test_runtime.py`, `tests/wf_transport_rpc_http/test_mcp_backed_server_rpc.py` |
|
|
|
|
|
| Validation/diagnostics | `src/wf_artifacts/validation.py`, `src/wf_api/next_actions.py`, `tests/artifacts/test_validation.py` |
|
|
|
|
|
| Agent-operable surface | `src/wf_cli/`, `tests/wf_cli/` |
|
|
|
|
|
| Platform domain | `src/wf_api/service.py`, `tests/wf_api/test_artifact_api.py`, `tests/wf_api/test_run_api.py` |
|
|
|
|
|
### Core Workflow Lifecycle
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Claim: The platform separates mutable drafts, immutable artifacts, deployments,
|
|
|
|
|
runs, and traces.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Evidence:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- `src/wf_artifacts/models.py` — artifact/deployment models.
|
|
|
|
|
- `src/wf_artifacts/runs/` — run records and run store.
|
|
|
|
|
- `src/wf_api/service.py` — facade for workflow lifecycle operations.
|
|
|
|
|
- `tests/wf_api/test_artifact_api.py`
|
|
|
|
|
- `tests/wf_api/test_run_api.py`
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Source Provider Boundary
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Claim: Workflow execution consumes source-provided capabilities without making
|
|
|
|
|
the core runtime MCP-specific.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Evidence:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- `src/wf_platform/sources.py` — neutral source DTOs and source policy.
|
|
|
|
|
- `src/wf_server/config.py` — server composition for configured sources.
|
|
|
|
|
- `src/wf_sources_mcp/` — MCP source family.
|
|
|
|
|
- `src/wf_sources_python/` — Python source family.
|
|
|
|
|
- `docs/source_architecture.md`
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Agent-Operable Surface
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Claim: The workflow lifecycle is designed to be operated by external agents
|
|
|
|
|
through stable CLI/API surfaces.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Evidence:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- `src/wf_cli/`
|
|
|
|
|
- `src/wf_transport_rpc_http/`
|
|
|
|
|
- `tests/wf_cli/`
|
|
|
|
|
- `tests/wf_transport_rpc_http/`
|
|
|
|
|
- `docs/wf_cli.md`
|
|
|
|
|
- `examples/agent_challenges/browser_click_challenge/` — challenge harness for
|
|
|
|
|
CLI-operability trials; aggregate model results require manual audit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Validation And Diagnostics
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Claim: Validation and diagnostics make failed workflow states machine-readable
|
|
|
|
|
and include repair hints.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Evidence:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- `src/wf_artifacts/validation.py`
|
|
|
|
|
- `src/wf_api/next_actions.py`
|
|
|
|
|
- `src/wf_api/source_admin.py`
|
|
|
|
|
- `tests/artifacts/test_validation.py`
|
|
|
|
|
- `tests/wf_api/test_source_admin_api.py`
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Stateful MCP Source Correctness
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Claim: MCP-backed sources can preserve stateful sessions across workflow calls.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Evidence:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- `src/wf_sources_mcp/runtime/`
|
|
|
|
|
- `src/wf_sources_mcp/client/`
|
|
|
|
|
- `tests/wf_sources_mcp/test_runtime.py`
|
|
|
|
|
- `tests/wf_transport_rpc_http/test_mcp_backed_server_rpc.py`
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Python Source Case Study
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Claim: The source-provider model is not MCP-only.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Evidence:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- `examples/report_workflow/`
|
|
|
|
|
- `src/wf_sources_python/`
|
|
|
|
|
- `tests/examples/test_report_workflow_example.py`
|
|
|
|
|
- `tests/wf_sources_python/test_loader.py`
|
|
|
|
|
- `examples/browser_click_workflow/`
|
|
|
|
|
- `tests/examples/test_browser_click_workflow_example.py`
|
|
|
|
|
- `examples/agent_challenges/browser_click_challenge/`
|
|
|
|
|
- `tests/examples/test_opencode_browser_click_challenge.py`
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Agent Challenge Evaluation Protocol
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Claim: The project has a repeatable protocol for evaluating whether external
|
|
|
|
|
agents can use the product-facing CLI lifecycle, but aggregate model results are
|
|
|
|
|
not yet claimed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Evidence:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- `examples/agent_challenges/browser_click_challenge/workspace_template/prompt.md`
|
|
|
|
|
— challenge prompt and self-report schema.
|
|
|
|
|
- `examples/agent_challenges/browser_click_challenge/run_opencode_trials.py` —
|
|
|
|
|
trial runner.
|
|
|
|
|
- `examples/agent_challenges/browser_click_challenge/classification.py` —
|
|
|
|
|
convenience classifier for returned reports.
|
|
|
|
|
- `examples/agent_challenges/browser_click_challenge/reports.py` — report
|
|
|
|
|
extraction and saving.
|
|
|
|
|
- `tests/examples/test_opencode_browser_click_challenge.py`
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Limitations
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Claim: This is a prototype platform substrate, not a finished automation
|
|
|
|
|
product.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Evidence:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- `docs/add/thesis-outline.md`
|
|
|
|
|
- `docs/current_roadmap.md`
|
|
|
|
|
- Absence of scheduler, visual-editor, and secret-manager production packages
|
|
|
|
|
in the current source tree.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## Appendix C: Agent Challenge Harness
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@@ -1423,6 +1579,15 @@ The current browser-click prompt allows two product-facing authoring paths:
|
|
|
|
|
2. **Raw-plan path.** Write a raw workflow plan and load it with
|
|
|
|
|
`wf artifact create-from-plan`, then deploy and run.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
```mermaid
|
|
|
|
|
flowchart LR
|
|
|
|
|
Transcript[Agent transcript and files] --> YAML[YAML self-report]
|
|
|
|
|
YAML --> Classifier[Automatic convenience classification]
|
|
|
|
|
Transcript --> Audit[Manual audit]
|
|
|
|
|
Classifier --> Audit
|
|
|
|
|
Audit --> Outcome[Official outcome]
|
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The challenge report is a YAML self-report with fields for product-path use,
|
|
|
|
|
helper-script use, workflow file, deployment id, run id, before/after booleans,
|
|
|
|
|
read-behavior flags, attempt counts, missed requirements, and notes. The harness
|
|
|
|
@@ -1433,14 +1598,15 @@ product source code, adjacent attempts, prior stores, or existing solutions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This distinction is intentional. Agent benchmark literature and practice show
|
|
|
|
|
that automated scores and self-reports can be misleading when an agent can
|
|
|
|
|
inspect hidden answers, prior artifacts, source code, or evaluator state. The
|
|
|
|
|
harness therefore records possible invalidation flags such as helper-script
|
|
|
|
|
bypass, adjacent-attempt leakage, prior-store reuse, product-code dependency,
|
|
|
|
|
false YAML claims, timeouts, parse failures, and missing run evidence.
|
|
|
|
|
inspect hidden answers, prior artifacts, source code, or evaluator state
|
|
|
|
|
[@nist-agent-cheating-2025; @openai-swebench-audit-2026]. The harness therefore
|
|
|
|
|
records possible invalidation flags such as helper-script bypass,
|
|
|
|
|
adjacent-attempt leakage, prior-store reuse, product-code dependency, false YAML
|
|
|
|
|
claims, timeouts, parse failures, and missing run evidence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
At the time of this report, the harness and browser-click workflow are
|
|
|
|
|
implemented and unit-tested, and preliminary manual trials have already informed
|
|
|
|
|
CLI and prompt improvements. The report does not claim aggregate model success
|
|
|
|
|
implemented and unit-tested, and informal preliminary trials have informed CLI
|
|
|
|
|
and prompt improvements. The report does not claim aggregate model success
|
|
|
|
|
rates, timeout distributions, command counts, or retry-reduction results yet.
|
|
|
|
|
Those require repeated, clean-workspace trials across the selected free opencode
|
|
|
|
|
models and manual audit of saved trial reports.
|
|
|
|
|
