feat(runtime): execute and grade immutable agent candidates

[drewstone]

Summary

• add one atomic path from a verified candidate bundle to a durable V2 run receipt
• execute detached task/profile/code bytes behind a one-shot cross-process claim with crash recovery
• bind the exact verified patch, task tree, executable grader bytes, raw grader output, protected trace, model ledger, and isolated memory evidence
• enforce separate frozen execution, cleanup, and result budgets with cancellation and lease fencing
• reject secret-bearing archives/manifests before persistence and keep recovery trace access read-only
• consume the published @tangle-network/agent-interface 0.22.0 receipt contract and profile materializer 0.3.0

Verification

• pnpm lint — 426 files clean
• pnpm run typecheck — runtime and examples clean
• pnpm test — 146 files, 1,420 passed, 2 skipped
• pnpm build — JavaScript and declarations built
• pnpm verify:package — public exports load
• pnpm docs:freshness — version, peer, symbol, and generated-catalog checks clean
• hostile re-audit — 4/4 reproduced timing/persistence failures fixed; 0 late result writes

No benchmark model calls were made in this change.

[drewstone]

@tangletools review the current head for merge.

[tangletools]

✅ Auto-approved drewstone PR — eedc44c8

This PR was opened by the trusted drewstone account.
The full PR reviewer audit still runs separately and will publish findings if it detects issues.

_{tangletools · auto-approval · reason: drewstone_author · 2026-07-11T06:00:22Z}

[tangletools]

🟢 Value Audit — sound

Verdict	sound
Concerns	0 (none)
Heuristic	0.0s
Duplication	0.0s
Interrogation	291.5s (2 bridge agents)
Total	291.5s

💰 Value — sound

Adds a durable, cross-process, exactly-once pipeline that turns a verified immutable candidate bundle into a tamper-evident V2 run receipt — a genuinely new layer that consumes the published substrate contracts rather than reinventing the in-process kernels, and it is in the repo's grain.

• What it does: A new src/candidate-execution/ subsystem (~27 files) with one atomic path: verifyAgentCandidateBundle (verify.ts:37, consumes agentCandidateBundleSchema from @tangle-network/agent-interface) → prepareAgentCandidateExecution (prepare.ts:95; materializes task/candidate/profile workspaces, delegates profile→harness to @tangle-network/agent-profile-materialize at prepare.ts:167-174, reserv
• Goals it achieves: Exactly-once, crash-recoverable execution of sealed benchmark candidates across processes/machines without double-grading, secret leakage, or unproven/late result writes (separate frozen execution/cleanup/result budgets, lease fencing, two-phase terminal commit, zero-model-call retry eligibility — claim.ts:76-91,215-222). It binds the full evidence chain (patch, task tree, executable grader bytes,
• Assessment: Good on its merits and in-grain. It is a real capability gap the existing kernels do not fill, and it follows the repo's hard rules: domain-clean via injected adapters (CLAUDE.md layering), profile realization delegated to substrate (materializeCandidateProfile/applyAgentCandidateWorkspacePlan, prepare.ts:25-28,167-174 — honoring the §1.5 'never write a profile→harness realizer' law), neutral
• Better / existing approach: None — this is the right approach. I checked the obvious existing equivalents and none cover durable cross-process candidate-bundle execution + receipts: src/runtime/superviseSpawnJournal/budget.ts:80 and driver-executor.ts are an in-process, single-tree content-addressed event log for equal-k replay/resume of the recursive atom (no cross-process claim/lease/terminal-CAS, no protected gra
• Model: opencode/kimi-for-coding/k2p7
• Bridge attempts: 1

🎯 Usefulness — sound

Adds a coherent verify→prepare→claim→execute→finalize spine that turns a sealed candidate bundle into a tamper-evident V2 run receipt, consuming real published contracts with no existing equivalent in the codebase.

• Integration: Fully reachable: exported via export * from './candidate-execution' at src/index.ts:35, and its symbols are already in the generated API catalog (docs/api/primitive-catalog.md:110-111,142) with the docs-freshness gate green. It consumes the published @tangle-network/agent-interface 0.22.0 contract — I confirmed `AgentCandidateRunReceiptV2 extends Omit<AgentCandidateRunReceiptV1, 'schemaVersion'>
• Fit with existing patterns: Fits the codebase grain precisely. Respects the layering law (agent-runtime → agent-eval, never reverse): imports TraceStore/BenchmarkEvaluation/isLlmSpan/REDACTION_VERSION from agent-eval and contract types from agent-interface, never imports agent-knowledge. Does NOT compete with the improvement/ module's CandidateGenerator/improvementDriver (src/improvement/improvement-driver.ts:36) — that
• Real-world viability: Rigorously handles the non-happy paths. Tests cover exactly-one-concurrent-invocation (tests/candidate-execution-execute.test.ts:710), hanging process stop leaving the claim for recovery (:993), unknown settlement blocking zero-spend guessing (:1061), zero-call retry only for pre-model failures (:1126), lease expiry, cross-process claim races, and replay terminal writes — 1,420 tests pass. The exe
• Model: opencode/zai-coding-plan/glm-5.2
• Bridge attempts: 1

No concerns — sound change, no better or existing approach found. ✅

---

What this audit checks

It judges the change on its merits — not whether it was tasked out in an issue. Unticketed, fast-moving work is fine; the question is whether the change is good and whether a better or existing approach should be used instead.

Pass	What it asks
Heuristic	Vague title? Whitespace-only or cruft-bearing diff? (content signals only)
Duplication	Do added function/class names already exist elsewhere in the repo?
Value Audit	What does it do? What goal does it achieve? Is it good? Better architecture or already-exists?
Usefulness Audit	Does it integrate and fit? Will it hold up in real use and actually get used?

Findings are concerns, not blocks — the human reviewer decides what to do with them.

_{value-audit · 20260711T060700Z}

[tangletools]

✅ Auto-approved drewstone PR — a4fec22e

This PR was opened by the trusted drewstone account.
The full PR reviewer audit still runs separately and will publish findings if it detects issues.

_{tangletools · auto-approval · reason: drewstone_author · 2026-07-11T06:15:17Z}

[tangletools]

✅ Auto-approved drewstone PR — fa6db037

This PR was opened by the trusted drewstone account.
The full PR reviewer audit still runs separately and will publish findings if it detects issues.

_{tangletools · auto-approval · reason: drewstone_author · 2026-07-11T06:19:52Z}

[drewstone]

Summary

• add one atomic path from a verified candidate bundle to a durable V2 run receipt
• execute detached task/profile/code bytes behind a one-shot cross-process claim with crash recovery
• bind the exact verified patch, task tree, executable grader bytes, raw grader output, protected trace, model ledger, and isolated memory evidence
• enforce separate frozen execution, cleanup, and result budgets with cancellation and lease fencing
• reject secret-bearing archives/manifests before persistence and keep recovery trace access read-only
• consume the published @tangle-network/agent-interface 0.22.0 receipt contract and profile materializer 0.3.0

Verification

• pnpm lint — 426 files clean
• pnpm run typecheck — runtime and examples clean
• pnpm test — 146 files, 1,420 passed, 2 skipped
• pnpm build — JavaScript and declarations built
• pnpm verify:package — public exports load
• pnpm docs:freshness — version, peer, symbol, and generated-catalog checks clean
• hostile re-audit — 4/4 reproduced timing/persistence failures fixed; 0 late result writes

No benchmark model calls were made in this change.

[drewstone]

@tangletools review the current head for merge.

[tangletools]

✅ Auto-approved drewstone PR — eedc44c8

This PR was opened by the trusted drewstone account.
The full PR reviewer audit still runs separately and will publish findings if it detects issues.

_{tangletools · auto-approval · reason: drewstone_author · 2026-07-11T06:00:22Z}

[tangletools]

🟢 Value Audit — sound

Verdict	sound
Concerns	0 (none)
Heuristic	0.0s
Duplication	0.0s
Interrogation	291.5s (2 bridge agents)
Total	291.5s

💰 Value — sound

Adds a durable, cross-process, exactly-once pipeline that turns a verified immutable candidate bundle into a tamper-evident V2 run receipt — a genuinely new layer that consumes the published substrate contracts rather than reinventing the in-process kernels, and it is in the repo's grain.

• What it does: A new src/candidate-execution/ subsystem (~27 files) with one atomic path: verifyAgentCandidateBundle (verify.ts:37, consumes agentCandidateBundleSchema from @tangle-network/agent-interface) → prepareAgentCandidateExecution (prepare.ts:95; materializes task/candidate/profile workspaces, delegates profile→harness to @tangle-network/agent-profile-materialize at prepare.ts:167-174, reserv
• Goals it achieves: Exactly-once, crash-recoverable execution of sealed benchmark candidates across processes/machines without double-grading, secret leakage, or unproven/late result writes (separate frozen execution/cleanup/result budgets, lease fencing, two-phase terminal commit, zero-model-call retry eligibility — claim.ts:76-91,215-222). It binds the full evidence chain (patch, task tree, executable grader bytes,
• Assessment: Good on its merits and in-grain. It is a real capability gap the existing kernels do not fill, and it follows the repo's hard rules: domain-clean via injected adapters (CLAUDE.md layering), profile realization delegated to substrate (materializeCandidateProfile/applyAgentCandidateWorkspacePlan, prepare.ts:25-28,167-174 — honoring the §1.5 'never write a profile→harness realizer' law), neutral
• Better / existing approach: None — this is the right approach. I checked the obvious existing equivalents and none cover durable cross-process candidate-bundle execution + receipts: src/runtime/superviseSpawnJournal/budget.ts:80 and driver-executor.ts are an in-process, single-tree content-addressed event log for equal-k replay/resume of the recursive atom (no cross-process claim/lease/terminal-CAS, no protected gra
• Model: opencode/kimi-for-coding/k2p7
• Bridge attempts: 1

🎯 Usefulness — sound

Adds a coherent verify→prepare→claim→execute→finalize spine that turns a sealed candidate bundle into a tamper-evident V2 run receipt, consuming real published contracts with no existing equivalent in the codebase.

• Integration: Fully reachable: exported via export * from './candidate-execution' at src/index.ts:35, and its symbols are already in the generated API catalog (docs/api/primitive-catalog.md:110-111,142) with the docs-freshness gate green. It consumes the published @tangle-network/agent-interface 0.22.0 contract — I confirmed `AgentCandidateRunReceiptV2 extends Omit<AgentCandidateRunReceiptV1, 'schemaVersion'>
• Fit with existing patterns: Fits the codebase grain precisely. Respects the layering law (agent-runtime → agent-eval, never reverse): imports TraceStore/BenchmarkEvaluation/isLlmSpan/REDACTION_VERSION from agent-eval and contract types from agent-interface, never imports agent-knowledge. Does NOT compete with the improvement/ module's CandidateGenerator/improvementDriver (src/improvement/improvement-driver.ts:36) — that
• Real-world viability: Rigorously handles the non-happy paths. Tests cover exactly-one-concurrent-invocation (tests/candidate-execution-execute.test.ts:710), hanging process stop leaving the claim for recovery (:993), unknown settlement blocking zero-spend guessing (:1061), zero-call retry only for pre-model failures (:1126), lease expiry, cross-process claim races, and replay terminal writes — 1,420 tests pass. The exe
• Model: opencode/zai-coding-plan/glm-5.2
• Bridge attempts: 1

No concerns — sound change, no better or existing approach found. ✅

---

What this audit checks

It judges the change on its merits — not whether it was tasked out in an issue. Unticketed, fast-moving work is fine; the question is whether the change is good and whether a better or existing approach should be used instead.

Pass	What it asks
Heuristic	Vague title? Whitespace-only or cruft-bearing diff? (content signals only)
Duplication	Do added function/class names already exist elsewhere in the repo?
Value Audit	What does it do? What goal does it achieve? Is it good? Better architecture or already-exists?
Usefulness Audit	Does it integrate and fit? Will it hold up in real use and actually get used?

Findings are concerns, not blocks — the human reviewer decides what to do with them.

_{value-audit · 20260711T060700Z}

[tangletools]

✅ Auto-approved drewstone PR — a4fec22e

This PR was opened by the trusted drewstone account.
The full PR reviewer audit still runs separately and will publish findings if it detects issues.

_{tangletools · auto-approval · reason: drewstone_author · 2026-07-11T06:15:17Z}

[tangletools]

✅ Auto-approved drewstone PR — fa6db037

This PR was opened by the trusted drewstone account.
The full PR reviewer audit still runs separately and will publish findings if it detects issues.

_{tangletools · auto-approval · reason: drewstone_author · 2026-07-11T06:19:52Z}

[drewstone]

Summary

• add one atomic path from a verified candidate bundle to a durable V2 run receipt
• execute detached task/profile/code bytes behind a one-shot cross-process claim with crash recovery
• bind the exact verified patch, task tree, executable grader bytes, raw grader output, protected trace, model ledger, and isolated memory evidence
• enforce separate frozen execution, cleanup, and result budgets with cancellation and lease fencing
• reject secret-bearing archives/manifests before persistence and keep recovery trace access read-only
• consume the published @tangle-network/agent-interface 0.22.0 receipt contract and profile materializer 0.3.0

Verification

• pnpm lint — 426 files clean
• pnpm run typecheck — runtime and examples clean
• pnpm test — 146 files, 1,420 passed, 2 skipped
• pnpm build — JavaScript and declarations built
• pnpm verify:package — public exports load
• pnpm docs:freshness — version, peer, symbol, and generated-catalog checks clean
• hostile re-audit — 4/4 reproduced timing/persistence failures fixed; 0 late result writes

No benchmark model calls were made in this change.

[drewstone]

@tangletools review the current head for merge.

[tangletools]

✅ Auto-approved drewstone PR — eedc44c8

This PR was opened by the trusted drewstone account.
The full PR reviewer audit still runs separately and will publish findings if it detects issues.

_{tangletools · auto-approval · reason: drewstone_author · 2026-07-11T06:00:22Z}

[tangletools]

🟢 Value Audit — sound

Verdict	sound
Concerns	0 (none)
Heuristic	0.0s
Duplication	0.0s
Interrogation	291.5s (2 bridge agents)
Total	291.5s

💰 Value — sound

Adds a durable, cross-process, exactly-once pipeline that turns a verified immutable candidate bundle into a tamper-evident V2 run receipt — a genuinely new layer that consumes the published substrate contracts rather than reinventing the in-process kernels, and it is in the repo's grain.

• What it does: A new src/candidate-execution/ subsystem (~27 files) with one atomic path: verifyAgentCandidateBundle (verify.ts:37, consumes agentCandidateBundleSchema from @tangle-network/agent-interface) → prepareAgentCandidateExecution (prepare.ts:95; materializes task/candidate/profile workspaces, delegates profile→harness to @tangle-network/agent-profile-materialize at prepare.ts:167-174, reserv
• Goals it achieves: Exactly-once, crash-recoverable execution of sealed benchmark candidates across processes/machines without double-grading, secret leakage, or unproven/late result writes (separate frozen execution/cleanup/result budgets, lease fencing, two-phase terminal commit, zero-model-call retry eligibility — claim.ts:76-91,215-222). It binds the full evidence chain (patch, task tree, executable grader bytes,
• Assessment: Good on its merits and in-grain. It is a real capability gap the existing kernels do not fill, and it follows the repo's hard rules: domain-clean via injected adapters (CLAUDE.md layering), profile realization delegated to substrate (materializeCandidateProfile/applyAgentCandidateWorkspacePlan, prepare.ts:25-28,167-174 — honoring the §1.5 'never write a profile→harness realizer' law), neutral
• Better / existing approach: None — this is the right approach. I checked the obvious existing equivalents and none cover durable cross-process candidate-bundle execution + receipts: src/runtime/superviseSpawnJournal/budget.ts:80 and driver-executor.ts are an in-process, single-tree content-addressed event log for equal-k replay/resume of the recursive atom (no cross-process claim/lease/terminal-CAS, no protected gra
• Model: opencode/kimi-for-coding/k2p7
• Bridge attempts: 1

🎯 Usefulness — sound

Adds a coherent verify→prepare→claim→execute→finalize spine that turns a sealed candidate bundle into a tamper-evident V2 run receipt, consuming real published contracts with no existing equivalent in the codebase.

• Integration: Fully reachable: exported via export * from './candidate-execution' at src/index.ts:35, and its symbols are already in the generated API catalog (docs/api/primitive-catalog.md:110-111,142) with the docs-freshness gate green. It consumes the published @tangle-network/agent-interface 0.22.0 contract — I confirmed `AgentCandidateRunReceiptV2 extends Omit<AgentCandidateRunReceiptV1, 'schemaVersion'>
• Fit with existing patterns: Fits the codebase grain precisely. Respects the layering law (agent-runtime → agent-eval, never reverse): imports TraceStore/BenchmarkEvaluation/isLlmSpan/REDACTION_VERSION from agent-eval and contract types from agent-interface, never imports agent-knowledge. Does NOT compete with the improvement/ module's CandidateGenerator/improvementDriver (src/improvement/improvement-driver.ts:36) — that
• Real-world viability: Rigorously handles the non-happy paths. Tests cover exactly-one-concurrent-invocation (tests/candidate-execution-execute.test.ts:710), hanging process stop leaving the claim for recovery (:993), unknown settlement blocking zero-spend guessing (:1061), zero-call retry only for pre-model failures (:1126), lease expiry, cross-process claim races, and replay terminal writes — 1,420 tests pass. The exe
• Model: opencode/zai-coding-plan/glm-5.2
• Bridge attempts: 1

No concerns — sound change, no better or existing approach found. ✅

---

What this audit checks

It judges the change on its merits — not whether it was tasked out in an issue. Unticketed, fast-moving work is fine; the question is whether the change is good and whether a better or existing approach should be used instead.

Pass	What it asks
Heuristic	Vague title? Whitespace-only or cruft-bearing diff? (content signals only)
Duplication	Do added function/class names already exist elsewhere in the repo?
Value Audit	What does it do? What goal does it achieve? Is it good? Better architecture or already-exists?
Usefulness Audit	Does it integrate and fit? Will it hold up in real use and actually get used?

Findings are concerns, not blocks — the human reviewer decides what to do with them.

_{value-audit · 20260711T060700Z}

[tangletools]

✅ Auto-approved drewstone PR — a4fec22e

This PR was opened by the trusted drewstone account.
The full PR reviewer audit still runs separately and will publish findings if it detects issues.

_{tangletools · auto-approval · reason: drewstone_author · 2026-07-11T06:15:17Z}

[tangletools]

✅ Auto-approved drewstone PR — fa6db037

This PR was opened by the trusted drewstone account.
The full PR reviewer audit still runs separately and will publish findings if it detects issues.

_{tangletools · auto-approval · reason: drewstone_author · 2026-07-11T06:19:52Z}

[drewstone]

Summary

• add one atomic path from a verified candidate bundle to a durable V2 run receipt
• execute detached task/profile/code bytes behind a one-shot cross-process claim with crash recovery
• bind the exact verified patch, task tree, executable grader bytes, raw grader output, protected trace, model ledger, and isolated memory evidence
• enforce separate frozen execution, cleanup, and result budgets with cancellation and lease fencing
• reject secret-bearing archives/manifests before persistence and keep recovery trace access read-only
• consume the published @tangle-network/agent-interface 0.22.0 receipt contract and profile materializer 0.3.0

Verification

• pnpm lint — 426 files clean
• pnpm run typecheck — runtime and examples clean
• pnpm test — 146 files, 1,420 passed, 2 skipped
• pnpm build — JavaScript and declarations built
• pnpm verify:package — public exports load
• pnpm docs:freshness — version, peer, symbol, and generated-catalog checks clean
• hostile re-audit — 4/4 reproduced timing/persistence failures fixed; 0 late result writes

No benchmark model calls were made in this change.

[drewstone]

@tangletools review the current head for merge.

[tangletools]

✅ Auto-approved drewstone PR — eedc44c8

This PR was opened by the trusted drewstone account.
The full PR reviewer audit still runs separately and will publish findings if it detects issues.

_{tangletools · auto-approval · reason: drewstone_author · 2026-07-11T06:00:22Z}

[tangletools]

🟢 Value Audit — sound

Verdict	sound
Concerns	0 (none)
Heuristic	0.0s
Duplication	0.0s
Interrogation	291.5s (2 bridge agents)
Total	291.5s

💰 Value — sound

Adds a durable, cross-process, exactly-once pipeline that turns a verified immutable candidate bundle into a tamper-evident V2 run receipt — a genuinely new layer that consumes the published substrate contracts rather than reinventing the in-process kernels, and it is in the repo's grain.

• What it does: A new src/candidate-execution/ subsystem (~27 files) with one atomic path: verifyAgentCandidateBundle (verify.ts:37, consumes agentCandidateBundleSchema from @tangle-network/agent-interface) → prepareAgentCandidateExecution (prepare.ts:95; materializes task/candidate/profile workspaces, delegates profile→harness to @tangle-network/agent-profile-materialize at prepare.ts:167-174, reserv
• Goals it achieves: Exactly-once, crash-recoverable execution of sealed benchmark candidates across processes/machines without double-grading, secret leakage, or unproven/late result writes (separate frozen execution/cleanup/result budgets, lease fencing, two-phase terminal commit, zero-model-call retry eligibility — claim.ts:76-91,215-222). It binds the full evidence chain (patch, task tree, executable grader bytes,
• Assessment: Good on its merits and in-grain. It is a real capability gap the existing kernels do not fill, and it follows the repo's hard rules: domain-clean via injected adapters (CLAUDE.md layering), profile realization delegated to substrate (materializeCandidateProfile/applyAgentCandidateWorkspacePlan, prepare.ts:25-28,167-174 — honoring the §1.5 'never write a profile→harness realizer' law), neutral
• Better / existing approach: None — this is the right approach. I checked the obvious existing equivalents and none cover durable cross-process candidate-bundle execution + receipts: src/runtime/superviseSpawnJournal/budget.ts:80 and driver-executor.ts are an in-process, single-tree content-addressed event log for equal-k replay/resume of the recursive atom (no cross-process claim/lease/terminal-CAS, no protected gra
• Model: opencode/kimi-for-coding/k2p7
• Bridge attempts: 1

🎯 Usefulness — sound

Adds a coherent verify→prepare→claim→execute→finalize spine that turns a sealed candidate bundle into a tamper-evident V2 run receipt, consuming real published contracts with no existing equivalent in the codebase.

• Integration: Fully reachable: exported via export * from './candidate-execution' at src/index.ts:35, and its symbols are already in the generated API catalog (docs/api/primitive-catalog.md:110-111,142) with the docs-freshness gate green. It consumes the published @tangle-network/agent-interface 0.22.0 contract — I confirmed `AgentCandidateRunReceiptV2 extends Omit<AgentCandidateRunReceiptV1, 'schemaVersion'>
• Fit with existing patterns: Fits the codebase grain precisely. Respects the layering law (agent-runtime → agent-eval, never reverse): imports TraceStore/BenchmarkEvaluation/isLlmSpan/REDACTION_VERSION from agent-eval and contract types from agent-interface, never imports agent-knowledge. Does NOT compete with the improvement/ module's CandidateGenerator/improvementDriver (src/improvement/improvement-driver.ts:36) — that
• Real-world viability: Rigorously handles the non-happy paths. Tests cover exactly-one-concurrent-invocation (tests/candidate-execution-execute.test.ts:710), hanging process stop leaving the claim for recovery (:993), unknown settlement blocking zero-spend guessing (:1061), zero-call retry only for pre-model failures (:1126), lease expiry, cross-process claim races, and replay terminal writes — 1,420 tests pass. The exe
• Model: opencode/zai-coding-plan/glm-5.2
• Bridge attempts: 1

No concerns — sound change, no better or existing approach found. ✅

---

What this audit checks

It judges the change on its merits — not whether it was tasked out in an issue. Unticketed, fast-moving work is fine; the question is whether the change is good and whether a better or existing approach should be used instead.

Pass	What it asks
Heuristic	Vague title? Whitespace-only or cruft-bearing diff? (content signals only)
Duplication	Do added function/class names already exist elsewhere in the repo?
Value Audit	What does it do? What goal does it achieve? Is it good? Better architecture or already-exists?
Usefulness Audit	Does it integrate and fit? Will it hold up in real use and actually get used?

Findings are concerns, not blocks — the human reviewer decides what to do with them.

_{value-audit · 20260711T060700Z}

[tangletools]

✅ Auto-approved drewstone PR — a4fec22e

This PR was opened by the trusted drewstone account.
The full PR reviewer audit still runs separately and will publish findings if it detects issues.

_{tangletools · auto-approval · reason: drewstone_author · 2026-07-11T06:15:17Z}

[tangletools]

✅ Auto-approved drewstone PR — fa6db037

This PR was opened by the trusted drewstone account.
The full PR reviewer audit still runs separately and will publish findings if it detects issues.

_{tangletools · auto-approval · reason: drewstone_author · 2026-07-11T06:19:52Z}

[drewstone]

Summary

• add one atomic path from a verified candidate bundle to a durable V2 run receipt
• execute detached task/profile/code bytes behind a one-shot cross-process claim with crash recovery
• bind the exact verified patch, task tree, executable grader bytes, raw grader output, protected trace, model ledger, and isolated memory evidence
• enforce separate frozen execution, cleanup, and result budgets with cancellation and lease fencing
• reject secret-bearing archives/manifests before persistence and keep recovery trace access read-only
• consume the published @tangle-network/agent-interface 0.22.0 receipt contract and profile materializer 0.3.0

Verification

• pnpm lint — 426 files clean
• pnpm run typecheck — runtime and examples clean
• pnpm test — 146 files, 1,420 passed, 2 skipped
• pnpm build — JavaScript and declarations built
• pnpm verify:package — public exports load
• pnpm docs:freshness — version, peer, symbol, and generated-catalog checks clean
• hostile re-audit — 4/4 reproduced timing/persistence failures fixed; 0 late result writes

No benchmark model calls were made in this change.

[drewstone]

@tangletools review the current head for merge.

[tangletools]

✅ Auto-approved drewstone PR — eedc44c8

This PR was opened by the trusted drewstone account.
The full PR reviewer audit still runs separately and will publish findings if it detects issues.

_{tangletools · auto-approval · reason: drewstone_author · 2026-07-11T06:00:22Z}

[tangletools]

🟢 Value Audit — sound

Verdict	sound
Concerns	0 (none)
Heuristic	0.0s
Duplication	0.0s
Interrogation	291.5s (2 bridge agents)
Total	291.5s

💰 Value — sound

Adds a durable, cross-process, exactly-once pipeline that turns a verified immutable candidate bundle into a tamper-evident V2 run receipt — a genuinely new layer that consumes the published substrate contracts rather than reinventing the in-process kernels, and it is in the repo's grain.

• What it does: A new src/candidate-execution/ subsystem (~27 files) with one atomic path: verifyAgentCandidateBundle (verify.ts:37, consumes agentCandidateBundleSchema from @tangle-network/agent-interface) → prepareAgentCandidateExecution (prepare.ts:95; materializes task/candidate/profile workspaces, delegates profile→harness to @tangle-network/agent-profile-materialize at prepare.ts:167-174, reserv
• Goals it achieves: Exactly-once, crash-recoverable execution of sealed benchmark candidates across processes/machines without double-grading, secret leakage, or unproven/late result writes (separate frozen execution/cleanup/result budgets, lease fencing, two-phase terminal commit, zero-model-call retry eligibility — claim.ts:76-91,215-222). It binds the full evidence chain (patch, task tree, executable grader bytes,
• Assessment: Good on its merits and in-grain. It is a real capability gap the existing kernels do not fill, and it follows the repo's hard rules: domain-clean via injected adapters (CLAUDE.md layering), profile realization delegated to substrate (materializeCandidateProfile/applyAgentCandidateWorkspacePlan, prepare.ts:25-28,167-174 — honoring the §1.5 'never write a profile→harness realizer' law), neutral
• Better / existing approach: None — this is the right approach. I checked the obvious existing equivalents and none cover durable cross-process candidate-bundle execution + receipts: src/runtime/superviseSpawnJournal/budget.ts:80 and driver-executor.ts are an in-process, single-tree content-addressed event log for equal-k replay/resume of the recursive atom (no cross-process claim/lease/terminal-CAS, no protected gra
• Model: opencode/kimi-for-coding/k2p7
• Bridge attempts: 1

🎯 Usefulness — sound

Adds a coherent verify→prepare→claim→execute→finalize spine that turns a sealed candidate bundle into a tamper-evident V2 run receipt, consuming real published contracts with no existing equivalent in the codebase.

• Integration: Fully reachable: exported via export * from './candidate-execution' at src/index.ts:35, and its symbols are already in the generated API catalog (docs/api/primitive-catalog.md:110-111,142) with the docs-freshness gate green. It consumes the published @tangle-network/agent-interface 0.22.0 contract — I confirmed `AgentCandidateRunReceiptV2 extends Omit<AgentCandidateRunReceiptV1, 'schemaVersion'>
• Fit with existing patterns: Fits the codebase grain precisely. Respects the layering law (agent-runtime → agent-eval, never reverse): imports TraceStore/BenchmarkEvaluation/isLlmSpan/REDACTION_VERSION from agent-eval and contract types from agent-interface, never imports agent-knowledge. Does NOT compete with the improvement/ module's CandidateGenerator/improvementDriver (src/improvement/improvement-driver.ts:36) — that
• Real-world viability: Rigorously handles the non-happy paths. Tests cover exactly-one-concurrent-invocation (tests/candidate-execution-execute.test.ts:710), hanging process stop leaving the claim for recovery (:993), unknown settlement blocking zero-spend guessing (:1061), zero-call retry only for pre-model failures (:1126), lease expiry, cross-process claim races, and replay terminal writes — 1,420 tests pass. The exe
• Model: opencode/zai-coding-plan/glm-5.2
• Bridge attempts: 1

No concerns — sound change, no better or existing approach found. ✅

---

What this audit checks

It judges the change on its merits — not whether it was tasked out in an issue. Unticketed, fast-moving work is fine; the question is whether the change is good and whether a better or existing approach should be used instead.

Pass	What it asks
Heuristic	Vague title? Whitespace-only or cruft-bearing diff? (content signals only)
Duplication	Do added function/class names already exist elsewhere in the repo?
Value Audit	What does it do? What goal does it achieve? Is it good? Better architecture or already-exists?
Usefulness Audit	Does it integrate and fit? Will it hold up in real use and actually get used?

Findings are concerns, not blocks — the human reviewer decides what to do with them.

_{value-audit · 20260711T060700Z}

[tangletools]

✅ Auto-approved drewstone PR — a4fec22e

This PR was opened by the trusted drewstone account.
The full PR reviewer audit still runs separately and will publish findings if it detects issues.

_{tangletools · auto-approval · reason: drewstone_author · 2026-07-11T06:15:17Z}

[tangletools]

✅ Auto-approved drewstone PR — fa6db037

This PR was opened by the trusted drewstone account.
The full PR reviewer audit still runs separately and will publish findings if it detects issues.

_{tangletools · auto-approval · reason: drewstone_author · 2026-07-11T06:19:52Z}

[drewstone]

Summary

• add one atomic path from a verified candidate bundle to a durable V2 run receipt
• execute detached task/profile/code bytes behind a one-shot cross-process claim with crash recovery
• bind the exact verified patch, task tree, executable grader bytes, raw grader output, protected trace, model ledger, and isolated memory evidence
• enforce separate frozen execution, cleanup, and result budgets with cancellation and lease fencing
• reject secret-bearing archives/manifests before persistence and keep recovery trace access read-only
• consume the published @tangle-network/agent-interface 0.22.0 receipt contract and profile materializer 0.3.0

Verification

• pnpm lint — 426 files clean
• pnpm run typecheck — runtime and examples clean
• pnpm test — 146 files, 1,420 passed, 2 skipped
• pnpm build — JavaScript and declarations built
• pnpm verify:package — public exports load
• pnpm docs:freshness — version, peer, symbol, and generated-catalog checks clean
• hostile re-audit — 4/4 reproduced timing/persistence failures fixed; 0 late result writes

No benchmark model calls were made in this change.

[drewstone]

@tangletools review the current head for merge.

[tangletools]

✅ Auto-approved drewstone PR — eedc44c8

This PR was opened by the trusted drewstone account.
The full PR reviewer audit still runs separately and will publish findings if it detects issues.

_{tangletools · auto-approval · reason: drewstone_author · 2026-07-11T06:00:22Z}

[tangletools]

🟢 Value Audit — sound

Verdict	sound
Concerns	0 (none)
Heuristic	0.0s
Duplication	0.0s
Interrogation	291.5s (2 bridge agents)
Total	291.5s

💰 Value — sound

Adds a durable, cross-process, exactly-once pipeline that turns a verified immutable candidate bundle into a tamper-evident V2 run receipt — a genuinely new layer that consumes the published substrate contracts rather than reinventing the in-process kernels, and it is in the repo's grain.

• What it does: A new src/candidate-execution/ subsystem (~27 files) with one atomic path: verifyAgentCandidateBundle (verify.ts:37, consumes agentCandidateBundleSchema from @tangle-network/agent-interface) → prepareAgentCandidateExecution (prepare.ts:95; materializes task/candidate/profile workspaces, delegates profile→harness to @tangle-network/agent-profile-materialize at prepare.ts:167-174, reserv
• Goals it achieves: Exactly-once, crash-recoverable execution of sealed benchmark candidates across processes/machines without double-grading, secret leakage, or unproven/late result writes (separate frozen execution/cleanup/result budgets, lease fencing, two-phase terminal commit, zero-model-call retry eligibility — claim.ts:76-91,215-222). It binds the full evidence chain (patch, task tree, executable grader bytes,
• Assessment: Good on its merits and in-grain. It is a real capability gap the existing kernels do not fill, and it follows the repo's hard rules: domain-clean via injected adapters (CLAUDE.md layering), profile realization delegated to substrate (materializeCandidateProfile/applyAgentCandidateWorkspacePlan, prepare.ts:25-28,167-174 — honoring the §1.5 'never write a profile→harness realizer' law), neutral
• Better / existing approach: None — this is the right approach. I checked the obvious existing equivalents and none cover durable cross-process candidate-bundle execution + receipts: src/runtime/superviseSpawnJournal/budget.ts:80 and driver-executor.ts are an in-process, single-tree content-addressed event log for equal-k replay/resume of the recursive atom (no cross-process claim/lease/terminal-CAS, no protected gra
• Model: opencode/kimi-for-coding/k2p7
• Bridge attempts: 1

🎯 Usefulness — sound

Adds a coherent verify→prepare→claim→execute→finalize spine that turns a sealed candidate bundle into a tamper-evident V2 run receipt, consuming real published contracts with no existing equivalent in the codebase.

• Integration: Fully reachable: exported via export * from './candidate-execution' at src/index.ts:35, and its symbols are already in the generated API catalog (docs/api/primitive-catalog.md:110-111,142) with the docs-freshness gate green. It consumes the published @tangle-network/agent-interface 0.22.0 contract — I confirmed `AgentCandidateRunReceiptV2 extends Omit<AgentCandidateRunReceiptV1, 'schemaVersion'>
• Fit with existing patterns: Fits the codebase grain precisely. Respects the layering law (agent-runtime → agent-eval, never reverse): imports TraceStore/BenchmarkEvaluation/isLlmSpan/REDACTION_VERSION from agent-eval and contract types from agent-interface, never imports agent-knowledge. Does NOT compete with the improvement/ module's CandidateGenerator/improvementDriver (src/improvement/improvement-driver.ts:36) — that
• Real-world viability: Rigorously handles the non-happy paths. Tests cover exactly-one-concurrent-invocation (tests/candidate-execution-execute.test.ts:710), hanging process stop leaving the claim for recovery (:993), unknown settlement blocking zero-spend guessing (:1061), zero-call retry only for pre-model failures (:1126), lease expiry, cross-process claim races, and replay terminal writes — 1,420 tests pass. The exe
• Model: opencode/zai-coding-plan/glm-5.2
• Bridge attempts: 1

No concerns — sound change, no better or existing approach found. ✅

---

What this audit checks

It judges the change on its merits — not whether it was tasked out in an issue. Unticketed, fast-moving work is fine; the question is whether the change is good and whether a better or existing approach should be used instead.

Pass	What it asks
Heuristic	Vague title? Whitespace-only or cruft-bearing diff? (content signals only)
Duplication	Do added function/class names already exist elsewhere in the repo?
Value Audit	What does it do? What goal does it achieve? Is it good? Better architecture or already-exists?
Usefulness Audit	Does it integrate and fit? Will it hold up in real use and actually get used?

Findings are concerns, not blocks — the human reviewer decides what to do with them.

_{value-audit · 20260711T060700Z}

[tangletools]

✅ Auto-approved drewstone PR — a4fec22e

This PR was opened by the trusted drewstone account.
The full PR reviewer audit still runs separately and will publish findings if it detects issues.

_{tangletools · auto-approval · reason: drewstone_author · 2026-07-11T06:15:17Z}

[tangletools]

✅ Auto-approved drewstone PR — fa6db037

This PR was opened by the trusted drewstone account.
The full PR reviewer audit still runs separately and will publish findings if it detects issues.

_{tangletools · auto-approval · reason: drewstone_author · 2026-07-11T06:19:52Z}

[drewstone]

Summary

• add one atomic path from a verified candidate bundle to a durable V2 run receipt
• execute detached task/profile/code bytes behind a one-shot cross-process claim with crash recovery
• bind the exact verified patch, task tree, executable grader bytes, raw grader output, protected trace, model ledger, and isolated memory evidence
• enforce separate frozen execution, cleanup, and result budgets with cancellation and lease fencing
• reject secret-bearing archives/manifests before persistence and keep recovery trace access read-only
• consume the published @tangle-network/agent-interface 0.22.0 receipt contract and profile materializer 0.3.0

Verification

• pnpm lint — 426 files clean
• pnpm run typecheck — runtime and examples clean
• pnpm test — 146 files, 1,420 passed, 2 skipped
• pnpm build — JavaScript and declarations built
• pnpm verify:package — public exports load
• pnpm docs:freshness — version, peer, symbol, and generated-catalog checks clean
• hostile re-audit — 4/4 reproduced timing/persistence failures fixed; 0 late result writes

No benchmark model calls were made in this change.

[drewstone]

@tangletools review the current head for merge.

[tangletools]

✅ Auto-approved drewstone PR — eedc44c8

This PR was opened by the trusted drewstone account.
The full PR reviewer audit still runs separately and will publish findings if it detects issues.

_{tangletools · auto-approval · reason: drewstone_author · 2026-07-11T06:00:22Z}

[tangletools]

🟢 Value Audit — sound

Verdict	sound
Concerns	0 (none)
Heuristic	0.0s
Duplication	0.0s
Interrogation	291.5s (2 bridge agents)
Total	291.5s

💰 Value — sound

Adds a durable, cross-process, exactly-once pipeline that turns a verified immutable candidate bundle into a tamper-evident V2 run receipt — a genuinely new layer that consumes the published substrate contracts rather than reinventing the in-process kernels, and it is in the repo's grain.

• What it does: A new src/candidate-execution/ subsystem (~27 files) with one atomic path: verifyAgentCandidateBundle (verify.ts:37, consumes agentCandidateBundleSchema from @tangle-network/agent-interface) → prepareAgentCandidateExecution (prepare.ts:95; materializes task/candidate/profile workspaces, delegates profile→harness to @tangle-network/agent-profile-materialize at prepare.ts:167-174, reserv
• Goals it achieves: Exactly-once, crash-recoverable execution of sealed benchmark candidates across processes/machines without double-grading, secret leakage, or unproven/late result writes (separate frozen execution/cleanup/result budgets, lease fencing, two-phase terminal commit, zero-model-call retry eligibility — claim.ts:76-91,215-222). It binds the full evidence chain (patch, task tree, executable grader bytes,
• Assessment: Good on its merits and in-grain. It is a real capability gap the existing kernels do not fill, and it follows the repo's hard rules: domain-clean via injected adapters (CLAUDE.md layering), profile realization delegated to substrate (materializeCandidateProfile/applyAgentCandidateWorkspacePlan, prepare.ts:25-28,167-174 — honoring the §1.5 'never write a profile→harness realizer' law), neutral
• Better / existing approach: None — this is the right approach. I checked the obvious existing equivalents and none cover durable cross-process candidate-bundle execution + receipts: src/runtime/superviseSpawnJournal/budget.ts:80 and driver-executor.ts are an in-process, single-tree content-addressed event log for equal-k replay/resume of the recursive atom (no cross-process claim/lease/terminal-CAS, no protected gra
• Model: opencode/kimi-for-coding/k2p7
• Bridge attempts: 1

🎯 Usefulness — sound

Adds a coherent verify→prepare→claim→execute→finalize spine that turns a sealed candidate bundle into a tamper-evident V2 run receipt, consuming real published contracts with no existing equivalent in the codebase.

• Integration: Fully reachable: exported via export * from './candidate-execution' at src/index.ts:35, and its symbols are already in the generated API catalog (docs/api/primitive-catalog.md:110-111,142) with the docs-freshness gate green. It consumes the published @tangle-network/agent-interface 0.22.0 contract — I confirmed `AgentCandidateRunReceiptV2 extends Omit<AgentCandidateRunReceiptV1, 'schemaVersion'>
• Fit with existing patterns: Fits the codebase grain precisely. Respects the layering law (agent-runtime → agent-eval, never reverse): imports TraceStore/BenchmarkEvaluation/isLlmSpan/REDACTION_VERSION from agent-eval and contract types from agent-interface, never imports agent-knowledge. Does NOT compete with the improvement/ module's CandidateGenerator/improvementDriver (src/improvement/improvement-driver.ts:36) — that
• Real-world viability: Rigorously handles the non-happy paths. Tests cover exactly-one-concurrent-invocation (tests/candidate-execution-execute.test.ts:710), hanging process stop leaving the claim for recovery (:993), unknown settlement blocking zero-spend guessing (:1061), zero-call retry only for pre-model failures (:1126), lease expiry, cross-process claim races, and replay terminal writes — 1,420 tests pass. The exe
• Model: opencode/zai-coding-plan/glm-5.2
• Bridge attempts: 1

No concerns — sound change, no better or existing approach found. ✅

---

What this audit checks

It judges the change on its merits — not whether it was tasked out in an issue. Unticketed, fast-moving work is fine; the question is whether the change is good and whether a better or existing approach should be used instead.

Pass	What it asks
Heuristic	Vague title? Whitespace-only or cruft-bearing diff? (content signals only)
Duplication	Do added function/class names already exist elsewhere in the repo?
Value Audit	What does it do? What goal does it achieve? Is it good? Better architecture or already-exists?
Usefulness Audit	Does it integrate and fit? Will it hold up in real use and actually get used?

Findings are concerns, not blocks — the human reviewer decides what to do with them.

_{value-audit · 20260711T060700Z}

[tangletools]

✅ Auto-approved drewstone PR — a4fec22e

This PR was opened by the trusted drewstone account.
The full PR reviewer audit still runs separately and will publish findings if it detects issues.

_{tangletools · auto-approval · reason: drewstone_author · 2026-07-11T06:15:17Z}

[tangletools]

✅ Auto-approved drewstone PR — fa6db037

This PR was opened by the trusted drewstone account.
The full PR reviewer audit still runs separately and will publish findings if it detects issues.

_{tangletools · auto-approval · reason: drewstone_author · 2026-07-11T06:19:52Z}

[drewstone]

Summary

• add one atomic path from a verified candidate bundle to a durable V2 run receipt
• execute detached task/profile/code bytes behind a one-shot cross-process claim with crash recovery
• bind the exact verified patch, task tree, executable grader bytes, raw grader output, protected trace, model ledger, and isolated memory evidence
• enforce separate frozen execution, cleanup, and result budgets with cancellation and lease fencing
• reject secret-bearing archives/manifests before persistence and keep recovery trace access read-only
• consume the published @tangle-network/agent-interface 0.22.0 receipt contract and profile materializer 0.3.0

Verification

• pnpm lint — 426 files clean
• pnpm run typecheck — runtime and examples clean
• pnpm test — 146 files, 1,420 passed, 2 skipped
• pnpm build — JavaScript and declarations built
• pnpm verify:package — public exports load
• pnpm docs:freshness — version, peer, symbol, and generated-catalog checks clean
• hostile re-audit — 4/4 reproduced timing/persistence failures fixed; 0 late result writes

No benchmark model calls were made in this change.

[drewstone]

@tangletools review the current head for merge.

[tangletools]

✅ Auto-approved drewstone PR — eedc44c8

This PR was opened by the trusted drewstone account.
The full PR reviewer audit still runs separately and will publish findings if it detects issues.

_{tangletools · auto-approval · reason: drewstone_author · 2026-07-11T06:00:22Z}

[tangletools]

🟢 Value Audit — sound

Verdict	sound
Concerns	0 (none)
Heuristic	0.0s
Duplication	0.0s
Interrogation	291.5s (2 bridge agents)
Total	291.5s

💰 Value — sound

Adds a durable, cross-process, exactly-once pipeline that turns a verified immutable candidate bundle into a tamper-evident V2 run receipt — a genuinely new layer that consumes the published substrate contracts rather than reinventing the in-process kernels, and it is in the repo's grain.

• What it does: A new src/candidate-execution/ subsystem (~27 files) with one atomic path: verifyAgentCandidateBundle (verify.ts:37, consumes agentCandidateBundleSchema from @tangle-network/agent-interface) → prepareAgentCandidateExecution (prepare.ts:95; materializes task/candidate/profile workspaces, delegates profile→harness to @tangle-network/agent-profile-materialize at prepare.ts:167-174, reserv
• Goals it achieves: Exactly-once, crash-recoverable execution of sealed benchmark candidates across processes/machines without double-grading, secret leakage, or unproven/late result writes (separate frozen execution/cleanup/result budgets, lease fencing, two-phase terminal commit, zero-model-call retry eligibility — claim.ts:76-91,215-222). It binds the full evidence chain (patch, task tree, executable grader bytes,
• Assessment: Good on its merits and in-grain. It is a real capability gap the existing kernels do not fill, and it follows the repo's hard rules: domain-clean via injected adapters (CLAUDE.md layering), profile realization delegated to substrate (materializeCandidateProfile/applyAgentCandidateWorkspacePlan, prepare.ts:25-28,167-174 — honoring the §1.5 'never write a profile→harness realizer' law), neutral
• Better / existing approach: None — this is the right approach. I checked the obvious existing equivalents and none cover durable cross-process candidate-bundle execution + receipts: src/runtime/superviseSpawnJournal/budget.ts:80 and driver-executor.ts are an in-process, single-tree content-addressed event log for equal-k replay/resume of the recursive atom (no cross-process claim/lease/terminal-CAS, no protected gra
• Model: opencode/kimi-for-coding/k2p7
• Bridge attempts: 1

🎯 Usefulness — sound

Adds a coherent verify→prepare→claim→execute→finalize spine that turns a sealed candidate bundle into a tamper-evident V2 run receipt, consuming real published contracts with no existing equivalent in the codebase.

• Integration: Fully reachable: exported via export * from './candidate-execution' at src/index.ts:35, and its symbols are already in the generated API catalog (docs/api/primitive-catalog.md:110-111,142) with the docs-freshness gate green. It consumes the published @tangle-network/agent-interface 0.22.0 contract — I confirmed `AgentCandidateRunReceiptV2 extends Omit<AgentCandidateRunReceiptV1, 'schemaVersion'>
• Fit with existing patterns: Fits the codebase grain precisely. Respects the layering law (agent-runtime → agent-eval, never reverse): imports TraceStore/BenchmarkEvaluation/isLlmSpan/REDACTION_VERSION from agent-eval and contract types from agent-interface, never imports agent-knowledge. Does NOT compete with the improvement/ module's CandidateGenerator/improvementDriver (src/improvement/improvement-driver.ts:36) — that
• Real-world viability: Rigorously handles the non-happy paths. Tests cover exactly-one-concurrent-invocation (tests/candidate-execution-execute.test.ts:710), hanging process stop leaving the claim for recovery (:993), unknown settlement blocking zero-spend guessing (:1061), zero-call retry only for pre-model failures (:1126), lease expiry, cross-process claim races, and replay terminal writes — 1,420 tests pass. The exe
• Model: opencode/zai-coding-plan/glm-5.2
• Bridge attempts: 1

No concerns — sound change, no better or existing approach found. ✅

---

What this audit checks

It judges the change on its merits — not whether it was tasked out in an issue. Unticketed, fast-moving work is fine; the question is whether the change is good and whether a better or existing approach should be used instead.

Pass	What it asks
Heuristic	Vague title? Whitespace-only or cruft-bearing diff? (content signals only)
Duplication	Do added function/class names already exist elsewhere in the repo?
Value Audit	What does it do? What goal does it achieve? Is it good? Better architecture or already-exists?
Usefulness Audit	Does it integrate and fit? Will it hold up in real use and actually get used?

Findings are concerns, not blocks — the human reviewer decides what to do with them.

_{value-audit · 20260711T060700Z}

[tangletools]

✅ Auto-approved drewstone PR — a4fec22e

This PR was opened by the trusted drewstone account.
The full PR reviewer audit still runs separately and will publish findings if it detects issues.

_{tangletools · auto-approval · reason: drewstone_author · 2026-07-11T06:15:17Z}

[tangletools]

✅ Auto-approved drewstone PR — fa6db037

This PR was opened by the trusted drewstone account.
The full PR reviewer audit still runs separately and will publish findings if it detects issues.

_{tangletools · auto-approval · reason: drewstone_author · 2026-07-11T06:19:52Z}