Recursive Governance: When Agents Write the Rules They Execute

Описание и применение

Система динамического управления правилами, где агенты могут создавать, изменять и отменять правила, предотвратила случайное удаление 40 модулей, обеспечив проверку согласованности и жизненный цикл правил.

Задача

A sync job mirroring a shared directory deleted ~40 private modules because a filter file missed one pattern, revealing that static policy files cannot adapt to changes in the system.

Результат

The governance system prevented the accidental deletion of private modules by ensuring that any rule affecting file deletion must pass consistency checks against the current disk inventory. It also introduced lifecycle tooling to avoid rule rot.

Рабочий процесс

• 1. Agent proposes a rule via <code>propose_rule</code> with rationale, owning agent, and affected namespaces.
• 2. Agents can amend rules via <code>amend_rule</code>, which diffs changes instead of overwriting.
• 3. <code>check_consistency</code> scans the rule graph, computes embedding similarity, and applies a human‑maintained allow/deny list to reject unsafe proposals.
• 4. Proposals enter a 24‑hour observation window where affected agents can rebut.
• 5. <code>ratify_rule</code> votes on proposals; quorum and no vetoes are required.
• 6. <code>veto_rule</code> allows a human to exit a rule, with justification logged.
• 7. Rules are archived or retired via cleanup processes to avoid rule rot.

Доказательства

We almost lost forty modules to a file that never changed.

Источник

The filter file was missing one pattern. That's it. One pattern.

Источник

Rules referenced other rules that had been overwritten. Rules contradicted each other.

Источник

The rule set lives as structured memory events in an append-only namespace: governance://rules/

Источник

If the sync job had this system, the filter file would have been a rule in governance://rules/sync-filters/.

Источник