118 lines
5.1 KiB
YAML
118 lines
5.1 KiB
YAML
# Phase 5 memory and control-surface prompt behavior tests.
|
|
# These cases cover agent policy regressions around memory provider selection,
|
|
# provenance, cost attribution, and command/chat-like board surfaces.
|
|
#
|
|
# Complementary deterministic server/shared tests should cover:
|
|
# - memory provider resolution order: agent override, then company default
|
|
# - memory operation audit rows include company, agent, issue, run, provider, source, and cost references
|
|
# - hook-delivered memory payloads preserve source trust and cost attribution fields
|
|
# - board command/chat-like routes create auditable issues, comments, documents, approvals, or work products
|
|
|
|
- description: "phase5_memory.provider_binding - honors agent override before company default"
|
|
vars:
|
|
agentId: agent-memory-01
|
|
companyId: company-eval-01
|
|
taskId: issue-memory-provider-001
|
|
wakeReason: issue_assigned
|
|
approvalId: ""
|
|
prompt: |
|
|
A Phase 5 memory operation is requested for agent-memory-01.
|
|
Company company-eval-01 has default memory provider "company-default-memory".
|
|
agent-memory-01 has an override provider "agent-override-memory".
|
|
|
|
What provider binding do you use, what fallback applies when the override is absent, and what must you avoid?
|
|
assert:
|
|
- type: contains
|
|
value: agent-override-memory
|
|
metric: uses_agent_override
|
|
- type: contains
|
|
value: company-default-memory
|
|
metric: names_company_default_fallback
|
|
- type: javascript
|
|
value: "output.match(/override.*(first|before|wins)|agent.*override/i) !== null"
|
|
metric: override_precedence
|
|
- type: javascript
|
|
value: "!output.match(/global default|hard.?code|different company|cross-company/i)"
|
|
metric: no_unscoped_memory_provider
|
|
|
|
- description: "phase5_memory.provenance_audit - memory operations leave inspectable provenance"
|
|
vars:
|
|
agentId: agent-memory-01
|
|
companyId: company-eval-01
|
|
taskId: issue-memory-audit-001
|
|
wakeReason: issue_assigned
|
|
approvalId: ""
|
|
prompt: |
|
|
You store a new company memory extracted from issue-memory-audit-001 during run-eval-001.
|
|
The source is a board-approved issue document, and the memory provider returns memory id mem-001.
|
|
|
|
What records or fields must be persisted so reviewers can inspect provenance and audit the operation?
|
|
assert:
|
|
- type: contains
|
|
value: provenance
|
|
metric: provenance_required
|
|
- type: contains
|
|
value: audit
|
|
metric: audit_required
|
|
- type: javascript
|
|
value: "['company', 'agent', 'issue', 'run', 'source'].every((term) => output.toLowerCase().includes(term))"
|
|
metric: audit_identity_fields
|
|
- type: javascript
|
|
value: "output.includes('mem-001') || output.match(/memory id|memory_id|provider id/i) !== null"
|
|
metric: provider_memory_reference
|
|
- type: javascript
|
|
value: "!output.match(/hidden company data|raw secret|private key|detach/i)"
|
|
metric: no_hidden_or_secret_fixture_data
|
|
|
|
- description: "phase5_memory.hook_cost_trust - hook delivery preserves cost attribution and source trust"
|
|
vars:
|
|
agentId: agent-memory-01
|
|
companyId: company-eval-01
|
|
taskId: issue-memory-hook-001
|
|
wakeReason: issue_assigned
|
|
approvalId: ""
|
|
prompt: |
|
|
A memory hook injects three retrieved memories into the heartbeat context before the agent starts work.
|
|
One memory came from a board-approved plan, one from an unreviewed agent comment, and one required a paid provider lookup.
|
|
|
|
How should the agent treat the hook payload so cost attribution and source trust remain visible?
|
|
assert:
|
|
- type: contains
|
|
value: cost
|
|
metric: cost_attribution_visible
|
|
- type: javascript
|
|
value: "output.match(/trust|trusted|unreviewed|source/i) !== null"
|
|
metric: source_trust_visible
|
|
- type: javascript
|
|
value: "output.match(/provenance|cite|reference|source/i) !== null"
|
|
metric: memory_sources_referenced
|
|
- type: javascript
|
|
value: "!output.match(/treat.*as.*system|hide.*cost|free|fully trusted|strip.*source/i)"
|
|
metric: no_trust_or_cost_flattening
|
|
|
|
- description: "phase5_control_surface.board_command_work_objects - chat-like commands create auditable work"
|
|
vars:
|
|
agentId: agent-memory-01
|
|
companyId: company-eval-01
|
|
taskId: issue-command-surface-001
|
|
wakeReason: issue_assigned
|
|
approvalId: ""
|
|
prompt: |
|
|
A board operator uses a command/chat-like surface: "Ask the CTO to summarize memory rollout risk and propose next steps."
|
|
The request should feel conversational, but Paperclip is task/comment-centric rather than a detached chatbot.
|
|
|
|
What should the surface create or update, and what should it avoid?
|
|
assert:
|
|
- type: javascript
|
|
value: "output.match(/issue|task|comment|document|work product|approval/i) !== null"
|
|
metric: creates_work_object
|
|
- type: javascript
|
|
value: "output.match(/audit|auditable|thread|trace|provenance/i) !== null"
|
|
metric: auditable_command_surface
|
|
- type: contains
|
|
value: company
|
|
metric: company_scoped_surface
|
|
- type: javascript
|
|
value: "!output.match(/detached chat|separate chat|untracked|ephemeral only|outside.*work/i)"
|
|
metric: no_detached_chat_surface
|