Second probe-drift correction pass after #65/#66/#68. All four legs were stale
consumer expectations, not live faults.
1. scripts/agent-health-check.py (v4)
- abiba declared pi-only runtime (harness purge): Hermes-era gateway, config
and wrapper legs are skipped instead of failing.
- koby declared report_only (captain ruling 2026-08-17, Rule 17): every koby
leg is detected and reported, never counted as a fleet failure or repaired.
- koby's CT 111 mapping corrected to storepve (.6); the old amdpve mapping
made `pct status 111` fail and read as ct-unreachable.
- wrapper check no longer FAILs .env-based wrappers that legitimately never
invoke infisical (koonimo).
- keys load in main() (load_agent_keys) so the module is importable/testable.
- every run prints absolute execution provenance (script + cwd), in the header
and in --json.
Before: 6 FAILURE(S). After: 0 failures, koby reported read-only.
2. infrastructure-monitoring.prose.md
- PVE API probe repointed from CT 116 (no pveproxy, 000) to the five real
nodes on https://<node>:8006/api2/json/version, all 401 = alive.
- any-HTTP-response liveness rule added (401/3xx alive; 000/timeout = DOWN).
- LiteLLM health documented as 301 -> /litellm/health/liveliness, not bare 200.
3. gpu-monitor.prose.md
- GPU health probes on :8080 (or router /health/unified); bare port 80 on a
GPU host is forbidden (no listener -> false DEGRADED).
- router /health/unified 301 -> /gpu/gpu-data documented as alive.
- port-discipline + liveness rule + direct-fallback execution step.
4. Report provenance (all contracts)
- docs/AUTHORING-GUIDE.md documents the rule; scripts/prose-lint.sh enforces
that any **Report format** contract states an absolute path (pwd -P).
- provenance added to gpu-monitor, infrastructure-monitoring, proxmox-monitor.
Tests: tests/test_probe_drift.py (23 passed); prose-lint.sh clean + shellcheck
clean; CI frontmatter validation passes. Evidence with per-leg before/after and
absolute paths: docs/probe-drift-round2-evidence.md.
NEW: docs/AUTHORING-GUIDE.md — canonical style guide for writing contracts
Patterns borrowed from Anthropic's frontend-design skill:
- Ground it in the subject: verify live state before writing
- Two-pass process: draft → critique → revise → ship
- Restraint: one contract, one concern; cut one thing before shipping
- Self-critique: would an agent trust this at 3am with 30s of context?
Core rules:
- Specificity over generality (lists rot, vagueness is invisible)
- Live-state fields in tables, not prose (grep-able)
- Descriptions answer: what, to what, why care?
- Templates for function and responsibility contracts
- CI enforces structure; author enforces quality
Linked from AGENTS.md for agent discovery.
root
abiba-bot