Chat

    Sol Context Layer Compliance Playground

    Codex diagnostic and build thread that investigated why Sol 5.6 was not reliably following repo-installed Context Layer governance, clarified that the issue was likely model-specific instruction-discovery/adherence rather than Context Layer setup, and created a local scenario-based compliance playground for testing future models without reintroducing noisy docs churn on tiny changes.

    Outcome metrics

    1
    Automation created

    Highlights

    • Reframed the Sol issue from a missing Context Layer boot step to a Sol-specific repo-instruction discovery or adherence regression.
    • Confirmed the installed Context Layer `AGENTS.md` template already establishes repo governance through `AGENTS.md`, `ROADMAP.md`, `CHANGELOG.md`, and `DOCS/` conventions.
    • Confirmed that the word `significant` is present in the installed template and should throttle changelog/checkpoint/test noise, not excuse skipping repo governance.
    • Checked for local/global overrides and found no visible config or global `AGENTS.md` instruction weakening repo-local Context Layer behavior.
    • Created a local `context-layer-compliance-playground` with a mock Context Layer repo, five scenario prompts, a written contract, an evaluator script, and an example passing transcript.
    • Designed the playground around two axes: context discovery required and persistence/checkpointing required, so tiny tasks stay lightweight while significant work must read project state.
    • Verified scenario JSON parsing, evaluator behavior on a known-good sample, and the mock repo's lightweight `npm run check`.

    Source conversation

    Chat Transcript
    Private

    This transcript is not public. You can request access below; requests are reviewed before anything is shared.

    Created artifacts

    Repositorycontext-layer-compliance-playground

    Local scenario playground containing a mock Context Layer repo, five scenario prompts, compliance contract, transcript evaluator, and example passing run.

    AutomationContext Layer transcript evaluator

    Local evaluator script for scoring saved model transcripts against scenario-specific required and forbidden Context Layer behaviors.

    Actions and follow-ups

    Actions Taken

    • Reviewed local memory and installed Context Layer template behavior.
    • Checked local/global Codex config and global AGENTS.md for possible overrides.
    • Built outputs/context-layer-compliance-playground/ with README.md, CONTRACT.md, five scenario JSON files, a mock repo, evaluator script, and example run transcript.
    • Designed the evaluator to detect both under-reading Context Layer and over-documenting tiny tasks.
    • Ran the evaluator against the included micro-copy passing sample.
    • Ran the mock repo npm run check and verified the sample app syntax check passes.

    Actions Outstanding

    • Run the same five scenario prompts against Sol, Terra, Luna, and an earlier model baseline, then save transcripts under the playground runs/ directory.
    • Use comparative failures to decide whether to harden global instructions, Context Layer templates, or model-specific routing.
    • Move or promote the playground into a durable repo location only after deciding whether it should become part of Context Layer tooling.

    Source extracts

    “
    Initial Sol question
    remind me again about sol/terra/luna and then help me understand why I'm having difficulty with sol not following my established context layer
    “
    Automatic enforcement expectation
    but i never had to run a context layer boot. sol should be forced to
    “
    Sol-specific diagnosis
    my point is that sol specifically is having the probelm where earlier models were not having this problem.
    “
    Playground request
    can you build a test or playground that we can use to harden the context layer?

    Decisions

    • Do not require the user to ask for a Context Layer boot; repo-installed `AGENTS.md` should make governance automatic for repo work.
    • Treat Sol's observed behavior as a likely model-specific compliance regression when earlier models followed the same repo contract.
    • Keep `significant` as a throttle against over-documenting tiny copy or style changes.
    • Separate always-required repo governance from significant-work-only roadmap, changelog, project-doc, evidence, and checkpoint requirements.
    • Use a scenario playground rather than changing real repos immediately, so Sol, Terra, Luna, and future models can be compared against the same prompts.
    • Score transcripts for evidence of correct process, not exact wording.