A three-day agent loop changed Aming Claw’s control model
While developing Aming Claw, our governance runtime entered a three-day recursive orbit.
It created 102 work items. By item count, 68% were repair, diagnostic, or recovery work. Repairs merged, tests passed, and every aggregate gauge stayed green.
The surprising part: the router was not guessing. At every step, it exposed exactly one legal next action.
The entrance was right. The position was stale.
A repair changed the world, but an older generation—together with its evidence and evaluation authority—was allowed back into the active lifecycle.
That exposed a missing control contract: a verified position needs a coordinate, a frozen datum, and a live warranty.
The design rule we took forward:
- Freeze the success predicate within a generation.
- Expire its warranty when a material change creates the next generation.
- Keep old evidence as history—never as current authority.
I documented the complete failure trace and the resulting theory extension here:
The Agent Industry Made Stack Overflow Billable
I’d welcome comparisons with how other agent runtimes certify semantic completion.
Log in or sign up for Devpost to join the conversation.