Skip to content

feat: add observador-cuantico blueprint - #8

Closed
Pablomonte wants to merge 1 commit into
nicoechaniz:mainfrom
Pablomonte:fix/siqui-cast-and-quantum-blueprint
Closed

feat: add observador-cuantico blueprint#8
Pablomonte wants to merge 1 commit into
nicoechaniz:mainfrom
Pablomonte:fix/siqui-cast-and-quantum-blueprint

Conversation

@Pablomonte

@Pablomonte Pablomonte commented May 3, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Adds the new observador-cuantico.json blueprint for the quantum-computing adventure.

Changes

  • Added agents/blueprints/observador-cuantico.json — four-phase adventure (llegada → superposición → entrelazamiento → colapso) set in the snowy taiga at (500, 70, 500).

@Pablomonte
Pablomonte force-pushed the fix/siqui-cast-and-quantum-blueprint branch from 8bec27c to 753da9c Compare May 3, 2026 12:01
@Pablomonte Pablomonte changed the title fix: restore siqui.yaml and add observador-cuantico blueprint feat: add observador-cuantico blueprint May 3, 2026
@Pablomonte Pablomonte closed this May 3, 2026
@Pablomonte

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Author

Agrega bluerpint harcodeado, no resuelve

Pablomonte added a commit to Pablomonte/DaemonCraft that referenced this pull request May 17, 2026
… box

The `place` action in agents/bot/server.js (the canonical
embodied-side dispatcher target for `place_block` tool calls) had a
load-bearing failure mode: when the requested (x, y, z) was inside the
bot's own bounding box, the server silently rejected the placement and
the materialize-verification at the bottom surfaced an opaque
"did not materialize. Retry or choose different coordinates." error.

The captain LLM then had no useful information — Gemma-Andy retried
the same coordinates, hit the same silent reject, and after a few
loops told the player "no puedo construir, el sistema sigue roto".

Root cause: the action accepted (x, y, z) as the literal target and
walked the placement neighbour search without first checking whether
the bot itself occupied that cell. Servers reject `_genericPlace`
calls that would clip the player's hitbox, but the rejection comes
back as a no-op (no exception), so the only signal was the
post-place blockAt() check failing.

Fix: before the existing occupied / neighbour-search logic, check
whether the floor(target) cell equals the bot's feet cell (floor(pos))
or head cell (feet+1). If yes, pick the first candidate from
[(+x), (-x), (+z), (-z), feet+2 above-head, feet-1 below-feet] that
is:
  - not in the bot's own occupied cells
  - air / cave_air
  - has at least one solid neighbour to place against
…and rewrite (x, y, z) to that. Log the shift so operators can see it
in dispatch traces.

If no candidate fits, raise a clear error explaining the placement
cannot proceed without first moving the bot — not the opaque
"did not materialize" the captain previously had to guess at.

End-to-end repro before the fix:

  Captain (Kimi-K2.6) → embodied_plan(intent=
    "Place a crafting_table near my position, then craft a stone_shovel.")
  → Gemma-Andy plan: [place_block(crafting_table, x=bot.x, y=bot.y, z=bot.z),
                      craft_item(stone_shovel)]
  → bot place action: target == bot feet cell → silent server reject
  → materialize check fails → throws "did not materialize"
  → craft_item fails: "needs crafting table nearby"
  → captain to player: "no puedo construir"

After: place action detects the overlap, shifts target to the cell
immediately east of the bot (or first viable adjacent), places the
crafting_table, and the follow-up craft_item finds it within the
4-block radius.

This is one of three concurrent layers being hardened for "build with
confidence" alongside the canonical-loop policy patches
(nicoechaniz#16 — craft category + narrow inventory_query)
and the canonical-loop toolset wiring
(nicoechaniz/hermes-agent#7 + nicoechaniz#8).

No new dependencies, no API change. Pure additive guard inside the
existing place action body.
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant