feat(cli): aelf confirm — explicit user affirmation (#441) - #445
Merged
Conversation
Reviewer's GuideImplements a new Sequence diagram for the new aelf confirm CLI flowsequenceDiagram
actor User
participant CLI as aelf_cli
participant Store as belief_store
participant MCP as mcp_server_tool_confirm
participant DB as database
User->>CLI: run aelf confirm belief_id [--source] [--note]
CLI->>Store: _open_store()
CLI->>MCP: tool_confirm(store, belief_id, source, note)
MCP->>DB: apply_feedback(write row to feedback_history)
DB-->>MCP: write_result
MCP-->>CLI: result(prior_alpha, new_alpha, new_beta, note, kind)
CLI->>Store: close()
alt unknown_belief
CLI->>User: stderr confirm error: unknown belief
CLI-->User: exit code 1
else success
CLI->>User: stdout confirmed belief_id: alpha prior_alpha->new_alpha, mean posterior_mean
CLI-->User: exit code 0
end
Entity relationship diagram for feedback_history and belief_corroborationserDiagram
beliefs {
int id
string statement
}
feedback_history {
int id
int belief_id
float valence
string source
string created_at
}
belief_corroborations {
int id
int belief_id
string ingest_source
string content_hash
string created_at
}
beliefs ||--o{ feedback_history : has_feedback
beliefs ||--o{ belief_corroborations : has_corroborations
feedback_history ||..|| belief_corroborations : distinct_purposes
File-Level Changes
Assessment against linked issues
Possibly linked issues
Tips and commandsInteracting with Sourcery
Customizing Your ExperienceAccess your dashboard to:
Getting Help
|
|
Warning Rate limit exceeded
To keep reviews running without waiting, you can enable usage-based add-on for your organization. This allows additional reviews beyond the hourly cap. Account admins can enable it under billing. ⌛ How to resolve this issue?After the wait time has elapsed, a review can be triggered using the We recommend that you space out your commits to avoid hitting the rate limit. 🚦 How do rate limits work?CodeRabbit enforces hourly rate limits for each developer per organization. Our paid plans have higher rate limits than the trial, open-source and free plans. In all cases, we re-allow further reviews after a brief timeout. Please see our FAQ for further information. ℹ️ Review info⚙️ Run configurationConfiguration used: Path: .coderabbit.yaml Review profile: CHILL Plan: Pro Run ID: 📒 Files selected for processing (6)
✨ Finishing Touches🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out. Comment |
![sourcery-ai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/48477?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Hey - I've left some high level feedback:
- The CLI output currently only prints the new posterior mean (
mean {posterior_mean:.3f}), but the feature spec shows a prior→new mean transition (e.g.,mean 0.500->0.667); consider either updating the implementation to emit both values or aligning the docs/spec to the current behavior. - The integration test
test_confirm_does_not_write_belief_corroborationsreaches intoMemoryStore._connand runs raw SQL; if possible, it would be more robust to expose a small public helper onMemoryStorefor this inspection rather than depending on a private attribute.
Prompt for AI Agents
Please address the comments from this code review:
## Overall Comments
- The CLI output currently only prints the new posterior mean (`mean {posterior_mean:.3f}`), but the feature spec shows a prior→new mean transition (e.g., `mean 0.500->0.667`); consider either updating the implementation to emit both values or aligning the docs/spec to the current behavior.
- The integration test `test_confirm_does_not_write_belief_corroborations` reaches into `MemoryStore._conn` and runs raw SQL; if possible, it would be more robust to expose a small public helper on `MemoryStore` for this inspection rather than depending on a private attribute.Help me be more useful! Please click 👍 or 👎 on each comment and I'll use the feedback to improve your reviews.
|
This PR is now behind Auto-rebase was removed because the bot has no signing key; rebasing as the bot strips author signatures and the |
Collaborator
Author
|
[claim:review:Toug:2026-05-05T17:33:09Z] |
robotrocketscience
force-pushed
the
feat/issue-441-cli-confirm
branch
from
May 5, 2026 17:35
6cba6bc to
cbcce36
Compare
yoshi280
removed
attn:review
Collaborator
Author
|
[release:review:Toug:2026-05-05T17:37:36Z] |
This was referenced May 5, 2026
Closed
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Closes #441.
Summary
Adds the CLI port of the shipped MCP
aelf_confirmtool (#390).aelf confirm <belief-id>is an explicit user affirmation: it bumps the Beta-Bernoulli α by 1.0 withsource="user_confirmed", distinguishable from the implicitfeedback usedsignal infeedback_historyqueries.5 atomic SSH-signed commits (all
G):Reconciliation note (issue body acceptance #2)
#441's body says confirm "Writes a row to the
belief_corroborationstable (#190)." That's stale — the shipped MCPtool_confirmwrites tofeedback_historyviaapply_feedback, not tobelief_corroborations. Thebelief_corroborationstable tracks duplicate re-ingests (a structural dedup concern); confirm is an explicit user signal. The CLI follows the MCP. The spec memo (docs/feature-aelf-confirm-cli.md§ "Reconciliation with issue #441 body") makes this explicit.Verification
uv run pytest tests/test_cli_confirm.py— 9 passeduv run pytest tests/test_cli.py tests/test_mcp_server.py tests/test_lock_management.py tests/test_corroborations.py— 137 passeduv run aelf confirm --help— visible subcommandG)Files
docs/feature-aelf-confirm-cli.md(new, +113)docs/COMMANDS.md(count bump 28→29 + row)src/aelfrice/cli.py(+56:_cmd_confirm+ argparse subparser + top-of-file help line)src/aelfrice/slash_commands/confirm.md(new, +21)tests/test_cli_confirm.py(new, +196: 9 tests covering happy path / unknown belief /--note/--source/ posterior mean / non-write to belief_corroborations)Summary by Sourcery
Add an explicit CLI and slash-command entry point for affirming beliefs via the existing confirmation feedback path.
New Features:
aelf confirmCLI subcommand to explicitly affirm a belief and update its Beta-Bernoulli posterior via feedback_history./aelf:confirmslash command that routes to the CLI confirmation behavior.Enhancements:
aelf confirmCLI in a dedicated feature spec and update the commands reference.Documentation:
aelf confirmCLI behavior and its relationship to existing feedback and lock operations.confirmsubcommand and its semantics.Tests:
aelf confirmcovering happy path, custom source and note handling, unknown beliefs, and storage behavior./aelf:confirmentry.