SkillWeaver synthesis verification

Type: agentic-system-analyses/types/agentic-system-verification.md

Verification

The handed public synthesis supports a bounded account of implemented browser practice, skill installation and later behavioral availability. I checked its substantive statements, retrieval description and limitations against the handed records, including reconciliation's four object supersessions. No material strengthening of evidence, unresolved contradiction or missing qualification requires correction. This judgment concerns the exact handed text, not successful target operation.

The evidence paragraph preserves the whole-system builder boundary, frozen revision, applicability cutoff and distinction between implementation, doctrine and reported usage. Its exclusions agree with the boundary and evidence and Source register. The opening contribution is architectural: automatic trace-fed writes can alter subsequent machinery and selection policy. It does not infer improved capacity from retained code or counters. The supporting routes are RT-RTE-skill-admission, RT-BAP-library-execution and EPI-RTE-tested-label. Evidence: SRC-1, skillweaver/knowledge_base/knowledge_base.py, skillweaver/agent.py, skillweaver/explore.py.

I traced the public operational progression through scheduling, task context, execution, returned evidence and both builder branches. Shared-library concurrency and limited locking match RT-RTE-explore-practice and the workflow account. Selected descriptions are correctly separated from full native executable availability and reference-only mode in RT-RTE-native-task. Bounded generation retries are not presented as an invariant veto. The account is readable without the reports: it identifies the caller, worker, action model, executor, success model and synthesis consumer rather than treating them as one agent or evaluator. Evidence: SRC-1, skillweaver/explore.py, skillweaver/attempt_task.py, skillweaver/agent.py.

The reduced trajectory and separate screenshot channels preserve the consequential consumer distinction in MEM-OBJ-traces and EPI-RTE-trajectory-format. Rich raw artifacts are not mistaken for the synthesis prompt. The tested-label passage carries the corrected source-occurrence interpretation and unreachable-call countercase from EPI-RTE-test-check. It does not infer execution or website success, while retaining the real later policy authority of MEM-OBJ-metadata and EPI-RTE-tested-label. The positive success branch is narrowly described as accepting an episode for synthesis input, as established by EPI-RTE-success-check and EPI-RTE-success-decision, not accepting an unseen generalized skill. Evidence: SRC-1, skillweaver/agent.py, skillweaver/explore.py, skillweaver/attempt_task.py, skillweaver/knowledge_base/check_success.py.

The installation and delivery passages preserve retry exhaustion, possible parse/format failure, same-name replacement, retained omitted names and reset counters. They do not turn static coding checks into behavioral acceptance or installation into warranted generalization. Those distinctions are supported by RT-RTE-skill-admission, EPI-RTE-code-check and EPI-RTE-skill-merge. The workflow citation qualifies checkpoint delivery: negative success can still yield a checkpoint, exceptions can prevent one, and neither manual reload nor zero CLI exit proves automatic recovery or successful operation. Evidence: SRC-1, skillweaver/knowledge_base/knowledge_base.py, skillweaver/knowledge_base/code_verification.py, skillweaver/explore.py.

The retained-part account uses the canonical memory objects after supersession. MEM-OBJ-code and MEM-OBJ-docstring support separate execution and interpretive channels; MEM-OBJ-semantic-knowledge supports imported proposal/synthesis context without active semantic updating. Ordinary reload does not import diagnostic reasoning. Optional selection, export and reconstruction capabilities are not promoted into established consumer chains or complete pull-only coverage. The wording remains compatible with MEM-RTE-embedding-selection and the unresolved consumers retained in the memory account. Evidence: SRC-1, skillweaver/knowledge_base/knowledge_base.py.

Recovery and alternate consumption preserve their local owners and guarantees. RT-RTE-locator-recovery supports consistency checks and immediate retry, not intended-target proof, rollback or durable skill repair. RT-RTE-browser-use supports callback construction and external-agent handoff, not inherited native controls or demonstrated compatibility. The benchmark paragraph keeps RT-RTE-benchmark-evaluation and RT-ABS-cua-module distinct from local EPI-RTE-benchmark-check and EPI-RTE-score-retention. Local scoring is not upgraded into a working enclosing entry, achieved performance or score-fed skill admission. Evidence: SRC-1, skillweaver/environment/patches.py, skillweaver/attempt_task_browser_use.py, skillweaver/knowledge_base/knowledge_base.py, skillweaver/evaluation/evaluate_single_task.py, skillweaver/evaluation/evaluate_benchmark.py, skillweaver/evaluation/webarena_evaluators.py.

The independent-property paragraph does not bundle unestablished theory-builder conditions, reflection or learning into a negative system verdict. Its autonomy claim is restricted to internal practice/update roles. Its self-improvement claim remains explicitly dispositional at the builder-plus-consumer boundary, with a later-task horizon and reusable-automation objective; subsequent causal dependence and successful improvement are withheld. This matches RT-RTE-skill-admission, RT-CLM-self-improvement and the epistemic conclusion. Provider mutability is independently qualified through RT-CMP-lm. The proposed stronger evidence and changed controls are prospective, not claims of present operation. Evidence: SRC-1, skillweaver/knowledge_base/knowledge_base.py, skillweaver/explore.py, skillweaver/lm.py.

I checked every row of the Limitations against the affected records. They preserve absent run/comparison evidence, unresolved initial provenance, reduced delivered evidence, unaccepted generalization, weak tested labels, optional-consumer and visual-form uncertainty, external dependency/version limits, benchmark entry and inspection limits, and unestablished formulated criticism/reflection. The supplied report and profile verifications declare no limits or blockers to carry forward, and reconciliation retains no current unresolved conflict. Their judgments do not replace this support assessment. Remaining uncertainty is already faithfully scoped; I found no additional record fault needing a publication limit. No source read or new evidence was needed.

Blockers

none

Limits

none