docs: author grounded CHARTER.md + CHITTY.md for ChittyScore#3
docs: author grounded CHARTER.md + CHITTY.md for ChittyScore#3chitcommit wants to merge 1 commit into
Conversation
Replace placeholder stubs with full Pentad-shape compliance docs grounded in app.py (6D scoring engine), CLAUDE.md, CHITTYTRUST_ROOT_CA_ARCHITECTURE.md, and DATABASE_RELATIONSHIPS.md. - Canonical URI chittycanon://core/services/chittyscore - Tier 4 (Domain), score.chitty.cc — reconciled with CLAUDE.md:7 - Deps: ChittyID / ChittyTrust / ChittyAuth (upstream); ChittyRegister / ChittyCases / ChittyPortal (downstream) - Documents the ChittyTrust (governance) vs ChittyScore (analytical) boundary - Real API surface and 6-dimension weights from app.py Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01MKWGKyRAxAPtSS3VGHz2Yz
|
Warning Review limit reached
More reviews will be available in 59 minutes. Learn how PR review limits work. Your organization has used up its prepaid credits, and credit purchases are no longer available. Enable the review add-on in the billing tab to keep reviews running — you're only billed for reviews past your plan's rate limits ($0.25/file). ⌛ How to resolve this issue?After more reviews become available, a review can be triggered using the To avoid repeated limits, reduce automatic review volume by pausing incremental auto-reviews earlier, using label-based review opt-in, excluding WIP or generated PR titles, or requesting reviews manually when the PR is ready. If your team needs uninterrupted high-volume reviews, an organization admin can enable usage-based credits. 🚦 How do rate limits work?CodeRabbit enforces per-developer PR review limits for each organization. Most developers receive the normal plan review availability. For paid Pro and Pro+ PR reviews, CodeRabbit uses adaptive limits for sustained high-volume activity. When a developer's recent PR review activity reaches the 95th percentile or higher among CodeRabbit users, additional reviews become available more gradually as earlier reviews age out of the rolling window. Please see our Fair Usage Limits Policy for further information. ✨ 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 |
![chatgpt-codex-connector[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/1144995?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: ed4bc9df3a
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
- Open a pull request for review
- Mark a draft as ready
- Comment "@codex review".
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.
Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".
| | `/api/trust/calculate` | POST | Yes | Calculate trust score (persists when identity resolves) | | ||
| | `/api/trust/history/<entity_id>` | GET | Yes | Recent scoring history (limit 20); 503 if no `DATABASE_URL` | |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
In the root Flask service I inspected, /api/trust/calculate and /api/trust/history/<entity_id> are registered with bare @app.route handlers in app.py:212 and app.py:258, and there is no auth middleware/decorator or Authorization handling in the root package. Marking these rows as Auth | Yes in the public agent contract will make consumers/agents treat the endpoints as protected when they are actually callable without credentials, so either document them as unauthenticated today or add the ChittyAuth enforcement before publishing this contract.
Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.
|
|
||
| Behavioral trust scoring engine for the ChittyOS ecosystem. Given an entity and its event history, it computes a 6-dimension trust profile, a weighted composite ChittyScore, four output scores (People, Legal, State, ChittyScore), a trust level mapped to the ChittyID lifecycle, and supporting insights with a confidence estimate. | ||
|
|
||
| ChittyScore is **analytical** (behavioral scoring). ChittyTrust is **governance** (cryptographic root authority / CA). They are complementary, not overlapping — ChittyScore consumes ChittyTrust certificate data for its Source dimension but never issues certificates or holds key material. The boundary is documented in `CHITTYTRUST_ROOT_CA_ARCHITECTURE.md`. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The root Python implementation I inspected has SourceDimension.calculate() scoring only entity.identity_verified and credentials supplied in the request model, and repo-wide search outside docs does not show any ChittyTrust client/config/API call feeding certificate data into that dimension. Presenting this as an active ChittyTrust certificate-data dependency will lead operators and agents to expect certificate-driven Source scoring that the service cannot currently perform, so this should be worded as planned/aspirational or backed by the missing integration.
Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.
| → trust level (L0→L4) + insights + confidence | ||
| ``` | ||
|
|
||
| Persistence is optional: with `DATABASE_URL` set, a result persists only when `entity.id` resolves to a `public.identities` row (by DID or chitty_id); otherwise calculation still succeeds with `persisted: null` and no orphan rows are written. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This fallback is only true for unknown DID/chitty_id strings. When entity.id is shaped like a UUID, resolve_identity_id() returns that UUID before checking public.identities, and calculate_trust() then calls persist_result() because the value is non-null; if the UUID is not an existing identity, the FK insert raises and the endpoint returns a 400 instead of a successful response with persisted: null. Agents that send internal UUIDs will rely on this contract and handle missing identities incorrectly unless the docs call out the UUID failure path or the resolver verifies UUID existence.
Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.
1 participant
Foundation Homeostasis Loop — Wave 1 (docs only)
Replaces placeholder CHARTER.md / CHITTY.md stubs with full Pentad-shape compliance docs, grounded in the actual code.
What changed
chittycanon://core/services/chittyscore, Tier 4 (Domain),score.chitty.ccAPI surface, scope IS/IS-NOT, dependency table, 6-dimension scoring model, document triad.Grounding
app.py—TrustEngine, dimension weights (Source 15 / Temporal 10 / Channel 15 / Outcome 20 / Network 15 / Justice 25), output scores, trust levels, real routes.CLAUDE.md:7— Tier 4 /score.chitty.cc/ deps ChittyID, ChittyTrust, ChittyAuth (reconciled, exact match).CHITTYTRUST_ROOT_CA_ARCHITECTURE.md— analytical (ChittyScore) vs governance (ChittyTrust) boundary.DATABASE_RELATIONSHIPS.md,requirements.txt,pyproject.toml— stack and persistence model.Evidence
ls CHARTER.md CHITTY.md→ both presentchittycanon://core/services/chittyscorepresent in bothuri: chittycanon://...resolves in bothscore.chitty.cc/ deps consistent across CHARTER, CHITTY, and CLAUDE.md:7Out of scope (separate specialist issues)
Entity-type / mint code drift untouched — this wave is docs only.
🤖 Generated with Claude Code