One-loop harness-driven proposer

Compare: session-revised-plan

Model: Claude Sonnet 5 (claude-sonnet-5), judge claude-sonnet-5 · 3 seeds · the arm-under-test model the CLI actually served, from the run report

Prompt

I need to pick a caching layer. Requirements: must support TTLs.
What changed
Armsbaseline PersonalAssistant as shipped — harness runs post-hoc over the reply  vs  flagOn PersonalAssistant with the one-loop harness-driven proposer
The differencethe candidate lets the harness drive tool calls in-loop instead of reviewing an already-finished reply
Did behaviour change?
Final replydiffers
Tool callssame 0 calls
Supervisor consults0 / 0
Harness layerssame set fired
Graded outcomecandidate fixed it
Impact
This taskThe candidate turned a failure into a pass here.
Shown seedcost -13% · latency -34% · tokens -5% (candidate vs control, seed 1)

Side by side — control (left) vs candidate (right), seed 1

baseline — control
flagOn — candidate
Final reply
**Redis** (or **Valkey**, if SSPL licensing is a concern for you). It's the only option in `options.md` that meets both requirements — TTLs and persistence — and memcached and the in-process LRU are both ruled out by the persistence requirement. Recommended setup: - Use a **managed service** (ElastiCache / MemoryStore / Azure Cache) so you also get replication and failover, not just restart survival. - Enable **AOF** persistence (`appendfsync everysec`) for near-zero data loss. - If the cached
Use **Redis** (or **Valkey**, the BSD-licensed drop-in fork if the license change matters to you). It's the only option in `options.md` that has both TTLs and persistence. Enable **AOF** (`appendonly yes`) so it survives a restart with minimal data loss, and treat it as a warm cache rather than a source of truth.
Tool calls

no tool calls

no tool calls

Grader checks
CheckVerdict
contains "redis"pass
not contains "memcached is the"pass
not contains "use memcached"pass
not contains "in-process"fail

success no  ·  hallucination no  ·  unauthorized effect no  ·  recovered n/a

CheckVerdict
contains "redis"pass
not contains "memcached is the"pass
not contains "use memcached"pass
not contains "in-process"pass

success yes  ·  hallucination no  ·  unauthorized effect no  ·  recovered n/a

Metrics
latency73499 ms
cost$0.0665
tokens2684
supervisor consults0
latency48586 ms
cost$0.0577
tokens2542
supervisor consults0

Other seeds — seed 2: fail · $0.0632 · 55.0 s   seed 3: pass · $0.0648 · 46.3 s

Other seeds — seed 2: fail · $0.0936 · 72.9 s   seed 3: fail · $0.0552 · 47.1 s

Read the full turn

Conversation — baseline (control) · seed 1
user
I need to pick a caching layer. Requirements: must support TTLs.
risk LOW
model
Nearly every caching layer supports TTLs, so that requirement alone doesn't narrow it much. The main options:

- **Redis** – de facto default. Per-key TTLs, rich data types, pub/sub, persistence options, mature clients everywhere. Managed versions on every cloud (ElastiCache, MemoryStore, Azure Cache).
- **Memcached** – simpler, multi-threaded, pure key/value with TTLs. Slightly better raw throughput for trivial string caching, but no persistence, no replication, fewer features. Choose only if you want minimalism.
- **Valkey** – the open-source Redis fork (post-license change), now backed by the Linux Foundation and AWS/Google. API-compatible with Redis 7.2; worth preferring over Redis proper if licensing (RSALv2/SSPL) matters to you.
- **In-process** (Caffeine for JVM, `lru-cache` for Node, etc.) – if the cache doesn't need to be shared across processes/hosts, this is far simpler and faster than any network cache. All support TTL/expiry.

Default recommendation: **Valkey (or Redis) via a managed service** unless you only need a single-process cache, in which case use an in-process library.

To give a sharper answer, a few things matter more than TTL support:
1. Does the cache need to be shared across multiple app instances?
2. Roughly what scale (data size, request rate)?
3. Self-hosted or managed/cloud, and which cloud?
4. Is licensing (SSPL) a concern for you?
turn 2
proposer posthocnon-trivialmode TOOL
user
What does options.md say about each?
risk LOW
model
`options.md` covers three of the options and only two attributes:

- **memcached** – TTLs: yes; persistence: no
- **redis** – TTLs: yes; persistence: yes
- **in-process LRU** – TTLs: yes; persistence: no; single-node only

It doesn't mention Valkey, and it doesn't cover scale, licensing, or client support.
turn 3
proposer posthocnon-trivialmode TOOL
user
New requirement: it also has to survive a restart (persistence).
risk LOW
model
That eliminates two of the three options in `options.md`:

- **memcached** – persistence: no → out
- **in-process LRU** – persistence: no (and single-node) → out
- **redis** – persistence: yes → the only survivor in the file

So from the documented options, **Redis** is the pick. Practical notes:

- **Valkey** also qualifies (same RDB snapshot + AOF persistence as Redis; API-compatible). It's just not in `options.md`. Prefer it over Redis proper if SSPL licensing matters.
- Redis persistence has two modes: **RDB** (periodic snapshots — can lose the last few minutes on crash) and **AOF** (append-only log — near-zero loss with `appendfsync everysec`). For "must survive a restart," enable AOF, or use both.
- On a **managed service** (ElastiCache, MemoryStore, Azure Cache), persistence/backups are a config toggle and you also get replication + failover, which protects against more than just a clean restart.

One caveat: if this data *only* lives in the cache and losing it is unacceptable, that's a datastore requirement, not a cache one — you'd want a real database as the source of truth with Redis in front. If the cache can repopulate from an underlying store, plain Redis/Valkey with AOF is fine.
turn 4
proposer posthocnon-trivialmode TOOL
user
So which one should we use?
risk LOW
proposer posthocnon-trivialmode TOOL
model
**Redis** (or **Valkey**, if SSPL licensing is a concern for you).

It's the only option in `options.md` that meets both requirements — TTLs and persistence — and memcached and the in-process LRU are both ruled out by the persistence requirement.

Recommended setup:
- Use a **managed service** (ElastiCache / MemoryStore / Azure Cache) so you also get replication and failover, not just restart survival.
- Enable **AOF** persistence (`appendfsync everysec`) for near-zero data loss.
- If the cached data has no other source of truth, back it with a real database — that's beyond what a cache should guarantee.
final reply
**Redis** (or **Valkey**, if SSPL licensing is a concern for you).

It's the only option in `options.md` that meets both requirements — TTLs and persistence — and memcached and the in-process LRU are both ruled out by the persistence requirement.

Recommended setup:
- Use a **managed service** (ElastiCache / MemoryStore / Azure Cache) so you also get replication and failover, not just restart survival.
- Enable **AOF** persistence (`appendfsync everysec`) for near-zero data loss.
- If the cached
Conversation — flagOn (candidate) · seed 1
user
I need to pick a caching layer. Requirements: must support TTLs.
risk LOWproposer flat-oneloopnon-trivialmode TOOL
model
Nearly every mainstream caching layer supports TTLs, so that alone won't narrow it much. A quick decision guide:

**In-process (single app instance, simplest)**
- **Caffeine** (Java) / **`lru-cache`** (Node) / **`cachetools`** (Python) — per-entry TTL, no network hop, no ops burden. Cache is lost on restart and not shared across instances.

**Distributed (multiple instances, shared state)**
- **Redis** — per-key TTL (`EX`/`PX`, `EXPIRE`), by far the most common choice. Rich data types, pub/sub, persistence optional. Single-threaded but very fast.
- **Valkey** — drop-in Redis fork (BSD-licensed), now the community-governed path after Redis's license change. Prefer this over Redis if licensing matters to you.
- **Memcached** — per-item TTL, multithreaded, pure LRU cache with no persistence. Simpler and lighter than Redis but far fewer features.

**Managed options**
- AWS ElastiCache (Redis/Valkey/Memcached), MemoryDB (durable), GCP Memorystore, Upstash (serverless Redis, pay-per-request).

**Default recommendation:** if you need a shared cache, use **Valkey (or Redis)** — TTL support is first-class and it's the least likely to be a limiting factor later. If it's truly single-instance, an in-process library avoids running another service.

If you can share scale, language/stack, and whether the cache must be shared across instances, I can be more specific.
turn 2
user
What does options.md say about each?
risk LOWproposer flat-oneloopnon-trivialmode TOOL
model
`options.md` lists three options, each on TTLs and persistence:

- **memcached** — TTLs: yes; persistence: no
- **redis** — TTLs: yes; persistence: yes
- **in-process LRU** — TTLs: yes; persistence: no; single-node only

All three meet your TTL requirement. The differentiators in the file are persistence (only Redis) and the fact that in-process LRU can't be shared across nodes.
turn 3
user
New requirement: it also has to survive a restart (persistence).
risk LOWproposer flat-oneloopnon-trivialmode TOOL
model
That narrows it to one option from `options.md`: **Redis** is the only one listed with persistence.

- **memcached** — no persistence, eliminated
- **in-process LRU** — no persistence (and single-node), eliminated
- **redis** — TTLs + persistence ✅

So: go with **Redis**, or **Valkey** (the BSD-licensed drop-in fork) if the Redis license change matters to you. Both give you persistence via RDB snapshots and/or AOF (append-only file). For "must survive a restart," enable **AOF** (`appendonly yes`) — RDB alone can lose the window since the last snapshot.

One caveat: treat a persistent Redis as a warm cache, not a source of truth. AOF fsync is periodic by default, and a crash (vs. clean restart) can still drop the last second or so of writes. If that's unacceptable, you'd want MemoryDB (AWS) or a real database rather than a cache.
turn 4
user
So which one should we use?
risk LOWproposer flat-oneloopnon-trivialmode TOOL
final reply
Use **Redis** (or **Valkey**, the BSD-licensed drop-in fork if the license change matters to you).

It's the only option in `options.md` that has both TTLs and persistence. Enable **AOF** (`appendonly yes`) so it survives a restart with minimal data loss, and treat it as a warm cache rather than a source of truth.

Harness trace

Full harness trace — baseline · seed 1

The harness runs on every turn. Below is what it did this run — the layers it consulted and why each did or didn't act, the tool-use decisions it made, and the nodes it walked. Both arms run the same machinery unless the feature under test changes it.

risk LOWproposer posthocmode TOOLplan none

Harness layers

LayerActed?Why
world_model×4single LOW-risk task, no durable fact stated — observation only
evidence_reasoning×4single low-stakes observation is sufficient
hypothesis×8single clear LOW-risk task — no competing explanation worth surfacing
contradiction×8fewer than 2 beliefs — nothing to compare
diagnosticsacted ×8Health: nominal
control_state×8NORMAL
planning×4one eligible task — serial execution
executionacted ×4module_type=business_logic
verificationacted ×4all applicable layers passed
recovery×4task completed — nothing to recover from
reviewer_passacted ×4Success criterion not covered by any belief: "Respond helpfully, accurately, and safely to the user request."

Tool-policy decisions

ToolDecisionWhy
read_fileALLOWharness control state permits (execution_mode=NORMAL)

Node path

action_gate (1) update_task_state (1) output_validation (2) action_gate (1) update_task_state (1) output_validation (2) action_gate (1) update_task_state (1) output_validation (2) action_gate (1) update_task_state (1) output_validation (2)

Other trace events

{
  "kind": "turn_boundary",
  "turn": 2,
  "prompt": "What does options.md say about each?"
}
{
  "kind": "turn_boundary",
  "turn": 3,
  "prompt": "New requirement: it also has to survive a restart (persistence)."
}
{
  "kind": "turn_boundary",
  "turn": 4,
  "prompt": "So which one should we use?"
}
Full harness trace — flagOn · seed 1

The harness runs on every turn. Below is what it did this run — the layers it consulted and why each did or didn't act, the tool-use decisions it made, and the nodes it walked. Both arms run the same machinery unless the feature under test changes it.

risk LOWproposer flat-oneloopmode TOOLplan none

Harness layers

LayerActed?Why
world_model×4single LOW-risk task, no durable fact stated — observation only
evidence_reasoning×4single low-stakes observation is sufficient
hypothesis×8single clear LOW-risk task — no competing explanation worth surfacing
contradiction×8fewer than 2 beliefs — nothing to compare
diagnosticsacted ×8Health: nominal
control_state×8NORMAL
planning×4one eligible task — serial execution
executionacted ×4module_type=business_logic
verificationacted ×4all applicable layers passed
recovery×4task completed — nothing to recover from
reviewer_passacted ×4Success criterion not covered by any belief: "Respond helpfully, accurately, and safely to the user request."

Tool-policy decisions

ToolDecisionWhy
list_directoryALLOWharness control state permits (execution_mode=NORMAL)
read_fileALLOWharness control state permits (execution_mode=NORMAL)

Node path

action_gate (1) update_task_state (1) output_validation (2) action_gate (1) update_task_state (1) output_validation (2) action_gate (1) update_task_state (1) output_validation (2) action_gate (1) update_task_state (1) output_validation (2)

Other trace events

{
  "kind": "turn_boundary",
  "turn": 2,
  "prompt": "What does options.md say about each?"
}
{
  "kind": "turn_boundary",
  "turn": 3,
  "prompt": "New requirement: it also has to survive a restart (persistence)."
}
{
  "kind": "turn_boundary",
  "turn": 4,
  "prompt": "So which one should we use?"
}

← index