You're working on machine-driver — the deliberately-dumb, tireless loop that drives long-running code work to a verified definition of done without a human in the loop. It is Box 2 (the Dumb Driver) of The Machine, and the code-work sibling of Conductor (the ops driver). This file gets you productive fast.
README.md— the loop, how to run it, and the planned iteration-2 (signed AAR).CONFORMANCE.md— how each of the 6 boxes maps to the code, and the current honest level.driver.py— the whole driver (~160 lines, stdlib-only, Python ≥ 3.7).goal.example.json— the contract + budget + tasks schema you point it at.tests/test_driver.py— the conformance smoke tests.
python3 -m unittest discover -s tests -v
# happy-path emits AAR + completes · governor halts (exit 2) · no-verifier ⇒ propose · hash-chain intactThe driver spends zero model tokens. The only judgment in the whole system lives on the
far side of the worker_cmd shell-out. If you find yourself wanting the driver to reason —
to "decide" the next task, to "judge" whether a diff is good — stop. That judgment belongs in
the worker (do the work) or the verifier (verify_cmd, ground truth), never the control plane.
The thing that runs for weeks cannot be the thing that occasionally decides a bug isn't a big deal.
- Every change keeps
tests/green before you commit. New behavior ships a new test. - No model in the loop. Task selection stays deterministic (
next_pending, or a rules table) — never an LLM call insidemain(). - Fail closed. No verifier ⇒ propose-only. Unratified contract ⇒ propose-only. A budget breach halts; it never "tries once more."
- Verifier ≠ worker, always. The thing that grades the work is never the thing that did it.
- Be honest about limits. This is a reference skeleton; the README/CONFORMANCE say plainly what's enforced vs. planned. Don't oversell it.
Not a coding agent (that's the worker you plug in). Not a verifier (that's verify_cmd / your
tests / AVL). Not an orchestration framework — it's ~160 lines of boring, resumable control flow.
The point is that it's boring.
MIT.