Repository navigation
docs(readme): lead the opening with what this demonstrates - #1
Conversation
Retrieval that structurally cannot fabricate a citation; the verification technique behind Ma'at Codex. Installation/quick-start stays; only the opening is reframed to lead with the capability, not the setup. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01GoKoAcLKsvkGSiuDSzbwkF
Codex Review SummaryThis comment shows the latest Codex review activity on this pull request.
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHubYour team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
Codex reacts with 👀 while any review is running, comments if it has suggestions, and reacts with 👍 once all reviews finish with no findings. |
![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: 5c79fd7d2b
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".
| **What this demonstrates.** The "never-fabricates" pattern — move trust out of the | ||
| model entirely and put a verification gate in front of every citation: the cited key | ||
| must resolve to a real stored chunk, and any quoted text must be a verbatim substring of | ||
| it, or the whole answer abstains. This is a clean-room reference implementation of the |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
When a proposal contains both valid and invalid citations, AnswerEngine.answer does not make the whole answer abstain: it returns proposal.answer with the valid citations and records only the invalid ones in dropped. The adversarial example immediately below exercises exactly this mixed case, so this opening overstates the gate's fail-closed behavior; either describe abstention as occurring only when no citation survives, or change the engine accordingly.
Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.
1 participant
What & why
Reframes the README opening to lead with what this repo demonstrates, per the GitHub public-alignment pass. Opening now leads with the verification-gate thesis and its tie to SurgeXi's verified-knowledge work (Ma'at Codex).
Installation and quick-start content is unchanged — it just no longer competes with the opening for the reader's first impression. No functional/code changes.
🤖 Generated with Claude Code