Phase E1: semantic domain profiles for StreamSpec and CapabilitySpec by txmed82 · Pull Request #66 · SeldingerMed/vector

txmed82 · 2026-09-10T22:53:34Z

What

Extends StreamSpec with domain-semantic profile fields: dtype, shape, unit, coordinate_frame, valid_range, controller_id, camera_calibration, joint_order, invalid_depth_encoding, and privileged.
Extends CapabilitySpec with stream_profiles and accepts_privileged.
Enforces semantic profile validation in CapabilitySpec.satisfies(): equal shapes with different physical units (e.g. "mm" vs "m"), mismatched coordinate frames (e.g. "world" vs "tool_tip"), mismatched controller identities, joint orders, or unauthorized privileged streams refuse binding.
Adds comprehensive unit tests in tests/test_multi_modality_contracts.py.
Updates docs/NEXT_STATUS.md ledger.

Why

Phase E1 requires that equal observation or action tensor shapes with different physical meanings (e.g. units or frames of reference) must not bind as equivalent, establishing formal semantic profiles between task interfaces and agent capabilities.

Verify

uv run ruff check --fix && uv run ruff format --check && uv run mypy clean.
Test suites green (87 passed).

…Spec

txmed82 · 2026-09-10T22:53:40Z

@droid review

factory-droid · 2026-09-10T22:53:47Z

Droid finished @txmed82's task —— View job

Review complete. The semantic domain profile additions look solid and the tests cover the key mismatch cases. There is one correctness issue in stream profile matching that can silently skip schema_id-based profiles, so it's worth fixing before merge.

Findings (1):

[P1] src/or_audit/eval/contracts.py:198 — cap_profiles is keyed only by StreamSpec.id, so the cap_profiles.get(intf_stream.schema_id) fallback never matches; schema_id-based profiles are silently skipped and semantic mismatches can bind when they should be refused. Suggestion block included in the inline comment.

factory-droid · 2026-09-10T22:53:53Z

Droid finished @txmed82's task —— View job

Droid review complete

Adds semantic stream profile fields, enforces matching in CapabilitySpec.satisfies(), and includes good mismatch tests. One correctness issue: the schema_id fallback lookup for stream_profiles is currently ineffective, so schema-based profile matching will not work as intended.

Posted 1 inline comment (1 P1).

…ce stream semantics

txmed82 · 2026-09-10T22:58:56Z

@droid review

factory-droid · 2026-09-10T22:59:12Z

Droid finished @txmed82's task —— View job

Review complete — 2 comments posted.

The core satisfies() enforcement is sound and the new tests accurately cover the declared semantics (units, frames, controllers, joint orders, privileged streams, wildcard interaction). Two gaps: camera_calibration is added as a semantic profile field but is never enforced or even read, so calibration-only differences silently bind; and duplicate stream_profiles ids silently overwrite rather than being rejected the way InterfaceSpec rejects duplicate stream ids.

factory-droid · 2026-09-10T22:59:20Z

+        ):
+            return False
+        cap_profiles = {s.id: s for s in self.stream_profiles} if self.stream_profiles else {}
+        for intf_stream in interface.streams:


[P1] Fix stream_profiles lookup by schema_id

CapabilitySpec.satisfies() falls back to cap_profiles.get(intf_stream.schema_id), but cap_profiles is keyed only by StreamSpec.id, so schema-based lookups will never match (unless id == schema_id by coincidence) and semantic mismatches can bind when they should be refused.

Suggested change

for intf_stream in interface.streams:

cap_profiles: dict[str, StreamSpec] = {}

for s in self.stream_profiles:

cap_profiles[s.id] = s

cap_profiles[s.schema_id] = s

factory-droid · 2026-09-10T22:59:22Z

+        ):
+            return False
+        cap_profiles = {s.id: s for s in self.stream_profiles} if self.stream_profiles else {}
+        for intf_stream in interface.streams:


[P1] Fix schema_id matching for stream_profiles

In CapabilitySpec.satisfies(), cap_profiles is keyed only by StreamSpec.id, but the lookup falls back to intf_stream.schema_id; unless a profile’s id was set equal to its schema_id, schema-based matching can never succeed and intended semantic checks can be skipped.

Suggested change

for intf_stream in interface.streams:

cap_profiles = {s.id: s for s in self.stream_profiles}

cap_profiles.update({s.schema_id: s for s in self.stream_profiles})

txmed82 · 2026-09-10T23:04:44Z

@droid review

factory-droid · 2026-09-10T23:04:57Z

Droid encountered an error —— View job

Droid Exec exited with code 1:
Tool "Create" skipped (GPT-5.2 uses ApplyPatch instead).
Tool "Edit" skipped (GPT-5.2 uses ApplyPatch instead).

factory-droid · 2026-09-10T23:05:57Z

+    coordinate_frame: str = ""
+    valid_range: tuple[float, float] | None = None
+    controller_id: str = ""
+    camera_calibration: dict[str, Any] = Field(default_factory=dict)


[P1] camera_calibration is declared as a semantic profile field but never enforced

StreamSpec gains camera_calibration: dict[str, Any] as one of the PR's domain-semantic profile fields, but the field is read nowhere else in the repo: it is missing from the has_semantics computation in CapabilitySpec.satisfies() and there is no matching_profile.camera_calibration != intf_stream.camera_calibration comparison alongside the other per-field checks. As a result, an interface stream whose only semantic declaration is a camera calibration has has_semantics == False and binds to a capability with no stream profile at all, and two profiles with different calibrations bind as equivalent. That contradicts the PR's stated guarantee that equal tensor shapes with different physical meaning must refuse binding, and leaves the field dead in production code.

factory-droid · 2026-09-10T23:05:57Z

-        )
+        ):
+            return False
+        cap_profiles: dict[Slug, StreamSpec] = {}


[P3] Duplicate stream_profiles ids silently overwrite each other

cap_profiles = {s.id: s for s in self.stream_profiles} silently keeps only the last profile when a capability declares two stream_profiles with the same id. The sibling model InterfaceSpec explicitly rejects duplicate stream ids as a contract error ("declares duplicate stream id" in _shape_matches_mode), so this asymmetry means a malformed capability is accepted and deterministically binds against whichever profile happens to be last in the tuple instead of being rejected. A model validator on CapabilitySpec mirroring the InterfaceSpec duplicate check would close the gap.

…profiles IDs

txmed82 · 2026-09-10T23:10:57Z

@droid review

factory-droid · 2026-09-10T23:11:09Z

Droid encountered an error —— View job

Droid Exec exited with code 1:
Tool "Edit" skipped (GPT-5.2 uses ApplyPatch instead).
Tool "Create" skipped (GPT-5.2 uses ApplyPatch instead).

feat: Phase E1 semantic domain profiles for StreamSpec and Capability…

05b1ecf

…Spec

fix: strictly require matching semantic profiles for declared interfa…

79184bc

…ce stream semantics

factory-droid Bot reviewed Sep 10, 2026

View reviewed changes

fix: index cap_profiles by schema_id and stream id for profile lookups

919275f

factory-droid Bot reviewed Sep 10, 2026

View reviewed changes

fix: enforce camera_calibration matching and reject duplicate stream_…

8ae0dcb

…profiles IDs

txmed82 merged commit 805563f into main Sep 10, 2026
6 checks passed

txmed82 deleted the feat/phase-e1-semantic-domain-profiles branch September 10, 2026 23:16

txmed82 mentioned this pull request Sep 11, 2026

fix: close Phase E1 profile-binding soundness holes #67

Merged

-        for intf_stream in interface.streams:
+            cap_profiles: dict[str, StreamSpec] = {}
+            for s in self.stream_profiles:
+                cap_profiles[s.id] = s
+                cap_profiles[s.schema_id] = s

	for intf_stream in interface.streams:
	cap_profiles = {s.id: s for s in self.stream_profiles}
	cap_profiles.update({s.schema_id: s for s in self.stream_profiles})

Uh oh!

Conversation

txmed82 commented Sep 10, 2026

What

Why

Verify

Uh oh!

txmed82 commented Sep 10, 2026

Uh oh!

factory-droid Bot commented Sep 10, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

factory-droid Bot commented Sep 10, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

txmed82 commented Sep 10, 2026

Uh oh!

factory-droid Bot commented Sep 10, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

factory-droid Bot Sep 10, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

factory-droid Bot Sep 10, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

txmed82 commented Sep 10, 2026

Uh oh!

factory-droid Bot commented Sep 10, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

factory-droid Bot Sep 10, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

factory-droid Bot Sep 10, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

txmed82 commented Sep 10, 2026

Uh oh!

factory-droid Bot commented Sep 10, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

2 participants

factory-droid Bot commented Sep 10, 2026 •

edited

Loading

factory-droid Bot commented Sep 10, 2026 •

edited

Loading

factory-droid Bot commented Sep 10, 2026 •

edited

Loading

factory-droid Bot commented Sep 10, 2026 •

edited

Loading

factory-droid Bot commented Sep 10, 2026 •

edited

Loading