The first environment shipped through .claude/workflows/new-environment.js:
specification, three adversarial reviews (all 'fixable', none fatal), the
Python environment, the TypeScript port, captured rollouts, and the demo page.
Eleven agents, no errors.
The proof that the platform scales is one line long. Alert Triage has a
completely different shape from Word Five — JSON actions, priced lookups, an
analyst screen instead of a grid — and the only change under
src/components/demo/ is a comment edit, because the isolation lint refused the
word "wordle" there. Zero shell code changed. 415 contract checks now pass
against two demos, up from 206 against one.
The environment is honest by construction. Every alert is synthetic, generated
from the seed, and the banner saying so sits inside the board surface. Two of
the eleven scenario templates are hidden-suspicious: generated by the same code
as their benign twin with the signal overlaid only in lookup data, so the free
screen is identically distributed and a screen-only policy STRUCTURALLY cannot
tell them apart. The probe ladder measures it: `fast` catches 0.0 of hidden
seeds. That is the counterweight made real rather than asserted.
Twelve policies, thirteen ladder assertions, a genuine three-way trade:
fast 0.846 wins hours (0.85), misses every hidden case
targeted 0.894 wins the shipped total
thorough 0.820 wins evidence (1.00), spends 2.9 hours
None dominates. 92 Python tests, 35 TypeScript tests, 65 fixtures replaying at
delta 0, and conformance gated on world + scorer + protocol so the browser shows
the same alert for ?seed= that Python generated.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_019mt6sHQHEnEYrJZvoMCJSB
The Python is the source of truth; src/demos/wordle/engine.ts will be a port of
it, and CI gates the two against a SHA-256 over all 21.2M (guess, answer)
pattern pairs rather than a hand-picked vector file — a vector file only ever
catches the cases somebody thought of.
The reward is three weighted components, and the third one is the reason this
demo is worth building. `solved` and `economy` pull toward winning. `consistency`
pulls against them, because a player maximising information deliberately guesses
words that cannot win — a word that splits the remaining candidates evenly
teaches more than a word that might happen to be right. That is good play, and
it costs consistency.
The probe ladder proves the tension is real rather than asserted:
inaction 0.0000 crude 0.0111 plausible 0.1224
candidate_only 0.8925 exhaustive 0.9031 oracle 0.9458
The two good policies are 0.05 apart and neither dominates — the entropy oracle
takes 1.00 economy and 0.73 consistency, the candidate-only player takes 0.75
and 1.00. Which one wins is a decision about what you want, which is the whole
argument the site exists to make. probe.py fails CI if either starts dominating.
Two traps found by building it. `consistency` is scored over turns SPENT, not
guesses accepted: counting only legal guesses hands a free 1.0 to a policy that
plays one word and then jams the parser five times — one guess, no
contradictions, perfect score. And `economy`'s denominator is the depth the
SHIPPED solver reaches, not a depth-optimal search: entropy-greedy is not
depth-optimal, so grading it against an exact optimum would make the oracle
rung fail its own assertion on some seeds.
The word lists are built from Wordnik (MIT) intersected with SCOWL, never from
the original game's 2,315 answers. 4,603 answers makes this materially harder
than the original, so the published SALET/3.4212 results are cited as belonging
to that list and our own reference player's TARES/3.72 is measured here.
verifiers is an optional extra. The engine, reward, solver and probe all run —
and gate — without an RL stack resolvable.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_019mt6sHQHEnEYrJZvoMCJSB
karti-ai