navidocs/SWARM_COMMUNICATION_PROTOCOL.md
Danny Stocker da1263d1b3 Add IF.bus intra-agent communication protocol to all 5 cloud sessions
- Added IFMessage schema with FIPA-ACL performatives
- Session-specific communication flows (distributed intelligence, peer review, adversarial testing, sequential handoffs, consensus building)
- Automatic conflict detection (>20% variance triggers ESCALATE)
- Multi-source verification (IF.TTT ≥2 sources requirement)
- Token cost tracking (IF.optimise integration)
- PARALLEL_LAUNCH_STRATEGY.md for simultaneous session deployment
- SWARM_COMMUNICATION_PROTOCOL.md comprehensive protocol docs

Based on InfraFabric S² multi-swarm coordination (3,563x faster than git polling)

🤖 Generated with Claude Code
Co-Authored-By: Claude <noreply@anthropic.com>
2025-11-13 02:03:24 +01:00

509 lines
16 KiB
Markdown

# NaviDocs Cloud Sessions - Intra-Agent Communication Protocol
**Based on:** InfraFabric IF.bus + SWARM-COMMUNICATION-SECURITY.md
**Status:** ✅ READY - Apply to all 5 cloud sessions
**Generated:** 2025-11-13
---
## Why Intra-Agent Communication is Critical
**Key Insight from InfraFabric:**
> "Intra-agent communication enables specialized agents to challenge each other's evidence, preventing single-agent hallucinations from becoming consensus reality. Without it, you get 9 agents making 9 independent mistakes instead of 1 collective truth."
**For NaviDocs Sessions:**
- **Agent 1 (Market Research)** finds "Prestige yachts sell for €250K"
- **Agent 2 (Competitor Analysis)** finds ads showing €1.5M prices
- **WITHOUT communication:** Both reports go to synthesis unchallenged
- **WITH communication:** Agent 2 sends CHALLENGE → Evidence.Agent detects 500% variance → ESCALATE to Sonnet coordinator
---
## IFMessage Schema for NaviDocs Swarms
### Base Message Structure
```json
{
"performative": "inform",
"sender": "if://agent/session-1/haiku-3",
"receiver": ["if://agent/session-1/haiku-10"],
"conversation_id": "if://conversation/navidocs-session-1-2025-11-13",
"topic": "if://topic/session-1/market-research/owner-pain-points",
"protocol": "fipa-request",
"content": {
"task": "Owner pain points analysis",
"claim": "Inventory tracking prevents €15K-€50K forgotten value at resale",
"evidence": [
"https://yachtworld.com/forums/thread-12345",
"https://thetraderonline.com/boats/resale-value-mistakes"
],
"confidence": 0.85,
"cost_tokens": 1247
},
"citation_ids": ["if://citation/inventory-pain-point-2025-11-13"],
"timestamp": "2025-11-13T10:00:00Z",
"sequence_num": 3,
"trace_id": "s1-h03-001"
}
```
### Speech Acts (FIPA-ACL Performatives)
**Available Performatives:**
1. **inform** - Agent shares findings with others
2. **request** - Agent asks another agent for help/data
3. **query-if** - Agent asks if claim is true
4. **confirm** - Agent verifies another agent's claim
5. **disconfirm** - Agent challenges another agent's claim
6. **propose** - Agent suggests approach/solution
7. **agree** - Agent confirms proposal
8. **refuse** - Agent declines request (with reason)
9. **ESCALATE** - Agent flags critical conflict for Sonnet coordinator
### Example Communication Flows
#### Flow 1: Multi-Source Verification (Session 1, Agents 1→10)
```yaml
# Agent 1 (S1-H01): Market sizing
- performative: "inform"
content:
claim: "Mediterranean yacht sales €2.3B annually"
evidence: ["https://yacht-market-report.com/2024"]
confidence: 0.70 # Only 1 source
receiver: ["if://agent/session-1/haiku-10"] # Synthesis agent
# Agent 10 (S1-H10) detects low confidence, requests verification
- performative: "request"
content:
task: "Verify market size claim with 2nd source"
reason: "IF.TTT requires 2+ sources for high-value claims"
receiver: ["if://agent/session-1/haiku-2"] # Competitor analysis agent
# Agent 2 (S1-H02) searches competitor reports
- performative: "confirm"
content:
original_claim: "Mediterranean yacht sales €2.3B annually"
evidence: ["https://statista.com/yacht-market-europe-2024"]
confidence: 0.90 # Now 2 sources
receiver: ["if://agent/session-1/haiku-10"]
# Agent 10 synthesizes
- performative: "inform"
content:
claim: "Mediterranean yacht sales €2.3B annually (VERIFIED)"
sources: 2
confidence: 0.90
receiver: ["if://agent/session-1/coordinator"] # Sonnet
```
#### Flow 2: Cross-Domain Validation (Session 2, Agents 2→4)
```yaml
# Agent 2 (S2-H02): Inventory tracking design
- performative: "propose"
content:
feature: "Inventory tracking via manual entry forms"
rationale: "Simple, no OCR complexity"
receiver: ["if://agent/session-2/haiku-4"] # Camera integration agent
# Agent 4 (S2-H04) challenges with camera capability
- performative: "disconfirm"
content:
original_proposal: "Manual entry only"
challenge: "Camera feeds can auto-detect equipment (tender, electronics) via CV"
evidence: ["OpenCV boat equipment detection models"]
alternative: "Hybrid: Manual + camera-assisted auto-detection"
receiver: ["if://agent/session-2/haiku-2", "if://agent/session-2/haiku-10"]
# Agent 2 revises proposal
- performative: "agree"
content:
revised_proposal: "Inventory tracking: Manual entry + camera-assisted CV detection"
integration_point: "Use S2-H04's camera feed for equipment detection"
receiver: ["if://agent/session-2/haiku-10"]
```
#### Flow 3: ESCALATE Protocol (Session 1, Conflict Detection)
```yaml
# Agent 1 (S1-H01): Market research
- performative: "inform"
content:
claim: "Jeanneau Prestige 40-50ft price range €250K-€480K"
evidence: ["YachtWorld listing (1 data point)"]
confidence: 0.65
# Agent 3 (S1-H03): Owner pain points
- performative: "inform"
content:
claim: "Owner quoted €15K forgotten tender on €1.5M boat resale"
evidence: ["Forum post, broker interview"]
confidence: 0.75
# Agent 10 (S1-H10) detects conflict (€250K vs €1.5M = 500% variance)
- performative: "ESCALATE"
content:
conflict_type: "Price range inconsistency"
agent_1_claim: "€250K-€480K (S1-H01)"
agent_3_claim: "€1.5M boat (S1-H03)"
variance: "500%"
requires_resolution: true
recommendation: "Re-search YachtWorld/Boat Trader for Prestige 40-50ft ACTUAL sale prices"
receiver: ["if://agent/session-1/coordinator"] # Sonnet resolves
# Sonnet coordinator investigates
- performative: "request"
content:
task: "Search YachtWorld ads for Jeanneau Prestige 50 SOLD listings"
priority: "high"
receiver: ["if://agent/session-1/haiku-1"]
# Agent 1 re-searches
- performative: "inform"
content:
claim: "Jeanneau Prestige 50 price range €800K-€1.5M (CORRECTED)"
evidence: [
"YachtWorld: Prestige 50 sold €1.2M (2024)",
"Boat Trader: Prestige 50 sold €950K (2023)"
]
confidence: 0.95
note: "Previous €250K estimate was for smaller Jeanneau models, NOT Prestige line"
receiver: ["if://agent/session-1/haiku-10", "if://agent/session-1/coordinator"]
```
---
## Communication Patterns by Session
### Session 1: Market Research (Distributed Intelligence)
**C-UAS Pattern:** DETECT → TRACK → IDENTIFY → SYNTHESIZE
```
S1-H01 (Market Size) ────┐
S1-H02 (Competitors) ────┤
S1-H03 (Pain Points) ────┤
S1-H04 (Inventory ROI) ──┼──→ S1-H10 (Evidence Synthesis) ──→ Sonnet (Final Report)
S1-H05 (Sticky Features) ┤ ↓
S1-H06 (Search UX) ───────┤ ESCALATE (if conflicts)
S1-H07 (Pricing) ─────────┤ ↓
S1-H08 (Home Assistant) ──┤ Sonnet Resolves
S1-H09 (Objections) ──────┘
```
**Key Communication Flows:**
1. **Agents 1-9 → Agent 10:** Send findings with confidence scores
2. **Agent 10 → Agents 1-9:** Request verification if confidence <0.75
3. **Agent 10 → Sonnet:** ESCALATE conflicts (>20% variance)
4. **Sonnet → Agent X:** Request re-investigation with specific instructions
### Session 2: Technical Architecture (Collaborative Design)
**Wu Lun Pattern (Confucian Relationships):** Peer review + hierarchical approval
```
S2-H01 (Codebase) ──────→ S2-H10 (Synthesis)
S2-H02 (Inventory) ─────→ S2-H04 (Cameras) ─┐
↓ propose ↓ challenge │
↓ ↓ ├──→ S2-H10 ──→ Sonnet
S2-H03 (Maintenance) ────→ S2-H05 (Contacts) ┘
↓ propose ↓ validate
S2-H06 (Expense) ────────→ S2-H07 (Search UX) ──→ S2-H10
↓ propose ↓ challenge (avoid long lists!)
```
**Key Communication Flows:**
1. **Design Proposals:** Agents 2-7 propose features
2. **Peer Review:** Adjacent agents challenge/validate designs
3. **Integration Checks:** Agent 10 ensures no conflicts (e.g., inventory + cameras)
4. **Sonnet Approval:** Final architecture review
### Session 3: UX/Sales (Adversarial Testing)
**Pattern:** Pitch → Objection → Counter-objection → Refinement
```
S3-H01 (Pitch Deck) ──────→ S3-H05 (Objection Handling) ──→ S3-H10
↓ pitch ↓ challenges ("Why not use X?")
S3-H03 (ROI Calculator) ────→ S3-H05 (Validate assumptions)
↓ claims ↓ verify
S3-H04 (Demo Script) ────────→ S3-H06 (Success Stories) ──→ S3-H10
↓ flow ↓ validate against real cases
```
**Key Communication Flows:**
1. **Pitch → Objection:** Agent 5 challenges every pitch claim
2. **ROI → Validation:** Agent 5 verifies ROI assumptions with market data
3. **Demo → Testing:** Agent 6 checks if demo matches real-world success stories
### Session 4: Implementation (Sprint Coordination)
**Pattern:** Sequential handoffs (Week 1 → Week 2 → Week 3 → Week 4)
```
S4-H01 (Week 1 Sprint) ──→ S4-H02 (Week 2 Sprint)
↓ handoff ↓ depends on Week 1 deliverables
S4-H02 (Week 2 Sprint) ──→ S4-H03 (Week 3 Sprint)
↓ handoff ↓ depends on Week 2
S4-H03 (Week 3 Sprint) ──→ S4-H04 (Week 4 Sprint)
↓ handoff ↓ depends on Week 3
S4-H04 (Week 4 Sprint) ──→ S4-H10 (Integration Testing Plan)
```
**Key Communication Flows:**
1. **Week Handoffs:** Each week agent sends deliverables + blockers to next week
2. **Dependency Checks:** Week N checks if Week N-1 unblocks their tasks
3. **Agent 10 Synthesis:** Ensure 4-week roadmap is coherent
### Session 5: Guardian Validation (Consensus Building)
**Pattern:** Individual reviews → Debate → Vote → Synthesis
```
Core Guardians (1-6) ────┐
Western Philosophers ─────┤
Eastern Philosophers ─────┼──→ IF.sam Debate ──→ S5-H10 (Consensus Report)
IF.sam Facets (8) ────────┘ ↓
ESCALATE (if <80% consensus)
Sonnet Mediates
```
**Key Communication Flows:**
1. **Review → Debate:** Each guardian sends critique to IF.sam board
2. **IF.sam Synthesis:** Debate among 8 facets (Light Side vs Dark Side)
3. **Vote → Consensus:** Agent 10 tallies votes, checks for >80% threshold
4. **ESCALATE:** If consensus fails, Sonnet mediates
---
## IF.TTT Compliance
### Every Message Must Include:
1. **citation_ids:** Links to evidence sources
2. **confidence:** Explicit score (0.0-1.0)
3. **evidence:** Observable artifacts (URLs, file:line, git commits)
4. **trace_id:** Unique identifier for audit trail
### Signature Requirements (Anti-Forgery):
```json
{
"signature": {
"algorithm": "ed25519",
"public_key": "ed25519:AAAC3NzaC1...",
"signature_bytes": "ed25519:p9RLz6Y4...",
"signed_fields": [
"performative", "sender", "receiver",
"content", "citation_ids", "timestamp"
]
}
}
```
**Why:** Prevents agent impersonation, ensures non-repudiation
---
## Token Cost Tracking (IF.optimise)
**Every message includes:**
```json
{
"cost_tokens": 1247,
"model": "haiku",
"efficiency_score": 0.82 // tokens_used / tokens_budgeted
}
```
**Agent 10 (Synthesis) tracks total:**
```json
{
"session_cost": {
"total_tokens": 52450,
"total_usd": 0.86,
"budget_remaining": 14.14,
"efficiency": "71% Haiku delegation ✅"
}
}
```
---
## Error Handling & Resilience (Stoic Prudence)
### Retry Policy (Exponential Backoff)
```yaml
request:
retry_attempts: 3
backoff: [1s, 5s, 15s]
on_failure: "ESCALATE to coordinator"
```
### Timeout Policy
```yaml
message_timeout:
inform: 60s # Simple findings
request: 300s # Complex queries (web search, etc.)
ESCALATE: 30s # Critical conflicts need fast resolution
```
### Graceful Degradation
**If Agent X doesn't respond:**
1. **Agent 10 proceeds** with available data
2. **Flags missing input:** "S1-H07 pricing analysis: TIMEOUT (not included in synthesis)"
3. **ESCALATE to Sonnet:** "Agent 7 unresponsive - proceed without pricing?"
---
## Implementation Instructions for Session Coordinators
### Sonnet Coordinator Responsibilities:
1. **Spawn agents with IF.bus protocol:**
```python
await spawn_agent(
agent_id="if://agent/session-1/haiku-3",
task="Owner pain points analysis",
communication_protocol="IF.bus",
topics=["if://topic/session-1/market-research"]
)
```
2. **Monitor message bus for ESCALATEs:**
```python
while session_active:
messages = await poll_messages(topic="if://topic/escalations")
for msg in messages:
if msg.performative == "ESCALATE":
await resolve_conflict(msg)
```
3. **Track token costs:**
```python
total_cost = sum(msg.content.cost_tokens for msg in all_messages)
if total_cost > budget_threshold:
await alert_user(f"Session {session_id} approaching budget limit")
```
### Haiku Agent Responsibilities:
1. **Check in with identity:**
```python
await send_message(
performative="inform",
content="I am S1-H03, assigned to Owner Pain Points Analysis",
receiver="if://agent/session-1/coordinator"
)
```
2. **Send findings to synthesis agent:**
```python
await send_message(
performative="inform",
content={
"claim": "Inventory tracking prevents €15K-€50K loss",
"evidence": ["..."],
"confidence": 0.85
},
receiver="if://agent/session-1/haiku-10" # Always send to Agent 10
)
```
3. **Respond to verification requests:**
```python
requests = await poll_messages(receiver_filter="if://agent/session-1/haiku-3")
for req in requests:
if req.performative == "request":
result = await process_request(req.content.task)
await send_message(
performative="confirm",
content=result,
receiver=req.sender # Reply to requester
)
```
---
## Testing the Protocol
### Minimal Viable Test (Session 1, 3 agents)
**Scenario:** Detect price conflict and ESCALATE
```python
# Agent 1: Report low price
S1_H01.send("inform", claim="Prestige 50 price €250K")
# Agent 3: Report high price
S1_H03.send("inform", claim="Owner has €1.5M Prestige 50")
# Agent 10: Detect conflict
variance = (1.5M - 250K) / 250K # 500%
if variance > 0.20:
S1_H10.send("ESCALATE", content="500% price variance")
# Sonnet: Resolve
Sonnet.send("request", task="Re-search YachtWorld for Prestige 50 SOLD prices", receiver="S1-H01")
```
**Expected Result:**
- Agent 10 detects conflict
- Sonnet receives ESCALATE
- Agent 1 re-investigates
- Corrected price €800K-€1.5M reported
---
## Benefits Summary
**Without Intra-Agent Communication:**
- 10 agents make 10 independent mistakes
- Conflicts undetected until human reviews
- Low confidence claims go unchallenged
- Single-source hallucinations propagate
**With IF.bus Protocol:**
- Agent 10 detects conflicts automatically (>20% variance → ESCALATE)
- Multi-source verification enforced (IF.TTT requirement)
- Cross-domain validation (Agent 4 challenges Agent 2 designs)
- Token costs tracked in real-time (IF.optimise)
- Cryptographic integrity (Ed25519 signatures)
**Result:** Higher quality intelligence, faster conflict resolution, medical-grade evidence standards.
---
## Next Steps
1. **Update all 5 cloud session files** with IF.bus communication protocol
2. **Add message examples** to each agent's task description
3. **Update Agent 10 (Synthesis)** to include conflict detection logic
4. **Test with Session 1** (market research) before launching Sessions 2-5
**Files to Update:**
- `CLOUD_SESSION_1_MARKET_RESEARCH.md` - Add IF.bus protocol section
- `CLOUD_SESSION_2_TECHNICAL_INTEGRATION.md` - Add peer review flow
- `CLOUD_SESSION_3_UX_SALES_ENABLEMENT.md` - Add adversarial testing
- `CLOUD_SESSION_4_IMPLEMENTATION_PLANNING.md` - Add sprint handoffs
- `CLOUD_SESSION_5_SYNTHESIS_VALIDATION.md` - Add consensus protocol
---
**Citation:** if://doc/navidocs/swarm-communication-protocol-2025-11-13
**References:**
- `/home/setup/infrafabric/docs/SWARM-COMMUNICATION-SECURITY.md`
- `/home/setup/infrafabric/docs/INTRA-AGENT-COMMUNICATION-VALUE-ANALYSIS.md`
- `/home/setup/infrafabric/docs/HAIKU-SWARM-TEST-FRAMEWORK.md`