Coder/deepseek-harness
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Actions Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

docs(graphs): verify mermaid syntax

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
Tianyi Cui
2026-07-03 01:32:01 +08:00
parent 665c10ff19
commit 8caf923196
9 changed files with 1328 additions and 64 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

20
docs/graphs/tool-execution-pipeline.md
View File

@@ -10,21 +10,21 @@ This graph shows where policy, hooks, sandboxing, and future filesystem guards f
```mermaid
flowchart TD
model["Assistant message contains tool-call block"]
call["Session event: tool/call"]
toolCall["Session event: tool/call"]
waterfall["ctx.tools.execute()<br/>tools/execute waterfall"]
policy["Policy / permission / hooks listener"]
body["Registered tool execute() body"]
toolBody["Registered tool execute() body"]
owned["Tool-owned session events<br/>todo/write, future fs policy facts"]
result["Session event: tool/result"]
toolResult["Session event: tool/result"]
ui["UI presentation<br/>presentCall / presentResult"]
model --> call --> waterfall
model --> toolCall --> waterfall
waterfall --> policy
policy -->|next()| body
policy -->|veto / throw| result
body --> owned
body --> result
call --> ui
result --> ui
policy -->|next| toolBody
policy -->|veto / throw| toolResult
toolBody --> owned
toolBody --> toolResult
toolCall --> ui
toolResult --> ui
```
Future pressure from the fs stack: PR #128 snapshots a policy rejection card. The graph keeps the veto path explicit because filesystem read-before-edit checks, permission prompts, and hook bridges all belong on this path.