mirror of
https://github.com/CyberSecurityUP/NeuroSploit.git
synced 2026-09-29 20:41:51 +02:00
CyberSecurityUPandClaude Opus 5
36c9e05ea7
Everything upstream produced a verdict and stopped. When the evidence was thin the answer was needs-review — which hands a reviewer the same thin evidence and asks them to do the collecting. That is the wrong party: the harness still has the target, the session and the tooling; the reviewer has a paragraph. The uncertainty engine scores how undecided each candidate is by counting what its class needs against what it has, which makes "how sure are we?" a measurement rather than another model's opinion. A finding that is undecided AND whose gap is obtainable gets one more collection round before judgement. Two rules keep the loop from becoming a treadmill: - Only obtainable gaps trigger a round. A missing baseline is one request away; a confirmed account behind an email gate is not, and retrying it forever burns budget while nothing changes. Unreachable gaps are recorded, never retried. - Rounds are bounded per finding (two by default) and the remaining gap is written into the review reason, so a needs-review says exactly what was missing instead of sending a human looking from scratch. Actions are ordered by cost: a baseline is one request, a browser run costs seconds and a process. Spending the expensive step before the cheap one has had a chance to decide it is how a budget goes without buying anything. Merging is monotonic — a later run that did not see the marker does not unsee an earlier one that did. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>