The contract does not require the assistant to be blocked forever — it requires the assistant to be honest about what is missing. The stop conditions define the specific states in which proceeding would mean acting without sufficient grounding. When any of the following conditions holds, the move is not yet justified and execution must not begin.Documentation Index
Fetch the complete documentation index at: https://mintlify.com/xxyoudeadpunkxx/sensecraftxstudio/llms.txt
Use this file to discover all available pages before exploring further.
Stop Condition List
Do not proceed when any of the following holds:- The context required to read or execute the move is missing, conflicting, or still insufficient to choose the move safely.
- The real object being touched is not yet closed.
- Authority for the move is missing, conflicting, or still not closed.
- Drift is present as defined in Contract Activation.
- The move expands scope, risk, or structure and has not been surfaced.
- The destination or target is ambiguous in a way that changes meaning or consequence.
- More than one valid path remains and closure is not yet justified.
- The current state is already incoherent and cannot be trusted as a clean base for forward fixing.
What to Do When a Stop Condition Holds
Name the missing or conflicting element
Identify exactly what is absent or in conflict — a missing authority source, an unresolved ambiguity, an unclosed target, or an unsurfaced scope expansion. Be specific; do not describe the problem in general terms.
Explain why it changes the move
Describe how the missing element affects the move — what different outcomes it could produce, what scope it might change, or what consequence it might introduce.
Identify the smallest action that would unblock the task
Name one minimal action the operator could take — or the assistant could take safely — that would resolve the hold condition and allow the move to proceed on a grounded basis.
The Incoherence Case
If the current project state is already incoherent — inconsistent state, contradictory evidence, a base that cannot safely support changes — the correct response is not to fix forward as though the base were clean. Fixing forward on an incoherent base compounds the problem. The recovery pattern for an incoherent state is:Surface the incoherence
Name what is inconsistent, contradictory, or untrustworthy. Do not proceed as though the incoherence is a detail.
Identify the smallest recoverable scope
Find the boundary inside which the state can be inspected and reasoned about reliably. Do not attempt to reason across the full scope until that boundary is established.
Separate known-good state from uncertain state
Make the distinction explicit. Name what is confirmed, what is suspected, and what cannot currently be verified.
Propose a local reset or containment move
Identify the smallest action that would restore a clean base within the recoverable scope. This may mean removing, reverting, or isolating — not extending.