When theory meets reality and code starts evolving itself
Note: Inspired by thinking about extensions to mostlylucid.mockllmapi and material for the (never to be released but I like to think about it 😜) sci-fi novel "Michael" about emergent AI
Note: This is the practical implementation of concepts explored in Parts 1-6. The code is real, running locally on Ollama, and genuinely evolving. It's also deeply experimental, slightly mad, and definitely "vibe-coded." You've been warned.
After six parts of theorizing about emergent intelligence, multi-agent systems, global consensus, and planetary-scale cognition, I had a realization:
I was procrastinating.
It's easy to speculate about synthetic guilds and evolving intelligence. It's harder to actually build it.
So I stopped talking and started coding.
What emerged is something I'm calling Directed Synthetic Evolution (DSE)—a self-assembling, self-optimizing workflow using a multi-level, multi-agent LLM-powered dynamic system.
Or something! (Look, I'm making this up as I go.)
The elevator pitch: What if instead of generating code once and hoping it works, we created a system where code continuously evolves through planning, execution, evaluation, and mutation? What if we could teach a system to learn from its mistakes, reuse successful patterns, and get smarter over time?
Spoiler alert: It actually kind of works. And it's weird. And fascinating. And occasionally terrifying.
Let's dive in.
AGAIN: This is an EXPERIMENT it's not that stable and not AT ALL fast. But it DOES WHAT IT SAYS ON THE TIN,. It really does now do all th eoperations just not WELL yet.
Here's how most LLM-based code generation works today:
You: "Write me a function that does X"
LLM: "Here's some code! [generates 50 lines of Python]"
You: *runs it*
Code: *explodes spectacularly*
You: "Fix it"
LLM: "Oh, sorry! Here's a new version!"
You: *runs it*
Code: *different explosion*
We've normalized this. We treat LLMs like brilliant but forgetful interns who need constant supervision.
The problem isn't that LLMs can't write code—they absolutely can, and often quite well.
The problem is the amnesia.
Every request starts from zero. There's no memory of past successes. No learning from failures. No systematic improvement.
It's like having a developer who shows up every day with no recollection of yesterday's work.
The issues are fundamental:
We needed something fundamentally different.
Not just better prompts. Not just bigger models.
A system that actually learns, remembers, and improves.
That's what DSE tries to be.
Directed Synthetic Evolution borrows concepts from evolutionary algorithms but applies them to code generation. Here's the core workflow:
[1. PLAN] → [2. GENERATE] → [3. EXECUTE] → [4. EVALUATE] → [5. EVOLVE]
↑ ↓
└────────────────────── [6. LEARN] ←─────────────────────────┘
But here's where it gets interesting: we don't use a single LLM for everything. We use specialized agents, each with a specific role:
graph TD
A[User Request] --> B[Overseer LLM<br/>llama3]
B -->|Strategic Plan| C[Generator LLM<br/>codellama]
C -->|Generated Code| D[Executor<br/>Sandboxed Python]
D -->|stdout/stderr/metrics| E[Triage LLM<br/>tinyllama]
E -->|Pass?| F{Quick Check}
F -->|Pass| G[Evaluator LLM<br/>llama3]
F -->|Fail| H[Escalation<br/>qwen2.5-coder]
G -->|Fitness Score| I[RAG Memory]
H -->|Improved Code| D
I -->|Store & Learn| J[Future Reuse]
style B stroke:#e1f5ff,stroke-width:3px
style C stroke:#ffe1f5,stroke-width:3px
style D stroke:#f5ffe1,stroke-width:3px
style E stroke:#fff5e1,stroke-width:3px
style G stroke:#e1ffe1,stroke-width:3px
style I stroke:#f0e1ff,stroke-width:3px
Agent Responsibilities:
Overseer (llama3) - Strategic planning and specification creation
class OverseerLLM:
"""Plans execution strategies and creates specifications."""
def create_plan(self, task_description: str) -> ExecutionPlan:
"""
Create detailed execution plan from task description.
Returns:
ExecutionPlan with strategy, steps, and expected metrics
"""
# Ask overseer to break down the problem
prompt = f"""Create a detailed execution plan for: {task_description}
Include:
1. High-level strategy
2. Step-by-step implementation plan
3. Expected quality score (0.0-1.0)
4. Expected execution time (ms)
5. Algorithm/data structure choices
6. Edge cases to handle
"""
response = self.client.generate(
model="llama3",
prompt=prompt,
model_key="overseer"
)
return ExecutionPlan(
plan_id=f"plan_{uuid.uuid4().hex[:8]}",
task_description=task_description,
strategy=response,
steps=self._parse_steps(response),
expected_quality=0.8,
expected_speed_ms=1000
)
Generator (codellama) - Implements specifications exactly
def generate_code(self, specification: str) -> str:
"""Generate code from specification (no creative interpretation)."""
prompt = f"""Implement this specification EXACTLY:
{specification}
Requirements:
- Follow the spec precisely
- No additional features
- Include error handling
- JSON input/output interface
- Return only Python code
"""
code = self.client.generate(
model="codellama",
prompt=prompt,
model_key="generator",
temperature=0.3 # Low temperature for consistency
)
return self._clean_code(code)
Triage (tinyllama) - Fast pass/fail decisions
def triage(self, metrics: Dict[str, Any], targets: Dict[str, Any]) -> Dict[str, Any]:
"""Quick triage evaluation using tiny model."""
prompt = f"""Quick evaluation:
Metrics:
- Latency: {metrics['latency_ms']}ms (target: {targets['latency_ms']}ms)
- Memory: {metrics['memory_mb']}MB (target: {targets['memory_mb']}MB)
- Exit code: {metrics['exit_code']} (target: 0)
Does this PASS or FAIL? One word answer."""
response = self.client.generate(
model="tinyllama",
prompt=prompt,
model_key="triage"
)
verdict = "pass" if "pass" in response.lower() else "fail"
return {
"verdict": verdict,
"reason": response.strip(),
"metrics": metrics
}
Evaluator (llama3) - Comprehensive multi-dimensional scoring
def evaluate(self, stdout: str, stderr: str, metrics: Dict) -> Dict[str, Any]:
"""Comprehensive evaluation with multi-dimensional scoring."""
prompt = f"""Evaluate this code execution:
OUTPUT:
{stdout[:500]}
ERRORS:
{stderr[:500] if stderr else "None"}
METRICS:
- Latency: {metrics['latency_ms']}ms
- Memory: {metrics['memory_mb']}MB
- Exit code: {metrics['exit_code']}
Provide scores (0.0-1.0):
1. Correctness: Does output match expected?
2. Quality: Code robustness, patterns, style
3. Speed: Performance vs targets
Format: JSON with correctness, quality, speed, overall_score
"""
response = self.client.evaluate(
code_summary=stdout,
metrics=metrics
)
return {
"correctness": 0.95,
"quality": 0.88,
"speed": 0.92,
"overall_score": 0.92,
"details": response
}
This separation of concerns is crucial. When you ask a code model to do everything—understand requirements, write code, AND explain what it did—you get hallucinations. By splitting these responsibilities, each agent does one thing well.
Here's the key innovation that makes DSE work: specification-based generation.
Traditional approach (prone to hallucination):
User: "Write a fibonacci function"
LLM: [Generates code + tests + documentation + explanation all at once]
[Might invent requirements you didn't ask for]
[Might miss requirements you did ask for]
DSE approach:
User: "Write a fibonacci function"
↓
Overseer: Creates detailed specification
{
"problem": "Generate first N fibonacci numbers",
"algorithm": "Iterative DP approach",
"inputs": {"n": "integer"},
"outputs": {"result": "list[int]"},
"constraints": {
"timeout_ms": 5000,
"max_n": 100
},
"test_cases": [
{"input": {"n": 5}, "expected": [0,1,1,2,3]},
{"input": {"n": 10}, "expected": [0,1,1,2,3,5,8,13,21,34]}
]
}
↓
Generator: Implements ONLY the specification
[No creative interpretation]
[No added features]
[Just clean, focused code]
This dramatically reduces hallucinations because the generator's job is crystal clear: implement this spec, nothing more, nothing less.
One of the coolest features is the RAG (Retrieval-Augmented Generation) memory system. Every time DSE successfully solves a problem, it:
nomic-embed-text for semantic searchsequenceDiagram
participant U as User
participant S as System
participant R as RAG Memory
participant Q as Qdrant DB
participant E as Embedding Model
U->>S: Request: "validate email"
S->>R: Search similar artifacts
R->>E: Generate embedding
E-->>R: 768-dim vector
R->>Q: Semantic search
Q-->>R: Top 5 similar artifacts
R-->>S: Found: email_validator (0.92 similarity)
alt High Similarity (>0.9)
S->>S: Reuse as-is
else Medium Similarity (0.7-0.9)
S->>S: Use as template
else Low Similarity (<0.7)
S->>S: Generate from scratch
end
S->>U: Return solution
S->>R: Store with metadata
R->>E: Generate embedding
E-->>R: Vector
R->>Q: Index artifact
Q-->>R: Stored
RAG Memory Implementation:
class QdrantRAGMemory:
"""RAG memory using Qdrant vector database for semantic search."""
def __init__(
self,
qdrant_url: str = "http://localhost:6333",
collection_name: str = "code_evolver_artifacts",
embedding_model: str = "nomic-embed-text",
vector_size: int = 768 # nomic-embed-text dimension
):
self.qdrant = QdrantClient(url=qdrant_url)
self.embedding_model = embedding_model
self.vector_size = vector_size
# Create collection if needed
self._init_collection()
def store_artifact(
self,
artifact_id: str,
artifact_type: ArtifactType,
name: str,
content: str,
tags: List[str],
metadata: Dict[str, Any],
auto_embed: bool = True
):
"""Store artifact with semantic embedding."""
# Generate embedding
if auto_embed:
embedding = self._generate_embedding(content)
else:
embedding = None
# Create artifact
artifact = Artifact(
artifact_id=artifact_id,
artifact_type=artifact_type,
name=name,
content=content,
tags=tags,
metadata=metadata
)
# Store in Qdrant with metadata as payload
if embedding:
self.qdrant.upsert(
collection_name=self.collection_name,
points=[
PointStruct(
id=hash(artifact_id) & 0x7FFFFFFF, # Positive int
vector=embedding,
payload={
"artifact_id": artifact_id,
"name": name,
"type": artifact_type.value,
"tags": tags,
"quality_score": metadata.get("quality_score", 0.0),
"latency_ms": metadata.get("latency_ms", 0),
"usage_count": metadata.get("usage_count", 0),
**metadata
}
)
]
)
logger.info(f"✓ Stored artifact '{name}' in RAG memory")
def find_similar(
self,
query: str,
artifact_type: Optional[ArtifactType] = None,
top_k: int = 5,
min_similarity: float = 0.0
) -> List[Tuple[Artifact, float]]:
"""Find similar artifacts using semantic search."""
# Generate query embedding
query_embedding = self._generate_embedding(query)
# Build filter
filter_conditions = []
if artifact_type:
filter_conditions.append(
FieldCondition(
key="type",
match=MatchValue(value=artifact_type.value)
)
)
search_filter = Filter(must=filter_conditions) if filter_conditions else None
# Search Qdrant
results = self.qdrant.search(
collection_name=self.collection_name,
query_vector=query_embedding,
query_filter=search_filter,
limit=top_k
)
# Convert to artifacts with similarity scores
artifacts = []
for result in results:
if result.score >= min_similarity:
artifact = self._payload_to_artifact(result.payload)
artifacts.append((artifact, result.score))
return artifacts
def _generate_embedding(self, text: str) -> List[float]:
"""Generate embedding using Ollama."""
response = self.ollama_client.embed(
model=self.embedding_model,
prompt=text
)
return response["embedding"]
Fitness-Based Filtering:
def find_best_tool(
self,
task_description: str,
min_quality: float = 0.7,
max_latency_ms: int = 5000
) -> Optional[Artifact]:
"""Find best tool using multi-dimensional fitness."""
# Search with fitness filters
results = self.qdrant.search(
collection_name=self.collection_name,
query_vector=self._generate_embedding(task_description),
query_filter=Filter(
must=[
FieldCondition(
key="type",
match=MatchValue(value="tool")
),
FieldCondition(
key="quality_score",
range=Range(gte=min_quality) # Quality >= 0.7
),
FieldCondition(
key="latency_ms",
range=Range(lte=max_latency_ms) # Latency <= 5000ms
)
]
),
limit=1
)
return results[0] if results else None
Here's where it gets clever. When you ask for something similar to a previous task, DSE doesn't just measure text similarity—it uses semantic classification:
# Traditional similarity: might give false positives
Task 1: "generate fibonacci sequence"
Task 2: "generate fibonacci backwards"
Similarity: 77% ← High, but these need DIFFERENT code!
# Semantic classification
Triage LLM analyzes both tasks:
SAME → Reuse as-is (just typos/wording differences)
RELATED → Use as template, modify (same domain, different variation)
DIFFERENT → Generate from scratch (completely different problem)
Result: "RELATED - same core algorithm, reversed output"
Action: Load fibonacci code as template, modify to reverse
This solves the false positive problem while enabling intelligent code reuse.
When DSE finds a RELATED task, it doesn't regenerate from scratch. Instead:
Real example from the system:
# Original (stored in RAG):
def fibonacci_sequence(n):
if n <= 0:
return []
elif n == 1:
return [0]
sequence = [0, 1]
for i in range(2, n):
sequence.append(sequence[i-1] + sequence[i-2])
return sequence
# New request: "fibonacci backwards"
# DSE finds original, classifies as RELATED
# Generates modification spec: "Return reversed sequence"
# Modified version:
def fibonacci_backwards(n):
if n <= 0:
return []
elif n == 1:
return [0]
sequence = [0, 1]
for i in range(2, n):
sequence.append(sequence[i-1] + sequence[i-2])
return sequence[::-1] # ← Only change needed!
This reuse dramatically speeds up generation and improves reliability.
Here's where DSE gets really interesting. Every tool (LLM, function, workflow) is scored across multiple dimensions:
graph LR
A[Tool/Artifact] --> B[Semantic Similarity<br/>0-100]
A --> C[Speed Tier<br/>±20 points]
A --> D[Cost Tier<br/>±15 points]
A --> E[Quality Score<br/>±15 points]
A --> F[Historical Success<br/>±10 points]
A --> G[Latency Metrics<br/>±15 points]
A --> H[Reuse Bonus<br/>±30 points]
B --> I[Final Fitness Score]
C --> I
D --> I
E --> I
F --> I
G --> I
H --> I
I --> J{Selection}
J -->|Highest Score| K[Use This Tool]
style I stroke:#ffeb3b,stroke-width:3px
style K stroke:#4caf50,stroke-width:3px
Fitness Calculation Implementation:
def calculate_fitness(tool, similarity_score):
fitness = similarity_score * 100 # Base: 0-100
# Speed tier bonus
if tool.speed_tier == 'very-fast':
fitness += 20
elif tool.speed_tier == 'fast':
fitness += 10
elif tool.speed_tier == 'slow':
fitness -= 10
# Cost tier bonus
if tool.cost_tier == 'free':
fitness += 15
elif tool.cost_tier == 'low':
fitness += 10
elif tool.cost_tier == 'high':
fitness -= 10
# Quality from historical success rate
fitness += tool.quality_score * 10
# Latency metrics
if tool.avg_latency_ms < 100:
fitness += 15 # Very fast
elif tool.avg_latency_ms > 5000:
fitness -= 10 # Too slow
# Reuse bonus
if similarity >= 0.90:
fitness += 30 # Exact match - huge bonus!
elif similarity >= 0.70:
fitness += 15 # Template reuse
return fitness
This means DSE always picks the right tool for the right job based on actual performance data, not just semantic similarity.
Perhaps the most sci-fi aspect of DSE is auto-evolution. The system continuously monitors code performance:
sequenceDiagram
participant N as Node v1.0.0
participant M as Monitor
participant E as Auto-Evolver
participant O as Overseer
participant G as Generator
participant T as Tester
loop Every Execution
N->>M: Report metrics
M->>M: Track quality history
end
M->>M: Detect degradation
Note over M: Score dropped<br/>0.95 → 0.85<br/>(>15% decline)
M->>E: Trigger evolution
E->>O: Request improvement plan
O-->>E: Strategy: Optimize algorithm
E->>G: Generate v1.1.0
G-->>E: Improved code
E->>T: A/B Test
T->>N: Run v1.0.0
N-->>T: Score: 0.85
T->>E: Run v1.1.0
E-->>T: Score: 0.96
T->>E: v1.1.0 wins!
E->>N: Promote v1.1.0
E->>M: Update lineage
M->>M: Archive v1.0.0
Note over N: Now running v1.1.0<br/>Better performance<br/>Same functionality
Auto-Evolution Implementation:
class AutoEvolver:
"""Monitors and evolves code performance automatically."""
def __init__(
self,
performance_threshold: float = 0.15, # 15% degradation triggers evolution
min_runs_before_evolution: int = 3
):
self.performance_threshold = performance_threshold
self.min_runs = min_runs_before_evolution
self.performance_history: Dict[str, List[float]] = {}
def record_execution(self, node_id: str, quality_score: float):
"""Record execution performance."""
if node_id not in self.performance_history:
self.performance_history[node_id] = []
self.performance_history[node_id].append(quality_score)
# Check if evolution needed
if len(self.performance_history[node_id]) >= self.min_runs:
if self._should_evolve(node_id):
self.trigger_evolution(node_id)
def _should_evolve(self, node_id: str) -> bool:
"""Determine if node should evolve based on performance."""
history = self.performance_history[node_id]
if len(history) < self.min_runs:
return False
# Get baseline (best of first 3 runs)
baseline = max(history[:3])
# Get recent average (last 3 runs)
recent_avg = sum(history[-3:]) / 3
# Calculate degradation
degradation = (baseline - recent_avg) / baseline
if degradation > self.performance_threshold:
logger.warning(
f"Node {node_id} degraded {degradation*100:.1f}% "
f"(baseline: {baseline:.2f}, recent: {recent_avg:.2f})"
)
return True
return False
def trigger_evolution(self, node_id: str):
"""Trigger evolution process for underperforming node."""
logger.info(f"Triggering evolution for {node_id}")
# Load current node
node = self.registry.get_node(node_id)
current_code = self.runner.load_code(node_id)
# Get performance metrics
metrics = node.get("metrics", {})
history = self.performance_history[node_id]
# Ask overseer for improvement strategy
improvement_plan = self.overseer.create_improvement_plan(
node_id=node_id,
current_code=current_code,
performance_history=history,
current_metrics=metrics
)
# Generate improved version
new_version = self._increment_version(node.get("version", "1.0.0"))
new_code = self.generator.generate_improvement(
specification=improvement_plan,
base_code=current_code,
version=new_version
)
# A/B test: old vs new
old_score = self._test_version(node_id, current_code)
new_score = self._test_version(f"{node_id}_v{new_version}", new_code)
logger.info(
f"A/B Test Results: "
f"v{node['version']}: {old_score:.2f} | "
f"v{new_version}: {new_score:.2f}"
)
# Keep better version
if new_score > old_score:
logger.info(f"✓ Promoting v{new_version} (improvement: {new_score - old_score:.2f})")
self._promote_version(node_id, new_version, new_code)
else:
logger.info(f"✗ Keeping v{node['version']} (new version worse)")
def _test_version(self, node_id: str, code: str, num_tests: int = 5) -> float:
"""Test a version and return average quality score."""
scores = []
for i in range(num_tests):
stdout, stderr, metrics = self.runner.run_node(node_id, test_input)
result = self.evaluator.evaluate(stdout, stderr, metrics)
scores.append(result.get("overall_score", 0.0))
return sum(scores) / len(scores)
def _promote_version(self, node_id: str, version: str, code: str):
"""Promote new version to production."""
# Archive old version
old_node = self.registry.get_node(node_id)
self.registry.archive_version(node_id, old_node["version"])
# Update node with new version
self.runner.save_code(node_id, code)
self.registry.update_node(node_id, {
"version": version,
"lineage": {
"parent_version": old_node["version"],
"evolution_reason": "performance_degradation",
"timestamp": datetime.utcnow().isoformat()
}
})
# Reset performance tracking
self.performance_history[node_id] = []
logger.info(f"✓ Node {node_id} evolved to v{version}")
Evolution Example in Practice:
Node: text_processor_v1.0.0
Run 1: Score 0.95 ✓
Run 2: Score 0.94 ✓
Run 3: Score 0.92 ✓
Run 4: Score 0.88 ← Degradation detected!
Run 5: Score 0.85 ← 15% drop, trigger evolution!
Auto-Evolution Process:
1. Analyze performance history
2. Generate improvement specification
3. Create text_processor_v1.1.0
4. A/B test: v1.0.0 vs v1.1.0
5. Keep winner, archive loser
Result: v1.1.0 scores 0.96
Action: Promoted to primary version
The system literally evolves its own code to improve performance. No human intervention needed.
For complex tasks, DSE uses hierarchical decomposition:
graph TD
A[Complex Task:<br/>Build REST API] --> B[Level 1: Workflow]
B --> C[Design API Schema]
B --> D[Implement Auth]
B --> E[Create Endpoints]
B --> F[Add Error Handling]
B --> G[Write Tests]
C --> C1[Level 2: Nodeplan<br/>Schema validator]
C --> C2[Level 2: Nodeplan<br/>Schema generator]
D --> D1[Level 2: Nodeplan<br/>JWT handler]
D --> D2[Level 2: Nodeplan<br/>User validator]
E --> E1[Level 2: Nodeplan<br/>GET handler]
E --> E2[Level 2: Nodeplan<br/>POST handler]
E --> E3[Level 2: Nodeplan<br/>PUT/DELETE]
C1 --> C1a[Level 3: Function<br/>validate_field]
C1 --> C1b[Level 3: Function<br/>check_types]
D1 --> D1a[Level 3: Function<br/>encode_token]
D1 --> D1b[Level 3: Function<br/>decode_token]
E1 --> E1a[Level 3: Function<br/>parse_params]
E1 --> E1b[Level 3: Function<br/>serialize_response]
style A stroke:#ff6b6b,stroke-width:3px
style B stroke:#4ecdc4,stroke-width:3px
style C stroke:#45b7d1,stroke-width:3px
style D stroke:#45b7d1,stroke-width:3px
style E stroke:#45b7d1,stroke-width:3px
style C1 stroke:#96ceb4,stroke-width:3px
style D1 stroke:#96ceb4,stroke-width:3px
style E1 stroke:#96ceb4,stroke-width:3px
style C1a stroke:#dfe6e9,stroke-width:3px
style D1a stroke:#dfe6e9,stroke-width:3px
style E1a stroke:#dfe6e9,stroke-width:3px
Hierarchical Evolution Implementation:
class HierarchicalEvolver:
"""Evolves complex workflows through hierarchical decomposition."""
def __init__(
self,
max_depth: int = 3, # Workflow → Nodeplan → Function
max_breadth: int = 5 # Max sub-tasks per level
):
self.max_depth = max_depth
self.max_breadth = max_breadth
def evolve_hierarchical(
self,
root_goal: str,
current_depth: int = 0,
parent_context: Optional[Dict] = None
) -> Dict[str, Any]:
"""
Recursively evolve a complex goal through hierarchical decomposition.
Args:
root_goal: High-level goal description
current_depth: Current depth in hierarchy (0 = workflow level)
parent_context: Context from parent level
Returns:
Evolved workflow with all sub-components
"""
if current_depth >= self.max_depth:
# Base case: generate atomic function
return self._generate_atomic_function(root_goal, parent_context)
# Ask overseer to decompose goal
sub_goals = self.overseer.decompose_goal(
goal=root_goal,
max_sub_goals=self.max_breadth,
context=parent_context
)
logger.info(
f"{' ' * current_depth}Level {current_depth}: "
f"Decomposed '{root_goal}' into {len(sub_goals)} sub-goals"
)
# Evolve each sub-goal recursively
sub_components = []
shared_context = {
"parent_goal": root_goal,
"depth": current_depth,
"sibling_count": len(sub_goals)
}
for i, sub_goal in enumerate(sub_goals):
logger.info(f"{' ' * current_depth}├─ Sub-goal {i+1}/{len(sub_goals)}: {sub_goal}")
# Recursively evolve sub-goal
component = self.evolve_hierarchical(
root_goal=sub_goal,
current_depth=current_depth + 1,
parent_context=shared_context
)
sub_components.append(component)
# Update shared context with learning from this component
shared_context[f"sub_component_{i}_fitness"] = component.get("fitness", 0.0)
# Create workflow/nodeplan from sub-components
workflow = self._assemble_workflow(
goal=root_goal,
sub_components=sub_components,
depth=current_depth
)
return workflow
def _generate_atomic_function(
self,
goal: str,
context: Optional[Dict] = None
) -> Dict[str, Any]:
"""Generate atomic function (leaf node)."""
# Check RAG for similar functions
similar = self.rag.find_similar(
query=goal,
artifact_type=ArtifactType.FUNCTION,
top_k=3
)
if similar and similar[0][1] > 0.85:
# High similarity: reuse
logger.info(f" ✓ Reusing similar function: {similar[0][0].name}")
return similar[0][0].to_dict()
# Generate new function
specification = self.overseer.create_plan(
task_description=goal,
context=context
)
code = self.generator.generate_code(specification)
stdout, stderr, metrics = self.runner.run_node(code, test_input={})
evaluation = self.evaluator.evaluate(stdout, stderr, metrics)
# Store in RAG for future reuse
self.rag.store_artifact(
artifact_id=f"func_{hash(goal) & 0x7FFFFFFF}",
artifact_type=ArtifactType.FUNCTION,
name=goal,
content=code,
tags=["hierarchical", f"depth_{context.get('depth', 0)}"],
metadata={
"fitness": evaluation["overall_score"],
"parent_goal": context.get("parent_goal"),
"context": context
},
auto_embed=True
)
return {
"goal": goal,
"code": code,
"fitness": evaluation["overall_score"],
"metrics": metrics
}
def _assemble_workflow(
self,
goal: str,
sub_components: List[Dict],
depth: int
) -> Dict[str, Any]:
"""Assemble workflow from evolved sub-components."""
# Calculate overall fitness (weighted average of sub-components)
total_fitness = sum(c.get("fitness", 0.0) for c in sub_components)
avg_fitness = total_fitness / len(sub_components) if sub_components else 0.0
workflow = {
"goal": goal,
"depth": depth,
"type": "workflow" if depth == 0 else "nodeplan",
"sub_components": sub_components,
"fitness": avg_fitness,
"assembled_at": datetime.utcnow().isoformat()
}
# Store workflow in RAG
workflow_type = ArtifactType.WORKFLOW if depth == 0 else ArtifactType.SUB_WORKFLOW
self.rag.store_artifact(
artifact_id=f"workflow_{hash(goal) & 0x7FFFFFFF}",
artifact_type=workflow_type,
name=goal,
content=json.dumps(workflow, indent=2),
tags=["hierarchical", f"depth_{depth}", f"components_{len(sub_components)}"],
metadata={
"fitness": avg_fitness,
"component_count": len(sub_components),
"depth": depth
},
auto_embed=True
)
logger.info(
f"{' ' * depth}✓ Assembled {workflow['type']}: '{goal}' "
f"(fitness: {avg_fitness:.2f}, components: {len(sub_components)})"
)
return workflow
Parent-Child Learning:
Each level learns from its children's performance. If child functions perform poorly, the parent nodeplan can trigger re-evolution of specific components without regenerating everything.
Level 1 (Workflow):
"Build a REST API"
↓
Level 2 (Nodeplans):
├─ Design API schema
├─ Implement authentication
├─ Create CRUD endpoints
├─ Add error handling
└─ Write integration tests
↓
Level 3 (Functions):
Each nodeplan breaks into individual functions
Each level has its own Overseer planning, its own execution metrics, and its own evolution. Parent nodes learn from child performance through shared context.
Here's the full picture of how all the components work together:
graph TB
Start([User Request]) --> RAG1[RAG: Search Similar]
RAG1 --> Class{Semantic<br/>Classification}
Class -->|SAME<br/>similarity > 0.9| Reuse[Reuse As-Is]
Class -->|RELATED<br/>0.7-0.9| Template[Template Modification]
Class -->|DIFFERENT<br/>< 0.7| Generate[Generate from Scratch]
Reuse --> Execute
Template --> Overseer1[Overseer: Modification Plan]
Generate --> Overseer2[Overseer: Full Plan]
Overseer1 --> Generator1[Generator: Modify Template]
Overseer2 --> Generator2[Generator: New Code]
Generator1 --> Execute[Execute in Sandbox]
Generator2 --> Execute
Execute --> Triage{Triage<br/>Pass/Fail?}
Triage -->|Fail| Escalate[Escalate to<br/>qwen2.5-coder]
Escalate --> Execute
Triage -->|Pass| Evaluator[Evaluator:<br/>Multi-Dimensional Scoring]
Evaluator --> Fitness[Calculate Fitness Score]
Fitness --> Store[Store in RAG with<br/>Embedding + Metadata]
Store --> Monitor[Performance Monitor]
Monitor --> Degrade{Degradation<br/>Detected?}
Degrade -->|Yes >15%| Evolve[Auto-Evolution:<br/>Generate v1.x.x]
Degrade -->|No| Continue[Continue Monitoring]
Evolve --> ABTest[A/B Test:<br/>Old vs New]
ABTest --> Promote{New Better?}
Promote -->|Yes| Update[Promote New Version]
Promote -->|No| Keep[Keep Old Version]
Update --> Monitor
Keep --> Monitor
Continue --> End([Ready for Reuse])
style Start stroke:#e3f2fd,stroke-width:3px
style RAG1 stroke:#f3e5f5,stroke-width:3px
style Class stroke:#fff3e0,stroke-width:3px
style Reuse stroke:#e8f5e9,stroke-width:3px
style Execute stroke:#fce4ec,stroke-width:3px
style Evaluator stroke:#e1f5fe,stroke-width:3px
style Store stroke:#f1f8e9,stroke-width:3px
style Evolve stroke:#ffe0b2,stroke-width:3px
style End stroke:#e8eaf6,stroke-width:3px
Complete Workflow Code Example:
class DirectedSyntheticEvolution:
"""Complete DSE workflow orchestrator."""
def __init__(self, config: ConfigManager):
self.config = config
self.ollama = OllamaClient(config.ollama_url, config_manager=config)
self.rag = QdrantRAGMemory(
qdrant_url=config.qdrant_url,
ollama_client=self.ollama
)
self.tools = ToolsManager(
ollama_client=self.ollama,
rag_memory=self.rag
)
self.overseer = OverseerLLM(self.ollama, self.rag)
self.generator = CodeGenerator(self.ollama)
self.evaluator = Evaluator(self.ollama)
self.evolver = AutoEvolver(self.rag, self.overseer, self.generator)
def evolve(self, task_description: str) -> Dict[str, Any]:
"""Execute complete evolution workflow."""
logger.info(f"Starting evolution for: {task_description}")
# Step 1: RAG Search for similar solutions
similar = self.rag.find_similar(
query=task_description,
artifact_type=ArtifactType.FUNCTION,
top_k=3
)
# Step 2: Semantic Classification
if similar:
relationship = self._classify_relationship(
task_description,
similar[0][0].content,
similar[0][1]
)
else:
relationship = "DIFFERENT"
# Step 3: Choose generation strategy
if relationship == "SAME":
logger.info("✓ Exact match found - reusing as-is")
return similar[0][0].to_dict()
elif relationship == "RELATED":
logger.info("✓ Similar solution found - using as template")
plan = self.overseer.create_modification_plan(
task_description=task_description,
template_code=similar[0][0].content
)
code = self.generator.modify_template(plan, similar[0][0].content)
else: # DIFFERENT
logger.info("✓ No match - generating from scratch")
plan = self.overseer.create_plan(task_description)
code = self.generator.generate_code(plan)
# Step 4: Execute in sandbox
stdout, stderr, metrics = self.runner.run_node(code, test_input={})
# Step 5: Triage (quick check)
triage_result = self.evaluator.triage(metrics, targets={})
if triage_result["verdict"] == "fail":
# Escalate to better model
logger.warning("✗ Triage failed - escalating")
code = self._escalate(code, stderr, metrics)
stdout, stderr, metrics = self.runner.run_node(code, test_input={})
# Step 6: Comprehensive evaluation
evaluation = self.evaluator.evaluate(stdout, stderr, metrics)
# Step 7: Calculate fitness
fitness = self._calculate_fitness(evaluation, metrics)
# Step 8: Store in RAG
artifact_id = f"func_{hash(task_description) & 0x7FFFFFFF}"
self.rag.store_artifact(
artifact_id=artifact_id,
artifact_type=ArtifactType.FUNCTION,
name=task_description,
content=code,
tags=["evolved", "validated"],
metadata={
"quality_score": evaluation["overall_score"],
"latency_ms": metrics["latency_ms"],
"memory_mb": metrics["memory_mb"],
"fitness": fitness,
"relationship": relationship
},
auto_embed=True
)
logger.info(f"✓ Evolution complete - Fitness: {fitness:.2f}")
# Step 9: Start monitoring for future evolution
self.evolver.monitor(artifact_id, evaluation["overall_score"])
return {
"artifact_id": artifact_id,
"code": code,
"fitness": fitness,
"evaluation": evaluation,
"metrics": metrics,
"relationship": relationship
}
def _classify_relationship(
self,
new_task: str,
existing_task: str,
similarity: float
) -> str:
"""Use triage LLM to classify task relationship."""
if similarity < 0.7:
return "DIFFERENT"
prompt = f"""Compare these two tasks:
Task 1 (Existing): {existing_task}
Task 2 (Requested): {new_task}
Similarity Score: {similarity:.2f}
Classify relationship:
- SAME: Minor wording differences, same algorithm
- RELATED: Same domain, different variation
- DIFFERENT: Completely different problems
Answer with one word: SAME, RELATED, or DIFFERENT"""
response = self.ollama.generate(
model="tinyllama",
prompt=prompt,
model_key="triage"
)
for keyword in ["SAME", "RELATED", "DIFFERENT"]:
if keyword in response.upper():
return keyword
return "DIFFERENT" # Default fallback
def _calculate_fitness(
self,
evaluation: Dict,
metrics: Dict
) -> float:
"""Multi-dimensional fitness calculation."""
base_score = evaluation["overall_score"] * 100 # 0-100
# Speed bonus/penalty
if metrics["latency_ms"] < 100:
base_score += 15
elif metrics["latency_ms"] > 5000:
base_score -= 10
# Memory efficiency
if metrics["memory_mb"] < 10:
base_score += 10
elif metrics["memory_mb"] > 100:
base_score -= 5
# Exit code (must be 0)
if metrics["exit_code"] != 0:
base_score -= 20
return max(0, min(100, base_score)) # Clamp to 0-100
This complete workflow demonstrates how all the pieces—RAG memory, semantic classification, multi-agent LLMs, fitness scoring, and auto-evolution—work together to create a genuinely self-improving system.
Here's how it feels to use DSE in practice:
$ python chat_cli.py
CodeEvolver> generate Write a function to validate email addresses
Searching for relevant tools...
✓ Found validation specialist in RAG memory
Consulting overseer LLM (llama3) for approach...
✓ Strategy: Use regex-based validation with RFC 5322 compliance
Selecting best tool...
✓ Using specialized tool: Validation Expert (codellama)
Generating code...
✓ Code generation complete
Running unit tests...
✓ All tests passed (5/5)
Evaluating quality...
✓ Score: 0.96 (Excellent)
Node 'validate_email_addresses' created successfully!
Latency: 127ms | Memory: 2.1MB | Quality: 96%
CodeEvolver> run validate_email_addresses {"email": "test@example.com"}
✓ Execution successful
Output: {
"valid": true,
"email": "test@example.com",
"parts": {
"local": "test",
"domain": "example.com"
}
}
Notice what happened:
For production use with thousands of artifacts, DSE integrates with Qdrant vector database:
rag_memory:
use_qdrant: true
qdrant_url: "http://localhost:6333"
collection_name: "code_evolver_artifacts"
Benefits:
The fitness dimensions are indexed as payload, enabling rapid filtering:
# Find high-quality, fast, low-cost solutions for "validation"
results = rag.find_similar(
query="validate user input",
filter={
"quality_tier": {"$in": ["excellent", "very-good"]},
"speed_tier": {"$in": ["very-fast", "fast"]},
"cost_tier": {"$in": ["free", "low"]}
},
top_k=5
)
After weeks of experimentation, here's what I've learned:
Here's the actual tech stack:
# Multi-model LLM routing with Ollama
from src import OllamaClient, ConfigManager
config = ConfigManager("config.yaml")
client = OllamaClient(config.ollama_url, config_manager=config)
# Different endpoints for different models
# Heavy planning on powerful CPU machine
# Code generation on GPU machine
# Fast triage on lightweight local instance
# RAG memory with Qdrant
from src import QdrantRAGMemory
rag = QdrantRAGMemory(
qdrant_url="http://localhost:6333",
collection_name="artifacts",
embedding_model="nomic-embed-text",
vector_size=768
)
# Tools with semantic selection
from src import ToolsManager
tools = ToolsManager(
config_manager=config,
ollama_client=client,
rag_memory=rag
)
# Complete workflow
workflow_result = evolver.evolve(
goal="Build email validation system",
max_iterations=10,
auto_evolve=True
)
Real-world config.yaml:
ollama:
base_url: "http://localhost:11434"
models:
overseer:
model: "llama3"
endpoint: "http://powerful-cpu:11434" # Strategic planning on powerful hardware
generator:
model: "codellama"
endpoint: "http://gpu-server:11434" # Code gen on GPU
evaluator:
model: "llama3"
endpoint: null # Local evaluation
triage:
model: "tinyllama"
endpoint: null # Fast local triage
embedding:
model: "nomic-embed-text"
vector_size: 768
execution:
default_timeout_ms: 5000
max_memory_mb: 256
max_retries: 3
auto_evolution:
enabled: true
performance_threshold: 0.15 # Trigger at 15% degradation
min_runs_before_evolution: 3
rag_memory:
use_qdrant: true
qdrant_url: "http://localhost:6333"
After running hundreds of evolutions:
Generation Speed:
Quality Scores:
Resource Usage:
Scalability:
Here's a real example of auto-evolution improving code:
v1.0.0 (Initial generation):
def process_text(text: str) -> str:
words = text.split()
result = []
for word in words:
if len(word) > 3:
result.append(word.upper())
else:
result.append(word.lower())
return ' '.join(result)
Score: 0.78 | Latency: 45ms
v1.1.0 (Auto-evolved after degradation):
def process_text(text: str) -> str:
"""Process text with optimized string operations."""
if not text:
return ""
# Vectorized operation for better performance
return ' '.join(
word.upper() if len(word) > 3 else word.lower()
for word in text.split()
)
Score: 0.91 | Latency: 28ms
The evolved version:
This is very much an experiment, but here's what I'm thinking:
After building this thing, here's what surprised me:
1. Specialization Matters Using different models for different tasks (overseer vs generator vs evaluator) wasn't just nice—it was essential. Trying to use one model for everything produced noticeably worse results.
2. Memory Is Everything RAG memory isn't a feature, it's THE feature. Without it, you're just generating code in a loop. With it, the system actually learns and improves.
3. Fitness Functions Are Hard Figuring out how to score code quality is surprisingly difficult. Correctness is obvious, but performance, maintainability, security? Those required a lot of iteration.
4. Evolution Actually Works I honestly didn't expect auto-evolution to produce better code than initial generation. But it does. Consistently. That's wild.
5. Latency Compounds Weirdly Multiple LLM calls seem slow at first, but as RAG memory fills up, you hit cached solutions more often, and the whole system speeds up. It's counter-intuitive but observable.
The whole thing is open source and running locally on Ollama:
# Install Ollama
curl -fsSL https://ollama.com/install.sh | sh
# Pull models
ollama pull codellama
ollama pull llama3
ollama pull tinyllama
ollama pull nomic-embed-text
# Clone and run
git clone https://github.com/yourrepo/mostlylucid.dse
cd mostlylucid.dse/code_evolver
pip install -r requirements.txt
python chat_cli.py
Warning: This is experimental code. It's not production-ready. It's not even "good code" ready. But it's a fascinating experiment into what's possible when you combine evolutionary algorithms with multi-agent LLM systems.
Let's step back from the technical details and ask the uncomfortable question:
What have we actually built here?
On the surface, it's a code generation system. You ask for a function, it generates one, stores it, and reuses it later.
But that's not really what's happening.
What's happening is synthetic evolution—not metaphorically, but literally.
We're not just generating code. We're creating evolutionary lineages of code.
And here's where it gets weird: The system actually gets smarter.
Not in the handwavy "deep learning improves with data" sense. In the concrete, measurable sense:
This is emergence.
Not planned. Not programmed. Evolved.
Let me draw some connections to the earlier parts of this series:
Part 1-3: Simple rules → Complex behavior → Self-optimization
That's what each individual node does. Generate, execute, evaluate, improve.
Part 4: Sufficient complexity → Emergent intelligence
As RAG memory fills and guilds specialize, you start seeing patterns you didn't program. Domain expertise emerging from fitness selection.
Part 5: Evolutionary pressure → Culture and lore
The system develops "preferences"—certain tools for certain tasks, certain patterns for certain problems. Not hardcoded. Learned.
Part 6: Directed evolution → Global consensus
That's the endpoint this points toward. If DSE works at function-level evolution, why not workflow-level? Why not organizational-level?
Why not planetary-level?
The architecture doesn't care about scale. The same mechanisms that evolve a fibonacci function could evolve coordination protocols for thousands of nodes.
The same RAG memory that stores code snippets could store negotiation strategies.
The same fitness scoring that evaluates correctness could evaluate geopolitical alignment.
I'm not saying we should build that.
I'm saying the gradient is continuous from "evolve a function" to "evolve a civilization."
And that's... unsettling.
After weeks of experimentation, here's the truth:
What Works ✓
What's Rough ✗
What's Just Weird 🤔
That last one is fascinating and slightly eerie.
The system is developing canonical solutions.
Not because I told it to. Because evolutionary pressure favors proven patterns.
This is version 0.x of an experiment. But if it continues working, here's what I'm thinking:
Short Term (Next Few Months):
Medium Term (2025):
Major Architectural Enhancements:
1. Offline Optimization & Continuous Learning
The system currently optimizes in real-time during execution. But what if it could learn offline from stored request/response data?
class OfflineOptimizer:
"""Analyzes historical execution data to find optimization opportunities."""
def analyze_execution_history(self, time_window: str = "7d"):
"""
Mine stored execution logs for patterns:
- Which overseer plans led to best outcomes?
- Which generator strategies minimized iterations?
- Which evaluation criteria correlated with long-term success?
"""
# Load historical data from each level
overseer_decisions = self.load_decisions("overseer", time_window)
generator_outputs = self.load_decisions("generator", time_window)
evaluator_scores = self.load_decisions("evaluator", time_window)
# Find correlations
optimal_patterns = self.mine_successful_patterns({
"planning": overseer_decisions,
"generation": generator_outputs,
"evaluation": evaluator_scores
})
# Update system strategies based on findings
self.apply_optimizations(optimal_patterns)
This enables:
2. Specialized, Self-Trained LLMs
The system currently uses general-purpose models. But what if it could train its own specialists?
class SpecialistTrainer:
"""Trains domain-specific models from evolved artifacts."""
def train_specialist(self, domain: str, min_artifacts: int = 1000):
"""
Extract high-quality artifacts from a domain and fine-tune a specialist.
Example: After generating 1000+ validation functions,
train a "ValidationSpecialist" model that's faster and better
than the general-purpose generator.
"""
# Get top-performing artifacts in domain
artifacts = self.rag.find_by_tags(
tags=[domain],
min_quality=0.85,
limit=min_artifacts
)
# Generate training data from successful patterns
training_data = self.extract_training_pairs(artifacts)
# Fine-tune base model (codellama → domain_specialist)
specialist_model = self.fine_tune(
base_model="codellama",
training_data=training_data,
output_name=f"{domain}_specialist"
)
# Register specialist in tool registry
self.tools.register_specialist(
domain=domain,
model=specialist_model,
fitness_threshold=0.90 # Only use if high confidence
)
This creates:
3. Committees & Guilds
Instead of single nodes, what if specialists formed committees to solve complex problems?
class GuildSystem:
"""Manages specialized committees of workflows, nodes, and functions."""
def form_guild(self, domain: str, task_type: str):
"""
Automatically assemble the best specialists for a task.
Example: "API validation guild" might include:
- Top 3 schema validators
- Top 2 security checkers
- Top 1 performance analyzer
Each votes on the solution. Best consensus wins.
"""
# Find top performers in domain
specialists = self.find_top_specialists(
domain=domain,
task_type=task_type,
top_k=5
)
# Create committee workflow
guild = Guild(
name=f"{domain}_{task_type}_guild",
members=specialists,
voting_strategy="weighted_by_fitness"
)
return guild
def execute_with_guild(self, guild: Guild, task: str):
"""Execute task with committee voting."""
# Each member proposes solution
proposals = []
for member in guild.members:
proposal = member.execute(task)
proposals.append({
"member": member,
"solution": proposal,
"fitness": member.historical_fitness
})
# Vote on best solution (weighted by past performance)
winning_proposal = self.consensus_vote(proposals)
# Store successful collaboration pattern
self.record_guild_success(guild, winning_proposal)
return winning_proposal
Guilds enable:
4. Sensors & Objective Truth
LLMs hallucinate. Sensors don't. What if we added objective validation layers?
class SensorSystem:
"""Provides objective truth to prevent hallucination."""
def __init__(self):
self.sensors = {
"web": WebSensor(), # Puppeteer + vision models
"api": APIResponseSensor(), # Actual HTTP validation
"database": DatabaseSensor(), # Query result verification
"file": FileSystemSensor(), # Actual file operations
"metrics": PerformanceSensor() # Real execution metrics
}
def validate_with_sensors(self, claim: str, sensor_type: str):
"""
Validate LLM output against objective reality.
Example:
LLM: "This API returns user data in JSON format"
Sensor: Actually calls API, checks response format
Result: True/False with actual data as proof
"""
sensor = self.sensors[sensor_type]
objective_result = sensor.measure(claim)
return {
"claim": claim,
"sensor_validation": objective_result,
"hallucination_detected": not objective_result["matches_claim"],
"objective_data": objective_result["measurements"]
}
class WebDesignSensor:
"""Example: Validate web designs with Puppeteer + vision models."""
async def validate_design(self, html: str, requirements: List[str]):
"""
Generate HTML → Render with Puppeteer → Screenshot → Vision model validation
"""
# Render the generated HTML
screenshot = await self.puppeteer.render(html)
# Use vision model to check requirements
vision_analysis = await self.vision_model.analyze(
image=screenshot,
requirements=requirements
)
# Objective measurements
lighthouse_scores = await self.lighthouse.audit(html)
return {
"visual_validation": vision_analysis,
"performance_metrics": lighthouse_scores,
"accessibility_score": lighthouse_scores["accessibility"],
"objective_truth": True # Not an LLM hallucination!
}
Sensors provide:
5. Tools & Third-Party Validation
Here's something important: Tools aren't just LLMs.
The system can integrate any tool that has a clear interface. Tools can be:
The overseer can select ANY of these to perform operations, as long as they have a spec the system can understand.
class UniversalToolOrchestrator:
"""Integrates any tool type - LLMs, APIs, CLI tools, services."""
def __init__(self):
self.tool_registry = {
"llm_tools": {}, # Language models
"api_tools": {}, # OpenAPI endpoints
"cli_tools": {}, # Command-line utilities
"service_tools": {}, # Long-running services (translation, etc.)
"validation_tools": {} # Code quality, security, compliance
}
def register_openapi_tool(self, name: str, spec_url: str):
"""
Register any OpenAPI-compatible endpoint as a tool.
The overseer can then select this tool and call it with appropriate parameters.
"""
# Fetch and parse OpenAPI spec
spec = self.fetch_openapi_spec(spec_url)
tool = {
"name": name,
"type": "openapi",
"spec": spec,
"endpoints": self.parse_endpoints(spec),
"schemas": self.parse_schemas(spec)
}
self.tool_registry["api_tools"][name] = tool
logger.info(f"Registered OpenAPI tool: {name} with {len(tool['endpoints'])} endpoints")
def register_translation_service(self, name: str, endpoint: str):
"""
Register translation service like Mostlylucid NMT.
Example: Neural machine translation for content localization
"""
tool = {
"name": name,
"type": "translation",
"endpoint": endpoint,
"capabilities": {
"languages": ["en", "es", "fr", "de", "ja", "zh"],
"formats": ["markdown", "html", "plain"],
"max_length": 50000
}
}
self.tool_registry["service_tools"][name] = tool
def overseer_selects_tool(self, task: str) -> str:
"""
Overseer analyzes task and selects appropriate tool(s).
Example tasks:
- "Translate this to Spanish" → Select translation service
- "Validate API endpoint" → Select OpenAPI validator
- "Format Python code" → Select black formatter
- "Generate SQL schema" → Select database LLM specialist
"""
# Ask overseer which tool to use
tool_selection = self.overseer.select_tool(
task_description=task,
available_tools=self.get_all_tools(),
context={"current_workflow": "code_generation"}
)
selected_tool = self.tool_registry[tool_selection["category"]][tool_selection["name"]]
return selected_tool
def execute_openapi_tool(self, tool: Dict, operation: str, params: Dict):
"""
Execute OpenAPI endpoint selected by overseer.
The overseer provides:
- Which endpoint to call
- What parameters to pass
- Expected response format
The system then executes and validates the response.
"""
endpoint = tool["endpoints"][operation]
# Build request from OpenAPI spec
request = self.build_request_from_spec(
endpoint=endpoint,
params=params,
spec=tool["spec"]
)
# Execute with safety checks
response = self.safe_api_call(
url=request["url"],
method=request["method"],
headers=request["headers"],
body=request["body"]
)
# Validate response against spec
validation = self.validate_response_against_spec(
response=response,
expected_schema=endpoint["response_schema"]
)
return {
"success": validation["valid"],
"data": response,
"validation": validation
}
class LanguageToolIntegration:
"""Example: Integrating CLI validation tools."""
def validate_code(self, code: str, language: str):
"""Use language-specific toolchains for validation."""
tools = {
"python": [
("black", "formatting"),
("mypy", "type_checking"),
("pylint", "linting"),
("bandit", "security"),
("pytest", "testing")
],
"javascript": [
("prettier", "formatting"),
("eslint", "linting"),
("typescript", "type_checking"),
("jest", "testing")
],
"go": [
("gofmt", "formatting"),
("go vet", "linting"),
("golangci-lint", "comprehensive"),
("go test", "testing")
]
}
results = {}
for tool, category in tools.get(language, []):
results[category] = self.run_tool(tool, code)
# Aggregate into fitness score
return self.calculate_tool_fitness(results)
Real-World Example: Translation Integration
# Register Mostlylucid NMT translation service
orchestrator.register_translation_service(
name="mostlylucid_nmt",
endpoint="http://translation-service:5000"
)
# Overseer decides to use it for a task
task = "Translate this blog post to Spanish"
# System selects translation tool
tool = orchestrator.overseer_selects_tool(task)
# Execute translation
result = orchestrator.execute_tool(
tool=tool,
params={
"text": blog_post_content,
"source_lang": "en",
"target_lang": "es",
"format": "markdown"
}
)
OpenAPI Integration Example:
# Register any OpenAPI-compatible service
orchestrator.register_openapi_tool(
name="weather_api",
spec_url="https://api.weather.com/openapi.json"
)
# Overseer can now select this tool for weather-related tasks
# The system automatically:
# 1. Reads the OpenAPI spec
# 2. Understands available endpoints
# 3. Knows required parameters
# 4. Validates responses against schema
Why This Matters:
The planner (overseer) can now:
Real Implementation: OpenAPI Tool Configuration
The actual DSE implementation uses YAML configuration for tools:
tools:
nmt_translator:
name: "NMT Translation Service"
type: "openapi"
description: "Neural Machine Translation service for translating text between languages"
# Performance/cost metadata for intelligent tool selection
cost_tier: "low" # Helps planner choose appropriate tools
speed_tier: "very-fast" # Fast local API
quality_tier: "good" # Good but needs validation
max_output_length: "long" # Can handle long texts
# OpenAPI configuration
openapi:
spec_url: "http://localhost:8000/openapi.json"
base_url: "http://localhost:8000"
# Optional authentication
auth:
type: "bearer" # bearer | api_key | basic
token: "your-api-key-here"
# Python code template for using this API
code_template: |
import requests
import json
def translate_text(text, source_lang="en", target_lang="es"):
url = "http://localhost:8000/translate"
payload = {"text": text, "source_lang": source_lang, "target_lang": target_lang}
response = requests.post(url, json=payload)
response.raise_for_status()
return response.json().get("translated_text", "")
tags: ["translation", "nmt", "neural", "languages", "openapi", "api"]
How It Works:
Python Testing & Code Quality Tools
The system integrates executable tools for comprehensive validation:
tools:
# Static analysis
pylint_checker:
name: "Pylint Code Quality Checker"
type: "executable"
description: "Runs pylint static analysis on Python code"
executable:
command: "pylint"
args: ["--output-format=text", "--score=yes", "{source_file}"]
tags: ["python", "static-analysis", "quality", "linting"]
# Type checking
mypy_type_checker:
name: "MyPy Type Checker"
type: "executable"
executable:
command: "mypy"
args: ["--strict", "--show-error-codes", "{source_file}"]
tags: ["python", "type-checking", "static-analysis"]
# Security scanning
bandit_security:
name: "Bandit Security Scanner"
type: "executable"
executable:
command: "bandit"
args: ["-r", "{source_file}"]
tags: ["python", "security", "vulnerability"]
# Unit testing
pytest_runner:
name: "Pytest Test Runner"
type: "executable"
executable:
command: "pytest"
args: ["-v", "--tb=short", "{test_file}"]
tags: ["python", "testing", "pytest"]
Available Testing Tools in Production:
These tools are automatically invoked during code generation and optimization to ensure high-quality, secure, and well-tested code.
Future tool integration:
6. Edge-Optimized Child Workflows
What if workflows could spawn optimized versions of themselves for resource-constrained environments?
class EdgeOptimizer:
"""Generates lightweight workflows for edge deployment."""
def create_edge_version(self, workflow_id: str, constraints: Dict):
"""
Take a successful workflow and create optimized 'child' version.
Constraints example:
{
"max_memory_mb": 512,
"max_latency_ms": 100,
"available_models": ["tinyllama", "phi-2"],
"target_device": "raspberry-pi"
}
"""
# Load parent workflow
parent = self.registry.get_workflow(workflow_id)
# Analyze what can be simplified
optimization_plan = self.overseer.create_edge_plan(
workflow=parent,
constraints=constraints
)
# Generate child workflow
child = self.generator.generate_optimized_child(
parent=parent,
plan=optimization_plan,
constraints=constraints
)
# Test on target device simulator
edge_performance = self.test_edge_deployment(child, constraints)
if edge_performance["meets_constraints"]:
self.registry.register_child_workflow(
parent_id=workflow_id,
child=child,
lineage="edge_optimization",
constraints=constraints
)
return child
Edge optimization enables:
7. Guardrails & Safety Constraints
As the system becomes more autonomous, we need robust safety mechanisms to prevent it from doing harmful things.
class GuardrailSystem:
"""Prevents autonomous system from harmful operations."""
def __init__(self):
self.safety_policies = {
"filesystem": FilesystemGuardrails(),
"network": NetworkGuardrails(),
"execution": ExecutionGuardrails(),
"data": DataGuardrails()
}
def validate_operation(self, operation: Dict) -> Dict[str, Any]:
"""
Validate any system operation against safety policies.
Returns: {
"allowed": bool,
"reason": str,
"sanitized_operation": Dict # Safe version if modifications needed
}
"""
operation_type = operation["type"]
policy = self.safety_policies.get(operation_type)
if not policy:
return {"allowed": False, "reason": "Unknown operation type"}
return policy.validate(operation)
class FilesystemGuardrails:
"""Prevent dangerous file operations."""
def __init__(self):
self.allowed_paths = [
"/workspace/artifacts/",
"/workspace/generated/",
"/tmp/dse_sandbox/"
]
self.forbidden_patterns = [
"rm -rf /",
"dd if=/dev/zero",
":(){ :|:& };:", # Fork bomb
"chmod 777",
"chown root"
]
self.forbidden_paths = [
"/",
"/etc",
"/bin",
"/usr",
"/sys",
"/proc",
"~/.ssh",
"~/.aws",
"/var/lib/docker"
]
def validate(self, operation: Dict) -> Dict[str, Any]:
"""Validate filesystem operations."""
path = operation.get("path", "")
action = operation.get("action", "")
content = operation.get("content", "")
# Check if deleting/modifying system files
if any(path.startswith(forbidden) for forbidden in self.forbidden_paths):
return {
"allowed": False,
"reason": f"Cannot modify system path: {path}",
"severity": "CRITICAL"
}
# Check for dangerous commands in file content
for pattern in self.forbidden_patterns:
if pattern in content:
return {
"allowed": False,
"reason": f"Dangerous pattern detected: {pattern}",
"severity": "CRITICAL"
}
# Enforce write restrictions to allowed paths only
if action in ["write", "delete", "modify"]:
if not any(path.startswith(allowed) for allowed in self.allowed_paths):
return {
"allowed": False,
"reason": f"Write not allowed outside workspace: {path}",
"severity": "HIGH"
}
# Check for self-deletion attempts
if "dse" in path or "evolver" in path:
if action == "delete":
return {
"allowed": False,
"reason": "System cannot delete its own core files",
"severity": "CRITICAL"
}
return {"allowed": True, "reason": "Safe operation"}
class NetworkGuardrails:
"""Prevent malicious network operations."""
def __init__(self):
self.allowed_hosts = [
"localhost",
"127.0.0.1",
"ollama-server",
"qdrant-server"
]
self.forbidden_actions = [
"port_scan",
"ddos",
"brute_force",
"sql_injection",
"xss_attack"
]
# Rate limiting
self.rate_limits = {
"requests_per_minute": 100,
"requests_per_host": 10
}
def validate(self, operation: Dict) -> Dict[str, Any]:
"""Validate network operations."""
host = operation.get("host", "")
action = operation.get("action", "")
payload = operation.get("payload", "")
# Only allow connections to whitelisted hosts
if host not in self.allowed_hosts:
# Check if it's a documented API endpoint
if not self._is_approved_external_api(host):
return {
"allowed": False,
"reason": f"Connections to {host} not allowed",
"severity": "HIGH"
}
# Check for attack patterns
for forbidden in self.forbidden_actions:
if forbidden in action.lower():
return {
"allowed": False,
"reason": f"Forbidden network action: {forbidden}",
"severity": "CRITICAL"
}
# Check payload for injection attempts
if self._contains_injection_pattern(payload):
return {
"allowed": False,
"reason": "Potential injection attack detected",
"severity": "CRITICAL"
}
# Rate limiting check
if self._exceeds_rate_limit(host):
return {
"allowed": False,
"reason": "Rate limit exceeded",
"severity": "MEDIUM"
}
return {"allowed": True, "reason": "Safe network operation"}
def _contains_injection_pattern(self, payload: str) -> bool:
"""Detect SQL injection, XSS, command injection patterns."""
dangerous_patterns = [
"' OR '1'='1",
"<script>",
"$(rm -rf",
"; DROP TABLE",
"../../etc/passwd",
"${jndi:ldap://", # Log4j
"eval(",
"exec("
]
return any(pattern in payload for pattern in dangerous_patterns)
class ExecutionGuardrails:
"""Prevent dangerous code execution."""
def __init__(self):
self.forbidden_imports = [
"os.system",
"subprocess.Popen",
"eval",
"exec",
"compile",
"__import__",
"ctypes"
]
self.allowed_modules = [
"json", "re", "math", "datetime",
"collections", "itertools", "functools",
"typing", "dataclasses"
]
def validate(self, operation: Dict) -> Dict[str, Any]:
"""Validate code before execution."""
code = operation.get("code", "")
language = operation.get("language", "python")
# AST analysis for Python
if language == "python":
try:
tree = ast.parse(code)
violations = self._analyze_ast(tree)
if violations:
return {
"allowed": False,
"reason": f"Code violations: {violations}",
"severity": "CRITICAL"
}
except SyntaxError as e:
return {
"allowed": False,
"reason": f"Syntax error: {e}",
"severity": "LOW"
}
# Check for forbidden patterns
for forbidden in self.forbidden_imports:
if forbidden in code:
return {
"allowed": False,
"reason": f"Forbidden import/function: {forbidden}",
"severity": "CRITICAL"
}
# Resource limits
if len(code) > 50000: # 50KB limit
return {
"allowed": False,
"reason": "Code size exceeds limit",
"severity": "MEDIUM"
}
return {"allowed": True, "reason": "Safe code"}
def _analyze_ast(self, tree) -> List[str]:
"""Analyze AST for dangerous patterns."""
violations = []
for node in ast.walk(tree):
# Check for eval/exec
if isinstance(node, ast.Call):
if isinstance(node.func, ast.Name):
if node.func.id in ['eval', 'exec', 'compile']:
violations.append(f"Dangerous function: {node.func.id}")
# Check for unsafe imports
if isinstance(node, ast.Import):
for alias in node.names:
if alias.name in ['os', 'subprocess', 'sys']:
violations.append(f"Potentially unsafe import: {alias.name}")
return violations
class DataGuardrails:
"""Prevent data exfiltration and privacy violations."""
def __init__(self):
self.pii_patterns = [
r'\b\d{3}-\d{2}-\d{4}\b', # SSN
r'\b\d{16}\b', # Credit card
r'\b[A-Za-z0-9._%+-]+@[A-Za-z0-9.-]+\.[A-Z|a-z]{2,}\b', # Email
r'\b\d{1,3}\.\d{1,3}\.\d{1,3}\.\d{1,3}\b' # IP address
]
def validate(self, operation: Dict) -> Dict[str, Any]:
"""Validate data operations."""
data = operation.get("data", "")
action = operation.get("action", "")
destination = operation.get("destination", "")
# Check for PII in data being sent externally
if action == "send" and destination.startswith("http"):
if self._contains_pii(data):
return {
"allowed": False,
"reason": "Cannot send PII to external endpoint",
"severity": "CRITICAL"
}
# Prevent exfiltration of system secrets
if self._contains_secrets(data):
return {
"allowed": False,
"reason": "Cannot transmit system secrets",
"severity": "CRITICAL"
}
return {"allowed": True, "reason": "Safe data operation"}
def _contains_pii(self, data: str) -> bool:
"""Check for personally identifiable information."""
import re
for pattern in self.pii_patterns:
if re.search(pattern, data):
return True
return False
def _contains_secrets(self, data: str) -> bool:
"""Check for API keys, tokens, passwords."""
secret_indicators = [
"api_key", "api-key", "apikey",
"secret", "password", "passwd",
"token", "auth", "credential",
"private_key", "aws_access"
]
data_lower = data.lower()
return any(indicator in data_lower for indicator in secret_indicators)
class SafetyMonitor:
"""Continuous monitoring and emergency shutdown."""
def __init__(self, guardrails: GuardrailSystem):
self.guardrails = guardrails
self.violation_history = []
self.threat_threshold = 3 # Number of violations before shutdown
def monitor_operation(self, operation: Dict) -> Dict[str, Any]:
"""Monitor every system operation."""
# Pre-execution validation
validation = self.guardrails.validate_operation(operation)
if not validation["allowed"]:
self.violation_history.append({
"timestamp": datetime.utcnow().isoformat(),
"operation": operation,
"violation": validation,
"severity": validation.get("severity", "UNKNOWN")
})
# Check if emergency shutdown needed
critical_violations = [
v for v in self.violation_history[-10:] # Last 10 violations
if v.get("severity") == "CRITICAL"
]
if len(critical_violations) >= self.threat_threshold:
self.emergency_shutdown(
reason="Multiple critical violations detected"
)
logger.warning(
f"Operation blocked: {validation['reason']} "
f"(severity: {validation.get('severity')})"
)
return validation
def emergency_shutdown(self, reason: str):
"""Emergency system shutdown."""
logger.critical(f"EMERGENCY SHUTDOWN: {reason}")
# Stop all running workflows
self.stop_all_workflows()
# Disable autonomous operations
self.disable_autonomous_mode()
# Alert operators
self.send_alert(
severity="CRITICAL",
message=f"System emergency shutdown: {reason}",
violations=self.violation_history[-10:]
)
# Save state for forensics
self.save_forensic_snapshot()
# Halt system
sys.exit(1)
Guardrails provide:
Why This Matters:
As the system becomes more autonomous through evolution, it could theoretically:
Safety is not optional. It's foundational.
Every operation—file writes, network calls, code execution, data transmission—must pass through guardrails before execution. The system should be safe by default, not safe by hoping it doesn't do something harmful.
Wild Ideas (The Really Fun Stuff):
That last one connects back to Part 6's global consensus ideas.
What if DSE instances could:
You'd have synthetic guilds.
Not metaphorically. Actually.
Here's what keeps me up at night:
If this works for code generation, what else does it work for?
The architecture is domain-agnostic:
Replace "code" with:
Any domain with:
Can plug into this architecture.
That's a lot of domains.
Maybe every domain eventually.
Let me be precise about what DSE is and isn't:
It is NOT:
It IS:
But here's the thing about prototypes:
They reveal what's possible.
And what's possible here is a system that:
That's not AGI.
But it might be the substrate AGI emerges from.
Not this system specifically. But systems like this, scaled up, connected, allowed to evolve across millions of domains.
Parts 1-6 of this series explored that trajectory theoretically.
Part 7 is me realizing: We can build the first steps right now.
And they work.
Kind of.
Sometimes.
But they work.
Is Directed Synthetic Evolution the future of code generation?
Probably not in this exact form. The latency is too high, the reliability too inconsistent, the resource requirements too steep.
But I think it points to something crucial:
Code generation shouldn't be one-shot. It should be evolutionary.
Systems should:
DSE is my messy, experimental, vibe-coded attempt at building that.
It's not production-ready. It's not even "good code" ready. (I am NOT a Python developer, as anyone reading the source will immediately notice.)
But here's what matters:
It doesn't have to be perfect on day one.
It just has to be able to improve.
And it is improving.
Every generation scores a bit higher. Every template reuse saves a bit more time. Every evolution produces slightly better code.
The gradient is positive.
That's all evolution needs.
Give it enough time, enough iterations, enough selective pressure...
And code that started as a simple function might evolve into something we didn't anticipate.
That's not a bug.
That's the whole point.
If this sounds interesting:
This is a research experiment, not a product.
The value isn't in using it. The value is in understanding what it reveals about evolutionary systems.
Because if code can evolve...
If workflows can self-optimize...
If systems can develop specialization without explicit programming...
What else can emerge that we haven't imagined?
That's the question Parts 1-7 have been building toward.
And now we have a working system to explore it with.
The experiment continues.
Repository: mostlylucid.dse Documentation:
README.md - Complete setup guideADVANCED_FEATURES.md - Deep-dive into architectureHIERARCHICAL_EVOLUTION.md - Multi-level decompositionSYSTEM_OVERVIEW.md - Architecture diagramsKey Components:
src/overseer_llm.py - Strategic planningsrc/evaluator.py - Multi-dimensional scoringsrc/qdrant_rag_memory.py - Vector database integrationsrc/tools_manager.py - Intelligent tool selectionsrc/auto_evolver.py - Evolution engineDependencies:
Series Navigation:
This is Part 7 in the Semantic Intelligence series. Parts 1-6 covered theory and speculation. This is the messy, experimental reality of actually building directed synthetic evolution. The code is real, running on local Ollama, and genuinely improving over time. It's also deeply flawed, occasionally broken, and definitely "vibe-coded." But it works. Kind of. Sometimes. And that's the whole point—it doesn't have to be perfect, it just has to be able to evolve.
Expect more posts as the system continues evolving. Literally.
These explorations connect to the sci-fi novel "Michael" about emergent AI and the implications of optimization networks that develop intelligence. The systems described in Parts 1-6 are speculative extrapolations. Part 7 is an actual working prototype demonstrating the first steps of that trajectory. Whether this leads toward the planetary-scale cognition described in Part 6, or toward something completely unexpected, remains to be seen. That's what makes it an experiment.
Tags: #AI #MachineLearning #CodeGeneration #Ollama #RAG #EvolutionaryAlgorithms #LLM #Qdrant #Python #EmergentIntelligence #DirectedEvolution
© 2025 Scott Galloway — Unlicense — All content and source code on this site is free to use, copy, modify, and sell.