DeepSeek/deepseek-harness
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/deepseek-ai/deepseek-harness synced 2026-08-15 21:04:50 +00:00
Code Issues Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

docs: note multi-language Code Mode backends in RFC 012

Browse Source 
Clarify that the CodeRuntime seam can host backends differing by
language/runtime, not just trust level — e.g. an AssemblyScript/WASM
backend (naturally sandboxed) and a Python backend over CPython or a
more controllable/embeddable interpreter. Note the execution contract
is language-agnostic while SDK codegen/prompt presentation is per-
language, and add these backends to the deferred follow-up list.
This commit is contained in:
Tianyi Cui
2026-06-15 08:37:45 +08:00
parent 2638ec9f3f
commit a1eea4d36e
1 changed files with 8 additions and 1 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

9
docs/rfc/012-optional-code-mode.md
View File

@@ -29,6 +29,13 @@ The design follows the codebase's capability-seam pattern ([ADR 0009](../adr/000
Per the "explicit > implicit at seams" convention, the request spells out every field the runtime acts on; defaulting (e.g. an output cap, a timeout derived from `signal`) is the implementation's explicit job, not a hidden `?? default` inside `run()`. The split into interface + implementation is justified under ADR 0009 because there is **genuinely more than one planned implementation** — the node:vm stub *and* the hardened substrate (a real isolate, or the generated program run as a sandboxed process through the existing `ctx.bash` seam) that is scheduled follow-up work, not speculative optionality. ADR 0009 warns against splitting preemptively when only one implementation is conceivable; here a second is not just conceivable but required before any untrusted use, so the seam earns its keep.
**Backends can differ by language/runtime, not only by trust level.** The two implementations above (unsafe stub vs. hardened substrate) differ along the *trust* axis while staying TypeScript/JS, but nothing in the `CodeRuntime` contract — a program string plus a set of named async SDK bindings in, and a `{ result, logs, error? }` out — is bound to one source language. The same seam can host backends that differ along the *language* axis, executing a program written in something other than TypeScript. Two illustrative directions:
- **An AssemblyScript backend.** AssemblyScript is a strict TypeScript subset that compiles to WebAssembly, so a program stays familiar to a TS-fluent model while the WASM boundary supplies exactly the sandboxing the hardened substrate is meant to provide — memory isolation and no ambient host authority come from the runtime rather than from after-the-fact hardening of `node:vm`. This is an appealing route to a `safe = true` backend.
- **A Python backend.** Python is arguably the model's most native language — it has seen far more real Python than any tool-calling trace — which is the same "LLMs write better code than tool calls" argument that motivates Code Mode, taken one step further. A Python backend is itself a sub-seam over different Python *runtimes*: **CPython** (in-process or a sandboxed subprocess via `ctx.bash`) for maximum fidelity and ecosystem access, or a more controllable / embeddable interpreter — Pyodide (CPython on WASM), RustPython, or a restricted embedded interpreter — when isolation, deterministic resource limits, or a clean capability boundary matter more than running arbitrary native extensions.
These are illustrations of the seam's reach, **not commitments** — the MVP ships only the TypeScript path. The honest caveat is that the *execution* contract is language-agnostic but the *presentation* is not: the SDK-generation pipeline below (§3a and the `jsonSchemaToTs` codegen, which emits a TypeScript `.d.ts`) is TypeScript-specific, so a non-TS backend pairs the shared `CodeRuntime` contract with its own language-appropriate SDK generator and system-prompt section (a `.pyi` stub and Python usage instructions for the Python backend, AssemblyScript-flavored types for that one). The runtime seam is reused as-is; only the codegen/prompt half is per-language.
**2. Implementation package `packages/code-runtime-vm/`** — a new package `@deepseek-ai/dsh-code-runtime-vm`, the `node:vm` reference stub. It type-erases the model's TypeScript via the compiler's `transpileModule` (or sucrase) — the types exist only to guide the model; the runtime is plain JS — then wraps the body in an async IIFE for top-level `await` (Cloudflare's `NodeVMExecutor` does literally `new AsyncFunction("codemode", "return await (${code})()")`), runs it in a `vm.Context` whose globals are a capturing `console` and the SDK namespace objects, awaits the IIFE, and captures the return value, the buffered logs, and any thrown error (as `error: string`). It applies an **output cap** (truncate captured logs) and a **timeout tied to `request.signal`**. These caps limit blast radius; **they are not a security boundary**. node:vm is **not** isolation: withholding `require`/`process` does not contain anything (code escapes via `constructor`/prototype reflection), and per [AGENTS.md](../../AGENTS.md) the harness must never hand model output the ambient environment.
**The unsafe-runtime guard is enforceable, not a README warning.** Because a README caveat is not a control — and AGENTS.md's "never hand model output ambient authority" is a hard rule, not advice — the design makes the danger refuse to run by construction. Two layers:
@@ -79,7 +86,7 @@ It is insufficient for the **composition / round-trip** half, which is the decis
3. Scaffold the consumer plugin `packages/code-mode/`: `jsonSchemaToTs` codegen with namespace/quoted-access + alias handling (unit tests, including non-identifier MCP names and unsupported-shape → `unknown`); the registered lazy `ctx.systemPrompt.section()` carrying the SDK `.d.ts`; the `agent/request` listener (`prepend: true`) collapsing `request.tools` to `[run_code]` after `await next()`; the **unsafe-runtime gate** (refuse to register `run_code` when `ctx.codeRuntime.safe === false` unless `allowUnsafeRuntime` is set); the `run_code` tool with the dispatch bridge (per-run serialization queue, deterministic sub-call ids, before/after abort checks, `CodeRunError` on error results); and the `code/dispatch` event declared here via `SessionEventMap` merge. Declare `inject = ['tools', 'systemPrompt', 'codeRuntime']`.
4. Tests: HMR-safety (dispose removes the tool, the section, and the listener); a waterfall test that the wire tool list is exactly `[run_code]` (spy adapter, asserting via `agent/request` and optionally `llm/stream`); an integration test that a program calling two tools returns only its printed/returned output (verify the world, not the self-report); a **serialization test** that `Promise.all([...])` over SDK calls does not overlap the underlying `ctx.tools.execute` invocations (a probe tool records enter/exit; assert no interleaving); `deriveMessages()` ignores `code/dispatch`; abort mid-program stops further dispatches; `CodeRunError` surfaces as `isError: true`; and the **unsafe-runtime refusal test** (§3, the VM-guard): with the unsafe flag unset, a non-mock agent's `run_code` is refused; with it set, the program runs.
5. Wire an example: `examples/coding-agent-code-mode` (or a config flag on the existing example) loading the trio. Running it against the node:vm stub requires both opt-ins (`VmCodeRuntime({ unsafe: true })` and `code-mode`'s `allowUnsafeRuntime`); the example sets them explicitly and comments why, or uses a mock model — a real model never reaches the unsandboxed stub without those deliberate flags. Add a `yarn demo:*` entry.
6. Docs: update [docs/architecture.md](../architecture.md) (a `ctx.codeRuntime` row in the service map, a Code Mode note under the tool pipeline / capability seams sections); add a [cookbook](../cookbook/) note on writing a `CodeRuntime` backend; and **file the follow-up RFC for the hardened execution substrate** (the isolate/sandboxed-process design, plus the tool-visibility-tier design skipped here). Append the `| 012 | … | proposed |` row to [the RFC index](README.md).
6. Docs: update [docs/architecture.md](../architecture.md) (a `ctx.codeRuntime` row in the service map, a Code Mode note under the tool pipeline / capability seams sections); add a [cookbook](../cookbook/) note on writing a `CodeRuntime` backend; and **file the follow-up RFC for the hardened execution substrate** (the isolate/sandboxed-process design, the additional-language backends sketched in §1 — AssemblyScript/WASM, Python — with their per-language SDK generators, plus the tool-visibility-tier design skipped here). Append the `| 012 | … | proposed |` row to [the RFC index](README.md).
## Risks