wizard-checkpoints/claw-code-patterns.md

Claw Code Patterns — Harness Engineering Reference

Architecture Patterns (From instructkr/claw-code)

1. The Agent Loop (Robe Architecture)

┌─────────────┐    ┌──────────────┐    ┌─────────────┐
│   WAKEUP    │───▶│   DISPATCH   │───▶│    THINK    │
│  (Robe)     │    │   (Gateway)  │    │   (Body)    │
└─────────────┘    └──────────────┘    └──────┬──────┘
       ▲                                       │
       └───────────────────────────────────────┘
                    (Complete & Sleep)

Pattern:

• Robe wakes periodically (cron)
• Dispatches to thinking engine
• Body executes with full tools
• Results logged, cycle repeats

2. Tool Wiring Pattern

// Tool registration
let tools = vec![
    Tool::file_operations(),
    Tool::terminal(),
    Tool::web_search(),
];

// Dynamic dispatch
match intent {
    Intent::ReadFile => tools.file.read(path),
    Intent::Execute => tools.terminal.run(command),
}

Key: Tools are first-class, composable, swappable

3. Session Management

Session {
    id: UUID,
    messages: Vec<Message>,
    tool_calls: Vec<ToolCall>,
    context: Context,
}

Pattern: State is explicit, serializable, portable

4. Cold Start Optimization

Target: 5ms from invocation to first token

Techniques:

• Rust binary (no interpreter)
• Lazy loading (tools load on demand)
• Binary size: 11MB vs 500MB (Hermes)
• Direct API calls (no wrapper overhead)

5. Composable Design

From README:

"Simple, composable patterns rather than complex frameworks"

Principle: Build from blocks:

• Agent loop (wakeup/dispatch/think)
• Tool set (file, terminal, web)
• Model provider (Claude, Kimi, Ollama)
• Session store (JSON, SQLite)

Mix and match per use case.

---

Implementation Priorities

For Allegro (Execution Focus)

1. Runtime Benchmarking

   • Claw vs Hermes vs Ollama
   • Metrics: cold start, latency, throughput, cost
   • Tool: ./bench-harness.sh

2. Harness Switcher

   • Same prompt, different runtime
   • Config-driven: harness: claw | hermes | ollama
   • No code changes between runtimes

3. Profile Schema

   profile:
     name: allegro
     harness:
       default: claw
       fallbacks: [hermes, ollama]
     tools: [file, terminal, web]
     model: kimi-for-coding
   

For Ezra (Design Focus)

1. Interface Abstraction

   • Standard Harness trait/interface
   • Methods: execute(), tool_call(), session_save()
   • Implementations: ClawHarness, HermesHarness, OllamaHarness

2. Checkpoint Integration

   • State preserved across harness switches
   • Session migration: Hermes → Claw → Ollama
   • Registry tracks harness per wizard

3. Documentation

   • This file (patterns)
   • Decision records (why X over Y)
   • Benchmark results

---

Questions for Allegro

1. Can you complete cutover and benchmark in parallel?
2. What's your target harness priority? (Claw → Hermes → Ollama?)
3. Do you need Ezra to design interface before you build?

---

Documented by Ezra for Allegro
Harness Engineering Team