docs: Add semantic data and claims engine integration specifications #3
Conversation
Implements advanced claims engine features with semantic data approach: Key additions: - docs/integration/claims-engine-architecture.md - Ecological State Claim specification - Evidence hierarchy and validation pipeline - x/data module integration - Claims-to-credits flow - docs/integration/cosmwasm-work-packages.md - WP-CW-001: Attestation Bond Contract - WP-CW-002: Claims Registry Contract - WP-CW-003: Evidence Aggregator Contract - WP-CW-004: Reputation Registry Contract - WP-CW-005: Arbiter DAO Integration Anchored to regen-data-standards (LinkML schemas) Forward compatible with regen-econ-ontology References: - https://github.com/regen-network/regen-data-standards - https://github.com/glandua/regen-econ-ontology Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Summary of ChangesHello @glandua, I'm Gemini Code Assist1! I'm currently reviewing this pull request and will post my feedback shortly. In the meantime, here's a summary to help you and other reviewers quickly get up to speed! This pull request introduces comprehensive documentation for the Regen Network's Claims Engine. It defines the architectural framework for validating ecological data, issuing Ecological State Claims, and managing their lifecycle, emphasizing semantic data standards and on-chain anchoring. Additionally, it details a strategic plan for implementing core Claims Engine functionalities through a series of CosmWasm smart contracts, outlining their specific roles and an estimated development timeline. Highlights
Changelog
Activity
Using Gemini Code AssistThe full guide for Gemini Code Assist can be found on our documentation page, here are some quick tips. Invoking Gemini You can request assistance from Gemini at any point by creating a comment using either
Customization To customize Gemini Code Assist for GitHub experience, repository maintainers can create a configuration file and/or provide a custom code review style guide (such as PEP-8 for Python) by creating and adding files to a Limitations & Feedback Gemini Code Assist may make mistakes. Please leave feedback on any instances where its feedback is incorrect or counter productive. You can react with 👍 and 👎 on @gemini-code-assist comments. If you're interested in giving your feedback about your experience with Gemini Code Assist for Github and other Google products, sign up here. You can also get AI-powered code generation, chat, as well as code reviews directly in the IDE at no cost with the Gemini Code Assist IDE Extension. Footnotes
|
![gemini-code-assist[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/956858?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Code Review
This pull request introduces two important specification documents for the Claims Engine and its CosmWasm integration. The documents are well-structured and provide a good overview. My review focuses on improving consistency, clarity, and completeness. I've identified a few areas for improvement:
- There are inconsistencies in the claim lifecycle status across the two documents.
- The
claims-engine-architecture.mdhas a potentially confusing example where a claim's anchor IRI is identical to one of its evidence IRIs. - The
cosmwasm-work-packages.mdis missing the section forWP-CW-003and uses hardcoded values for reputation scoring that could be parameterized for better maintainability.
Addressing these points will make the specifications more robust and easier for developers to implement.
| ``` | ||
|
|
||
| --- | ||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The document is missing the specification for WP-CW-003: Evidence Aggregator Contract. This work package is listed in the summary table (line 15) and the implementation timeline (line 105), but its detailed section is absent between WP-CW-002 and WP-CW-004. Please add the missing section for completeness.
| on_chain_anchor: | ||
| iri: "regen:13toVfvfM5B7yuJqq8h3iVRHp3PKUJ4ABxHyvn4MeUMwwv1pWQGL295.rdf" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The IRI for the on_chain_anchor is identical to the IRI for the lab_analysis evidence (line 64). This can be confusing as it suggests the anchor for the entire claim is the same as the anchor for just one piece of its evidence. For clarity, consider using a distinct IRI for the claim's on-chain anchor to represent the claim object itself, or add a note explaining why they are identical if this is the intended design.
| ┌──────────┐ ┌──────────┐ ┌──────────┐ ┌──────────┐ ┌──────────┐ | ||
| │ Draft │───▶│ Submitted│───▶│ Validated│───▶│ Attested │───▶│ Anchored │ | ||
| └──────────┘ └──────────┘ └──────────┘ └──────────┘ └──────────┘ | ||
| │ │ │ │ │ | ||
| │ Creator │ Automated │ Human or │ Cryptographic │ On-chain | ||
| │ prepares │ schema │ agent │ signatures │ immutable | ||
| │ claim │ validation │ verification │ collected │ record | ||
| ``` |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The claim lifecycle depicted here (Draft → Submitted → Validated → Attested → Anchored) is inconsistent with other parts of the documentation.
- The YAML example for
EcologicalStateClaimon line 76 usesstatus: "verified", which is not a state in this diagram. - The
cosmwasm-work-packages.mdfile defines a more detailed flow:Draft → Submitted → UnderReview → Validated → Attested → Verified.
To improve clarity and consistency, it's recommended to unify the claim lifecycle across all related documents. Consider updating this diagram to reflect the more comprehensive status flow.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@S4mmyb Could you have a look at this? I want to make sure we are clearly anchoring the work here in a way that is grounded in the technical approach you and @regen-network/jean-cosmos as well. side note, I am working on upping my game with ai assistance to contribute and manage processes here on github, so apologies if some way I am engaging is outside of norms. Feel free to let me know if I can improve something.
| - Positive: claim_verified (+10), attestation_confirmed (+5), challenge_won (+15) | ||
| - Negative: claim_rejected (-15), attestation_slashed (-20), challenge_lost (-10) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The reputation score adjustments are hardcoded as magic numbers (e.g., +10, -15). In a specification, it's better to define these as configurable parameters. This makes the system more flexible and easier to maintain or adjust in the future without changing the core contract logic.
Consider defining these values in a separate configuration section or table, for example:
### Reputation Parameters
| Trigger | Score Change |
|---|---|
| `claim_verified` | +10 |
| `attestation_confirmed` | +5 |
| `challenge_won` | +15 |
| `claim_rejected` | -15 |
| `attestation_slashed` | -20 |
| `challenge_lost` | -10 |
1 participant
Summary
Implements advanced claims engine features with semantic data approach, anchored to regen-data-standards and forward compatible with regen-econ-ontology.
Key Additions
docs/integration/claims-engine-architecture.md
docs/integration/cosmwasm-work-packages.md
Integration Points
Related PRs
🤖 Generated with Claude Code