denniswon

how do I publish newton-cli?

  Searched for 2 patterns, read 1 file, listed 1 directory (ctrl+o to expand)

⏺ Here's the honest answer: there is currently no path to publish newton-cli — and it's blocked by three distinct issues, some of which
  are hard blockers.

  Blockers

  1. License is not accepted by crates.io (hard blocker)

denniswon

 ---
  Gateway Scalability & Throughput Analysis

  End-to-End Flow Timeline

  Here's the create_task critical path with approximate timings:

  Client Request
  │
  ├── Phase 0: Request Setup ..................... ~1-5ms

denniswon

  ---
  Meeting: TEE Integration for Newton Protocol

  ---
  Problem Statement

  Newton Protocol accumulates sensitive data (identity PII, confidential data, policy client secrets) that operators must decrypt and
  process during policy evaluation. Two core concerns:

  1. Operator data leakage — operators currently decrypt private data locally, meaning a malicious or compromised operator could exfiltrate

denniswon

one question: does the contract revert only detectable from transaction receipt? or can it be detected from just sendTransaction?
currently, the problem with batch tx submission is that it is a single loop, sequential process with retry. Instead, let's explore
pipelining architecture where the initial submission of the batch doesn't block, and the failures are handled on a separate queue
(will we need a failed tx handling dedicated task generator signer key that is separate from the main submission signer key?)
/clarify-plan

⏺ Skill(/clarify-plan)
⎿  Successfully loaded skill

⏺ Good questions. Let me first answer your initial question, then clarify the design space.

denniswon

 Here's the full picture:

  ---
  Newton Privacy Layer — Known Limitations & Next Steps

  ★ Insight ─────────────────────────────────────
  The limitations fall into three buckets: (1) security gaps where the system doesn't enforce what it should, (2) trust assumptions
  where centralization remains, and (3) missing infrastructure that blocks future phases. Each has a clear resolution path — none are
  architectural dead ends.
  ─────────────────────────────────────────────────

denniswon

Ready to code?

 Here is Claude's plan:
╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌
 Plan: Two-Phase Consensus Support for sendTask Async Flow

 Context

 The async sendTask path (channel.rs) currently uses a single-phase broadcast where each operator independently fetches data,
 evaluates, and BLS-signs. This diverges from the sync createTask path (sync.rs), which supports two consensus modes:

denniswon

---
  Load Test Analysis: Two Distinct Failure Modes

  ★ Insight ─────────────────────────────────────
  The Datadog CSV export only includes the Content (message) column, but the critical diagnostic data — the revert selector and
  classification — is logged as tracing structured fields (classification = ?classification), which Datadog stores as attributes, not in
   the message string. This is why every "non-recoverable" line looks identical. We're diagnosing blind.
  ─────────────────────────────────────────────────

  Failure Mode 1: Two-Phase on Base Sepolia — 100% On-Chain Submission Failure

denniswon

  ---
  Research Synthesis

  ★ Insight ─────────────────────────────────────
  What you already have vs. what's missing:
  - OMC's PreCompact hooks save mode state + project memory directives before compaction — solid foundation
  - OMC's HUD statusline shows context % — but nobody acts on it automatically
  - Gap 1: No UserPromptSubmit hook to warn you before auto-compact fires (~95% threshold)
  - Gap 2: No SessionStart:compact hook to re-inject work-in-progress context after compaction
  - Gap 3: No CLAUDE_AUTOCOMPACT_PCT_OVERRIDE to lower the auto-compact trigger point

denniswon

  ★ Insight ─────────────────────────────────────
  Separation of concerns: newton-prover-avs is the consensus infrastructure (operators, BLS aggregation, slashing, ZK proofs).
  newton-warp is the chain abstraction + compliance layer — the bridge between smart accounts and Newton's policy engine via Rhinestone
  Warp. These are fundamentally different domains with different deployment lifecycles, dependencies, and audiences.

  Why monorepo: The Rust backend service (intent routing, Rhinestone orchestrator client) and the TypeScript SDK (newton-account-sdk)
  must stay in lockstep — API changes in the backend require SDK updates. Colocating them enables atomic PRs, shared CI, and type
  consistency.
  ─────────────────────────────────────────────────

denniswon

⏺ ★ Insight ─────────────────────────────────────
  The latest published SDK is 0.7.1. The HPKE privacy functions (createSecureEnvelope, uploadEncryptedData, getPrivacyPublicKey) were added in v0.5.0. The newton-identity app is on
   ^0.2.10 — way behind. We need to bump to ^0.7.1.

  The identity app's current flow is:
  1. RSA-OAEP encrypt → hex string (encryptSecret)
  2. EIP-712 sign the hex string ({ data: encryptedInquiryData })
  3. Upload via newt_uploadIdentityEncrypted with encrypted_data field

  After migration: