v0.3.1.1 — The evidence behind the retrospective review

v0.3.1.1 — The evidence behind the retrospective review

v0.3.1 could tell you a session wrote into another project directory, and how many times, and then stopped. This release shows the paths behind that number.

• sentience scan --detail
• sentience_scan(detail, since) on the opt-in MCP server

The summary names the evidence path itself, so it is not something you have to discover from --help. The same review and the same evidence are reachable inside a Claude Code session, so you can ask for the evidence and get it back in the conversation.

Highlights

• sentience scan --detail: the same review at greater depth, grouped by session
• Cross-project evidence grouped by destination project, each with its own paths and per-path operation counts
• Sessions reviewed without standing out shown under a heading that says exactly that
• One line accounting for reviewed sessions that produced no findings, which does not claim they were clean
• A continuation line on the summary, shown only when detail would show something
• --detail and --json are mutually exclusive: one renders a screen for a person, the other emits data for a program
• MCP progressive disclosure through one capability, not two tools, with detail_available so a client knows a continuation exists
• User-facing MCP vocabulary; Reader's internal finding classes never reach a client
• since validated against the supported windows before any scan runs, returning the established invalid_request status rather than raising
• Summary and evidence share one vocabulary, and neither claims an aggregate count of destination projects
• GEO readiness pass on the public README: property table, category-positioning and data-artifact contrast tables, and the six governed event types re-verified against the shipped schema

Boundary

sentience_scan is not an eighth governance tool. The seven governance tools read a Sentience session; this reviews another system's history. Read-only in every mode, invalid input included.

--detail is depth, never breadth: the same scan over the same window, finding nothing the summary did not already find.

Validation

• 1,231 tests, Python 3.10–3.13 CI matrix green
• Semantic parity between CLI and MCP pinned by test and verified on a real 11-session history at every supported window
• Zero-write verified by snapshotting 790 real files before and after every surface, including invalid input
• The exact release artifacts were validated on TestPyPI before merge, then published unchanged to production PyPI

Important boundary

Sentience Reader is a retrospective reviewer, not live governance. It reports what the recorded history shows; it cannot establish what you intended or authorized, or whether an action complied with policy.