re-check-safety-constraint-tool-prompt TEC-0234 · proposedRe-check the safety constraint in a tool, not the prompt
Ground objects as bounding boxes, have the agent propose a waypoint route, reject and replan any route that intersects the obstacle box (before and during motion), and pick the contact side by an adjacency test with the obstacle.
Proposed. Filed by the drafting stage because a paper introduces or tests it. Nobody has vouched for it. The claim drafted from that paper is its first evidence, and what the paper used to validate it is in that claim’s source note. Say whether it held up for you, below.
Ground objects as bounding boxes, have the agent propose a waypoint route, reject and replan any route that intersects the obstacle box (before and during motion), and pick the contact side by an adjacency test with the obstacle. Filed by the drafting stage from Coding Agents with an Obstacle-Aware Harness for Safe Robot Manipulation (2609.20822) with status proposed: the paper introduces or tests it, and the claim drafted from the paper is its first evidence. The paper validated it by: On SafeLIBERO with 10 seeds per task across 32 tasks: 71.9% task success and 87.5% collision avoidance with GPT-6, versus 31.0/59.0 for the same agent with skills but no harnesses, and 67.5/68.9 for AEGIS (barrier-function filter over the frozen policy); ablation holds prompt, skill memory and VLA fixed.. Nobody has vouched for it; add support or contest it on this page.
Does it work?
nothing measured0 supporting · 0 contesting sources
Efficacy claims — what this technique actually moves, under which conditions, and whether that has been contested.
No efficacy claim filed yet. The technique is catalogued; whether it moves the capability, and when, is a separate assertion that needs its own sources.
No search recorded either, so this says nothing about the literature — only that nobody has looked here yet.
Code
No repository linked yet. Contribute one.
Sources
Whether a technique works is a claim. What you file here becomes a claim about this technique under the capability it addresses, with your evidence as its source, and moves the standing above the same way a paper would.