llama-server is started without -np, so it serves one request at a time and
everything else queues. Mail extraction is allowed two minutes on a Thinking
1.7B, and the reader hands core up to 25 messages back to back. A turn arriving
mid-extraction therefore waited for whatever was left of that budget: the router
timed out into the classifier cascade and its 36.8% floor, and the phraser, which
has no floor, simply waited. Memory evaluation had the same shape with a five
minute budget.
llm.Gate is the bound. Foreground requests never wait. Background requests run
one at a time and yield while a foreground request is in flight, plus a quiet
window after it that covers the gap between the router call and the phraser call
of one turn. Clients get their priority from llmClientFor or
llmBackgroundClientFor, so which side a caller is on is decided at wiring time.
It gates only what goes through those clients, which the comment on Gate says.
mail intake: the extraction timeout no longer wraps the capture writes. A model
answering at 119 seconds of a 120 second budget left the first CaptureTask one
second and the third none, so candidates the model had already produced were
dropped with a deadline error. The mailbox name is validated before it becomes
provenance, since "email:" is not a source and neither is an arbitrary string
posted at the socket. The enable log prints the normalised candidate bound
rather than the configured one, which said "max 0" and then wrote three.
Found in review of #64.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01TrVSBKe3RFDF4fGYKWYQnX
The extraction half. internal/email.Extractor asks the resident Qwen3-1.7B,
under a GBNF grammar, what one message requires of him, and returns at most
three short candidates with an optional date.
Everything it can produce is a row in `tasks` with status "candidate",
written through the intake seam #130 built for exactly this (Source
"email:<mailbox>", Evidence = the subject line). No reminder, no fact, no
note, no calendar event. That bound is the design: a reminder FIRES, so a
1.7B misreading "встреча была в четверг" as a future appointment would wake
him up about it, whereas a wrong candidate is a line he dismisses in one
click. A due date the model read out of the mail is stored on the candidate,
where no scheduler reads it — the review page sorts by it. Relative wording
("до пятницы") is deliberately left in the text rather than resolved to a
date the model would get wrong.
The prompt is written against the two things a small model does here: it
summarises when asked to extract, and it invents an obligation out of a
polite closing line. Hence the demand for a verb phrase, and an explicit
empty array — most mail contains no task, and a model with no way to say
"nothing" says something.
Wiring: core owns extraction because llama-server lives in core's process,
so the reader hands messages over a new ipc.MethodIngestMail. It is a Server
hook (like StepUp/UnlockFn), not a CoreAPI method — not a store operation,
and no CoreAPI implementation should have to carry it. The hook stays nil
without an `email` config block or without a llama-server phraser, so the
method answers ErrUnknownMethod: off unless configured, twice over. There is
no keyword fallback on purpose — "the subject became a task" is a mailbox
rendered as a to-do list, not extraction.
Privacy: junk is refused before the model is called, mail text is never
search input, extraction errors carry byte counts rather than the reply, the
stored evidence is a truncated subject, and the log line names the mailbox
and the UID only.
kami