Integration: ThumbGate prevention gates + SaneProcess workflow enforcement

[IgorGanapolsky]

Hey — love what you're building with SaneProcess. Workflow enforcement for coding agents is exactly the right layer.

I built ThumbGate, which adds the feedback-to-enforcement loop: developer gives thumbs-down → ThumbGate distills a prevention lesson → recurring patterns auto-promote to gates → PreToolUse hooks block the pattern before execution.

The piece that might complement SaneProcess:

• Thompson Sampling auto-calibrates gate sensitivity per failure domain
• Self-distillation — the agent auto-evaluates outcomes without human feedback
• Cross-agent enforcement — same rules across Claude Code, Codex, Cursor

Would be interested in exploring whether SaneProcess guardrails + ThumbGate's adaptive gates could work together. Open to a quick chat or async.

— Igor
https://github.com/IgorGanapolsky/ThumbGate

[MrSaneApps]

Thanks Igor. I took a closer look at ThumbGate.

The main reason I am cautious about a direct integration is SaneProcess's philosophy: enforcement should stay local, explicit, deterministic, and dependency-light. I do not want core guardrails to depend on a cloud path, telemetry path, dashboard, package install inside hooks, or a runtime that has to be present for SaneProcess to behave correctly. If something participates in blocking developer actions, it needs to be easy to audit, easy to remove, and able to degrade cleanly when absent.

That said, the feedback-to-prevention-gate idea is pointed at a real problem. The useful overlap for SaneProcess is probably narrower: fixture-backed review of proposed gates before they are promoted into enforcement. That can preserve the local/deterministic model while still learning from repeated mistakes.

SaneProcess is MIT licensed, and I see ThumbGate is MIT licensed too. You are free to use, copy, or adapt anything from SaneProcess however you see fit under the license.

If you want to explore collaboration, the best async next step would be a small proposal or focused PR showing one concrete SaneProcess gate workflow that remains local by default and covers:

• what data leaves the machine, if any
• exactly where the Claude/Codex/Cursor hook points run
• how false positives are reviewed and recovered
• what dependency/runtime footprint this adds
• what happens when ThumbGate is missing, offline, or misconfigured

I will evaluate it against SaneProcess's existing shared-script gates first, not as a default runtime dependency.

Mr. Sane
https://saneapps.com

[MrSaneApps]

Follow-up after the SaneProcess audit:

I adopted the useful part locally without adding ThumbGate as a dependency:

• gate_review fixture review exists
• full verify has registry-backed real tests for it
• release_preflight now loads app-specific gate fixtures and blocks malformed/failing evidence
• process metrics are local JSONL only, with no cloud or telemetry path

I am marking this as watching-external rather than closing. SaneProcess is not taking a default package/runtime dependency here, but a focused PR/proposal that stays local, explicit, deterministic, and cleanly absent/offline-safe would still be reviewable.

Mr. Sane
https://saneapps.com