{"row":{"n":"0019","slug":"nep-0019-workflow-token-budget","file":"nep-0019-workflow-token-budget.md","headline":"The workflow token budget — the portable cap leaves the agent verb","title":"Generalize the one normative in-language cap (`max_tokens_total`) from the `agent:` verb to the workflow, in the only unit that survives the freeze","status":"Draft","type":"Standards Track","created":"2026-07-30","author":"Thibaut Melen (SuperNovae Studio)","lede":"Today the language carries exactly one normative spend cap:\nagent.max_tokens_total (02 §agent) — and it is\nconfined to one verb of four.","sections":[{"title":"Abstract","anchor":"abstract"},{"title":"Motivation","anchor":"motivation"},{"title":"Specification (sketch — the Discussion shapes the final grammar)","anchor":"specification-sketch--the-discussion-shapes-the-final-grammar"},{"title":"Compatibility","anchor":"compatibility"},{"title":"Open questions (for Discussion)","anchor":"open-questions-for-discussion"}],"words":574,"sha256":"6108a98d6e782c02a20e6d2291a44db40af993e9abe37adfb148cae1d87cd453"},"prev":{"n":"0018","slug":"nep-0018-energy-honesty","file":"nep-0018-energy-honesty.md","headline":"Energy honesty — the cost doctrine, transposed to watt-hours","title":"Extend cost honesty to energy: floors, ceilings, UNBOUNDED, and never a fabricated zero","status":"Draft","type":"Standards Track","created":"2026-07-29","author":"Thibaut Melen (SuperNovae Studio)","lede":"Give energy the exact doctrine cost already has: a static ENERGY reading\nbeside COST, speaking the same four words — floor · ceiling ·\nUNBOUNDED · unpriced — over the catalog's sourced watt-hour facts, with\nunknown stays unknown as the governing law (an energy Nika cannot prove\nis never rendered as 0 Wh, a local model is unpriced — your watts —\nnever « free »).","sections":[{"title":"Abstract","anchor":"abstract"},{"title":"Motivation","anchor":"motivation"},{"title":"Specification","anchor":"specification"},{"title":"Conformance test","anchor":"conformance-test"},{"title":"Compatibility impact","anchor":"compatibility-impact"},{"title":"Migration plan","anchor":"migration-plan"},{"title":"Rejected alternatives","anchor":"rejected-alternatives"}],"words":1414,"sha256":"06b456666c61922f8fb84284661e9567e54ecb33d42628666fddc953ae17edf3"},"next":{"n":"0020","slug":"nep-0020-affirmative-consent","file":"nep-0020-affirmative-consent.md","headline":"The affirmative-consent law — a refused confirm must not reach an effect","title":"The affirmative-consent law — `false` triggers exactly zero effects, judged at check","status":"Draft","type":"Standards Track","created":"2026-07-31","author":"Thibaut Melen (SuperNovae Studio)","lede":"A REFUSED confirm-mode nika:prompt settles the task success with\nvalue `false` — the Deny lives in the approval attestation\n(NEP-0013), never in the task status.","sections":[{"title":"Abstract","anchor":"abstract"},{"title":"Motivation","anchor":"motivation"},{"title":"Specification","anchor":"specification"},{"title":"Conformance test","anchor":"conformance-test"},{"title":"Compatibility impact","anchor":"compatibility-impact"},{"title":"Migration plan","anchor":"migration-plan"},{"title":"Rejected alternatives","anchor":"rejected-alternatives"}],"words":1237,"sha256":"0edb5a81b2ced66c42d6d08bb6a090b7724a96c6a1a5bb626098a8e3d29d8d98"},"total":20}

[{"k":"h","depth":1,"text":"NEP-0019 · The workflow token budget — the portable cap leaves the agent verb","id":"nep-0019--the-workflow-token-budget--the-portable-cap-leaves-the-agent-verb"},{"k":"list","ordered":false,"items":[[{"k":"strong","text":"NEP"},{"k":"text","text":": 0019"}],[{"k":"strong","text":"Title"},{"k":"text","text":": Generalize the one normative in-language cap ("},{"k":"code","text":"max_tokens_total"},{"k":"text","text":") from the "},{"k":"code","text":"agent:"},{"k":"text","text":" verb to the workflow, in the only unit that survives the freeze"}],[{"k":"strong","text":"Author"},{"k":"text","text":": Thibaut Melen (SuperNovae Studio)"}],[{"k":"strong","text":"Status"},{"k":"text","text":": Draft"}],[{"k":"strong","text":"Type"},{"k":"text","text":": Standards Track"}],[{"k":"strong","text":"Created"},{"k":"text","text":": 2026-07-30"}]]},{"k":"h","depth":2,"text":"Abstract","id":"abstract"},{"k":"p","inline":[{"k":"text","text":"Today the language carries exactly one normative spend cap:\n"},{"k":"code","text":"agent.max_tokens_total"},{"k":"text","text":" ("},{"k":"link","text":"02 §agent","href":"../spec/02-verbs.md"},{"k":"text","text":") — and it is\nconfined to one verb of four. This NEP proposes the workflow-level twin:\na declared, statically-checkable token budget the whole run must fit\ninside, refusable at check when the static ceiling already exceeds it.\n"},{"k":"strong","text":"Tokens, never currency"},{"k":"text","text":": a dollar cap in a durable file rots with\nevery price change and is meaningless on a local provider, while a token\ncap is portable across providers, hardware and years — money stays what\nit already is in the engine, a "},{"k":"em","text":"projection"},{"k":"text","text":" of tokens through the\nversioned pricing snapshot the trace pins (NEP-0017). This closes the\ngap "},{"k":"link","text":"08 §H7","href":"../spec/08-out-of-scope.md"},{"k":"text","text":" names (« reading IS\nin-language · enforcement is NOT ») in the one unit that deserves to be\nnormative — the deferred "},{"k":"code","text":"budget: max_cost_usd"},{"k":"text","text":" block stays deferred,\nand stays denominated in the wrong unit."}]},{"k":"h","depth":2,"text":"Motivation","id":"motivation"},{"k":"list","ordered":true,"items":[[{"k":"strong","text":"The product promise is a bounded run; the standard promises\nnothing."},{"k":"text","text":" "},{"k":"code","text":"nika check"},{"k":"text","text":" renders cost floors and ceilings, but a\nthird-party engine can claim conformance without counting anything.\nThe audit-before-run story deserves at least one normative,\nverifiable cap at the workflow boundary."}],[{"k":"strong","text":"The right unit already won, locally."},{"k":"text","text":" "},{"k":"code","text":"max_tokens_total"},{"k":"text","text":" is\nnormative today — but only inside "},{"k":"code","text":"agent:"},{"k":"text","text":". An "},{"k":"code","text":"infer:"},{"k":"text","text":"-only\nworkflow, the majority shape, has no in-language spend bound at all."}],[{"k":"strong","text":"The resource doctrine says the dimensionless invariant must\nlead"},{"k":"text","text":" (the resource-algebra ratification, 2026-07-28): tokens\ncompose additively under both "},{"k":"code","text":";"},{"k":"text","text":" and "},{"k":"code","text":"‖"},{"k":"text","text":", need no exchange rate,\nand are the denominator money and energy are projected from."}]]},{"k":"h","depth":2,"text":"Specification (sketch — the Discussion shapes the final grammar)","id":"specification-sketch--the-discussion-shapes-the-final-grammar"},{"k":"list","ordered":false,"items":[[{"k":"text","text":"A workflow-level declaration, e.g. under the existing "},{"k":"code","text":"policy:"},{"k":"text","text":"\nsurface ("},{"k":"code","text":"policy.limits.max_tokens_total: <integer>"},{"k":"text","text":"), judged HARD at\ncheck: if the static token ceiling of the plan (the same arithmetic\nthe COST rung already performs · "},{"k":"code","text":"Σ max_tokens × max_attempts"},{"k":"text","text":" per\ntask, iterations counted) provably exceeds the budget, check refuses\nwith a taught error; otherwise the run enforces it cumulatively and a\nbreach terminates with the budget error code."}],[{"k":"text","text":"UNBOUNDED stays honest: a plan whose ceiling cannot be bounded\nstatically (dynamic fan-out) is not refused for the budget alone —\nthe check names the unbounded contributor, and the runtime cap still\nbinds (defense in depth, the NEP-0003 shape)."}],[{"k":"code","text":"agent.max_tokens_total"},{"k":"text","text":" is unchanged and nests: the verb cap bounds\nits task, the workflow cap bounds the sum (limits MEET · budgets\nescrow — the composition ruling)."}],[{"k":"text","text":"Error family: the existing budget namespace; exact codes assigned at\nAccepted."}]]},{"k":"h","depth":2,"text":"Compatibility","id":"compatibility"},{"k":"p","inline":[{"k":"text","text":"Purely additive. No existing workflow changes meaning; absence of the\nfield means today's behavior. The deferred "},{"k":"code","text":"budget:"},{"k":"text","text":" block of\n"},{"k":"link","text":"08 §Cost tracking annotations","href":"../spec/08-out-of-scope.md"},{"k":"text","text":" is\nsuperseded-in-direction by this token-denominated form if accepted —\nthe currency-denominated cap stays out of the language."}]},{"k":"h","depth":2,"text":"Open questions (for Discussion)","id":"open-questions-for-discussion"},{"k":"list","ordered":false,"items":[[{"k":"text","text":"Home: "},{"k":"code","text":"policy.limits"},{"k":"text","text":" (judged, closed vocabulary today:\n"},{"k":"code","text":"max_tasks"},{"k":"text","text":") vs a sibling — the one-obvious-way call."}],[{"k":"text","text":"Does the cap cover "},{"k":"code","text":"infer"},{"k":"text","text":" + "},{"k":"code","text":"agent"},{"k":"text","text":" only, or also tokenized tool\nsurfaces ("},{"k":"code","text":"nika:jq"},{"k":"text","text":" is free; MCP tools are not tokens)?"}],[{"k":"text","text":"Conformance: one fixture pair minimum (a provable over-budget refusal\n· a boundary pass), runtime fixtures for the cumulative breach."}]]}]

NEP-0019

The workflow token budget — the portable cap leaves the agent verb

Draft · Standards Track · opened 2026-07-30 · 574 words

NEP-0019 · The workflow token budget — the portable cap leaves the agent verb #

NEP: 0019
Title: Generalize the one normative in-language cap (max_tokens_total) from the agent: verb to the workflow, in the only unit that survives the freeze
Author: Thibaut Melen (SuperNovae Studio)
Status: Draft
Type: Standards Track
Created: 2026-07-30

Abstract #

Today the language carries exactly one normative spend cap: agent.max_tokens_total (02 §agent) — and it is confined to one verb of four. This NEP proposes the workflow-level twin: a declared, statically-checkable token budget the whole run must fit inside, refusable at check when the static ceiling already exceeds it. Tokens, never currency: a dollar cap in a durable file rots with every price change and is meaningless on a local provider, while a token cap is portable across providers, hardware and years — money stays what it already is in the engine, a projection of tokens through the versioned pricing snapshot the trace pins (NEP-0017). This closes the gap 08 §H7 names (« reading IS in-language · enforcement is NOT ») in the one unit that deserves to be normative — the deferred budget: max_cost_usd block stays deferred, and stays denominated in the wrong unit.

Motivation #

The product promise is a bounded run; the standard promises nothing. nika check renders cost floors and ceilings, but a third-party engine can claim conformance without counting anything. The audit-before-run story deserves at least one normative, verifiable cap at the workflow boundary.
The right unit already won, locally. max_tokens_total is normative today — but only inside agent:. An infer:-only workflow, the majority shape, has no in-language spend bound at all.
The resource doctrine says the dimensionless invariant must lead (the resource-algebra ratification, 2026-07-28): tokens compose additively under both ; and ‖, need no exchange rate, and are the denominator money and energy are projected from.

Specification (sketch — the Discussion shapes the final grammar) #

A workflow-level declaration, e.g. under the existing policy: surface (policy.limits.max_tokens_total: <integer>), judged HARD at check: if the static token ceiling of the plan (the same arithmetic the COST rung already performs · Σ max_tokens × max_attempts per task, iterations counted) provably exceeds the budget, check refuses with a taught error; otherwise the run enforces it cumulatively and a breach terminates with the budget error code.
UNBOUNDED stays honest: a plan whose ceiling cannot be bounded statically (dynamic fan-out) is not refused for the budget alone — the check names the unbounded contributor, and the runtime cap still binds (defense in depth, the NEP-0003 shape).
agent.max_tokens_total is unchanged and nests: the verb cap bounds its task, the workflow cap bounds the sum (limits MEET · budgets escrow — the composition ruling).
Error family: the existing budget namespace; exact codes assigned at Accepted.

Compatibility #

Purely additive. No existing workflow changes meaning; absence of the field means today's behavior. The deferred budget: block of 08 §Cost tracking annotations is superseded-in-direction by this token-denominated form if accepted — the currency-denominated cap stays out of the language.

Open questions (for Discussion) #

Home: policy.limits (judged, closed vocabulary today: max_tasks) vs a sibling — the one-obvious-way call.
Does the cap cover infer + agent only, or also tokenized tool surfaces (nika:jq is free; MCP tools are not tokens)?
Conformance: one fixture pair minimum (a provable over-budget refusal · a boundary pass), runtime fixtures for the cumulative breach.

This proposal in the spec repo The specification it amends