I open-sourced Aletheia - an agent loop for investigating questions without a clear verifier.
Most agent loops work best when the result can be checked: code compiles, tests pass, the task is done.
I wanted to explore what a loop should look like when the answer cannot be verified that way.
Questions like:
- Is this vendor’s claimed traction credible?
- Is this company financially healthy?
- Does a science headline match what the study found?
For these, every search result is only a partial and potentially misleading clue.
So I built Aletheia - The Uncertainty Loop Agent.
Its loop is:
belief → act → observe → update
It keeps an explicit view of what may be true, chooses the next search for its ability to change that view, and allows contradictory evidence to lower its confidence.
Its first working application is an open-source investigator that returns a verdict with evidence, conflicting signals, stated confidence, and unresolved unknowns. It can also stop without forcing a conclusion when the evidence has not earned one.
Aletheia currently ships for company and vendor diligence, but the loop is domain-neutral: it can be adapted wherever truth is hidden and evidence is incomplete, noisy, or contested.
Aletheia currently runs with Claude Code and OpenAI Codex. The skill, traces, tests, and optional tuning cycle remain local; web investigation uses the harness’s search capabilities.
This is an attempt to explore an emerging side of loop engineering, not a claim that the problem is solved. Source quality and real-world calibration are still difficult, and correlated evidence can fool any system.