modelcontextprotocol/inspector
Watch
1
0
Fork
You've already forked inspector
 0
Code Issues Pull requests Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity Actions 4

Review round 8: using a fixture, not connecting, is the trigger

Browse source 
Copilot, all three accepted.

1. Connecting still is not the condition. A few integration tests
   deliberately hand-roll a JSON-RPC server because the composable
   fixture *cannot* produce what they assert on —
   `inspectorClient-malformed-list.test.ts` says so in its own header:
   "the SDK's own server cannot emit these shapes: they are exactly what
   its types forbid". Same for `listSalvage-era.test.ts`. Real
   transport, real client, zero `test-servers/` dependency.

   Round 4 already stated the right condition at the top — "does this
   test depend on a fixture from `test-servers/`" — and then three
   downstream sites went on saying "connects". Those are now scoped to
   fixture use, and the hand-rolled exception is stated where the
   trigger is defined rather than left to be discovered, with both files
   named. Connecting is kept as a hint, since it usually does imply a
   fixture, with the instruction to check whether one can express the
   case first.

2. "description-strength measurement" was the wrong surface, and this
   PR is what made it wrong: a chained prompt is deliberately written so
   the target's *description* cannot fire on it, so the number measures
   the pointer in the first skill's body and nothing else. Left as-is it
   would send the next person tuning a red hand-off at the description.

3. "an 0.8 bar" -> "a 0.8 bar".

Re-measured: 100% / 100% hand-off, 63/63 first-move at 100%, RUNS=5.

Staged by explicit path, not `git add -A` — see ec6895a5.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01EQVdemwgUhh45yzeaRSLhW
Signed-off-by: cliffhall <cliff@futurescale.com>
This commit is contained in:
cliffhall 2026-09-05 18:03:37 -04:00
commit 0d947ad569
1 changed files with 31 additions and 20 deletions
Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

7
docs/skill-authoring.md
View file

@ -292,8 +292,11 @@ inclusive `>=`), so at `RUNS=5` only a clean 5/5 would pass it — 4/5 would not
*range* of pointer strengths a repo actually has: a hand-off is a noisier
measurement than a first move, so a bar set where a strong pointer sits marks
every merely-adequate one red and stops distinguishing them from a broken one.
Read a hand-off number as a description-strength measurement, not a verdict —
and read it at `RUNS=5`, since at `RUNS=3` one sample is worth 33 points.
Read a hand-off number as a **pointer**-strength measurement — the strength of
what the *first* skill's body says about the second, not of either description,
since a well-written chained prompt is one the target's description cannot
trigger on its own. Not a verdict, either; and read it at `RUNS=5`, since at
`RUNS=3` one sample is worth 33 points.
**A red hand-off case is a finding about the pointer, not a build break — and
the fix is to reshape the pointer, never to lower the bar.** The committed