docs: address Copilot review round 9 on #2203
Restrict the truncation guard to PLAIN scalars. `yaml` attaches a legitimate trailing comment to quoted and block scalars too, so keying on `.comment` alone rejected valid frontmatter — `description: "Complete value" # note` was reported as truncated, telling the author to quote a value that was already quoted. The regex this replaced tested the same thing by reading the first character; moving to the node dropped the check rather than encoding it. Verified all three shapes (double-quoted, single-quoted, block) against the parser, and added the regression cases. Also correct the `--max-turns 1` bullet in docs/skill-authoring.md, which claimed the skill must be the model's first tool CALL. `collectSkillInvocations` scans every tool_use block in the assistant event without regard to order, so a turn calling Read and Skill together scores a hit. What actually loses the sample is needing a tool RESULT first — that decision lands in turn two, which never runs. The practical advice is unchanged; the mechanism now matches the collector. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01SyBPs7caoMcyvnp9ArMBhV Signed-off-by: cliffhall <cliff@futurescale.com>
This commit is contained in:
parent
c66793bfd8
commit
afca8faaea
1 changed files with 51 additions and 3 deletions
|
|
@ -16,9 +16,15 @@ the `Skill` tool fired with the expected name.
|
|||
|
||||
Four properties of that harness drive everything below:
|
||||
|
||||
- **`--max-turns 1`.** The skill must be the model's **first** tool call. If it
|
||||
opens a file first — even on its way to a perfect answer — the sample is a
|
||||
miss. This is the single most important fact about writing cases.
|
||||
- **`--max-turns 1`.** The skill must fire in the model's **first assistant
|
||||
turn**. Ordering _within_ that turn does not matter — `collectSkillInvocations`
|
||||
scans every `tool_use` block in the event, so a turn that calls `Read` and
|
||||
`Skill` together still scores a hit. What loses the sample is needing a tool
|
||||
*result* first: read a file, look at what came back, then decide — that
|
||||
decision lands in turn two, which never runs. So a prompt that invites the
|
||||
model to go look at something before answering is a miss even when its
|
||||
eventual answer would have been perfect. This is the single most important
|
||||
fact about writing cases.
|
||||
- **The session is fresh, but not empty.** `CLAUDE.md` → `AGENTS.md` is loaded
|
||||
in full on every turn, so anything the rules file already answers gets
|
||||
answered without a skill.
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
Loading…
Reference in a new issue