fix(gitea-branches): repoint dangling overview.md citation
references/commits.md cited overview.md as the authority for a scope-gating claim, but no such file exists in this skill's package — the only overview.md is an external research doc not shipped with the skill. Repoint to branches.md's own Token scope section, which states and confirms the same principle, and drop the unverifiable write:repository enumeration detail no file in this skill actually makes. Found by an independent post-closure audit of #99 (agent-audit + skill-audit re-run against every changed skill/agent).
This commit is contained in:
@@ -64,10 +64,10 @@ edge cases, `get_commit` will not.
|
|||||||
## Token scope
|
## Token scope
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
Both tools are believed to require `write:repository`, even though they're read-only — inferred by
|
Both tools are believed to require `write:repository`, even though they're read-only — inferred by
|
||||||
analogy with the scope-gating principle in `overview.md` (Gitea gates reads behind write scope for
|
analogy with the scope-gating principle confirmed for branch operations in `branches.md`'s Token
|
||||||
repo-scoped operations), not a claim `overview.md` makes for commits by name: its explicit
|
scope section (Gitea gates reads behind write scope for repo-scoped operations), not a claim any
|
||||||
`write:repository` enumeration lists PR, branch, file, release, and tag operations, but doesn't
|
doc in this skill makes for commits by name: nothing here enumerates commits under
|
||||||
mention commits. An earlier version of this doc claimed `write:issue` alone worked, based on
|
`write:repository` explicitly. An earlier version of this doc claimed `write:issue` alone worked, based on
|
||||||
empirical testing under a token that held both `write:issue` and `write:repository`
|
empirical testing under a token that held both `write:issue` and `write:repository`
|
||||||
simultaneously — that test didn't isolate the variable either. Treat this as unverified until
|
simultaneously — that test didn't isolate the variable either. Treat this as unverified until
|
||||||
tested under a token scoped to `write:issue` only (no `write:repository`).
|
tested under a token scoped to `write:issue` only (no `write:repository`).
|
||||||
|
|||||||
@@ -64,10 +64,10 @@ edge cases, `get_commit` will not.
|
|||||||
## Token scope
|
## Token scope
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
Both tools are believed to require `write:repository`, even though they're read-only — inferred by
|
Both tools are believed to require `write:repository`, even though they're read-only — inferred by
|
||||||
analogy with the scope-gating principle in `overview.md` (Gitea gates reads behind write scope for
|
analogy with the scope-gating principle confirmed for branch operations in `branches.md`'s Token
|
||||||
repo-scoped operations), not a claim `overview.md` makes for commits by name: its explicit
|
scope section (Gitea gates reads behind write scope for repo-scoped operations), not a claim any
|
||||||
`write:repository` enumeration lists PR, branch, file, release, and tag operations, but doesn't
|
doc in this skill makes for commits by name: nothing here enumerates commits under
|
||||||
mention commits. An earlier version of this doc claimed `write:issue` alone worked, based on
|
`write:repository` explicitly. An earlier version of this doc claimed `write:issue` alone worked, based on
|
||||||
empirical testing under a token that held both `write:issue` and `write:repository`
|
empirical testing under a token that held both `write:issue` and `write:repository`
|
||||||
simultaneously — that test didn't isolate the variable either. Treat this as unverified until
|
simultaneously — that test didn't isolate the variable either. Treat this as unverified until
|
||||||
tested under a token scoped to `write:issue` only (no `write:repository`).
|
tested under a token scoped to `write:issue` only (no `write:repository`).
|
||||||
|
|||||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user