docs: trim repeated boilerplate in git, gitea, and bin skills

Finding 13: five blocks of near-identical wording were repeated across
skills within a plugin — the gitea "resolve owner and repo" step (5
skills), the 404-masks-403 note (6 files), the manual pagination
explanation (8 files), the git plugin's main/master force-push refusal
(7 files, some with multiple internal restatements), and the bin
skills' domain-glossary/ADR paragraph (5 skills). Tightened each
instance in place — same meaning, fewer words — rather than extracting
to a shared file, which ADR-0014's one-file-per-skill install
constraint rules out. Left the three git skills' structured-result
JSON shapes alone (coupled to the separate, out-of-scope git-orchestrate
merge candidate, finding 19).

Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01YR2CjVumUbEGWcMikcoXBD
This commit is contained in:
2026-09-12 19:48:19 +00:00
parent f5e4d0d082
commit 6cfc3577e2
49 changed files with 128 additions and 135 deletions

View File

@@ -11,7 +11,7 @@ compatibility: Requires the Gitea MCP server configured with a token scoped to a
is not actually required for any of this domain's five tools.
metadata:
version: "1.0.0"
version: "1.0.1"
category: gitea
source_keys:
- gitea-mcp-repo
@@ -23,7 +23,7 @@ allowed-tools: mcp__gitea__get_file_contents mcp__gitea__get_dir_contents mcp__g
## Gotchas
- **A 404 may mean an under-scoped token, not a missing path.** Every tool here gates on `write:repository`, and Gitea masks insufficient scope as 404. Check scopes first.
- **404 may mean an under-scoped token, not a missing path.** These tools gate on `write:repository`; check scope before concluding the path is missing.
- **Reads take `ref` (`tree_sha` on `get_repository_tree`), writes take `branch_name`.** One concept, three names — carry the wrong key and the branch is dropped.
- **`content` is base64 both ways — except under `withLines: true`.** Encode before a write, decode after a read; but with `withLines: true` `content` is already plain JSON text and the reported `"encoding": "base64"` is a lie. Decoding it yields garbage.