Commit Graph

2 Commits

Author SHA1 Message Date
be9b8d277f fix(gitea): restore the withLines exception and route rename_branch through the orchestrator
gitea-files' always-loaded Gotchas said "content is base64 both ways" without
qualification. The `main` text carried an exception for `withLines: true` and both
halves were dropped. Verified live: `get_file_contents` with `withLines: true`
returns plain JSON text while the same response still reports `"encoding":"base64"`.
An agent that follows the recommendation two sentences later and applies the
unconditional decode gets garbage, with the response's own field confirming the
wrong answer. Exception restored, and the lying field named.

gitea-orchestrate was never updated for `rename_branch`: absent from the operation
enum, so an agent caller got "unknown operation", and absent from the
destructive-confirm list, though branches.md requires a rename with open PRs or a
protection rule to be confirmed exactly as `delete_branch` is. Added to both — the
confirm gate rather than the enum alone, because accepting the operation without it
routes around a rule the skill states while appearing to support it. The
compatibility frontmatter, which the agent reads, still omitted the tool too.

Two more always-loaded Gotchas contradicted their own reference files, and the
Gotcha was wrong both times: issues and PRs are distinguishable on a list item by
the `html_url` path segment (confirmed live — #129 at /pulls/, #128 at /issues/),
and `get_repository_tree` takes `tree_sha`, not `ref`.

`review_comments` was asserted as unconditionally present on the PR get response.
It is absent on a PR with no review comments, so the claim is downgraded to
present-when-non-zero rather than stated as response shape.

The label-exclusivity relocation moved the rule out of label-inference.md and into
labels.md without updating sources.md, leaving the one rule in this branch that
writes differently to live repos citing a file that no longer carries it. The rule
itself is correct as it stands and `main` was wrong — every Kind/* label on this
instance is exclusive:false, every Priority/* and Status/* is true — so only the
provenance record is corrected.

Routing: gitea-workflow lost the human-caller discriminator and widened from status
checks to any request, which sent "close #42" to a branch that resolves the number
and presents detail without ever closing it. gitea-branches and gitea-issues regain
trigger phrasings the retrofit dropped.

Refs: #92
2026-09-01 12:38:53 +00:00
bedbd1d872 refactor(gitea-workflow): retrofit to the ADR-0020 context contract
Description 1012 -> 347 chars, body 582 -> 170 words, Gotchas 3 entries -> 1 at
22.9% of body. Clears the description FAIL and all four Vale CompositionNote
errors -- the last carriers in the corpus, so that rule now fires nowhere.

Cut the 'human-facing entry point and router' architecture note, the /gitea
migration history and the six-skill composition list; all were already in the
README or the routing table.

Split three mutually exclusive flows into a dispatch table keyed on invocation
shape, each branch self-contained in references/: status-checkin.md,
number-resolution.md, skill-index.md. Report stays in the body as the gate
common to every branch; each branch's own format moved to its file. The old
Step 1-4 numbering presented three alternatives as a sequence.

The description grew from an intermediate 283 chars on purpose: that draft had
dropped flow 3's trigger entirely, leaving the domain-routing index -- a third
of the skill -- reachable only through a tail clause whose grammatical subject
was the request rather than the skill. Both gates were green over that.

Boundary clauses are one arrow per target, so both resolve (#107: the resolver
extracts only the first target per clause and reports 1 of 1 on a clause naming
two). The local-git exclusion keeps its wording but drops the route to
git-workflow, which would not resolve in a gitea-only install.

Known residual: the dispatch conditions are stated twice, as a table and as
literal conditionals. That is #109 -- body-discipline.md mandates the literal
form while the ADR's cited exemplar, apm-workflow, uses a bare table plus one
summary line. Fixing it here would settle that contradiction in a skill rather
than in the spec, so it rides with #109.

Refs #99, #107, #109
2026-08-30 12:42:04 +00:00