Defame1297/holocron
0
0
Fork 0
Code Issues 14 Pull Requests Actions Packages Projects Releases 3 Wiki Activity

refactor(skills): retrofit the corpus to the ADR-0020 context contract #129

Merged
Defame1297 merged 89 commits from refactor/adr0020-skill-retrofit into main 2026-09-01 13:47:47 +00:00
Conversation 2 Commits 89 Files Changed 420 +8 -8
2 changed files with 8 additions and 8 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files
Showing only changes of commit 59aaec4ed6 - Show all commits

8
plugins/gitea/.apm/skills/gitea-branches/references/commits.md
View File

@@ -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`).

8
plugins/gitea/skills/gitea-branches/references/commits.md
View File

@@ -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`).