Defame1297
ed8c99efbd
The #113 sweep rested on CLAUDE.md's premise that rtk either filters or passes through unchanged, so prefixing is always safe. Measured against rtk 0.42.4, that premise is false for several of the commands the sweep prefixed, and two skills were left giving wrong answers silently. Why: - `rtk git worktree list --porcelain -z` discards both flags and renders its own format. The `locked`/`lock_reason` fields git-worktrees Step 2 must emit are absent entirely, and paths under $HOME are abbreviated to `~/`. - `rtk git branch --list <name>` prints a phantom `* ` line even when nothing matches, so git-branches' stated ambiguity test — "output from both means the name is ambiguous" — reported every name as ambiguous. `tag --list` is a clean passthrough, so only one half broke. - `rtk git diff --name-only`/`--name-status` append a `Changes:` trailer to output documented as "one per line"; `--word-diff` emits none of the `[-removed-] {+added+}` markers its table describes; `rtk git log -L` truncates each line at ~72 chars, on the one command whose purpose is showing line content. - `rtk git stash pop` prints only `FAILED: git stash pop`, swallowing the conflict diagnostic and retained-entry message the surrounding prose tells the agent to rely on. Implementation notes: - Eleven sites reverted to bare `git`, each carrying its reason inline so the next sweep does not undo it. `mergetool` and `rebase -i` are reverted on clause 3's interactive limb only: the TTY defect does not reproduce — rtk filters exactly twelve subcommands and execs the rest — and ADR-0023 records that measurement rather than a convenient one. - ADR-0023 states the rule repo-wide with a third clause: a command whose output the skill parses, or which is interactive, stays bare. `plugins/git/README.md` is reduced to a pointer; its claim that gitea skills "contain no git/rtk mentions at all" was false, and its citation of `hard-rules.md` pointed at a file containing no occurrence of "rtk". - Eight gitea sites swept, all verified byte-identical passthroughs first. - `scripts/check-rtk-prefix.sh` gates clause 1. Run against main's pre-sweep corpus it reports 99 findings including every gitea site, so it would have caught the drift #113 was filed about. Impact: the gate covers clause 1 only, in shell-tagged fences and the opening span of Run cells. Clause 2 is not gateable — "Run `git switch`" and "`git switch` refuses" are the same tokens — and prose bullets are invisible to it. Both limits are recorded in gates.md rather than left implied. Refs: #113 ADR: 0023 Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01EeH8SCbcrCAQrtymkNuhKP
4.5 KiB
topic, source_keys
| topic | source_keys | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| branches |
|
Branch operations
Call signatures below were verified live against the deployed gitea-mcp server via ToolSearch,
not copied from research docs — this is deliberate: research docs are generated from source code at
a point in time and can drift from the server actually deployed. Last verified against gitea-mcp
v1.7.0, as reported by get_gitea_mcp_server_version. Re-verify against the live schema if the
deployed version differs or these tools behave differently than documented here.
list_branches
Parameters:
owner(string, required)repo(string, required)page(number, optional, default:1)per_page(number, optional, default:30)
Call:
list_branches owner: <owner> repo: <repo>
Response: one object per branch: name, protected (bool), commit_sha (present when the
underlying commit data is available).
Paginate if you need the full list (see Gotchas in SKILL.md) — iterate page until the returned
count is less than per_page.
create_branch
Parameters:
owner(string, required)repo(string, required)branch(string, required) — new branch nameold_branch(string, optional) — source branch; if omitted, defaults to the repo's default branch server-side (not necessarily your current local checkout)
Call:
create_branch owner: <owner> repo: <repo> branch: <new-name> old_branch: <source-branch>
Default dispatch: if the user gives a base ("branch off of X", "from X"), pass it as old_branch.
If they don't specify a base and you're mid-task on a local branch, pass your current branch
(rtk git branch --show-current) as old_branch so the new branch forks from where you're actually
working, rather than silently falling back to the repo default. If neither applies (e.g. a fresh
top-level request with no working branch context), omit old_branch and let it default server-side.
A branch name collision returns 409 Conflict.
rename_branch
Parameters:
owner(string, required)repo(string, required)branch(string, required) — the branch's current namenew_name(string, required) — the name to move it to
Call:
rename_branch owner: <owner> repo: <repo> branch: <current-name> new_name: <new-name>
A rename moves the ref server-side; it is not a delete-plus-create, and no commit history is
rewritten. What it does to things pointing at the old name — open pull requests using it as head or
base, a branch protection rule matching it, CI config, and tracking branches on every other clone —
is not confirmed by this skill's sources: the deployed tool describes itself only as "Rename an
existing branch in a repository". Treat a rename of a branch with open PRs or a protection rule as a
change needing verification afterward (list_branches, plus gitea-prs for the PR side), and
confirm with the user first, exactly as for delete_branch below. A collision with an existing
branch name is expected to return 409 Conflict by analogy with create_branch, not separately
confirmed.
delete_branch
Parameters:
owner(string, required)repo(string, required)branch(string, required)
Call:
delete_branch owner: <owner> repo: <repo> branch: <name>
Before calling this, see the delete_branch Gotcha in SKILL.md. If the target branch's name isn't
obviously a scratch/feature branch, call list_branches first and check protected on the
matching entry — name-matching main/master alone isn't authoritative, since a repo can protect
a differently-named default branch. Confirm explicitly with the user before deleting anything
protected, every time, regardless of how the request is phrased.
Token scope
list_branches, create_branch and delete_branch all require write:repository. Gitea
gates reads behind write scope for repo-scoped operations, so list_branches needs the same scope
as the write operations, not write:issue alone. An earlier version of this doc claimed
write:issue alone was sufficient for list_branches, based on empirical testing under a token
that held both write:issue and write:repository simultaneously — that test didn't isolate the
variable, so it couldn't actually establish write:issue alone as sufficient.
rename_branch is a write on the same repo-scoped surface and is inferred to need write:repository
too — inferred by analogy, not separately confirmed.