Defame1297
bedbd1d872
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
514 B
514 B
topic, source_keys
| topic | source_keys | |
|---|---|---|
| status-checkin |
|
Status check-in (invoked with no request)
Give a repo status check-in:
- Invoke
gitea-issuesto list open issues (state: "open"). - Invoke
gitea-prsto list open PRs (state: "open"). Run this alongside step 1 — the two are independent reads, so serialising them only adds latency. - Report as two sections, "Open Issues" and "Open Pull Requests", each a compact list of number and title.
Then report per SKILL.md's Report section.