Defame1297
58a3f402a6
- ADR-0004: add the "Amended by ADR-0028" note, following the ADR-0025 convention. - ADR-0028: correct Q5 (parse_status is gone), the skill count (38, not 39), and the question order. Q7 records the anchored, format-only sha check. Q8 records the decision to commit real Vale fixtures. A new consequence covers path confinement and list rejection. - CONTEXT.md: the `_Avoid_` entry means the bare noun, not the field. - gates.md: correct the authored-hook counts after the corpus gate. - create.md: a `none` entry backed by a reproduction must name committed fixtures in `Basis:`; use the `(digest: <full path>)` form. - gitea-releases: use the `(digest: <full path>)` form. Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01EGHFJextYtVQseaHPDDhxB
41 lines
2.3 KiB
Markdown
41 lines
2.3 KiB
Markdown
# Add INFO as a third finding level in skill-audit reports
|
|
|
|
**Amended by ADR-0025 (2026-09-15).** `skill-audit` and `agent-audit` were removed and their flows
|
|
merged into `factory-audit`, which dispatches to a skill flow and an agent flow at Step 0. Read
|
|
`skill-audit` below as `factory-audit`'s skill flow. The decision itself is unchanged — ADR-0025
|
|
carried every audit criterion, tier and finding level across as-is.
|
|
|
|
**Amended by ADR-0028 (2026-09-21).** INFO stays for a check that cannot run. A check that ran and
|
|
found a mismatch in `Research doc:` is now a FAIL, so INFO no longer covers it.
|
|
|
|
`skill-audit` shipped with two finding levels: FAIL (blocks shipping) and
|
|
SUGGESTION (optional improvement). Provenance validation introduced observations
|
|
that are worth surfacing but not actionable: a `references/*.md` file with no
|
|
`source_keys` when `sources.md` is present, and a skill-level source slug absent
|
|
from upstream research docs. Folding these into SUGGESTION would imply they
|
|
should be fixed — but retroactive source backfill after a reference file is
|
|
written is unreliable and not expected practice. A third level, INFO, is therefore
|
|
introduced: observational, no action implied, never changes the pass/fail verdict.
|
|
Counted separately in the result block as `· P info`.
|
|
|
|
## Considered options
|
|
|
|
**SUGGESTION with softer language (rejected)** — describe the finding as "worth
|
|
noting" rather than "should be fixed." Rejected because SUGGESTION already carries
|
|
an established meaning in the report; softening the language creates ambiguity
|
|
without changing the semantic level. Downstream consumers (humans, skill-improve)
|
|
would need to infer intent from prose rather than a stable token.
|
|
|
|
**Suppress entirely (rejected)** — omit findings that have no fix. Rejected
|
|
because the observations are useful for a human reviewing provenance completeness.
|
|
Silent omission loses information without reducing noise.
|
|
|
|
## Consequences
|
|
|
|
- Report format gains a third token: FAIL, SUGGESTION, INFO. INFO findings do not
|
|
affect pass/fail; counted as `· P info` in the result block.
|
|
- `skill-improve` currently ignores anything below FAIL — that behavior remains
|
|
correct; INFO findings are not forwarded to it.
|
|
- Future soft observations should use INFO rather than SUGGESTION when no fix is
|
|
actionable.
|