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
1.3 KiB
1.3 KiB
topic, source_keys
| topic | source_keys | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| number-resolution |
|
Resolving a bare issue-or-PR number
The user has referenced a bare number without saying "issue" or "PR" (e.g. "what's going on with #42"). Resolve it with a real call — never dispatch to gitea-issues or gitea-prs by guessing from phrasing alone, because "that sounds like a bug" is not evidence and the two domains share one number space.
- Invoke
gitea-issuesto runissue_read method: "get"on that number. - Check the response's
is_pullfield:true→ it's a PR. Invokegitea-prsfor full PR detail (status, diff, reviews as appropriate to the request) and present that instead.falseor absent → it's an issue. Present the issue detail already retrieved.
- If the resolution call 404s, don't conclude the number doesn't exist. Gitea hides permission errors as not-found (documented in
gitea-issues' Gotchas), so report the 404 and suggest verifying the token carrieswrite:issuerather than reporting "no such issue or PR."
Then report per SKILL.md's Report section, saying which domain the number turned out to be before showing detail ("That's a pull request:" / "That's an issue:") — otherwise the user cannot tell the resolution happened.