689a5e14a3ebe36c10ecbd50348423cd4e673880
2
Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
 Omar SobhandClaude Opus 5
|
771092b165 |
fix(skills): a pinned skill contradicted the platform inside the same prompt
Extending the Skill-Use mechanical checks, per the baseline's own next step, found something bigger than a missing check. THE DEFECT `workspace-repo-commit-protocol` told agents that `/workspace/repo` was "the ONLY path where source-modifying edits belong". The platform mounts and advertises `/mission/repo` — 26 references in the code; `/workspace/repo` appears in none of them. The skill is bound on 29 role bindings and was delivered TWICE in the run already measured, so an agent received the real path in its tool preamble and a skill contradicting it a few hundred tokens later, in one prompt. An agent that obeyed the skill wrote source into a directory nothing collects — the phase then delivers nothing, and looks like an agent that did no work. The same skill instructed `file_read` / `file_write` / `shell`: ZeroClaw's names, the exact ones `phase_task_text` was fixed to stop advertising after five agents on a single mission spent 7.4k tokens describing the mismatch instead of working. The prompt was corrected and the skill kept saying it. Rewritten against what the code actually does, including the repo-less case (`/mission/repo` exists, is collected as artifacts, has nothing to push). THE CLASS, AND THE GUARD The skills were never checked against the platform they describe. Nothing compared them, so a skill could contradict the prompt it ships inside and stay that way indefinitely — the same shape as PLAN_COMPLETE being documented and never implemented. Two tests in `skills_loader::contradiction_tests` now hold it: no skill may name a repo path the platform does not mount, and none may instruct a tool the agent's subprocess does not expose. The second matches backticked instructions and skips corrective lines, so a skill may still WARN against the wrong names — as this one now does. Both negative-controlled by restoring the old wording. AND THE CHECK THAT STARTED IT `workspace-repo-commit-protocol` now has a Boundary check: writing outside `/mission/repo` fails, and the message names the consequence — a phase that delivers nothing — rather than just the wrong path. docs/SKILL-USE-BASELINE.md records this as the fourth defect the measurement found, and corrects the "next unit of work" note now that this one is done. Full workspace suite green: 106 binaries, zero build errors. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <[email protected]> |
||
|
Omar SobhandClaude Opus 5
|
91a6b4e304 |
feat(skills): the first Skill-Use measurement, and the three defects it found
Scored on the paper's three axes against two real missions on the local
stack. docs/SKILL-USE-BASELINE.md has the numbers, the method, and the
limits.
Trigger is reported as NOT OBSERVABLE, never zero
The paper measures progressive disclosure: the agent sees a name and
description and must retrieve the body, and that retrieval is the Trigger
event. We inline full bodies, because mission claws run on claude_cli which
cannot surface a tool call — there is nothing to retrieve with. So the
agent never reaches for a skill, it simply holds one.
Scoring that zero would report a delivery-model property as an agent
failure, which is the same confusion that kept 55 empty bindings invisible
for months. The verdict type carries NotObservable(reason) as a distinct
case from Fail for exactly this.
Compliance is checked by running the REAL task_card_parser rather than a
copy of its rules — a second implementation would drift, and then the score
would pass while the mission loop still stalled. Skills without a
machine-checkable consequence score not_applicable rather than a guess.
WHAT THE MEASUREMENT FOUND
1. The prompt format made its own record unparseable. Skills were
introduced with `## <name>` and skill bodies are markdown full of `##`
headings, so run 1 scored "Sizing heuristic" and "The output shape" —
subheadings inside decompose-int-items — as skills with no catalogue
row. Now an unambiguous `--- SKILL: <name> ---` marker, with both
writers sharing one renderer so the reader cannot drift from the writer.
2. A prompt was recorded that was never sent. My own Phase 1 work recorded
the phase prompt at the dispatch fork, before the tier was chosen — and
the container tier does not send that text, it sends the bare task and
appends skills per turn. Every container mission logged a `solo` prompt
that reached no agent. A provenance record of something that did not
happen is worse than no record: it is the wrong answer, delivered
confidently. Recording now happens inside each tier, with a test that
every launcher records the prompt it actually sends.
3. int-xx-marker-protocol documents a marker the platform never
implemented. PLAN_COMPLETE is in the skill's ladder and task_card_parser
has no such kind and never has, so an agent following the skill exactly
emits a marker that is silently ignored. Observed live: run 2's planner
emitted `PLAN_COMPLETE: INT-01..02`, which is also the range form — on
the kinds that ARE parsed that yields the id `INT-01..02`, a task card
for an item that does not exist while the two real items stay open.
This is a skill/implementation mismatch, not an agent failure, and it is
exactly what the measurement exists to find: the agent did what it was
told and what it was told was wrong. Both shapes now score as failures.
The reconciliation — implement PLAN_COMPLETE or drop it from the skill —
is left as a decision rather than guessed at.
The boot log now shows what the plan asked for: 53 skills, 11 templates,
every one `N role skills bound` with NO unresolved clause. Live missions
confirm per-role delivery — the planner receives decompose-int-items, the
coder receives write-rust-current-edition.
GET /api/missions/{id}/skill-use exposes the scores, and says in its
payload whether an empty result means "nothing delivered" or "the evidence
was reaped" — those have very different causes and must not look the same.
n = 2. No spread is reported because two runs cannot establish one, and the
document says so rather than letting the number be quoted as a baseline it
is not.
Full workspace suite green: 106 binaries.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <[email protected]>
|