Omar SobhandClaude Opus 5
4358964c05
55 of 85 role skill bindings pointed at skills that were never authored,
so 10 of 11 team templates bound a smaller context bundle than their role
prompts assumed. Three roles bound nothing at all (gpu.bench_engineer,
threejs.shader_author, threejs.perf_engineer) while their prompts described
procedures they had no way to read.
The loader comment at team_template_loader.rs:167 already diagnosed this —
snake_case slugs in TOML against kebab-case skill files — and it was
half-fixed: the kebab names were corrected, the snake_case ones left.
It was invisible because both existing tests assert authored ⊆ referenced
(30/30, green) and the second explicitly declines to check the other
direction. So the failing half was the half nobody asserted.
Resolved every name by one of three explicit choices:
- 23 skills authored where the role genuinely needed the procedure
(gpu, threejs, research, analysis, frontend, mobile, backend, platform)
- renames onto authored skills where one existed in substance, including
the four-near-duplicate cases that collapse onto one real skill
- 22 aspirational references deleted — a binding an agent cannot read is
a promise, not a capability
Two tests now hold it. The unit test checks referenced ⊆ authored against
the files. The new integration test runs both loaders in boot order and
asserts the bindings survive the trip through the database, which is a
different question: resolution goes through skills_catalog rows, so a skill
file that exists but fails to ingest still leaves the role empty.
Negative controls: the unit test failed naming all 55; the integration test
fails naming the exact role when one name is reverted.
threejs.shader_author and .perf_engineer gained a second and third skill
after the collapse — pin_in_context pins idx < 2, so a role left with one
skill silently pins less than the policy intends.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <[email protected]>
53 lines
2.0 KiB
Markdown
53 lines
2.0 KiB
Markdown
---
|
|
name: web-search-triage
|
|
description: Deciding fast which search results are worth reading, and recognising the ones that are restating each other.
|
|
when_to_use: You are sweeping the open web for signal on a topic rather than reading a known source.
|
|
tags: [research, search]
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
# Most results restate a smaller number of sources
|
|
|
|
The web's response to any technical development is a primary source and then
|
|
many summaries of it. Triage is mostly about finding the primary source and
|
|
recognising the rest as one item.
|
|
|
|
## Rank by distance from the primary source
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
0 the paper, the spec, the commit, the release notes
|
|
1 the author's own blog post or thread
|
|
2 a technical write-up that adds analysis or reproduction
|
|
3 a summary of (2)
|
|
4 an aggregator restating (3)
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
Read 0 and 1. Read 2 only when it adds something the primary source did not — a
|
|
reproduction, a benchmark, a counter-argument. Everything at 3 and below is the
|
|
same item and should be recorded once, if at all.
|
|
|
|
## Signals that a page is worth reading
|
|
|
|
- It contains a number, a diff, or a reproduction someone else could run.
|
|
- It disagrees with the primary source and says why.
|
|
- It is dated, and the date is recent enough to be about the current version.
|
|
|
|
## Signals to skip
|
|
|
|
- No date, or a date that is silently the crawl date.
|
|
- Contains "revolutionary", "game-changing", or a numbered list of tools.
|
|
- Restates the abstract without adding a measurement.
|
|
- The claim is entirely in the title and the body never returns to it.
|
|
|
|
## Undated is a finding
|
|
|
|
For fast-moving topics, a page without a date cannot be triaged at all — the
|
|
same sentence can be current or two years stale. Treat undated as low priority
|
|
regardless of quality, and say so, rather than reading it and being unable to
|
|
place it.
|
|
|
|
## Stop deliberately
|
|
|
|
Sweeping has no natural end. Decide the budget first — "the top three primary
|
|
sources per subtopic" — and stop there. An exhaustive sweep that never reports
|
|
is worth less than a bounded one that does.
|