Drop the Close Field, Match AGENTS.md's Own Unlabeled Shape - #1080
Conversation
…#1070 follow-up) Copilot's second promotion-PR round flagged the Close: field as a non-canonical key: AGENTS.md's own template has 5 labeled fields followed by one unlabeled trailing sentence, not 6 labeled fields. Matches that shape exactly now while keeping the 'quote X into the prompt' phrasing that has drawn no ambiguity complaint across 4 rounds.
PR Summary by QodoRestore the canonical strict-review prompt shape
AI Description
Diagram
High-Level Assessment
Files changed (4) |
No actionable comments were generated in the recent review. 🎉 ℹ️ Recent review info⚙️ Run configurationConfiguration used: Organization UI Review profile: ASSERTIVE Plan: Pro Plus Run ID: 📒 Files selected for processing (4)
Included review availability: Your plan provides up to 10 included reviews per hour; 1 remains after this review. 📝 WalkthroughWalkthroughThe strict review skill instructions now require the ChangesStrict review prompt alignment
Estimated code review effort: 1 (Trivial) | ~3 minutes Merge Risk:⚪ Minimal · up to This change only restores the documented unlabeled closing-line format across the synchronized skill files; no actionable merge-blocking risk remains after normal checks and review. 🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 5✅ Passed checks (5 passed)
Full details: Docstring CoverageExplanation No functions found in the changed files to evaluate docstring coverage. Skipping docstring coverage check. Docstring coverage is scoped to functions touched by this diff. Analyzed 0 functions across 0 files. (4 skipped: 4 unsupported.) ✨ Finishing Touches🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
Comment |
Code Review by Qodo🐞 Bugs (0)📘 Rule violations (0)📎 Requirement gaps (0)Great, no issues found!Qodo reviewed your code and found no material issues that require reviewTip of the day💡 Did you know, you can group findings by type and pick your Finding display, from Minimal to Full |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🟡 Changes recommended
The new unlabeled trailing line in the fenced subagent-brief reads like subagent-facing content but is assembly-time guidance, reintroducing ambiguity the prior Close: label mitigated.
Once you've addressed the issues Copilot identified, you can request another Copilot review.
Pull request overview
This PR updates the local-strict-review skill’s subagent-brief template to remove the Close: labeled field and return to the AGENTS.md-style shape of five labeled fields followed by a single unlabeled trailing line, propagating the change across the mirrored skill distributions and updating the source digest.
Changes:
- Replaced the
Close:field with an unlabeled trailing instruction line in the subagent-brief template. - Applied the same template change to the
.agents/,.github/, and.claude-plugin/skill copies. - Updated
.claude-plugin/fleet-skills/.source-digestto reflect the regenerated distribution.
File summaries
| File | Description |
|---|---|
| .agents/skills/local-strict-review/SKILL.md | Drops the Close: label and rewrites the template’s trailing line. |
| .github/skills/local-strict-review/SKILL.md | Mirrors the same template update for GitHub skill distribution. |
| .claude-plugin/fleet-skills/skills/local-strict-review/SKILL.md | Mirrors the same template update for Claude plugin distribution. |
| .claude-plugin/fleet-skills/.source-digest | Updates the distribution digest after the content change. |
Review details
- Files reviewed: 4/4 changed files
- Comments generated: 3
- Review effort level: Lite
💡 Configure MCP servers for context-aware, tailored reviews. Learn more in the docs.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
…e syntax (#1070 follow-up) Copilot's fourth round asked for exactly this: the unlabeled imperative sentence still read as an instruction addressed to the subagent, who cannot fulfil it (no AGENTS.md access). AGENTS.md's own template already uses <...> placeholder syntax for every field value; this is the second use of that same convention in this file (the first is <target> at line 40), not a new pattern, and fails safe if pasted unsubstituted (an obvious unfilled token, not a misleading real instruction).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🟡 Changes recommended
The updated placeholder text does not include the “as this brief's own final line” anchor described in the PR, creating a concrete mismatch between the documented intent and the actual template text.
Once you've addressed the issues Copilot identified, you can request another Copilot review.
Review details
- Files reviewed: 4/4 changed files
- Comments generated: 3
- Review effort level: Lite
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Follow-up to #1074/#1079 (issue #1070), found by the develop -> main promotion PR (#1077)'s second review round.
Copilot flagged the
Close:field #1079 introduced as a non-canonical key:AGENTS.md's own template ("Context and Delegation Discipline") has exactly 5 labeled fields (Task/Paths/Rules that bind this task/Return/Bounds) followed by one unlabeled trailing sentence, not a 6th labeled field.local-strict-review/SKILL.md's own "Running It" section says to follow that exact shape.Round 1 fix (commit 2778010): dropped the
Close:label, went back to an unlabeled trailing line in the same positionAGENTS.md's own closing sentence occupies, kept #1079's "quote X into the prompt" phrasing. A fresh Copilot round then flagged that this still read as an imperative instruction addressed to the subagent, who cannot fulfil it (no AGENTS.md access) - the same ambiguity #1079 had already addressed once.Round 2 fix (commit 2faa0e0, current): replaced the imperative sentence with an explicit angle-bracket placeholder, matching
AGENTS.md's own template syntax exactly (which uses<...>for every field value). This is the second use of that convention in this file, not a new one -<target>already appears the same way at line 40. Fails safe if pasted unsubstituted: an obvious unfilled token rather than a misleading instruction.Ran
local-strict-reviewagainst this branch's diff before each push, explicitly asked to hunt for a reason a further round could still be needed. Round 2's review: no confirmed defect, and a specific, honest assessment of why this shape is unlikely to bounce again (matches an established in-file convention, fails safe, closes every prior round's concern simultaneously).