Narrows the push row to a human invocation - #213
Merged
Conversation
The push row said invoking /wurk:mr itself satisfies the user's ask. That contradicted the anti-inference paragraph above it, which says a dispatch from a conductor, an orchestrator or a parent session is not by itself the user's ask - so a conductor dispatching a worker that ran the skill satisfied the trigger without the user saying anything. The trigger cell now distinguishes the two: a human invoking the skill still satisfies it, so the skill does not stop to ask again, while an agent-relayed invocation needs the campaign's consent. A narrowing; no other row changes. Refs: st-phmi
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Why
The
git push,gh pr createrow of the agent-authority table said thatinvoking
/wurk:mritself satisfies the user's ask, so the skill does notstop to ask again. The anti-inference paragraph merged into the same section
in 86877d0 says the opposite for the relayed case: a dispatch from a
conductor, an orchestrator or a parent session is not by itself the user's
ask.
Both cannot hold. If invoking the skill satisfies the trigger, a conductor
dispatching a worker that runs the skill has satisfied it without the user
saying anything - the self-authorizing path the anti-inference paragraph
exists to close. Two agents in a sibling repo read this prose and reached
opposite conclusions about whether they could push.
The row's still-unauthorized cell shows the original intent: it guards
against inferring permission from having finished work. It was written for a
human typing the skill name, before orchestrated campaigns existed.
What
One line, the trigger cell of that one row. It now says who may invoke the
skill:
/wurk:mrsatisfies the trigger, so the skill does notstop to ask again - the no-double-asking convenience is unchanged for the
case it was written for;
behalf does not, and needs the campaign's consent.
This is a narrowing. The still-unauthorized cell is untouched, and no other
row changes.
Notes
gate.rbreportsapplicable: false- the diff isCLAUDE.mdonly,nothing under
lib/,test/,config/,mix.exs,mix.lock. That isthe commit row's own "a change touching no Elixir code has no gate to run
and may commit on review of the diff alone".
mix quality --profile mergeran anyway, unconditionally per
.claude/wurk/mr.md, and was green throughevery stage; the ADR judge skipped cleanly, since
CLAUDE.mdis not one ofits judged scopes.
the public API.
wurk:mrskill still states the old rule in its own preamble("invoking
/wurk:mris that gate firing"). That text lives outside thisrepo and is out of scope here, but it now lags this row.
Closes st-phmi