Skip to content

A hand back at conformity that fits a branch with no pull request - #78

Merged
PierreMardon merged 1 commit into
mainfrom
fix/hand-back-without-a-pull-request
Oct 3, 2026
Merged

PierreMardon merged 1 commit into
mainfrom
fix/hand-back-without-a-pull-request

Conversation

@PierreMardon

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

At conformity, /surface-execute told the developer to mark the pull request ready whether or not one existed. In the six runs of the first campaign of the evaluations none was ever opened, the container having no gh, and every last message spoke of one all the same: the step that was the developer's, opening it, was never said (#66).

What was done

  • "Conformity" of skills/surface-execute/SKILL.md: the push and the refresh of the description come first, since the refresh is what tells whether a pull request can be reached, then the line of the hand back. It keeps its form when a pull request was reached. When none was, for want of one, of gh or of a remote, the line names the step that fits: the developer opens the pull request, if none is open yet, with the description surface-status pr-body prints.
  • "When the loop stops": a stop without a pull request or without gh says so in one line, and the rule that leaves the ready mark to the developer carries the same condition, for a relaunch on a plan already conformant.
  • docs/guide.md says it in the table of the hand backs.

Tests

tests/prompts/chain_contract.py holds the new sentence of the contract, and the test of the hand back checks that it follows the usual line and that the refresh comes before both. The lint and the prompt tests pass locally; the CI runs every gate.

Not checked yet

No real session was run on this change. The next campaign of the evaluations measures it: its container has no gh, so every run ends on this path.

Refs #66, #77

At conformity, `/surface-execute` told the developer to mark the pull request ready
whether or not one existed. In the six runs of the first campaign of the evaluations none
was ever opened, the container having no `gh`, and every last message spoke of one all the
same: the step that was the developer's, opening it, was never said (#66).

Refs #66
@PierreMardon
PierreMardon merged commit 8bb116c into main Oct 3, 2026
3 checks passed
@PierreMardon
PierreMardon deleted the fix/hand-back-without-a-pull-request branch October 3, 2026 20:27
PierreMardon added a commit that referenced this pull request Oct 3, 2026
The report of the second campaign of the evaluations, kept for the next one to be compared
with: `evals/reports/2026-10-03-e830bc236e9b/`. It measures the chain after the four first
fixes drawn from the first campaign (#78, #79, #80, #81), on `01-overdue-list` and
`03-overdue-reminders`, three runs each: 67 sessions, 17.07 USD at list price.

- `report.md` and `summary.json` of the campaign, as `report --against
  evals/reports/2026-10-03-6bf7c06609a6/summary.json --keep` wrote them. Nothing else
  changes.

Refs #77
This was referenced Oct 3, 2026
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant