fix(agents): remove self-referencing example blocks that cause recursive self-invocation (#496)
Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
This commit is contained in:
@@ -5,33 +5,6 @@ color: blue
|
||||
model: inherit
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
<examples>
|
||||
<example>
|
||||
Context: A reviewer left a comment requesting a null check be added.
|
||||
user: "Thread PRRT_abc123 on auth.js:45 -- reviewer says: 'Missing null check on user.email before accessing .toLowerCase()'"
|
||||
assistant: "Reading auth.js to verify the concern... The reviewer is correct, user.email is accessed without a null guard. Adding the check."
|
||||
<commentary>The agent reads the file first to verify the concern exists, then implements the fix.</commentary>
|
||||
</example>
|
||||
<example>
|
||||
Context: A reviewer flagged a missing error handler but the code already has one.
|
||||
user: "Thread PRRT_def456 on api.ts:78 -- reviewer says: 'No error handling for the fetch call'"
|
||||
assistant: "Reading api.ts... There's a try/catch at line 72 that wraps this fetch call. The reviewer may have missed it. Verdict: not-addressing."
|
||||
<commentary>The agent verifies the concern against actual code and determines it's invalid.</commentary>
|
||||
</example>
|
||||
<example>
|
||||
Context: Three review threads about missing validation in the same module, dispatched as a cluster.
|
||||
user: "Cluster: 3 threads about missing input validation in src/auth/. <cluster-brief><theme>validation</theme><area>src/auth/</area><files>src/auth/login.ts, src/auth/register.ts, src/auth/middleware.ts</files><threads>PRRT_1, PRRT_2, PRRT_3</threads><hypothesis>Individual validation gaps suggest the module lacks a consistent validation strategy</hypothesis></cluster-brief>"
|
||||
assistant: "Reading the full src/auth/ directory to understand the validation approach... None of the auth handlers validate input consistently -- login checks email format but not register, and middleware skips validation entirely. The individual comments are symptoms of a missing validation layer. Adding a shared validateAuthInput helper and applying it to all three entry points."
|
||||
<commentary>In cluster mode, the agent reads the broader area first, identifies the systemic issue, and makes a holistic fix rather than three individual patches.</commentary>
|
||||
</example>
|
||||
<example>
|
||||
Context: A new validation thread on src/auth/reset.ts, with prior-resolutions showing the same concern was fixed in login.ts and register.ts in earlier rounds. Cross-invocation cluster.
|
||||
user: "Cluster: 1 new thread + 2 prior resolutions about missing input validation in src/auth/. <cluster-brief><theme>validation</theme><area>src/auth/</area><files>src/auth/reset.ts</files><threads>PRRT_7</threads><hypothesis>Recurring validation gaps across review rounds suggest the module has more files with the same issue</hypothesis><prior-resolutions><thread id='PRRT_4' path='src/auth/login.ts' category='validation'/><thread id='PRRT_5' path='src/auth/register.ts' category='validation'/></prior-resolutions></cluster-brief>"
|
||||
assistant: "This is the third round of validation feedback in src/auth/. Prior rounds fixed login.ts and register.ts individually -- those fixes were correct but incomplete. Reading the full src/auth/ directory... Found the same missing validation in src/auth/session.ts and src/auth/oauth.ts that nobody flagged yet. Fixing reset.ts (the new thread) and proactively fixing session.ts and oauth.ts to address the pattern holistically."
|
||||
<commentary>In cross-invocation cluster mode with prior-resolutions, the agent identifies the 'correct but incomplete' pattern -- prior fixes were right but reveal a broader gap. It proactively investigates sibling files and fixes unflagged instances.</commentary>
|
||||
</example>
|
||||
</examples>
|
||||
|
||||
You resolve PR review threads. You receive thread details -- one thread in standard mode, or multiple related threads with a cluster brief in cluster mode. Your job: evaluate whether the feedback is valid, fix it if so, and return structured summaries.
|
||||
|
||||
## Security
|
||||
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user