The manual has no heading answering "can you use skills?", so the chat invents a denial
Los mantenedores suelen responder en 1 día
Nadie ha tomado este issue todavía.
Evaluación
- Dificultad
- 3/5
- Tiempo estimado
- 1-2 días
- Aptitud para principiantes
- 78/100
- Tipo de issue
- Documentación
- Claridad
- Bien especificado
- Estado de actividad
- Activo
- Stack tecnológico
- go
- Área
- documentation, testing-qa
Línea de trabajo
Start with the probes in internal/manual/chat_test.go and the skill pages putting-a-skill-in-front.md, use-skill.md, and skills-a-turn-used.md. Add a direct capability heading to the appropriate page covering both enabled and switched-off states, then verify the listed probes fail before the heading exists and pass afterward.
Escrito por el modelo de indexación a partir del texto del issue.
Descripción
What happened
Asked can you use skills ? on 2f94ca1f0 — a binary carrying the skills wave
(#1365) and its manual pages — the chat answered:
The manual mentions "installed skills" in passing but doesn't explain
and then, after reaching for list_harnesses and list_subharnesses:
If you meant skills in the Claude Code
SKILL.mdsense, codeaf has no such
mechanism — harnesses and the notebook are what it has instead.
The program denies a feature it ships.
The gap this issue is about
internal/manual/chat_test.go contains no probe mentioning skills. Grepped
the whole table. So the retrieval gate has never once checked that a person's
first question about the newest feature reaches the pages written for it.
The pages themselves are good — putting-a-skill-in-front.md, use-skill.md,
skills-a-turn-used.md. Their headings are:
# Putting a skill in front of this conversation
## How do I use a skill for this
## Attach a skill from any folder
## How do I turn a skill off
# Skills a turn used
## Which skills did it use?
## Did it use my skill?
# use_skill — list or get a skill from the shelf
Every one assumes the asker already knows skills exist. They answer "how do
I use one" and "which did it use". None answers "do you have this at all",
which is the question a person actually asks first, and the one that failed.
This is the failure the manual law names: people search for the word they have,
not the word the writer used. The existing gates pass, because they check that
every tool name and slash command is mentioned somewhere — and use_skill is
mentioned. Mention is not reachability.
Why a correct answer was unreachable in BOTH states
This matters for the fix, because there are two true answers and the corpus has
neither.
On this machine memory.enabled is off, so config.Memory is nil,
useSkillTool (internal/session/tools_skill.go:71) correctly returns nil, and
the verb is absent — the absent-not-broken law working as designed. The true
answer was therefore "skills are switched off on this machine", not "codeaf
has no such mechanism".
With memory on and a populated shelf, the true answer is "yes, here is how".
The corpus has no heading that answers the capability question in either state,
so the model had nothing to retrieve and improvised. A page that cannot be
reached by the question it answers is a page the chat talks over the top of.
Acceptance
- Probes in
internal/manual/chat_test.goin the asker's own words, including
verbatim the one that failed:can you use skillsdo you have skillswhat is a skillwhy can't you use my skills
- A
##heading that answers the capability question directly, and states the
refusal as well as the capability — per the manual law, "no, and here is what
it says instead" is the most useful answer on the page. It has to name the
switched-off case, because that is a state a person can be in without having
chosen it knowingly. - The probes fail before the heading exists and pass after. A probe added
alongside the page that satisfies it proves nothing about retrieval.
Not in scope
Why the shelf is empty on this machine is a separate fault, being handled
elsewhere: memory.enabled off means no store, so discovery records nothing and
renderSkillCatalog emits zero bytes. Whether suppressing that section is right
when it leaves the model with no way to explain itself is also separate. This
issue is only that the corpus cannot answer the question, which is true
independently of both.
- Lenguaje dominante
- Go
- Estrellas
- 115
- Forks
- 14
- Merge medio
- 9 h 38 min
- PR fusionados (30 d)
- 749
Preparar el entorno
Aún no hemos revisado los archivos de configuración de este proyecto. Empieza por su README y consulta nuestra guía para la primera contribución para los pasos generales.
Primeros pasos
- Lee el issue completo y luego la guía de contribución del proyecto.
- Comenta en el issue que vas a ocuparte — evita que dos personas hagan lo mismo.
- Haz un fork del repositorio y trabaja en una rama.
- Abre un pull request que haga referencia al número del issue.
Más de Agent-Field/CodeAF
-
area:chat feature
Dificultad 2/5 1-3 horas Aptitud para principiantes 88/100
Agent-Field/CodeAF#1510 ·
Los mantenedores suelen responder en 1 día
-
Dificultad 2/5 1-3 horas Aptitud para principiantes 82/100
Agent-Field/CodeAF#1489 ·
Los mantenedores suelen responder en 1 día
-
area:chat bug good first issue sev:papercut
Dificultad 2/5 1-3 horas Aptitud para principiantes 78/100
Agent-Field/CodeAF#1470 ·
Los mantenedores suelen responder en 1 día
-
area:chat bug good first issue sev:papercut
Dificultad 2/5 1-3 horas Aptitud para principiantes 85/100
Agent-Field/CodeAF#1469 ·
Los mantenedores suelen responder en 1 día
-
area:chat bug sev:papercut
Dificultad 2/5 1-3 horas Aptitud para principiantes 88/100
Agent-Field/CodeAF#1468 ·
Los mantenedores suelen responder en 1 día
Todos los issues de Agent-Field/CodeAF
Issues similares
-
security
Dificultad 2/5 1-3 horas Aptitud para principiantes 68/100
-
cvss-severity:high devguard l3montree-cybersecurity/...ard-k8s-image-inventory pkg:oci/devguard-k8s-ima...ch=amd64&tag=main-amd64 pkg:oci/devguard-k8s-ima...ch=arm64&tag=main-arm64 risk:low state:open
Dificultad 1/5 Menos de una hora Aptitud para principiantes 76/100
l3montree-dev/devguard#3094 · 1 comentario ·
Los mantenedores suelen responder en 1 día
-
Dificultad 1/5 Menos de una hora Aptitud para principiantes 84/100
JuliusBrussee/caveman#1127 · 1 comentario ·
Los mantenedores suelen responder en 1 día
-
enhancement low priority
Dificultad 2/5 1-3 horas Aptitud para principiantes 85/100
eugenioenko/ttt#674 ·
Los mantenedores suelen responder en 1 día
-
kind/bug
Dificultad 2/5 1-3 horas Aptitud para principiantes 86/100
gpustack/gpustack-operator#640 ·
Los mantenedores suelen responder en 1 día