Agent Persona Exploration - 2026-10-25

Cerrado Apto para principiantes
  • ¿Algo no está bien?
#71,921 0 comentarios 0 reacciones 0 asignados Ver en GitHub

Los mantenedores suelen responder en 1 día

Nadie ha tomado este issue todavía.

Evaluación

Dificultad
2/5
Tiempo estimado
1-3 horas
Aptitud para principiantes
68/100
Tipo de issue
Documentación
Claridad
Bien especificado
Estado de actividad
Activo
Stack tecnológico
github-actions
Área
ai-infra-agents

Línea de trabajo

Lee .github/aw/create-agentic-workflow.md y .github/aw/github-agentic-workflows.md; después, añade indicaciones sobre las búsquedas en el repositorio antes de definir los filtros de rutas, el patrón recurrente para sustituir las salidas de forma segura y cuándo es necesario obtener el contenido de enlaces externos. El trabajo estará terminado cuando las tres recomendaciones estén incluidas en los archivos de indicaciones pertinentes.

Escrito por el modelo de indexación a partir del texto del issue.

Descripción

agent-research
Persona Overview
  • Agent: agentic-workflows custom agent
  • Personas This Run: Designer, Backend Engineer, Frontend Developer
  • Scenarios Tested: 4 (D-1, D-2, BE-1, FE-1)
  • Average Quality Score: 4.8/5.0
Key Findings
  • All four scenarios scored uniformly high (4.8 avg each) — no weak responses this run.
  • The agent consistently chose minimal tools: github (gh-proxy) plus bash only when local file/diff inspection was needed, correctly skipping playwright/web-fetch for static analysis tasks.
  • Every recommendation used paths:/paths-ignore: filters on pull_request triggers to keep PR-automation workflows narrowly scoped.
  • A recurring, deliberate pattern: the agent flagged open design questions (exact test/migration naming convention, link-validation depth, digest supersession policy) instead of silently guessing — but it answered from the prompt text alone rather than inspecting the actual repo to resolve them.
  • Security posture was uniformly minimal: read-only permissions (contents: read + pull-requests: read or issues: read), empty network.allowed, and safe-outputs restricted to add-comment/create-issue with explicit noop fallback conditions.
Top Patterns
  1. Triggers: pull_request (opened/synchronize) with path scoping for PR automation; schedule + workflow_dispatch for digests.
  2. Tools: github (gh-proxy, default toolset) universally, bash added only for local diff/content inspection — no over-provisioning.
  3. Security: minimal read-only permission scopes, empty network allowlists, and consistent noop fallback when no findings.
  4. Safe-outputs: add-comment with hide-older-comments: true for PR-local checks; create-issue with close-older-issues: true for recurring digests.
View High Quality Responses (Top 2-3)
  • BE-1 (migration review): explicit "review-only, never execute migrations" guardrail plus a safe/needs-review/blocking classification scheme — strong defensive design for a destructive-change-adjacent task.
  • FE-1 (test coverage): added paths-ignore for test files so the workflow doesn't re-fire when only a test is added — a precise, low-noise trigger design.
  • D-1 (token PR link): reasoned out loud about not adding web-fetch/network access, since a "missing link" check only needs text-presence, not URL fetching — correct minimal-network judgment.
View Areas for Improvement (Top 2-3)
  • All four responses left project-specific conventions (migration framework, test co-location layout, link-validation depth) as open questions rather than using repo-search tools to discover the actual convention before answering — reduces completeness even though the caution itself is sound.
  • No clarifying step walked through actually sampling 1-2 real files for the given task type before committing to a path glob, risking drift between the proposed paths: filter and real repo layout.
Recommendations
  1. Guide the agent to do a quick repo-search pass (e.g. glob for migration directories, test co-location examples) before finalizing paths: filters, rather than defaulting to generic placeholders. Suggest documenting this as a step in .github/aw/create-agentic-workflow.md.
  2. Document the add-comment + hide-older-comments: true / create-issue + close-older-issues: true pairing as a canonical "replace stale result" pattern in .github/aw/github-agentic-workflows.md, since it recurred correctly across 3 of 4 scenarios without prompting.
  3. Add guidance in .github/aw/github-agentic-workflows.md on when a "missing external link" check should default to presence-only vs. fetch-and-validate (with the associated network.allowed entry), to resolve the ambiguity the agent flagged in D-1.

Generated by 🎭 Agent Persona Explorer · claude · agent · ~98 AIC · ⌖ ~1 AIC · ⊞ 4.5K · ◷

Lenguaje dominante
Go
Estrellas
5.6k
Forks
615
Merge medio
5 h 44 min
PR fusionados (30 d)
808

Preparar el entorno

Abrir en Codespaces

Inicia el contenedor de desarrollo del proyecto en tu navegador, con tu propia cuenta de GitHub.

Primeros pasos

  1. Lee el issue completo y luego la guía de contribución del proyecto.
  2. Comenta en el issue que vas a ocuparte — evita que dos personas hagan lo mismo.
  3. Haz un fork del repositorio y trabaja en una rama.
  4. Abre un pull request que haga referencia al número del issue.

Más de github/gh-aw

Todos los issues de github/gh-aw

Issues similares

Más issues de Go

Recibe los nuevos issues en tu correo

Un resumen breve de issues de GitHub para principiantes.