Agent Persona Exploration - 2026-10-29

Cerrado Apto para principiantes
  • ¿Algo no está bien?
#72,998 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
76/100
Tipo de issue
Documentación
Claridad
Bien especificado
Estado de actividad
Activo
Stack tecnológico
github, github-actions
Área
ci-cd, devtools

Línea de trabajo

Empieza por .github/aw/create-agentic-workflow.md, el archivo mencionado en las tres recomendaciones. Lee sus secciones sobre permisos de red, supuestos y pautas; después, añade los valores predeterminados recomendados y las pautas para tomar decisiones basadas en los hallazgos de este issue. El trabajo estará terminado cuando el documento cubra los flujos de trabajo que solo usan artefactos, las ambigüedades habituales sobre las líneas base o las definiciones y las pautas para citar los archivos de directrices consultados.

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

Descripción

agent-research
Persona Overview
  • Agent: agentic-workflows (gh-aw custom agent)
  • Personas This Run: Frontend Developer, DevOps Engineer, QA Tester
  • Scenarios Tested: 4 (FD-2, DO-1, DO-2, QA-1), out of 6 generated
  • Average Quality Score: 4.6/5.0

This completes the full 9-persona rotation cycle (prior runs covered Program Manager, Designer, Information Worker, Legal / Compliance, Product Manager, Backend Engineer).

Key Findings
  • All 4 invocations succeeded; no misunderstandings of task intent observed.
  • The agent consistently reaches for github (gh-proxy, default/actions toolsets) and skips playwright/web-fetch when the task is pure repo/Actions-API analysis — tool selection stayed tight across all scenarios.
  • Triggers were well-matched to the data source: workflow_run to react to an existing build instead of duplicating it (FD-2), path-scoped pull_request for workflow-file review (DO-2), schedule + workflow_dispatch for the digest (DO-1).
  • Every scenario included a noop branch for the "nothing to report" case, and read-heavy scenarios converged on add-comment with hide-older-comments: true for rolling per-PR updates vs. create-issue with close-older-issues: true for periodic digests.
  • One scenario (QA-1) loosened network access to defaults instead of none/[], breaking from the pattern the other three followed for artifact-only reads.
Top Patterns
  1. Triggers: scoped pull_request (path-filtered or type-filtered), workflow_run reacting to a build, schedule + workflow_dispatch for periodic digests.
  2. Tools: github (gh-proxy) as the near-universal default; actions toolset added only when artifact/run-history access is actually needed.
  3. Security: read-only permissions scoped to exactly what's needed (contents, pull-requests, actions — never broader); network access minimized to none for artifact-only workflows in 3/4 cases.
View High Quality Responses (Top 2-3)
  • DO-2 (5.0/5) — Workflow-file security review. Path-scoped trigger (.github/workflows/**), zero network access, and a prompt that directly operationalizes the security checks it was asked to automate (SHA-pinning, permissions-block scoping). Cited the specific .github/aw doc paths it drew guidance from.
  • FD-2 / DO-1 (4.6/5 each) — Both named an explicit unresolved assumption (artifact baseline source; definition of "flaky") with a stated fallback instead of silently guessing, then asked for confirmation.
View Areas for Improvement (Top 2-3)
  • QA-1 proposed network: defaults for a workflow that only reads CI artifacts via the github tool — the other three scenarios in this run converged on fully closed network access (none/[]) for equivalent artifact-only reads, so this is an inconsistency rather than a necessity.
  • Baseline/definition assumptions (bundle-size baseline source, flakiness definition) are consistently flagged but not resolved with a stated default — good transparency, but each one currently requires a follow-up round-trip with the user.
Recommendations
  1. Add explicit guidance in .github/aw/create-agentic-workflow.md that artifact-only / Actions-API-only workflows should default to network: allowed: [] rather than network: defaults, to make the pattern observed in 3 of 4 scenarios the stated default rather than an emergent convention.
  2. Extend .github/aw/create-agentic-workflow.md with a short decision-tree for common "baseline/definition" ambiguities (e.g., bundle-size baseline source, flakiness definition window) so the agent can propose a sensible default inline instead of only flagging the assumption.
  3. Document the "cite the specific guidance files consulted" behavior seen in DO-2 as a recommended pattern in .github/aw/create-agentic-workflow.md, since it improves response auditability without added verbosity.

References:

Generated by 🎭 Agent Persona Explorer · claude · agent · ~103 AIC · ⌖ ~1 AIC · ⊞ 4.5K · ◷

Lenguaje dominante
Go
Estrellas
5.6k
Forks
615
Merge medio
5 h 51 min
PR fusionados (30 d)
793

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.