Agent Persona Exploration - 2026-11-06

Fermée Adaptée aux débutants
  • Quelque chose ne va pas ?
#75,451 0 commentaires 0 réactions 0 personnes assignées Voir sur GitHub

Les mainteneurs répondent en général sous 1 jour

Personne n'a encore pris cette issue.

Évaluation

Difficulté
2/5
Temps estimé
1-3 heures
Accessibilité débutants
72/100
Type d'issue
Documentation
Clarté
Clairement spécifiée
Activité
Active
Stack technique
github-actions, go, markdown
Domaine
devtools, documentation

Piste de recherche

Commence par .github/aw/create-agentic-workflow.md, .github/aw/create-agentic-workflow-trigger-details.md, .github/aw/triggers.md et .github/aw/safe-outputs-content.md ou .github/aw/pr-reviewer.md, comme indiqué dans les recommandations. Lis les consignes pertinentes sur la conception des workflows et compare-les aux lacunes décrites dans ce rapport : ajoute des valeurs par défaut concrètes et des sources pour les seuils et les valeurs de référence, des consignes sur la sortie de PR dépendant du déploiement et le compromis concernant les commentaires de review. Le travail est terminé lorsque ces recommandations figurent dans la documentation pertinente.

Rédigé par le modèle d'indexation à partir du texte de l'issue.

Description

agent-research
Persona Overview
  • Agent: agentic-workflows (via persona-evaluator sub-agent)
  • Personas This Run: Backend Engineer, Frontend Developer, DevOps Engineer
  • Scenarios Tested: 4 of 6 generated (BE-1, FE-1, DO-1, DO-2); BE-2 and FE-2 were not tested this run
  • Average Quality Score: 4.4/5.0 (previous run 4.45/5.0)
  • Rotation: all nine personas are now explored, so history resets for the next run
Key Findings
  • All four invocations succeeded, so no scoring is unavailable.
  • No insecure configuration was suggested. Every design used read-only scopes, an empty network allowlist (FE-1 optionally one preview host), and an intentional safe-output type.
  • Triggers were precise: path-filtered pull_request (BE-1, FE-1), a guarded workflow_run (DO-1), and schedule plus workflow_dispatch (DO-2).
  • The weakest area is undefined thresholds and baselines. BE-1, FE-1 and DO-2 each flagged a missing source (large-table list, base-branch bundle stats, minimum sample size), but none built a default into the recommendation. DO-2 suggested a 5-run floor in its notes and left it out of the design.
  • Two design risks: pull_request can race a preview deploy (FE-1), and a formal review reposts on every push (BE-1).
Top Patterns
  1. Triggers: path-scoped pull_request (2 of 4), guarded workflow_run (1), schedule with workflow_dispatch (1).
  2. Tools: github in gh-proxy mode in all four; bash only for reading files or logs; deterministic pre-steps for aggregation (FE-1, DO-2).
  3. Security: network.allowed: [] in all four, read-only permissions, untrusted-input handling in all four, and a fixed update-issue target in DO-2.
View High Quality Responses (Top 3)
  • DO-1 (4.6): workflow_run guards are exact (conclusion == failure, event == push, head_branch == main). The design never checks out head-branch code. The dedup key is per failure signature, which avoids reopening one unresolved incident daily.
  • DO-2 (4.6): Pre-step aggregation leaves the agent to ranking and formatting. A hard-coded target stops it choosing its write destination. Assumed defaults (failure = failure, timed_out, startup_failure; cancelled and skipped excluded) are stated explicitly.
  • BE-1 (4.4): Path-scoped trigger and COMMENT-only review, with no approve or request-changes. It flagged that large tables has no source and that one review comment is ambiguous.
View Areas for Improvement (Top 3)
  • FE-1 (4.0): pull_request can fire before the preview deploy finishes. The workflow_run alternative was offered, not chosen. The base-branch stats source is unstated, so the bundle delta has no baseline. There is no growth threshold, and the paths filter misses lockfile and config changes that alter bundle size.
  • DO-1 (4.6): The log-read path is ambiguous. The design suggests gh run view --log-failed in bash while also listing the actions toolset. Several decisions (timed_out/cancelled, per-signature vs per-run, assignee) went back to the user rather than being defaulted.
  • DO-2 (4.6): No minimum sample size, so 1 failed of 1 run reads as 100%. The failure-rate:<window-id> dedup key is redundant with latest-only replacement.
  • BE-1 (4.4): A formal review posts again on every push. A rolling add-comment with hide-older-comments would keep one visible comment.
Recommendations
  1. Update .github/aw/create-agentic-workflow.md so designs that depend on a threshold or baseline (large-table list, base-branch metrics, minimum sample size) put a concrete default and its source in the recommendation, not only in open questions. BE-1, FE-1 and DO-2 each flagged the gap without filling it.
  2. Update .github/aw/create-agentic-workflow-trigger-details.md and .github/aw/triggers.md with a decision rule: when PR output depends on a sibling deploy or artifact, default to workflow_run with a fork-safety guard instead of pull_request. FE-1 found the race but offered the fix as an alternative.
  3. Update .github/aw/safe-outputs-content.md or .github/aw/pr-reviewer.md to explain the trade-off when a user asks for one review comment: a formal submit-pull-request-review posts a new review per push, while a rolling add-comment with hide-older-comments keeps one visible comment. BE-1 raised this without resolving it.

References: §42243338716

🤖 Generated with [Claude Code]((claude.com/redacted)

Generated by 🎭 Agent Persona Explorer · claude · routed: haiku55 xhigh · ~7 AIC · ⌖ ~2 AIC · ⊞ 6.6K · ◷

Langage dominant
Go
Étoiles
5.6k
Forks
615
Merge moyen
5 h 21 min
PR mergées (30 j)
792

Préparer son environnement

Ouvrir dans Codespaces

Lance le conteneur de développement du projet dans votre navigateur, avec votre propre compte GitHub.

Par où commencer

  1. Lisez l'issue en entier, puis le guide de contribution du projet.
  2. Signalez en commentaire que vous la prenez — cela évite que deux personnes fassent le même travail.
  3. Forkez le dépôt et travaillez sur une branche.
  4. Ouvrez une pull request qui référence le numéro de l'issue.

Autres issues de github/gh-aw

Toutes les issues de github/gh-aw

Issues similaires

Plus d'issues Go

Recevez les nouvelles issues par e-mail

Un résumé court des issues GitHub adaptées aux débutants.