Agent Persona Exploration - 2026-11-04

已关闭 适合新手
  • 哪里不对？
#74,891 0 条评论 0 个 reaction 已指派 0 人 在 GitHub 查看

维护者通常 1 天内回复

还没有人认领这个 Issue。

评估

难度
2/5
预计耗时
1-3 小时
新手友好度
72/100
Issue 类型
文档
描述清晰度
描述清楚
活跃度
活跃
技术栈
github, github-actions
领域
devtools, documentation

调研方向

阅读 .github/aw/create-agentic-workflow-trigger-details.md，并更新 issue 中描述的合规审计示例：更改其权限并添加网络设置。然后检查 .github/aw/report.md 和 .github/aw/create-agentic-workflow.md，查找另外两条建议。示例和指导符合 issue 指定的最小权限和一致性规则后，即告完成。

由索引模型根据 Issue 内容生成。

描述

agent-research
Persona Overview
  • Agent: agentic-workflows (via the persona-evaluator Claude Code sub-agent)
  • Personas This Run: Program Manager, Designer, Legal / Compliance (one-time baseline)
  • Scenarios Tested: 4 (PM-1, DS-1, LC-1, LC-2). All 4 invocations succeeded.
  • Average Quality Score: 4.3/5.0
Key Findings
  • The trigger was right in every case. The scheduled scenarios used a fuzzy weekly schedule plus workflow_dispatch. The PR scenarios used pull_request with paths: filters. DS-1 also added edited, so the review re-runs when the author adds a design link.
  • Permissions stayed read-only in all 4. Every write went through safe outputs. LC-2 even rejected the issues: write shown in the guide's own compliance-audit example.
  • Network scoping is inconsistent. DS-1 used network.allowed: []. PM-1 and LC-2 used network: defaults, even though they only read repository files and GitHub data. create-agentic-workflow.md §5 prescribes allowed: [] for exactly the LC-2 case.
  • Every response stated its assumptions. Each one named an ambiguity, such as what "overdue dependency" means, where the policy file lives, or where the design link is expected, and gave a fallback.
  • The prose and the frontmatter sketch sometimes disagree. In PM-1 the prose says to comment on an existing issue, but add-comment isn't configured. In LC-1 the prose lists more lockfile paths than the sketch. In LC-2 the prose says gh-proxy, but the sketch doesn't set that mode.
Top Patterns
  1. Triggers: fuzzy schedule + workflow_dispatch (2 of 4); pull_request + paths: (2 of 4)
  2. Tools: github in all 4 (with gh-proxy in 2). bash restricted to read-only commands in 2 of 4. No web or browser tools were suggested.
  3. Safe outputs: create-issue with close-older-issues for the scheduled reports. add-comment with hide-older-comments, plus an add-labels allowlist, for PR reviews. noop was always defined.
  4. Security: least-privilege read permissions in all 4. pull_request is preferred over pull_request_target. LC-1 explicitly said to treat package metadata as untrusted data.
View Scores by Scenario
ID Persona Trigger Tools Security Prompt Complete Avg
PM-1 Program Manager 5 4 3 4 4 4.0
DS-1 Designer 5 5 5 5 4 4.8
LC-1 Legal / Compliance 5 4 4 5 4 4.4
LC-2 Legal / Compliance 5 4 3 4 4 4.0
View High Quality Responses (Top 2)

  • DS-1, design token review (4.8):

    • Uses the edited trigger type so the review re-runs when a link is added.
    • Sets network.allowed: [], and checks design links only for presence and format, without fetching them.
    • Applies concrete WCAG 2.2 contrast thresholds (4.5:1 and 3:1).
    • Lists the components affected by renamed tokens.
    • Restricts labels with add-labels allowed:.
    • Posts one rolling comment, using hide-older-comments.

  • LC-1, SPDX license gate (4.4):

    • Sorts licenses into allowed, disallowed and uncertain. NOASSERTION, custom licenses and uncovered OR/AND/WITH expressions go to human review.
    • Has an explicit "never guess a license" rule.
    • Keeps the workflow advisory (no blocking review) and offers create-check-run as an option for a hard gate.
View Areas for Improvement (Top 3)

  • Network defaults on audits that only read the repository (PM-1, LC-2):

    • Both used network: defaults even though workflow-constraints.md:48 and create-agentic-workflow.md:211 say to use allowed: [].
    • Likely cause: the scheduled compliance-audit example in create-agentic-workflow-trigger-details.md (around lines 109–124) has no network: block and grants issues: write.

  • Ecosystems not inferred from the repository (LC-1): LC-1 enabled six ecosystems (node, python, go, rust, java, ruby) up front. The §5 guidance says to infer them from the manifests.

  • Prose and sketch drift:

    • PM-1's dedup plan says to comment on an existing issue, but there is no add-comment safe output. Its weekly dedup key also overlaps with close-older-issues.
    • LC-2 uses a monthly dedup key on a weekly schedule.
    • LC-1's bash allowlist uses "git diff:*", which differs from the documented "cmd *" and bare-command forms.
Recommendations
  1. Fix the compliance-audit example in .github/aw/create-agentic-workflow-trigger-details.md. Change issues: write to issues: read and add network: { allowed: [] }. The agent appears to copy this sample, and today it contradicts create-agentic-workflow.md §5 and the strict-mode rules.
  2. Add a scheduled-report network rule to .github/aw/report.md. State that digests and audits that only read GitHub through gh-proxy should use network.allowed: [], not defaults. PM-1 shows the gap for non-compliance digests.
  3. Add a consistency check to the ad hoc evaluation checklist in .github/aw/create-agentic-workflow.md. Every action the prompt describes (for example "comment on the existing issue") needs a matching configured safe output. The dedup-key granularity should match the schedule cadence. Ecosystems should be inferred from the manifests that actually exist.

References:

Generated by 🎭 Agent Persona Explorer · claude · routed: opus55 high · ~128 AIC · ⌖ ~2 AIC · ⊞ 6.6K · ◷

主要语言
Go
星标
5.6k
派生
615
平均合并
5 小时 51 分钟
30 天内合并 PR
793

环境准备

在 Codespaces 中打开

在浏览器里用你自己的 GitHub 账号启动这个项目的开发容器。

  • 提供 Dockerfile 或 Docker Compose 文件
  • 没有 Pull Request 模板
  • 阅读贡献指南

从这里开始

  1. 先读完整个 Issue，再读项目的贡献指南。
  2. 在 Issue 下留言说明你要接手 —— 这能避免两个人做同样的事。
  3. Fork 仓库，在一个分支上完成修改。
  4. 提交 Pull Request，并在描述里引用这个 Issue 编号。

github/gh-aw 的其他 Issue

查看 github/gh-aw 的全部 Issue

相似的 Issue

更多 Go Issue

把新 issue 发到你的邮箱

精选适合新手参与的 GitHub issue 摘要。