Agent Persona Exploration - 2026-11-06

未关闭 适合新手
  • 哪里不对？
#75,451 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-actions, go, markdown
领域
devtools, documentation

调研方向

从建议中指定的 .github/aw/create-agentic-workflow.md、.github/aw/create-agentic-workflow-trigger-details.md、.github/aw/triggers.md，以及 .github/aw/safe-outputs-content.md 或 .github/aw/pr-reviewer.md 开始。阅读相关的 workflow 设计指南，并将其与本报告中描述的不足进行比较：为阈值和基线添加具体的默认值及来源，补充关于依赖部署的 PR 输出的指南，以及关于评审评论的权衡说明。当这些建议已反映在相关文档中时，即为完成。

由索引模型根据 Issue 内容生成。

描述

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 · ◷

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。