Add a proactive "verify against official docs" step before code generation
@eliasecchig 已经在做这个了。
开始于 2026年7月1日。
评估
这个 Issue 还没有评估数据。
描述
What is your feature suggestion?
Add a proactive "verify against official docs" step in the workflow and phase-specific skills (especially google-agents-cli-workflow, google-agents-cli-deploy, and google-agents-cli-adk-code) that instructs the coding agent to fetch and read relevant official documentation before writing code or deployment configs, rather than relying on its training data for version-sensitive details.
Currently, the only doc-lookup guidance lives in the Troubleshooting section of google-agents-cli-workflow Principle 2 ("Use WebFetch on URLs from the ADK docs index curl https://adk.dev/llms.txt for deep dives"), which is reactive — it tells the agent what to do after something breaks.
Proposed change: Add a doc-verification gate at two levels:
-
In
google-agents-cli-workflowPhase 3 (Build), before writing or modifying agent code:Before writing any code in this phase, fetch the relevant official doc page (e.g., from
https://adk.dev/) for any API, model name, SDK method, or deployment target you plan to use. Verify that the syntax, parameter names, and specs match the current documentation. Do not rely on training data for version-sensitive details. -
At the top of
google-agents-cli-deployandgoogle-agents-cli-adk-code, a similar instruction:Before writing any code or configuration in this phase, fetch and read the relevant official documentation to confirm that the APIs, model names, and deployment specs you plan to use are current.
This is consistent with the existing pattern where the workflow skill already says "Re-read the relevant skill before each phase — not after you've already started and hit a problem." The same principle should extend to official docs.
What will this enable you to do?
This would significantly reduce the debug cycle time when building and deploying ADK agents.
Current failure pattern I'm repeatedly hitting:
- Coding agent generates code or deploy config using outdated syntax from its training data (e.g., deprecated model names, changed API parameters, old Terraform resource attributes)
- Code fails at runtime or deployment
- During debugging, the agent itself identifies the root cause: "the API spec has been updated" or "this syntax was changed in a newer version"
- Agent then fetches the official docs, finds the correct current usage, and fixes the code
Steps 3–4 happen reactively and repeatedly. The debug loop with these skills is slow, and these errors are entirely preventable if the agent checks docs upfront.
Since every coding agent (Gemini CLI, Claude Code, Codex, Antigravity) has the same stale-training-data problem, the skills layer is the ideal place to mitigate it — it's agent-agnostic and the fix is just a few lines of instruction text in the skill markdown files.
Additional context
- agents-cli version: 0.5.1
- Coding agents tested: Claude Code, Antigravity
- OS: Windows (ARM64)
The fix is lightweight — it's a few lines of instruction text in the existing skill markdown files, not a code change. Happy to provide specific examples of APIs/model names that caused failures if that would be helpful.
- 主要语言
- Python
- 星标
- 6k
- 派生
- 670
- PR 合并指标
- 30 天内没有已合并 PR
贡献指南
从这里开始
- 先读完整个 Issue,再读项目的贡献指南。
- 在 Issue 下留言说明你要接手 —— 这能避免两个人做同样的事。
- Fork 仓库,在一个分支上完成修改。
- 提交 Pull Request,并在描述里引用这个 Issue 编号。
google/agents-cli 的其他 Issue
-
documentation
难度 2/5 1-3 小时 新手友好度 92/100
google/agents-cli#86 ·
-
google/agents-cli#91 · 已指派 1 人 ·
-
难度 3/5 1-2 天 新手友好度 68/100
google/agents-cli#85 · 1 条评论 ·
-
难度 3/5 1-2 天 新手友好度 68/100
google/agents-cli#84 · 1 条评论 ·
-
难度 3/5 1-2 天 新手友好度 72/100
google/agents-cli#83 · 2 条评论 · 1 个 reaction ·
查看 google/agents-cli 的全部 Issue
相似的 Issue
-
area: harness bug status: needs-triage
难度 2/5 1-3 小时 新手友好度 75/100
Human-Agent-Society/reef#625 ·
-
难度 2/5 1-3 小时 新手友好度 70/100
-
难度 1/5 1 小时以内 新手友好度 80/100
learningequality/kolibri#15351 · 2 条评论 ·
-
难度 2/5 1-3 小时 新手友好度 75/100
-
Name consistency 未关闭
难度 2/5 1-3 小时 新手友好度 75/100
eellak/triplestore#65 · 1 条评论 ·