Skip to content

docs(skill): teach the automation skill the ADR-0044 send-back-for-revision shape#2294

Merged
os-zhuang merged 1 commit into
mainfrom
docs/automation-skill-revise-loop
Jun 24, 2026
Merged

docs(skill): teach the automation skill the ADR-0044 send-back-for-revision shape#2294
os-zhuang merged 1 commit into
mainfrom
docs/automation-skill-revise-loop

Conversation

@os-zhuang

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Completes the agent-teaching slice of #2274 (ADR-0044). The objectstack-automation skill — how the AI agent learns to author flows in this repo — documented approve/reject approvals (ADR-0019) but not the revise loop, so AI-authored approval flows omit send-back (and a revise loop built without the back-edge gets rejected by registerFlow).

Adds a Send-back for revision (ADR-0044) section to the Approvals area:

  • the revise out-edge → a signal wait node,
  • the resubmit edge typed type: 'back' (the only thing that legalizes the cycle — graph-minus-back-edges must be a DAG; authors opt in edge by edge, per the ADR),
  • the maxRevisions budget (default 3; 0 disables),
  • the two footguns the compile-time lint flags (dead-end revise; unmarked back-edge), and a pointer to the canonical showcase_budget_approval.

ADR-aligned (teaches correct opt-in — no auto-mutation, which would contradict ADR-0044 D5). Markdown-only; check:doc-authoring ✓ and check:skill-docs in-sync ✓ (frontmatter unchanged, so no generated-doc regen).

This closes the practical scope of #2274: lint #2279 + spec #2291 + this skill, with the engine's cycle-rejection error already carrying the specific hint. Remaining (optional): a dedicated agent eval. Refs #2274, #1770. 🤖 Generated with Claude Code

…vision shape

The objectstack-automation skill documented approve/reject approvals (ADR-0019)
but not the ADR-0044 revise loop, so AI-authored approval flows omit it (and a
revise loop hand-built without the back-edge gets rejected by registerFlow).

Add a "Send-back for revision" section to the Approvals area: the `revise`
out-edge → a signal `wait` node, the resubmit edge typed `type: 'back'` (the only
thing that legalizes the cycle — graph-minus-back-edges must be a DAG, authors
opt in edge by edge), and the `maxRevisions` budget. Calls out the two shapes the
compile-time flow lint flags (dead-end revise; unmarked back-edge) and points at
the canonical showcase_budget_approval.

Completes the agent-teaching slice of #2274 (ADR-0044), alongside the compile-time
lint (#2279), the flow-builder `back` edge style (#2291), and the engine's
already-specific cycle-rejection hint.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>
@vercel

vercel Bot commented Jun 24, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for GitHub.

Project Deployment Actions Updated (UTC)
spec Ready Ready Preview, Comment Jun 24, 2026 3:24pm

Request Review

@github-actions github-actions Bot added documentation Improvements or additions to documentation size/s labels Jun 24, 2026
@os-zhuang
os-zhuang merged commit f1ddc98 into main Jun 24, 2026
14 of 15 checks passed
@os-zhuang
os-zhuang deleted the docs/automation-skill-revise-loop branch June 24, 2026 15:24
os-zhuang added a commit that referenced this pull request Jun 24, 2026
)

Adds skills/objectstack-automation/evals/approvals/test-revise-loop.md, the first
concrete eval under the skills' (previously placeholder) evals/ format — Scenario
/ Expected Output / Common Mistakes / Validation Criteria. It pins the expected
send-back-for-revision shape (revise branch + signal wait + type:'back' resubmit +
maxRevisions), the three footguns the compile-time lint flags, and registerFlow-
based pass criteria.

This is the authorable (a) half of #2274's eval slice. The executable eval RUNNER
(b) remains a separate platform project — the skills' evals/ harness is still
"not yet implemented" per each dir's README.

Refs #2274, #1770 (ADR-0044). Builds on the lint (#2279) and skill (#2294).

Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

documentation Improvements or additions to documentation size/s

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant