Commit Graph
2 Commits
Author SHA1 Message Date
bvandeusen 1d65e98ac2 docs(notes): the surfaces say WHEN a note earns a check, and a guard keeps them saying it (#3168, milestone 317 step 5)
CI & Build / Python lint (push) Successful in 3s
CI & Build / TypeScript typecheck (push) Successful in 33s
CI & Build / Plugin hooks (push) Successful in 10s
CI & Build / integration (push) Successful in 43s
CI & Build / Python tests (push) Successful in 1m16s
CI & Build / Build & push image (push) Successful in 28s
The step that decides whether steps 1-4 were worth building. `verify_with` is
a free-text field on the highest-volume record kind in the product; described
only as "how to verify this note" it gets filled in on every note within a
week, and at that point the sweep returns the whole corpus and means nothing.
The signal is not "has a check" — it is "has a check AND almost nothing else
does".

Rule 119 puts this in the app's own instruction surfaces, never in a Scribe
rule. So:

- the using-scribe skill gains the reflex, next to "state updates in place;
  chronicles don't" — its other half, since supersession only fires once
  somebody has read a note and disagreed, which is the case where it was
  already believed;
- update_note's docstring now states the DEFAULT rather than only deferring
  to create_note for the test. Found by the new guard on its first run;
- plugin 0.1.48.

THE _INSTRUCTIONS BUDGET, decided rather than skipped. The payload is ~1980 of
the client's ~2048-char cap, so everything in it competes for the last ~68
characters. The operator declined a line for this milestone: the map's own
closing sentence says each tool's description carries the full contract, and
the sweep is a curation act rather than a session-start reflex like
enter_project or list_always_on_rules. That reasoning is now a comment beside
the constant, with the accepted cost named — an agent that never opens
create_note's docstring never learns the field exists — so the question is not
re-litigated blind.

The guard pins STRUCTURE, never wording, for the disambiguator's reason (a
test that punishes rewriting is a test that gets deleted): each write surface
must still draw the norm-vs-constraint distinction, say the empty case is
normal, and name where NOT to reach for it — plus that the skill carries the
one-question form, because the docstrings only reach a caller who already
opened the tool.

`_doc` moves to tests/helpers as `tool_doc`; it had been written twice.
2026-08-29 00:10:43 -04:00
bvandeusenandClaude Opus 5 16805ca22c docs(mcp): every create_* tool says what it is NOT for (#3123)
CI & Build / Python lint (push) Successful in 4s
CI & Build / Plugin hooks (push) Successful in 8s
CI & Build / integration (push) Successful in 28s
CI & Build / TypeScript typecheck (push) Successful in 33s
CI & Build / Python tests (push) Successful in 1m6s
CI & Build / Build & push image (push) Successful in 23s
Scribe's record kinds get reached for interchangeably, and the moment of
choice is the only moment a correction is cheap. Rule 119 puts product
guidance in the instruction surfaces, so the docstring is where this
belongs — but a docstring that only documents parameters answers "how do I
call this" and leaves "should I be calling this at all" unasked.

The gap was lopsided. create_rule and start_planning already carried real
disambiguators; create_note — far and away the highest-volume surface —
carried none at all. The guidance sat in the rarest tool and was missing
from the most common one.

Each surface now opens with ONE deciding question in its own terms rather
than a pasted block:

  create_note     WHAT ELSE COULD HOLD THIS?      note is right when nothing
                                                  is owed and nothing enforces
  create_task     IS ANYTHING ACTUALLY OWED?      nothing owed -> note;
                                                  an arc -> start_planning
  create_snippet  SHAPE, OR ADVICE?               a snippet is code with a
                                                  LOCATION
  create_process  FOLLOWED, OR READ?              applies uninvoked -> rule

create_project_rule now points at the entity check too; it had only ever
covered rule-vs-rule scope.

The guard asserts STRUCTURE, never wording: each surface must name at least
two siblings. Pinning phrasing would make every improvement a test failure,
and a test that punishes editing is a test that gets deleted. Its second
half asserts the Args: block survives — the first check is satisfiable by
turning a docstring into an essay about the other tools, which would be a
worse contract than the one being fixed.

The guard caught two gaps on its first run, one of them its own: "design
system" is hard-wrapped across a line break in create_rule, so matching the
raw docstring reported it absent. _doc() now flattens whitespace. It also
caught start_planning naming only one alternative, which was true and is
now fixed.

Deliberately NOT built: an intent-router tool. It has a bootstrapping
problem — it is itself a tool that must be reached for — and MCP clients
already list every tool's description. Recorded in #3123; build it only if
wrong-surface reaches survive this.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-08-27 18:18:42 -04:00