Skip to content

skill: skip_reason prefixes come only from rook's own validation - #55

Merged
gauravBansal06 merged 1 commit into
LambdaTest:mainfrom
samyakLambda:fix/skill-skip-reason-wording
Oct 14, 2026
Merged

gauravBansal06 merged 1 commit into
LambdaTest:mainfrom
samyakLambda:fix/skill-skip-reason-wording

Conversation

@samyakLambda

@samyakLambda samyakLambda commented Oct 13, 2026 •

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Summary

A signed-in run of the published rook 0.1.11 against samples/triage-service turned up two things the skill (released today as @testmuai/rook-skill@0.1.11, via #52) states too strongly:

  • Skip reasons: a non-runnable scenario's skip_reason starts with coverage gap:, invalid scenario: or invalid red-team scenario: only when rook's own validation wrote it. In the run, the checker's reasons were plain sentences, for example "The scenario requires ticket T-1043 to exist…". The skill now says to read executable instead of matching a prefix.
  • Attacks from plain generate: a plain generate planned 9 functional scenarios and no attacks. The skill now says to run rook generate --class adversarial --json, and to say so, when the user asked for red-team coverage and none was written.

Only references/scenarios.md changes, regenerated into both mirrors with scripts/sync-skill-mirrors.sh. No release is needed now; this ships with the next skill publish.

Checks (against rook 0.1.11)

  • test-skill-mirrors: pass.
  • test-skill-flags: 47 command lines pass.
  • test-skill-contract: 16/16.

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

A signed-in 0.1.11 run of samples/triage-service showed checker-written
skip reasons as plain sentences ("The scenario requires ticket T-1043 to
exist..."), so the skill should read `executable`, not match a prefix.
The same run's plain generate planned no attacks; say how to ask for them.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
@gauravBansal06
gauravBansal06 merged commit 8b7555c into LambdaTest:main Oct 14, 2026
4 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants