Skip to content

docs(skills): point lifecycle SKILL.md at the counts check.sh prints - #338

Merged
ThomasK33 merged 2 commits into
mainfrom
docs/lifecycle-skill-no-counts
Nov 5, 2026
Merged

ThomasK33 merged 2 commits into
mainfrom
docs/lifecycle-skill-no-counts

Conversation

@ThomasK33

@ThomasK33 ThomasK33 commented Nov 5, 2026 •

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Problem

The verify-session-lifecycle SKILL.md held hand-written counts of facts that check.sh computes or that change when a run is added: the run count ("94 times", CHECK_JOBS=94), the runs over 20 million states ("Fifteen runs"), the guard count ("forty guards"), the no-token witness count ("Eight of those states"), the distinct states of current and current-no-token, and the CI share count and minutes ("nine jobs", CHECK_SHARD=<i>/9, CHECK_JOBS=12, "11 to 33 min"). Every model PR had to edit them. Parallel PRs conflicted on those lines (#330 and #331 both edited the CHECK_JOBS line), and the numbers went stale (6,954,727 states written while check.sh printed 8,609,456).

Change

  1. SKILL.md names no count. Each count is now a pointer to the line that check.sh prints: Runs:, Facts:, Distinct states of current:, Distinct states of current-no-token: and Share <i>/<n> of the runs:. The CI paragraph points to the lifecycle-model matrix in .github/workflows/ci.yml for the share count and CHECK_JOBS.
  2. check.sh prints one new line before TLC starts: Runs: <n>, <p> of them expect pass. On main it prints Runs: 94, 17 of them expect pass. With CHECK_SHARD it counts the share.
  3. CHECK_JOBS: the skill now says "CHECK_JOBS set to that run count". I chose this over a new CHECK_JOBS=all value because it is the smaller change (one echo, no new input to validate).
  4. coverage.json: only the skill:scripts/check.sh fingerprint changed, because check.sh is covered.
  5. .github/workflows/ci.yml: the comment above lifecycle-model no longer names counts ("the 9 shares", "of the 94 runs", "4 vCPUs", "11 to 33 min"). It points to the Runs:, Share <i>/<n> of the runs: and CPUs: lines of check.sh. The matrix values (shard, CHECK_JOBS, CHECK_SHARD) stay, because they are config. actionlint and zizmor --offline . are clean.

The model, the guards and the expected results are unchanged. The stable facts stay (TLC 1.7.4 and its sha256, rule names, code constants, measured timings).

Validation

  • check.sh --drift-only: "Covered code matches the sync record." (exit 0).
  • CHECK_SHARD=9/9 CHECK_JOBS=12 check.sh --update-coverage with real TLC: all 9 runs as expected, exit 0, and the new line printed Runs: 9, 1 of them expect pass.
  • check.sh with a fake java and no shard: Runs: 94, 17 of them expect pass.
  • oxfmt and npm run format:check: clean.
  • CI's lifecycle-model job runs every share, because coverage.json changed.

Generated with xum • Model: anthropic:claude-opus-5-5 • Thinking: high

Replace the hand-written run, guard, witness, state and CI share counts in
the verify-session-lifecycle SKILL.md with pointers to the lines that
check.sh prints. check.sh now prints the run count and the count of runs
that expect pass before TLC starts, so CHECK_JOBS can be set to that count.
@ThomasK33

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

@codex review

@ThomasK33

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

@codex security review

@chatgpt-codex-connector

chatgpt-codex-connector Bot commented Nov 5, 2026 •

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Codex Review Summary

This comment shows the latest Codex review activity on this pull request.

Review Status Commit Review trigger
📝 Code Review ✅ Completed 2026-11-05T08:04:14.334533Z 53ea174 Manual request
🔒 Security Review ✅ Completed 2026-11-05T08:05:07.718610Z 53ea174 Manual request
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

  • Open a pull request for review
  • Mark a draft as ready
  • Comment "@codex review" or "@codex security review".

Codex reacts with 👀 while any review is running, comments if it has suggestions, and reacts with 👍 once all reviews finish with no findings.

@chatgpt-codex-connector

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Codex Review: Didn't find any major issues. Already looking forward to the next diff.

Reviewed commit: 185b36e87a

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

  • Open a pull request for review
  • Mark a draft as ready
  • Comment "@codex review".

If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.

Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".

@chatgpt-codex-connector

Copy link
Copy Markdown

🛡️ Codex Security Review

Security review completed. No security issues were found in this pull request.

Reviewed commit: 185b36e87a

View security finding report

Only the user who started this review can view the report in Codex.

ℹ️ About Codex security reviews in GitHub

This is an experimental Codex feature. Security reviews are triggered when:

  • You comment "@codex security review"
  • A regular code review gets triggered (for example, "@codex review" or when a PR is opened), and you’re opted in so security review runs alongside code review

Once complete, Codex will leave suggestions, or a comment if no findings are found.

Drop the hand-written share, run, vCPU and minute counts from the comment
above the lifecycle-model job. The matrix values stay as config.
@ThomasK33

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

@codex review

@ThomasK33

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

@codex security review

@chatgpt-codex-connector

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Codex Review: Didn't find any major issues. Another round soon, please!

Reviewed commit: 53ea174df3

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

  • Open a pull request for review
  • Mark a draft as ready
  • Comment "@codex review".

If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.

Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".

@chatgpt-codex-connector

Copy link
Copy Markdown

🛡️ Codex Security Review

Security review completed. No security issues were found in this pull request.

Reviewed commit: 53ea174df3

View security finding report

Only the user who started this review can view the report in Codex.

ℹ️ About Codex security reviews in GitHub

This is an experimental Codex feature. Security reviews are triggered when:

  • You comment "@codex security review"
  • A regular code review gets triggered (for example, "@codex review" or when a PR is opened), and you’re opted in so security review runs alongside code review

Once complete, Codex will leave suggestions, or a comment if no findings are found.

@ThomasK33
ThomasK33 added this pull request to the merge queue Nov 5, 2026
Merged via the queue into main with commit 24ed1ef Nov 5, 2026
27 checks passed
@ThomasK33
ThomasK33 deleted the docs/lifecycle-skill-no-counts branch November 5, 2026 09:11
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.

1 participant