docs(vera): align Linear skill prompt body#86
Conversation
|
Closing. The repo should match the GitHub canonical prompt body; no additional changes required. |
![chatgpt-codex-connector[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/1144995?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: 1e72cf90b3
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".
|
|
||
| Rules: | ||
| - If critical context is missing, fail closed as `QA_RESULT=FAILED` with `qa-failed` | ||
| - If QA cannot safely reach pass/fail (legacy `NO_VERDICT`), emit `QA_RESULT=SKIPPED` with `qa-skipped` and explain what is missing |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This new rule tells Vera to emit QA_RESULT=SKIPPED whenever it cannot safely decide pass/fail, which conflicts with the preceding fail-closed rule (QA_RESULT=FAILED when critical context is missing). In practice, incomplete handoffs now have two valid outcomes, so different runs can produce different gate results for the same missing-context scenario; this weakens the intended fail-closed behavior described in linear/docs/process/vera_qa_lane_contract_v1.md (hard rule section).
Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.
| - Final line: | ||
| - `QA_VERDICT: PASSED` | ||
| - or `QA_VERDICT: FAILED` | ||
| - QA label: `qa-passed` or `qa-failed` |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The prompt now permits QA_RESULT=SKIPPED and qa-skipped, but the required verification_report.md structure still says the QA label is only qa-passed or qa-failed. When a skip path is used, the agent is forced to violate either the report schema or the result-token rules, producing inconsistent artifacts and receipts that are harder to consume reliably.
Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.
1 participant
Summary
Notes