refactor(skillopt): clearer proposer prompt + robust edit-array parsing#245
Closed
khustup2 wants to merge 4 commits into
Closed
refactor(skillopt): clearer proposer prompt + robust edit-array parsing#245khustup2 wants to merge 4 commits into
khustup2 wants to merge 4 commits into
Conversation
…nd-at-end The proposer appended generic guidance to the end of long skill docs, which diluted rather than fixed (and lost the A/B against the current body). It now diagnoses the single recurring weakness first, then requires each edit to be concrete/operational and anchored into the relevant existing section (or to replace the weak existing instruction). On a 4-skill benchmark of real failing org skills, an independent judge prefers the proposed edit over the current body 3/4, up from 2/4 before.
📝 WalkthroughWalkthroughThis PR tightens the skill-proposer prompts: the SYSTEM prompt enforces a two-step diagnose-then-edit workflow with concrete, anchored, traceable edits (JSON array only), and buildUserPrompt now requires a one-line diagnosis followed by anchored edits. Parsing of the model output now extracts the last balanced JSON array and parseEdits returns [] on failure; tests validate bracket handling and priorEdits inclusion. ChangesSkill Edit Proposal Constraints
Estimated code review effort🎯 4 (Complex) | ⏱️ ~45 minutes Poem
🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 4 | ❌ 1❌ Failed checks (1 warning)
✅ Passed checks (4 passed)
✏️ Tip: You can configure your own custom pre-merge checks in the settings. ✨ Finishing Touches📝 Generate docstrings
🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out. Comment |
Contributor
Coverage ReportScope: files changed in this PR. Enforced threshold: 90% per metric (per file via
File Coverage — 1 file changed
Generated for commit 2c9e4cd. |
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 1
🤖 Prompt for all review comments with AI agents
Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the
rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate.
Inline comments:
In `@src/skillify/skill-proposer.ts`:
- Around line 43-46: The SYSTEM prompt fragment using `${SU_END}` demands "Reply
with ONLY a JSON array..." but another prompt later requires a "one-line
weakness before JSON", creating a contradiction; reconcile them by choosing one
contract and making both prompt templates consistent: either remove the one-line
weakness requirement from the user prompt or change the SYSTEM/string built
around `SU_END` to allow an optional single-line weakness prior to the JSON.
Update the prompt-building code paths that reference `SU_END` and the other
prompt fragment (the one that currently asks for a one-line weakness) so both
emit the same instruction text, and run any prompt-formatting tests or callers
that parse the model output to ensure they accept the chosen format.
🪄 Autofix (Beta)
Fix all unresolved CodeRabbit comments on this PR:
- Push a commit to this branch (recommended)
- Create a new PR with the fixes
ℹ️ Review info
⚙️ Run configuration
Configuration used: Path: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro Plus
Run ID: 8fe5edfc-dd9b-4ef8-8d59-5f5f3c3f2e6e
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
src/skillify/skill-proposer.ts
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 1
🤖 Prompt for all review comments with AI agents
Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the
rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate.
Inline comments:
In `@tests/shared/skill-proposer.test.ts`:
- Around line 44-47: The assertions in tests/shared/skill-proposer.test.ts use
broad regexes on the `system` string and `model.mock.calls[0][1]`; replace them
with exact prompt-fragment checks to avoid false positives. Update the three
`expect(system).toMatch(...)` lines to assert the precise expected substrings
(e.g., the exact instruction phrases you expect to appear in `system`) and
change `expect(model.mock.calls[0][1]).toMatch(...)` to assert the exact
fragment or full message from `model.mock.calls[0][1]` (use equality or
`toContain` with the specific text). Ensure the new assertions reference the
same symbols (`system` and `model.mock.calls[0][1]`) so the test still validates
the produced prompt fragments precisely.
🪄 Autofix (Beta)
Fix all unresolved CodeRabbit comments on this PR:
- Push a commit to this branch (recommended)
- Create a new PR with the fixes
ℹ️ Review info
⚙️ Run configuration
Configuration used: Path: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro Plus
Run ID: b85b9fe4-0604-476a-b027-8738b5d9a683
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
tests/shared/skill-proposer.test.ts
…en tests/coverage - Resolve SYSTEM/user-prompt contradiction (CodeRabbit): output stays JSON-only; diagnosis is an internal step, not emitted (also avoids a bracketed weakness line breaking parseEdits). - Assert exact prompt fragments instead of broad regexes. - Cover the priorEdits branch.
Contributor
Author
|
Addressed CodeRabbit in
|
…arse The JSON-only reconcile removed the 'name the weakness first' step, which was carrying the benchmark lift. Restore it as an explicit TWO-part contract (weakness line, then JSON array) — SYSTEM and user prompt now agree — and harden parseEdits to extract the array via a balanced back-scan (robust to a bracketed weakness line), with a first-[..last-] fallback. Tests cover both paths.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🧹 Nitpick comments (1)
tests/shared/skill-proposer.test.ts (1)
44-44: 💤 Low valueConsider using exact fragment assertion for consistency.
Line 44 uses a case-insensitive regex while the rest of the file uses exact
toContainchecks. For consistency with the coding guidelines:- expect(model.mock.calls[0][0]).toMatch(/recurring weakness/i); + expect(model.mock.calls[0][0]).toContain("SINGLE recurring weakness");🤖 Prompt for AI Agents
Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate. In `@tests/shared/skill-proposer.test.ts` at line 44, The assertion at expect(model.mock.calls[0][0]).toMatch(/recurring weakness/i) uses a regex while the rest of the file uses exact fragment checks; replace this regex assertion with an exact fragment assertion (use toContain with the string "recurring weakness") on the same value (model.mock.calls[0][0]) so it matches the file's consistency pattern.Source: Coding guidelines
🤖 Prompt for all review comments with AI agents
Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the
rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate.
Nitpick comments:
In `@tests/shared/skill-proposer.test.ts`:
- Line 44: The assertion at expect(model.mock.calls[0][0]).toMatch(/recurring
weakness/i) uses a regex while the rest of the file uses exact fragment checks;
replace this regex assertion with an exact fragment assertion (use toContain
with the string "recurring weakness") on the same value (model.mock.calls[0][0])
so it matches the file's consistency pattern.
ℹ️ Review info
⚙️ Run configuration
Configuration used: Path: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro Plus
Run ID: 56b4207b-7fbc-4cd4-a5b1-0b5cd451d57b
📒 Files selected for processing (2)
src/skillify/skill-proposer.tstests/shared/skill-proposer.test.ts
khustup2
changed the title
Contributor
Author
|
Closing — the premise didn't hold. A 5×-per-skill A/B showed the prompt change is within noise (baseline 65% vs 60%), so there's no optimizer improvement to ship. The earlier 3/4 was nondeterminism. Apologies for the churn. |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
What
Hardens the SkillOpt proposer's output parsing and restructures its prompt:
[..last-]fallback. (Genuine robustness fix.)On the benchmark — the prompt change does NOT improve quality
Tested against the original proposer on 4 org skills with real failures, judging each edit vs the current body 5× per skill (rate, not a single noisy verdict):
Within noise (Δ5%), nominally worse. An earlier single run showed 3/4 but did not reproduce — that was judge nondeterminism. So the prompt rewrite has no measured benefit; the keepable part of this PR is the parser hardening + tests. n=4 is too small to detect an optimizer gain regardless.
Tests
26 green, typecheck clean.