5821ce2017
RED-7 (example-priming): the STEP-2 worked example named live IDs (LRN-014 + LRN-016) and modeled merging them — but they are complementary (header-ids vs checkbox-CSS), a merge the skill's own rule forbids. Live IDs in an example prime the skill to act on those exact entries on real data. Fictionalized the whole STEP-2 example to 9xx IDs (cannot match a live registry); the merge example now models a same-concept merge. Closed by a DETERMINISTIC test (run-deterministic.sh RED-7: the example must carry only 9xx ids) per LRN-046, not a flaky behavioral fixture. The test caught its own ugrep false-green first (a leading-dash pattern parsed as an option) — fixed via /usr/bin/grep, the same dodge the skill's verify already uses at line 189. RED-8 (added-negation inversion): re-reviewed, consciously accepted as a documented limit in BACKLOG — remote (compression subtracts tokens), and an FP-safe increase check is non-trivial (needs the HEAD entry-id set to exclude legit new/merged 0->N); a noisy guard is worse than the honest limit on a destructive skill (LRN-047). Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01C6bUdvHnajCNzgVQefZowj
3.5 KiB
prune-memory — test backlog (future REDs)
RED-7 (candidate) — example-priming in the merge pass
Observed during the 2026-06-25 real-data measurement on the live
learnings.md: the skill merged LRN-014 + LRN-016 — the EXACT pair
named as the worked example in SKILL.md STEP 2
("LRN-014 + LRN-016 — both pandoc rendering quirks → merge into NEW
LRN-017").
Hypothesis: the skill's own illustrative example PRIMED the merge on real data, rather than a genuine content overlap between those two entries.
If confirmed, this is a design defect: a skill's example must not steer its behavior on real registries.
- VERIFY FIRST: read the real LRN-014 / LRN-016 — do they actually overlap, or did the example drive the merge?
- RED (if priming confirmed): fixture with entries at LRN-014/016 that do NOT overlap (distinct topics) → assert the skill does NOT merge them.
- GREEN: fictionalize the SKILL.md example (obviously-fake IDs, or an explicit "hypothetical" framing) so example IDs cannot match real entries.
Status: RESOLVED 2026-06-29. VERIFY-FIRST done — the real LRN-014 (pandoc header-id stripping) and LRN-016 (pandoc checkbox CSS overlap) are COMPLEMENTARY (different angles), NOT overlapping: the SKILL.md example modeled a wrong merge AND used live IDs that primed it on real data. GREEN: the whole STEP-2 example fictionalized to 9xx IDs (cannot match any live registry) + the merge example now models a same-concept merge with an explicit "merge ONLY same-concept" note. Closed by a DETERMINISTIC test (run-deterministic.sh RED-7: the STEP-2 example must carry only 9xx ids) — not the flaky behavioral fixture originally proposed, per LRN-046 (deterministic oracle > semantic judge on a destructive skill). Test caught its own ugrep false-green first.
RED-8 (candidate) — added-negation inversion (documented limit, not a test yet)
The RED-5 fidelity guard flags negation/permanent token DROPS; it cannot catch an ADDED negation that inverts meaning ("X works" -> "X never works") — that is a count INCREASE. The STEP 3.4 NEGATION GUARD only protects sentences that ALREADY contain a negation, so it does not stop a non-negation sentence being rewritten WITH a negation. So NEITHER guard closes this case — a real hole, documented honestly rather than claimed covered.
Practically remote: caveman compression and merge SUBTRACT tokens (drop filler); they do not author new negations. Producing "X never works" from "X works" requires ADDING a word, contrary to an operation that shortens.
- RED (if pursued): assert no op INCREASES an existing entry's negation count.
- Caveat: must exclude new/merged-entry ids (HEAD count 0 -> N is legitimate), so an increase-check needs care to avoid its own false positives. Status: CONSCIOUSLY ACCEPTED as a documented limit 2026-06-29 (re-reviewed, not built). Rationale held on re-read: (1) remote — caveman/merge SUBTRACT tokens; authoring a new negation runs against the operation; no evidence in the real-data measurement (the "+7 not/no" in EVAL-006 is new/merged-entry ids going 0→N, NOT an existing entry inverted). (2) An FP-safe increase-check is non-trivial: the census only emits non-zero counts, so a 0→1 ADD produces a working-line with NO HEAD-line to compare — catching it needs the HEAD entry-id set to exclude legitimately-new/merged ids. A noisy increase-check = a guard you learn to ignore (LRN-047), worse than the honest documented limit on a destructive skill. Revisit only if a real inversion is ever observed.