From 426faa28c17b97db66f2a093ce605e531bedcbb4 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: wenjiefan Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2026 10:30:48 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] Restore al-ui/al-privacy review skills to base (zero diff in PR) These two leaf skills carried an accidental net change against the PR merge-base because an earlier revert used the current origin/main (post-#110) instead of the branch base (pre-#110). Restoring them to the merge-base version removes them from the PR diff entirely. Three-way merge still preserves main's #110 suppression. --- microsoft/skills/review/al-privacy-review.md | 2 +- microsoft/skills/review/al-ui-review.md | 2 +- 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/microsoft/skills/review/al-privacy-review.md b/microsoft/skills/review/al-privacy-review.md index ea95269..edbf197 100644 --- a/microsoft/skills/review/al-privacy-review.md +++ b/microsoft/skills/review/al-privacy-review.md @@ -68,7 +68,7 @@ Set `confidence` to: - `medium` when detection relies on heuristics or when any frontmatter dimension was `unknown`. - `low` when the finding is an advisory derived only from applicability. -This leaf emits only knowledge-backed privacy findings. Do NOT emit reference-less `agent:` findings in this domain: online evaluation shows the privacy agent-finding channel yields almost no accepted findings and a high volume of dismissed noise, so a privacy concern that no worklist knowledge file covers is omitted here rather than emitted with `references: []`. When you spot a material privacy defect no article covers, the durable fix is to add a knowledge article in BCQuality (per the online-eval self-improvement loop) so this leaf can cite it — not a one-off reference-less finding. Before treating a candidate as uncovered, check the worklist for a knowledge file that matches it; if one exists, emit it as a knowledge-backed finding. See `skills/do.md` for the full contract. +After evaluating each worklist entry, also consider whether the diff exhibits a privacy defect the agent recognises from its general AL knowledge that no knowledge file in the worklist covers. Such candidates are agent findings within this skill's domain — emit them with `references: []`, an `id` slug prefixed with `agent:`, `confidence` capped at `medium`, `severity` capped at `minor` (agent findings are advisory and non-gating), and a `message` that is self-contained (describing both the issue and a concrete recommendation, since there is no knowledge-file footer for the consumer to fall back on). Hold every candidate to the precision bar in `skills/do.md` (*Agent findings*): emit only a concrete, material privacy defect a knowledgeable BC reviewer would agree is wrong — steelman it first and drop anything stylistic, speculative, dependent on code outside the diff, or merely a valid alternative; when in doubt, omit. The scope is strictly privacy; defects outside this domain belong to other leaves and MUST NOT be emitted here. Before emitting, check the worklist for a knowledge file that matches the candidate — if one exists, upgrade the candidate to a knowledge-backed finding instead. See `skills/do.md` for the full contract. For every emitted finding, decide whether the fix is mechanical. A fix is mechanical when it is small, local, and unambiguous from the diff context (for example: delete unreachable lines; replace `Count() > 0` with `not IsEmpty()`; move a local `Label` to object scope; add a missing `ToolTip`, `OptionCaption`, or `DataClassification`; replace a string-concatenated `Error` with a Label-backed call; change an over-broad permission token; or add an obvious `else`/guard branch). For mechanical findings, emit `findings[].suggested-code` with the literal replacement for the source lines indicated by `location`. The payload must be a verbatim replacement — no diff markers, no fences, no commentary — that the consumer can render as a one-click suggestion. When a `.good.al` companion exists and the diff context matches the `.bad.al` shape, adapt the `.good.al` replacement into `suggested-code`. diff --git a/microsoft/skills/review/al-ui-review.md b/microsoft/skills/review/al-ui-review.md index 81ab12e..19f03c9 100644 --- a/microsoft/skills/review/al-ui-review.md +++ b/microsoft/skills/review/al-ui-review.md @@ -61,7 +61,7 @@ Set `confidence` to: - `medium` when detection relies on heuristics (judging whether a caption is a noun phrase or a sentence phrase) or when any frontmatter dimension was `unknown`. - `low` when the finding is an advisory derived only from applicability. -This leaf emits only knowledge-backed UI and accessibility findings. Do NOT emit reference-less `agent:` findings in this domain: online evaluation shows the UI/accessibility agent-finding channel yields almost no accepted findings and a high volume of dismissed noise, so a UI or accessibility concern that no worklist knowledge file covers is omitted here rather than emitted with `references: []`. When you spot a material UI or accessibility defect no article covers, the durable fix is to add a knowledge article in BCQuality (per the online-eval self-improvement loop) so this leaf can cite it — not a one-off reference-less finding. Before treating a candidate as uncovered, check the worklist for a knowledge file that matches it; if one exists, emit it as a knowledge-backed finding. See `skills/do.md` for the full contract. +After evaluating each worklist entry, also consider whether the diff exhibits a UI defect the agent recognises from its general AL knowledge that no knowledge file in the worklist covers. Such candidates are agent findings within this skill's domain — emit them with `references: []`, an `id` slug prefixed with `agent:`, `confidence` capped at `medium`, `severity` capped at `minor` (agent findings are advisory and non-gating), and a `message` that is self-contained (describing both the issue and a concrete recommendation, since there is no knowledge-file footer for the consumer to fall back on). Hold every candidate to the precision bar in `skills/do.md` (*Agent findings*): emit only a concrete, material UI defect a knowledgeable BC reviewer would agree is wrong — steelman it first and drop anything speculative, dependent on code outside the diff, or merely a valid alternative; when in doubt, omit. The scope is strictly UI; defects outside this domain belong to other leaves and MUST NOT be emitted here. Before emitting, check the worklist for a knowledge file that matches the candidate — if one exists, upgrade the candidate to a knowledge-backed finding instead. See `skills/do.md` for the full contract. For every emitted finding, decide whether the fix is mechanical. A fix is mechanical when it is small, local, and unambiguous from the diff context (for example: delete unreachable lines; replace `Count() > 0` with `not IsEmpty()`; move a local `Label` to object scope; add a missing `ToolTip`, `OptionCaption`, or `DataClassification`; replace a string-concatenated `Error` with a Label-backed call; change an over-broad permission token; or add an obvious `else`/guard branch). For mechanical findings, emit `findings[].suggested-code` with the literal replacement for the source lines indicated by `location`. The payload must be a verbatim replacement — no diff markers, no fences, no commentary — that the consumer can render as a one-click suggestion. When a `.good.al` companion exists and the diff context matches the `.bad.al` shape, adapt the `.good.al` replacement into `suggested-code`.