This is an automated email from the ASF dual-hosted git repository.
terrymanu pushed a commit to branch master
in repository https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf/shardingsphere.git
The following commit(s) were added to refs/heads/master by this push:
new 96a4577d38c Update analyze-issue (#39657)
96a4577d38c is described below
commit 96a4577d38c8ebbb0e8ec660ab7bf4f06e0a5b28
Author: Liang Zhang <[email protected]>
AuthorDate: Sun Aug 30 22:16:53 2026 +0800
Update analyze-issue (#39657)
---
.codex/skills/analyze-issue/SKILL.md | 23 +++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/.codex/skills/analyze-issue/SKILL.md
b/.codex/skills/analyze-issue/SKILL.md
index f84bcaf366a..18450000eb1 100644
--- a/.codex/skills/analyze-issue/SKILL.md
+++ b/.codex/skills/analyze-issue/SKILL.md
@@ -53,18 +53,17 @@ Default mode is analysis-only:
- Do not provide patch-ready implementation content unless the user explicitly
asks for implementation.
- If implementation is requested, finish issue analysis first and explicitly
state that execution has switched from analysis mode to implementation mode.
-## Correction Contract
-
-When an analysis conclusion, issue classification, or recommended label is
challenged
-or disproved by stronger evidence:
-- Do not stop at patching the current analysis text.
-- First inspect whether the error came from the triage gate, evidence package,
- conflict-resolution rule, output template, lint expectations, or missing
- regression examples for similar issue patterns.
-- Fix the highest-leverage analysis rule or checklist gap first, then update
the
- analysis output as a consequence of that fix.
-- Only do a one-off output correction without rule or checklist repair when the
- user explicitly asks for that limited action.
+## Challenged Conclusions
+
+When an analysis conclusion, issue classification, or recommended label is
challenged or disproved by stronger evidence, treat the prior conclusion as a
hypothesis to disprove.
+
+1. Inspect the challenger-provided evidence first, then rebuild the evidence
chain from the applicable official documentation, repository code and tests,
and issue evidence allowed by Source Policy.
+2. Determine whether the discrepancy comes from new evidence, previously
missed evidence, an unsupported assumption, or an incorrect inference.
+3. Retain the prior conclusion only when every required assumption remains
supported.
+4. If the prior conclusion is unsupported, withdraw or correct it immediately
and update the classification, label recommendation, confidence, and next
action consistently.
+5. If the failure exposes a reusable gap in this Skill's rules, checklist,
template, lint expectations, or regression examples, report that gap separately.
+6. Do not modify this Skill or another policy artifact unless the user
explicitly authorizes that exact change.
+7. Rerun the applicable evidence, conflict-resolution, output, and lint checks
before returning the corrected result.
## Source Policy
