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 8d4048ce815 Update code-implementation (#39656)
8d4048ce815 is described below
commit 8d4048ce815a4431ef84c4a15344d96afebfb2c8
Author: Liang Zhang <[email protected]>
AuthorDate: Sun Aug 30 22:02:27 2026 +0800
Update code-implementation (#39656)
* Update code-implementation
* Update code-implementation
---
.codex/skills/analyze-issue/SKILL.md | 13 +++++++++++++
.../rules/artifact-removal-and-contract-impact.md | 2 +-
2 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/.codex/skills/analyze-issue/SKILL.md
b/.codex/skills/analyze-issue/SKILL.md
index fa2f0274193..f84bcaf366a 100644
--- a/.codex/skills/analyze-issue/SKILL.md
+++ b/.codex/skills/analyze-issue/SKILL.md
@@ -53,6 +53,19 @@ 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.
+
## Source Policy
Use only the following sources:
diff --git
a/.codex/skills/code-implementation/references/rules/artifact-removal-and-contract-impact.md
b/.codex/skills/code-implementation/references/rules/artifact-removal-and-contract-impact.md
index 0512dbd2452..079b5f25110 100644
---
a/.codex/skills/code-implementation/references/rules/artifact-removal-and-contract-impact.md
+++
b/.codex/skills/code-implementation/references/rules/artifact-removal-and-contract-impact.md
@@ -23,7 +23,7 @@ Apply this gate to every analysis or change that classifies
code, dependencies,
1. After a current-task edit removes or replaces a production call, behavior
owner, registration, loading path, or package path, inspect the affected
symbols for remaining production consumers. If only test consumers remain or no
production consumer is found, apply every requirement in this gate.
Compilation, passing tests, coverage, and a wrapper's dedicated test do not
establish production use.
2. Distinguish absence of direct references from complete unused evidence. A
single text or regex search, or a production-only search, proves at most that
no direct reference was found and cannot justify a removal recommendation.
-3. Inspect semantic and indirect consumers appropriate to the artifact,
including reflection, generated code, registrations, SPI and `ServiceLoader`,
JDBC driver discovery, Maven scopes, profiles, plugins and transitive
dependencies, build/test/runtime classpaths, test JARs, packaging and
distributions, tests, E2E, and external consumers.
+3. Inspect semantic and indirect consumers appropriate to the artifact,
including method overrides, reflection, generated code, registrations, SPI and
`ServiceLoader`, JDBC driver discovery, Maven scopes, profiles, plugins and
transitive dependencies, build/test/runtime classpaths, test JARs, packaging
and distributions, tests, E2E, and external consumers.
4. Inspect Git history and linked issue, pull-request, CI, and failure
evidence for prior additions, removals, and restorations. A prior removal
failure makes the artifact indirectly required unless same-boundary evidence
proves that the failure was unrelated or that the dependency is obsolete.
5. Classify each examined artifact as directly used, indirectly required,
purpose unresolved, or a verified removal candidate. Use purpose unresolved
when evidence is incomplete. Use verified removal candidate only after a
controlled removal experiment, or equivalent existing evidence, covers the
affected compilation, tests, packaging, and runtime paths.
6. When the audit verifies that the current task removed the last production
consumer and no compatibility contract remains, apply the single-model
convergence rule in
`.codex/skills/code-implementation/references/rules/implementation.md`. Remove
superseded production code and dedicated tests only when the frozen boundary
and required file-deletion and public-contract authority permit it. Otherwise,
stop, report the exact removal scope and compatibility impact, and request
authorization. [...]
