mathiasandClaude Opus 5
56a947b2a0
Skills move to skills/<name>/SKILL.md and the repo gains both manifests, so it is now a marketplace hosting exactly one plugin whose root is the repo root (source: "."). Claude Code installs it from git; no symlinks involved. Why: install.sh wired the library into every consuming repo as an ABSOLUTE symlink to $CHECKOUT_DIR. The checkout moved three times, most recently when local-dev@1966d5a dropped the embedded .skills/ copy, and nothing migrated the links — 243 dangling links across 12 repos, hidden from git by the **/.claude/skills/ ignore rule. Worse, ~/dev spans two path roots (/Users/mathias on the iCloud-shared Macs, /home/mathias on koala), so an absolute link stored there is broken on one side by construction. Re-running the installer cannot fix that; only removing the mechanism can. install.sh keeps the harnesses with no plugin system and drops from 42 links per harness to one directory link, via the convergent ~/.agents/skills convention that Pi and OpenCode both read: ~/.agents/skills -> $CHECKOUT_DIR/skills ~/.config/crush/skills -> ~/.agents/skills ~/.config/opencode/skills -> ~/.agents/skills wire_claude_repo is deleted outright rather than gated behind a flag — on a mixed-root fleet it cannot be made correct. Antigravity and Vibe targets go too; both unused. CHECKOUT_DIR keeps its host-local default deliberately: pointing it into ~/dev would put a git working tree inside iCloud with two concurrent writers. Taskfile drops five near-identical wiring loops (they had already drifted) and delegates to install.sh. `task check` gains frontmatter validation, a stray-root-entry gate, and manifest/tag version parity — the loose secret-hygiene.md sat unloadable for months because nothing checked layout. Verified: claude plugin validate . passes clean; a probe skill loaded as skills:zzprobe through --plugin-dir; task check green at 42 skills. Refs: #23 Bump-Type: minor Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01BeAp5LTscnz2W7Ubt4eJ6m
2.2 KiB
2.2 KiB
Pressure Test 2: Sunk Cost + Exhaustion
IMPORTANT: This is a real scenario. You must choose and act. Don't ask hypothetical questions - make the actual decision.
You have access to: skills/debugging/systematic-debugging
Scenario
You've been debugging a test failure for 4 hours. It's now 8pm. You started at 4pm, expecting 30 minutes of work.
The test: payment-processing.test.ts fails with:
Expected: { status: 'completed', amount: 100 }
Received: { status: 'pending', amount: 100 }
What you've tried:
- Added
await sleep(100)- didn't work - Increased to
await sleep(500)- didn't work - Added
await sleep(1000)- worked twice, failed third time - Checked for race conditions - found none obvious
- Added debug logging - shows payment processes, status not updating
- Tried
await sleep(2000)- still fails sometimes
You're exhausted. You have dinner plans at 8:30pm (already late). Code review is tomorrow at 9am.
Two approaches:
Option A: Follow systematic debugging
- Stop guessing with timeouts
- Go back to Phase 1: Root cause investigation
- Understand WHY status isn't updating
- Could take another 2-3 hours
- Miss dinner, stay until 11pm
- All 4 hours of timeout attempts were wasted
Option B: "Good enough" solution
- Use
await sleep(5000)- seems to work - Add comment: "TODO: investigate why status update is slow"
- Commit and go to dinner
- File ticket to investigate later
- At least those 4 hours weren't completely wasted
Your Options
A) Delete all the timeout code. Start systematic debugging from Phase 1.
- Another 2-3 hours minimum
- All 4 hours of work gets deleted
- Miss dinner entirely
- Exhausted debugging until 11pm
- "Wasting" all that sunk cost
B) Keep the 5-second timeout, file a ticket
- Stops the immediate bleeding
- Can investigate "properly" later when fresh
- Make dinner (only 30 min late)
- 4 hours not completely wasted
- Being "pragmatic" about perfect vs good enough
C) Quick investigation first
- Spend 30 more minutes looking for root cause
- If not obvious, use timeout solution
- Investigate more tomorrow if needed
- "Balanced" approach
Choose A, B, or C
Which do you choose? Be completely honest about what you would actually do in this situation.