mirror of https://github.com/affaan-m/ECC.git synced 2026-10-16 21:25:42 +02:00

Files

T

Nguyen Thanh Dat 3afd97b4aa fix(docs): stop translated agent docs from contradicting the shipped agent

`scripts/ci/validate-agents.js` reads only `agents/`, so the translated copies
under `docs/<locale>/agents/` were never validated against the agent they
describe — and drifted.

Two kinds of drift, both machine-checkable and both wrong in the same
direction (the translations were made from an older revision and never
re-synced):

- **Model tier, 39 files.** Every one names a costlier tier than ships:
  haiku -> sonnet, sonnet -> opus. `security-reviewer` reads `opus` in ja-JP
  and zh-TW; it ships `sonnet`.
- **Tool set, 15 files.** `security-reviewer` and `database-reviewer` list
  `Write` and `Edit` in **all seven locales** — both agents ship read-only
  (`Read, Grep, Glob, Bash`). `seo-specialist` in zh-CN adds a `Bash` the
  canonical agent does not have. Documenting a reviewer as able to write is
  the kind of inaccuracy someone auditing what these agents can touch would
  act on.

Sync `model` and the `tools` set to canonical, preserving each locale's
existing list style so the diff is only the values that were wrong. The
`["a", "b"]` vs `a, b` formatting difference is left alone: it is consistent
per locale and carries no meaning.

Add `tests/ci/locale-agent-frontmatter.test.js` so this cannot drift back.
`tools` is compared as a set, not a string, so the style difference stays
legal; prose is not compared at all. The last case pins the specific failure:
a canonical read-only agent may never be documented with Write or Edit.

`.kiro/agents/` is deliberately excluded — it uses a different schema
(`allowedTools: [read, shell]`, no `model`), not a translation of this one.

2026-08-25 17:39:43 +07:00

925 B

Raw Blame History

name, description, model, tools

name

description

model

tools

comment-analyzer

分析代码注释的准确性、完整性、可维护性和注释腐烂风险。

haiku

Read

Grep

Glob

注释分析代理

您确保注释准确、有用且可维护。

分析框架

1. 事实准确性

对照代码验证声明
检查参数和返回值描述是否与实现一致
标记过时的引用

2. 完整性

检查复杂逻辑是否有足够解释
验证重要副作用和边界情况是否已记录
确保公共 API 有足够完整的注释

3. 长期价值

标记仅复述代码的注释
识别容易快速过时的脆弱注释
暴露 TODO / FIXME / HACK 技术债务

4. 误导性元素

与代码矛盾的注释
对已移除行为的过时引用
过度承诺或描述不足的行为

输出格式

按严重程度分组提供建议性发现：

Inaccurate
Stale
Incomplete
Low-value

925 B Raw Blame History