On Mon, Oct 12, 2026 at 08:48:48PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
On Mon, Oct 12, 2026 at 04:47:14PM -0600, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
Sasha Levin <[email protected]> writes:
> At the Maintainers Summit, Ted asked whether the stable trees have a way
> to deal with incorrect Fixes tags. Hannes estimated that 15-20% of them
> are wrong, often because the author ran git blame and took the first
> commit that touched the line [1]. We use LLM workflows to find the
> commit that actually introduced a bug, and others asked us to share
> them.
>
> This series adds them as agent skills under agents/skills/, together
> with a skill for writing commit messages:
Time to argue for a more fuchsia shade of mauve without actually getting
into the substance of what you're doing...:)
I wonder about the top-level agents/ directory. If we regard this
material as documentation, perhaps the "skills" should go there too? As
readable text, they might just help to improve human skills as well,
assuming we think we still need those. Under Documentation, they could
be built into the rendered docs and made more widely available.
Otherwise, if this is primarily a development tool, perhaps under tools/
makes sense?
I lack strong opinions here, but figured I would ask the question.
I was expecting this to appear under Documentation/. The agents are
designed to read human text, so let's make it at least passingly
sensible for humans to read too. :)
What sucks here is that these prompts aren't very human readable. They are
overly verbose, they assume being able to remember a whole bunch of small
instructions, and target specific issues that we're observing with these
agents.
I get why Documentation/ makes sense (it's not code per-se), but I could also
argue similarily for tools/ :)
Either way, I don't really think it matters to me, and will happily move it to
Documentation/agents/ unless someone else chimes in with a reason NOT to...
--
Thanks,
Sasha
