mirror of
https://bitbucket.org/siakitem/my-pi.git
synced 2026-08-28 16:45:22 +00:00
46 lines
2.6 KiB
Markdown
46 lines
2.6 KiB
Markdown
---
|
|
issue: 91
|
|
issue_title: "Bash external-directory guard false-positive on sed regex containing absolute-path-like patterns"
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
# Retro: #91 — Bash external-directory guard false-positive on sed regex containing absolute-path-like patterns
|
|
|
|
## Final Retrospective (2026-05-05T17:05:00Z)
|
|
|
|
### Session summary
|
|
|
|
Planned, implemented, and shipped command-aware path extraction for pattern-first commands (sed, awk, grep, rg, sd) in the bash external-directory guard.
|
|
The key design insight — using the tree-sitter command name to guide argument classification rather than adding more character heuristics — came from the user's strategic redirections.
|
|
Released as v5.1.0.
|
|
|
|
### Observations
|
|
|
|
#### What went well
|
|
|
|
- User's two redirections ("the command definitely matters" and "unite our approaches") fundamentally improved the design from a heuristic band-aid to a principled command-aware architecture.
|
|
Without them, the plan would have been another `REGEX_METACHAR_PATTERN` extension.
|
|
- Studying OpenCode's `shell.ts` (user-directed) revealed a clean reference implementation and clarified the design space: strict allowlist vs. heuristic fallback vs. hybrid.
|
|
- Implementation was clean — the feat commit landed all 89 tests green on the first run, and all 5 edge-case tests passed without additional code changes.
|
|
|
|
#### What caused friction (agent side)
|
|
|
|
1. `premature-convergence` — Initially designed the plan around character-based heuristics (`{`, `}`, `!`, `;` rejection in `classifyTokenAsPathCandidate`) without questioning whether the command-blind approach was fundamentally flawed.
|
|
The user had to explicitly ask "Step back.
|
|
Examine our overall approach" and point to OpenCode.
|
|
Impact: the first draft plan was discarded and rewritten with the command-aware design.
|
|
|
|
2. `instruction-violation` (user-caught) — Used `test.todo` in step 6 instead of writing a concrete assertion.
|
|
The plan said "add `test.todo` or comment" which was ambiguous, but the better choice was always a real test.
|
|
The user caught it ("Wait, we have a todo in our tests?") and it was fixed by amending the commit.
|
|
Impact: one extra amend cycle, minor.
|
|
|
|
#### What caused friction (user side)
|
|
|
|
- The initial `/plan-issue` invocation produced a plan the user needed to redirect twice before it matched their vision.
|
|
Earlier sharing of the OpenCode reference (or asking "have you seen how X handles this?") could have saved a round of planning.
|
|
The user's interventions were well-timed and specific — each one unblocked progress immediately.
|
|
|
|
### Changes made
|
|
|
|
1. `AGENTS.md` § Testing — added rule preferring concrete assertions over `test.todo`.
|