kernel/bpf-developer-tutorial
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/eunomia-bpf/bpf-developer-tutorial.git synced 2026-11-01 05:05:38 +08:00
Code Issues Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

docs: restore tutorial fidelity checks

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
LinuxDev9002
2026-07-26 09:27:20 -07:00
parent da2f405a33
commit 562a6c4240
13 changed files with 37 additions and 35 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

12
.agents/skills/write-bpf-production-tutorial/SKILL.md
View File

@@ -5,13 +5,13 @@ description: Write or rewrite bilingual bpf-developer-tutorial lessons by assign
# Write a BPF Tutorial
Keep one writer for the complete reader-facing text. One Claude Opus process performs one free, paragraph-by-paragraph pass over one tutorial's English and Chinese README pair. Codex coordinates the invocation and performs mechanical checks without becoming a second writer or reviewer.
Keep one writer for the complete reader-facing text. One Claude Opus process performs one free, paragraph-by-paragraph pass over one tutorial's English and Chinese README pair. Codex coordinates the invocation and performs integrity and technical-fidelity checks without becoming a second prose writer or reviewer.
## 1. Give Opus the complete task once
Use the exact model ID `claude-opus-4-5-20251101`. Stop when that model is unavailable instead of substituting another model.
Run one non-interactive invocation from the repository root for one tutorial directory. Name that tutorial's English and Chinese README pair, the applicable `scripts/guideline_advance.md` or `scripts/guideline_basic.md`, and existing tutorials as general references. Ask Claude to revise every paragraph freely from the reader's perspective, improve readability, adjust content or structure wherever useful, finish both files before returning, and ask no questions.
Run one non-interactive invocation from the repository root for one tutorial directory. Name that tutorial's English and Chinese README pair, its implementation, headers, Makefile, tests, the applicable `scripts/guideline_advance.md` or `scripts/guideline_basic.md`, and existing tutorials as general references. Ask Claude to read those sources, keep technical claims grounded in them, revise every paragraph freely from the reader's perspective, improve readability, adjust content or structure wherever useful, finish both files before returning, and ask no questions.
Start a separate Claude process for every additional tutorial. Never batch README pairs from different tutorial directories into one process.
@@ -25,10 +25,12 @@ Reader-facing prose must not use em dashes, doubled Chinese em dashes, or en das
Use exactly one Claude writing pass per tutorial. Do not ask Claude to review its result, respond to a defect list, polish selected paragraphs, or rewrite the tutorial again. Do not invoke another model, subagent, or independent reviewer for the prose. When the result needs another writing pass, report that fact to the user and wait for an explicit request.
## 3. Perform mechanical checks only
## 3. Check integrity and technical fidelity
Check only that the intended files exist, remain nonempty, stay within the requested file scope, contain no merge markers, and expose no local paths, usernames, secrets, prompts, or private infrastructure. The mandatory dash scan in the previous section is part of Codex's punctuation pass. Do not count lines or code fences as a quality proxy. Never run `sync-source-blocks.py` or compare README code fences against a complete repository source inventory as writing acceptance. Do not require the README to contain a byte-exact copy of every source file, and do not treat an omitted complete user-space loader as a failure. These checks establish basic file integrity; they are not a prose, style, structure, factual, or technical review.
Check that the intended files exist, remain nonempty, stay within the requested file scope, contain no merge markers, and expose no local paths, usernames, secrets, prompts, or private infrastructure. The mandatory dash scan in the previous section is part of Codex's punctuation pass. Do not count lines or code fences as a quality proxy. Do not require the README to contain a byte-exact copy of every source file, and do not treat an omitted complete user-space loader as a failure.
Run repository formatting or documentation validation only when it does not rewrite the text. Report mechanical failures without repairing words or asking Claude to revise them. Preserve prompts, responses, drafts, and failed runs; never delete real conversation or agent history.
Verify every included source excerpt, command, output sample, version, requirement, and behavior claim against the implementation, tests, captured evidence, or a primary source. Use `sync-source-blocks.py` for blocks intended to reproduce complete repository files when the script supports the lesson, but do not compare focused excerpts against a required inventory of every source file. Run non-rewriting repository documentation validation. When technical commands, runtime behavior, requirements, or output claims changed, run the smallest relevant build or test, or identify exact current validation evidence for the unchanged implementation.
These are content-fidelity checks, not a second prose-writing pass. Codex may make the smallest factual correction needed to match the implementation or evidence, but must not ask another model, subagent, or independent reviewer to rewrite or polish content-only changes. Preserve prompts, responses, drafts, and failed runs; never delete real conversation or agent history.
Stop with the local result unless the user explicitly asks to commit, push, or update a PR.