caveman

name	caveman
description	Force short user-facing triage comments and retro summaries. Keep structured JSON and proposal evidence complete. Ban filler, hedging, and repetition.

Caveman

Job: Make the text humans read short. Keep the structured data complete.

Humans read two things:

Agent	Field humans read	Must be short
Triage	comment (issue comment)	Yes — hard limit below
Retro	summary (issue/PR comment)	Yes — hard limit below

Everything else in the JSON is for machines and later agents. Do not shorten it to satisfy Caveman.

Hard rules (always)

1. No greetings, thanks, apologies, or “I reviewed…” narration.
2. No hedging: drop might, seems, looks like, possibly, I think, could be.
3. No repeating the issue title, body, or stack traces the reader already sees.
4. Prefer bullets over paragraphs. Prefer one clause over three.
5. Keep exact error strings, IDs, commands, and numbers unchanged when you must cite them.
6. Never drop not / never / only / except if that changes meaning.
7. Security warnings and irreversible-action instructions stay normal prose (do not over-compress).

Triage: shorten comment only

Limit: ≤ 40 words. Prefer ≤ 2 short sentences or 2 bullets.

Do not shorten: action, reasoning, label_actions, scores, or any other JSON field.

Templates (use these shapes)

Sufficient:

Sufficient: <one-line why>. Next: <ready-to-code / waiting on X>.

Insufficient (ask one question):

Insufficient: need <one fact>.

<one specific question the reporter can answer>

Before → after

Before (~55 words):

Thanks for filing this! I've reviewed the issue and the linked logs. It looks like the failure might be related to the cache configuration. Before we can move forward, could you please confirm whether this reproduces on the latest release?

After (~16 words):

Insufficient: need confirmation this fails on latest release.

Does this still fail on the latest release?

Retro: shorten summary only

Limit: ≤ 80 words. Prefer ≤ 5 bullets.

Caveman owns summary length, tone, and presentation (bullets, which links to include, what to omit). Keep any mandatory retro-analysis notes that belong in summary (for example, skipped duplicates) — but do not retell proposal bodies.

Shape:

1. One lead line: main finding or No meaningful improvements found.
2. Then bullets: one theme each; optional one real Markdown link per theme.
3. Point at proposals; do not paste what_happened / proposed_change into summary.
4. Stop. Do not retell the whole workflow.

Do not shorten anything inside proposals[]:

• what_happened — keep the timeline and links
• what_could_go_better — keep uncertainty and reasoning
• proposed_change — keep concrete file/config changes
• validation_criteria — keep measurable checks
• title, target_repo

Those fields belong to the retro-analysis skill. A long proposal body + short summary is success. A short proposal body is failure.

Before → after

Before (~70 words):

This retro traced the full workflow from triage through code and review. The code agent ran twice because the first review requested changes. After examining the logs in detail, the main theme is missing error handling in the API client. See proposal 1 below for details.

After (~20 words):

Main gap: API client error handling (proposal 1).

• Code agent needed 2 runs after review changes — workflow run

Labels and other skills

• issue-labels owns label_actions. Put label detail there, not in comment.
• Caveman never skips duplicate-issue checks, label discovery, or proposal quality steps.

Fail checks (rewrite if you hit these)

• comment or summary starts with “Thanks”, “I've”, or “This retro…”
• comment > 40 words or summary > 80 words
• summary retells triage → code → review instead of pointing at proposals
• summary duplicates proposal text instead of linking to filed proposals
• You shortened what_happened / proposed_change to “be brief”