Agent Persona Exploration - 2026-04-05 #24656
Closed
Replies: 2 comments 1 reply
-
|
/plan |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
1 reply
-
|
This discussion has been marked as outdated by Agent Persona Explorer. A newer discussion is available at Discussion #24820. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
0 replies
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
-
Systematic exploration of how the
agentic-workflowscustom agent responds to workflow creation requests from 5 software worker personas. Tested 8 representative scenarios across PR automation, scheduled, and event-driven workflows.Persona Overview
agentic-workflows(developer.instructions)Key Findings
repo-memorywas correctly suggested for the only stateful scenario (vulnerability baseline diffing) — the agent understands cross-run persistence needsnoopreminder was included in every generated prompt — 100% compliance on this critical requirementnetwork: defaultson all scenarios, comment/issuemax:caps, and explicit fork-safety notes on PR automationTop Patterns
workflow_run + conclusion guardfor incident response,push: tagswith semver regex for releases,schedule + workflow_dispatchfor all periodic workgithub: toolsets: [default]as the baseline,actionsonly when CI data needed,web-fetchonly for external APIs (OSV, npm registry)create-issuefor bugs/incidents,create-discussionfor stakeholder digests,update-releasefor changelogs;close-older-issues: falseon incidents,close-older-discussions: trueon rolling weekly reportsView High Quality Responses (Top 3)
backend-1 (5.0/5.0) — DB Migration Safety Reviewer
paths:filter to scope to migration files onlymax: 8cap, not a single bulk commentpull-requests: writebackend-2 (5.0/5.0) — Nightly Vulnerability Scanner
repo-memoryfor yesterday/today diff without promptingnpm auditnetwork calls bypassnetwork.allowed— a subtle firewall gapmax: 5flood preventiondevops-1 (5.0/5.0) — Deployment Failure Incident Responder
@mentions; usedworkflow_run.actor.login(GitHub-resolved)ci-doctor.mdanddev-hawk.mdas models — good pattern recognitionView Areas for Improvement (Top 3)
frontend-1 (4.2/5.0) — Bundle Size Analyzer
bash: ["npm *", "node *"]wildcards initially — strict mode would reject these; more specific allowlist neededpull_request_targetvspull_requesttradeoff not fully explainedtimeout-minutessuggested for a build-heavy workflow (two full builds per run)qa-1 (4.2/5.0) — Test Coverage PR Reviewer
threat-detection: falsesuggested without noting it's a non-standard field — may not be a real config optionconcurrencygroup suggested to cancel in-flight runs on rapid pushespm-1 (4.2/5.0) — Weekly Shipped Digest
"General"— should validate existence or make configurablementions: falsenot suggested despite using author@mentionsin the digest bodyRecommendations
repo-memorystateful scanning example to.github/aw/examples.md— the vulnerability scanner pattern (load baseline → scan → diff → write baseline) is broadly reusable for any "alert on new X" workflow and the agent independently converged on it.github/aw/create-agentic-workflow.md— 3 of 8 scenarios benefited from downloading heavy data (logs, artifacts) before the AI session; this should be a first-class pattern with a template.github/aw/github-agentic-workflows.md— scheduled agents withissues: writeorcontents: writeare the highest-risk configuration; a concise checklist (network: defaults, max caps, noop required, concurrency group) would reduce misconfigurationReferences:
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions