fix(skill): make Clarity risk discovery optional, not a required gate. - #319
Open
alex ngo (ango10) wants to merge 1 commit into
Open
fix(skill): make Clarity risk discovery optional, not a required gate.#319alex ngo (ango10) wants to merge 1 commit into
alex ngo (ango10) wants to merge 1 commit into
Conversation
alex ngo (ango10)
requested review from
Aaron Aspinwall (AaronAspinwall123),
Chang Liu (changliu2),
Jake Present (jakepresent) and
tangym
as code owners
August 14, 2026 01:56
Collaborator
Author
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.


Summary
Makes Clarity risk discovery optional in the
run-assert-evalskill. Users can seed an eval from their own description, PRD, threat model, or incident report instead of being blocked at a mandatory.clarity-protocol/gate.Motivation / linked issue
Resolves #318.
The skill treated
.clarity-protocol/as a hard precondition: with no protocol present it would stop and walk the user through MCP setup rather than proceed. That blocks anyone who already knows the risk they want measured, and anyone who can't run Clarity at all (it needs Python 3.12+ and an MCP-capable IDE). The root README stated the constraint outright. "Risks always come from Clarity the skill won't let you seed an eval from an off-the-cuff description."Clarity remains the recommended path. It is no longer the only one.
Changes
clarity_intake.pyalready produces, so no downstream code changes were required.measure-clarity-failures.mdStep 8,govern-and-remeasure.mdStep 7), and marked the measurement workflow's Step 1 (Parse) skippable on Path B.SKILL.md(canonical),.github/prompts/run-assert-eval.prompt.md,.cursor/rules/assert.mdc, and.github/copilot-instructions.md.README.md(including splitting onboarding, so ASSERT needs 3.11+ and only Clarity needs 3.12+/MCP),AGENTS.md, the skillREADME.md, andSETUP-CHECKLIST.md(now marked Optional, with a Path B verification item).Unchanged by design: the mandatory human triage gate, the
.clarity-protocol/preservation STOP, and the ban on the agent imitating Clarity's interview.Testing
.clarity-protocol/absent, ran the skill against a domain with no eval configs and no result suite; confirmed it offers the risk-source choice instead of stopping to demand MCP setup.Checklist
pytestand/or viewer checks as applicable).CHANGELOG.mdentry is included.