Forks tracking this template face a weekly "which of these commits do I
actually care about?" question. check_upstream_updates.py answers it at the
file level (version stamps); this adds the commit-level half.
tools/upstream_triage.py walks the commits a fork is behind and splits them
into "worth reviewing" and "probably skip". Work already ported drops off on
its own via git patch-id, commits touching only files the fork removed are set
aside, and SHAs in .github/upstream-wontport.txt stay hidden. It reports and
nothing more - ready-to-run cherry-pick lines, but no merge, push, or PR,
since on a fork "applies cleanly" is not "correct".
.github/workflows/upstream-watch.yml runs it weekly into one rolling issue. It
no-ops on the upstream template (guarded, and pinned by a test) and uses only
the built-in GITHUB_TOKEN, so it can never write outside its own fork. The two
tools point at each other in their output; README, SETUP 8, and CHANGELOG
introduce them together. Tests cover patch-id matching, relevance filtering,
the won't-port list, and the workflow guard - all offline.
Co-authored-by: Angelina Lok <angelina@chattermill.io>
Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.7 <noreply@anthropic.com>
The file shipped in #277 but was never added to the manifest, so forks
got no signal when it changed. Surfaced during #282 review.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
The per-file 'git show' failure was swallowed with a bare continue, so a file renamed or deleted upstream (or any unexpected git error) ended with a clean '[OK] All framework files are up to date' - a false all-clear.
Now the two failure modes are distinguished: files present locally but missing from the upstream ref are listed explicitly with a final [WARNING] instead of [OK], and unexpected git errors are added to the configuration errors with their stderr.
Adds UpstreamRefMissingFileTests, which simulates upstream dropping AGENTS.md while the fork keeps its copy: it fails on master and passes with the fix.
GitHub serves repo paths case-insensitively, so a direct clone from https://github.com/madslorentzen/ai-job-search (lowercased) triggered the fork-vs-self warning even though origin is the template repo itself. Lowercase both sides of the check.
New test clones with a lowercased URL: fails on the previous check, passes with this fix.
On a fork without an 'upstream' remote, the checker silently fell back to 'origin' (the fork itself) and still printed '[OK] All framework files are up to date with upstream!', a false positive: the fork is always up to date with itself, so upstream updates were never reported. This is exactly the setup CONTRIBUTING.md recommends for forks.
Now, when the fallback remote does not point at the ai-job-search template repo, the script warns that the comparison is fork-vs-self and prints the command to add the template as a remote. The final OK line now names the ref it actually compared against.
Tests (new tests/test_check_upstream_updates.py, three scenarios) fail on master and pass with the fix.
* feat(08): add application-form fields as a third /apply artifact
/apply produces a CV and a cover letter. Many applications need a third
thing: free-text typed into a portal. Graduate programs, large-employer
ATS systems and startup forms ask for self-introductions, structured
project entries, motivation questions and pitches under a hard character
limit - none of which either document covers, and all of which the
interviewer reads alongside the CV.
Governing rule: a form field selects from what is already true and
arranges it for the question asked. It never introduces a new claim.
All accuracy rules from 03 and 05 apply unchanged.
Covers three field types (self-introduction, structured project entries,
hard character limits), the output format (a plain .txt the candidate
pastes from, with counts stated and internal NOTE TO SELF blocks marked
as not-for-pasting), and a verification checklist.
Two places where form fields are stricter than a CV, because both are
easy to get wrong:
- Project entries carry a name and a role, so they read as ownership of
the whole project in a way a terse CV bullet does not. Contributory
work has to be scoped inside the description.
- Project dates are the dates of the project, not of the employment.
Narrowing them is more accurate where the candidate can say when the
project started - but never invent a boundary to improve the ratio.
Registers the file in SKILL.md (framework_version 1.0.1 -> 1.1.0) and in
the FRAMEWORK_FILES list in tools/check_upstream_updates.py, so it is
covered by the update check like every other framework file.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>
* fixup(08,apply): wire as optional /apply offer; align grounding to three-source union
- apply.md Step 6: offer the third artifact after CV/cover letter are
produced, mirroring the /outcome house pattern for optional capabilities
(offer, act only on yes, default output unchanged).
- 08-application-forms.md: ground claims against the framework's
01-candidate-profile.md + master CV + CLAUDE.md union (per #185)
instead of only 01, in both the governing rule and the checklist.
Per MadsLorentzen review on PR #212. Rebase onto merged #210 (the
tenure-check reference this file cites) still pending — #210 hasn't
landed on upstream/master yet.
---------
Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Root AGENTS.md pointer file per the architecture decision in discussion #78: documents both config roots (.agents/skills/ portable portal skills, .claude/ orchestration) and the profile entry points, carries a framework_version marker registered in both version tools.
Design case made by @erikpr1994 in the #78 architecture thread; implementation by @jovin-nicholas.
* Add framework_version markers to assistant skills and implement CI version guard and update checker
* Address review feedback: update ci.yml based on latest upstream, gate CI version guard to upstream repo, and remove non-ASCII characters from check_upstream_updates.py
