develop and fix-ci prompts: never modify linter (ruff, pyright, etc.) configuration without explicit request

[monkut]

Problem

The develop and fix-ci action prompts do not explicitly forbid modifying linter or type-checker configuration. When the agent encounters linter errors, type-checker complaints, or rule violations, it can be tempted to "fix" them by relaxing or disabling rules in pyproject.toml, .ruff.toml, pyrightconfig.json, .pre-commit-config.yaml, etc., rather than fixing the code.

This silently weakens the project's quality gates and is hard to spot in review.

Expected behaviour

Both DEVELOP_AGENT_PROMPT and FIXCI_AGENT_PROMPT must contain an explicit constraint:

Do not modify linter, formatter, or type-checker configuration (e.g. pyproject.toml [tool.ruff] / [tool.pyright] sections, .ruff.toml, pyrightconfig.json, .pre-commit-config.yaml, ESLint/Prettier configs) to silence errors. Always fix the code, not the config. The only exception is when the originating issue explicitly requests a configuration change.

The constraint should also forbid # noqa, # type: ignore, # pyright: ignore, and similar inline suppression comments unless the issue explicitly asks for them or there is a documented external blocker (e.g. a known third-party-stub bug).

Actual behaviour

Currently DEVELOP_AGENT_PROMPT (askcc/definitions.py:186-285) and FIXCI_AGENT_PROMPT (askcc/definitions.py:542-596) say:

• develop: "Conform to the project's existing style, structure, and conventions" and "Make focused, minimal changes — do not refactor unrelated code"
• fix-ci: "Apply minimal, targeted fixes — do not refactor unrelated code" and "For lint errors: run `uv run ruff format .` and `uv run ruff check --fix .`"

Neither prompt explicitly rules out relaxing config or sprinkling suppression comments, leaving the door open for the agent to take that shortcut.

Suggested fix

Add a new constraint section to both prompts. Example wording:

Configuration boundaries (do not cross unless the issue explicitly requests it):
- Do NOT modify linter, formatter, or type-checker config files
  (pyproject.toml [tool.ruff]/[tool.pyright]/[tool.mypy] sections, .ruff.toml,
  pyrightconfig.json, mypy.ini, .pre-commit-config.yaml, ESLint/Prettier configs)
  to silence errors. Fix the code, not the config.
- Do NOT add `# noqa`, `# type: ignore`, `# pyright: ignore`, `eslint-disable`,
  or similar inline suppression comments. Fix the underlying issue.
- The only exceptions are when the originating issue explicitly requests a
  configuration or rule change, or when a known third-party bug requires
  documented suppression — in which case add a comment explaining why.

For develop, place it next to the existing "Anti-rationalization" / "Security checklist" sections.
For fix-ci, place it just before "Fixing Failures" so it gates the entire fix loop.

Acceptance Criteria

• DEVELOP_AGENT_PROMPT (in askcc/definitions.py) contains a Configuration boundaries section that explicitly forbids modifying linter/formatter/type-checker config files to silence errors
• FIXCI_AGENT_PROMPT (in askcc/definitions.py) contains the same Configuration boundaries section, placed before the ## Fixing Failures heading
• Both prompts list the specific config files/sections covered: pyproject.toml [tool.ruff]/[tool.pyright]/[tool.mypy], .ruff.toml, pyrightconfig.json, mypy.ini, .pre-commit-config.yaml, ESLint/Prettier configs
• Both prompts forbid inline suppression comments: # noqa, # type: ignore, # pyright: ignore, eslint-disable
• Both prompts document the narrow exceptions: (a) issue explicitly requests a config/rule change, or (b) documented third-party bug requires suppression with explanatory comment
• tests/test_askcc.py contains a new TestConfigBoundaryConstraints test class (or equivalent) with assertions that the constraint strings exist in both prompts
• FIXCI_AGENT_PROMPT is added to the imports in tests/test_askcc.py
• uv run pytest passes (all existing + new tests green)
• uv run ruff check passes with no issues
• uv run pyright passes with 0 errors

Dependencies

None identified. The change is contained to askcc/definitions.py (prompt strings) and tests/test_askcc.py (new assertions). No external API, schema, or runtime behaviour changes.

Implementation Plan

1. Add Configuration boundaries block to DEVELOP_AGENT_PROMPT (askcc/definitions.py:186-285)

   • Insert the new block between the existing Security checklist section (ends ~line 260) and the PR description section (starts ~line 262).
   • Use the wording from the "Suggested fix" code block above. Keep the heading exactly Configuration boundaries (do not cross unless the issue explicitly requests it): so tests can assert on it.

2. Add the same Configuration boundaries block to FIXCI_AGENT_PROMPT (askcc/definitions.py:542-596)

   • Insert the new block between the ## Identifying CI Failures section (ends after Categorize the failures at ~line 575) and the ## Fixing Failures heading (~line 576), as a top-level ## Configuration boundaries Markdown section so it gates the entire fix loop.
   • Use identical wording to the develop prompt for consistency, adjusting only the heading style to match the ## Section Markdown format used elsewhere in FIXCI_AGENT_PROMPT.

3. Add unit tests in tests/test_askcc.py

   • Add FIXCI_AGENT_PROMPT to the from askcc.definitions import (...) block at tests/test_askcc.py:13-20.
   • Add a new test class TestConfigBoundaryConstraints (placed after TestReviewprPromptMergeGuard near line 282) with at minimum the following test methods:
     • test_develop_prompt_includes_config_boundaries_heading — asserts Configuration boundaries substring is present in DEVELOP_AGENT_PROMPT.
     • test_develop_prompt_forbids_modifying_linter_config — asserts pyproject.toml, [tool.ruff], [tool.pyright], .pre-commit-config.yaml mentions and the phrase Fix the code, not the config. appear in DEVELOP_AGENT_PROMPT.
     • test_develop_prompt_forbids_inline_suppression_comments — asserts # noqa, # type: ignore, # pyright: ignore, eslint-disable all appear in DEVELOP_AGENT_PROMPT.
     • test_develop_prompt_documents_exceptions — asserts the wording about "issue explicitly requests" and "third-party bug" exception appears in DEVELOP_AGENT_PROMPT.
     • Mirror the four assertions above for FIXCI_AGENT_PROMPT.

4. Verification gate (run from worktree root):

   • uv run pytest — expect all tests to pass, including the new TestConfigBoundaryConstraints class.
   • uv run ruff check — expect no issues.
   • uv run pyright — expect 0 errors.
   • Record results in the PR description under a ## Verification section per the develop prompt's existing requirement.

5. Open PR

   • Branch name: feature/89-config-boundary-prompts (or similar).
   • PR title: :bug: Forbid linter/type-checker config relaxation in develop and fix-ci prompts (closes #89)
   • Body: standard Summary / Verification / Key Flows sections. The change is prompt-string-only, so a Key Flows mermaid diagram can be skipped per the develop prompt guidance for trivial changes.

Risks or open questions

• Wording fidelity: The exact constraint text needs to match between both prompts and the tests. Recommend extracting the block into a module-level constant (e.g. CONFIG_BOUNDARIES_CONSTRAINT) and concatenating it into both prompts so the two stay in sync. This is a small refactor but reduces drift risk.
• Heading style mismatch: DEVELOP_AGENT_PROMPT uses prose-style section headers (Anti-rationalization — do not take these shortcuts:), while FIXCI_AGENT_PROMPT uses Markdown ## Section headings. The plan above accounts for this, but the shared-constant approach (above) needs a small heading-prefix adjustment per prompt.
• No behavioural change at runtime: Only prompt strings sent to downstream Claude agents change. There is no migration, no API change, no settings change.

[monkut]

Plan summary

Updated the issue description with finalized Acceptance Criteria, Dependencies, and Implementation Plan sections, and assigned the issue.

What changed in the description

• Acceptance Criteria — promoted from the original draft (## Acceptance criteria) into a finalized ## Acceptance Criteria checklist. Expanded from 6 → 10 verifiable items, naming the test class, the new import in tests/test_askcc.py, and the three verification commands (uv run pytest, uv run ruff check, uv run pyright).
• Dependencies — new ## Dependencies section. None identified; the change is contained to askcc/definitions.py prompt strings and tests/test_askcc.py assertions, with no runtime/API/schema impact.
• Implementation Plan — new ## Implementation Plan section with five steps: insert the Configuration boundaries block into DEVELOP_AGENT_PROMPT (between the existing Security checklist and PR description sections in askcc/definitions.py:186-285), insert the same block into FIXCI_AGENT_PROMPT (before ## Fixing Failures in askcc/definitions.py:542-596) with ## Section Markdown style to match its surrounding format, add a TestConfigBoundaryConstraints test class plus a FIXCI_AGENT_PROMPT import in tests/test_askcc.py, run the three verification commands, and open the PR.

Risks / open questions

• Drift risk between the two prompts. The constraint text must stay identical in both prompts and in the test assertions. Recommend extracting the block into a module-level constant (e.g. CONFIG_BOUNDARIES_CONSTRAINT) and concatenating it into both prompts. Flagged in the issue's "Risks or open questions" section — happy to take guidance either way; default is to use the shared constant.
• Heading style mismatch. DEVELOP_AGENT_PROMPT uses prose section headers (Anti-rationalization — do not take these shortcuts:) while FIXCI_AGENT_PROMPT uses Markdown ## Section headings. The plan accommodates both; the shared-constant approach above needs a small per-prompt heading prefix.
• No behavioural runtime change. Only the prompt strings sent to downstream Claude agents are modified — no migration, settings change, or public API change.

Ready for /develop once the drift-mitigation question is decided (or proceed with the shared-constant default).

:tokens-used: model: N/A, input: 25, output: 9145

[monkut]

Implementation summary

PR #91 implements the Configuration boundaries constraint described in this issue.

Changes

• askcc/definitions.py:

  • Added a shared CONFIG_BOUNDARIES_BODY constant containing the bullet-list constraint text (forbids modifying pyproject.toml [tool.ruff]/[tool.pyright]/[tool.mypy], .ruff.toml, pyrightconfig.json, mypy.ini, .pre-commit-config.yaml, ESLint/Prettier configs, and adding # noqa / # type: ignore / # pyright: ignore / eslint-disable comments — plus the documented narrow exceptions).
  • Composed the body into DEVELOP_CONFIG_BOUNDARIES (prose-style heading matching the rest of DEVELOP_AGENT_PROMPT) and FIXCI_CONFIG_BOUNDARIES (Markdown ## heading matching FIXCI_AGENT_PROMPT's style).
  • Inserted DEVELOP_CONFIG_BOUNDARIES between the existing Security checklist and PR description sections in DEVELOP_AGENT_PROMPT.
  • Inserted FIXCI_CONFIG_BOUNDARIES between ## Identifying CI Failures and ## Fixing Failures in FIXCI_AGENT_PROMPT so it gates the entire fix loop.

• tests/test_askcc.py:

  • Imported FIXCI_AGENT_PROMPT.
  • Added TestConfigBoundaryConstraints class with 9 assertions covering: the Configuration boundaries heading, the specific config files listed, the forbidden inline suppression comments, the documented exceptions, and the placement of the boundaries block before ## Fixing Failures in the fix-ci prompt.

Drift mitigation

Followed the "shared constant" recommendation from the plan — both prompts derive from the same CONFIG_BOUNDARIES_BODY string, so the wording cannot drift.

Verification

• uv run pytest — 195 passed (9 new tests in TestConfigBoundaryConstraints)
• uv run ruff check — All checks passed
• uv run pyright — 0 errors, 0 warnings

:tokens-used: model: N/A, input: 52, output: 20454