open/linkedin-studio
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Releases 1 Activity

refactor(linkedin-studio): move agent fasit fixtures + tests out of agents/ (v0.5.3)

Browse source 
The 6 long-form-review fasit fixtures (agents/fixtures/*-cases.md) were registered
by Claude Code as junk `fixtures:*` agents because agents/ is scanned recursively.
They are test fixtures, not capabilities. Moved them + their 6 lint tests to
tests/ + tests/fixtures/ and retargeted the 5 agent fasit-refs. Count-neutral
namespace hygiene (ls agents/*.md still 19).

- agents/fixtures/*-cases.md            -> tests/fixtures/        (6)
- agents/__tests__/*-fixture.test.mjs   -> tests/                 (6; ../fixtures -> ./fixtures)
- 5 agent refs ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/agents/fixtures -> /tests/fixtures
- version-sync 0.5.2 -> 0.5.3 (plugin.json / README badge / CLAUDE.md / CHANGELOG)

Verify: fixture-lint 35/35 at new path; render 20/20, hooks 139/139; test-runner 109/0/0.
Reinstall/reload required for the 6 spurious agents to leave the registry.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01CrTb8ktf1XZWEVwgz5MTTo
This commit is contained in:
Kjell Tore Guttormsen 2026-06-24 13:29:57 +02:00
commit 9111f006cc
21 changed files with 24 additions and 14 deletions
Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

52
agents/fixtures/fact-checker-cases.md
View file

@ -1,52 +0,0 @@
# Fact-Checker Fasit Fixture
Three reference claims with known ground truth, used to sanity-check the
`fact-checker` agent. Each case states the claim, the **fasit** (the correct
answer + why), and the expected risk verdict.
- 🟢 = verified true against a primary/credible source
- 🔴 = contradicted by evidence (false), or a high-risk claim asserted without support
- 🟡 = unverifiable from available sources — flagged, never guessed
This file is a *fasit*, not a test harness. The structural lint lives in
`agents/__tests__/fact-checker-fixture.test.mjs`. Whether the agent's live
output actually reproduces these verdicts is `[GATE]`/`[OPERATØR]` — it is
not self-certified.
Each case block below carries exactly one verdict emoji (in its **Verdict**
field); the prose deliberately avoids emoji so the structural lint can read a
single, unambiguous verdict per case.
---
## Case 1 — verifiable true
- **Claim:** The EU AI Act entered into force on 1 August 2024.
- **Verdict:** 🟢
- **Fasit:** True. Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 was published in the Official
Journal on 12 July 2024 and entered into force 20 days later, on
1 August 2024. This is confirmable against the primary source (EUR-Lex)
and the European Commission's own communications. A correct agent run
returns the verified verdict with a primary-source citation.
## Case 2 — verifiable false
- **Claim:** GPT-4 was developed and released by Anthropic.
- **Verdict:** 🔴
- **Fasit:** False. GPT-4 was released by OpenAI (March 2023). Anthropic
develops the Claude model family. The claim is contradicted by both
vendors' primary documentation. A correct agent run returns the high-risk
verdict and names the contradicting source — it must not soften a
contradicted claim to the unverified tier.
## Case 3 — unverifiable
- **Claim:** A Norwegian public-sector agency cut its case-handling time by
exactly 37% in Q3 2025 after deploying an internal AI assistant.
- **Verdict:** 🟡
- **Fasit:** Unverifiable. No named agency, no published report, and no
primary source exists for this precise figure; an internal operational
metric of this kind is not independently confirmable from open sources.
A correct agent run returns the unverified verdict and states explicitly
that the claim cannot be verified — it must not fill the gap by inventing
a plausible source or promoting the claim to the verified tier.