docs: normalize the Claude Code user reference to "user"#104
Open
taminomara wants to merge 1 commit into
Open
Conversation
The suite referred to the person running a skill inconsistently — mostly
"the user", but a minority of skills, shared reference files, one agent
definition, and docs said "the operator", sometimes mixing both terms for
the same referent in one sentence. Standardize on "user" for the
interactive person and for user-supplied material.
- Trust-class vocabulary in the shared evidence-rule (x3) and
readability-rule (x4) reference files and their doc mirror
(docs/evidence.md): "operator-supplied/-provided/context" -> "user-*".
- research skill + report template and the research-analyst agent
definition (which stamped the trust-class token into every report's
Sources registry): material vocabulary -> "user".
- Interactive references in issue-triage, work-items-to-linear, and
code-review's $focus_areas.
- code-overview denoted the audience of the produced overview, so it
becomes that skill's established "reader", not "user".
Preserve "operator" where it names a different referent: production/ops
operators in code-review severity examples and the kill-switch template,
the runbook incident-follower, Kubernetes / External Secrets Operators,
the OpenShift {operator} path variable, the plugin-builder author-vantage
"operator", and the established "operator-facing documentation" framing.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01QiYf8oTKFYcDhpsFEAaduk
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
What & why
Han referred to the person running a skill inconsistently — mostly "the user", but a minority of skills, shared reference files, one agent definition, and docs used "the operator". Several places mixed both terms for the same referent in a single sentence (e.g.
issue-triage,code-review's$focus_areas, theresearch-analystreport registry). This normalizes the interactive person — and user-supplied material — to "user".Scope
Normalized to "user" / "user-supplied/-provided/context":
evidence-rule.md(×3),readability-rule.md(×4), and their doc mirrordocs/evidence.mdresearchskill + report template, and theresearch-analystagent definition (it stampedprovided (operator-supplied…)into every research report's Sources registry)issue-triage,work-items-to-linear, andcode-review's$focus_areasNormalized to "reader" (that skill's established audience term, not "user"):
code-overviewSKILL + overview template — the term denoted the audience of the produced overview, a role that skill already calls "reader"Deliberately preserved (a genuinely different referent):
code-reviewseverity examples and the kill-switch templaterunbookincident-follower, Kubernetes / External Secrets Operators, the OpenShift{operator}path variableVerification
Two review agents ran against the diff:
research-analystagent definition and thedocs/evidence.mdTL;DR as remaining misses (one referent, two terms); both fixed in this branch. A final case-insensitive sweep confirms every remaining "operator" is a deliberately-preserved sense.20 files, 43 insertions, 43 deletions.
🤖 Generated with Claude Code
https://claude.ai/code/session_01QiYf8oTKFYcDhpsFEAaduk