Skip to content

fix(pstack): allow model invocation for unslop (0.15.3) - #379

Closed
poteto wants to merge 2 commits into
mainfrom
benny/pstack-unslop-model-invocation-0fd4
Closed

poteto wants to merge 2 commits into
mainfrom
benny/pstack-unslop-model-invocation-0fd4

Conversation

@poteto

@poteto poteto commented Sep 15, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

Why

The unslop description says "Must always apply." The frontmatter said the opposite. disable-model-invocation: true limited the skill to an explicit /unslop call, so the agent could not select it on its own when it wrote prose. PR #300 added the flag to five skills at once. This PR removes it from unslop only.

Scope

  • pstack/skills/unslop/SKILL.md. Remove the disable-model-invocation: true line. name and description are unchanged. The body is unchanged.
  • pstack/.cursor-plugin/plugin.json. Version 0.15.2 to 0.15.3.
  • Nothing else. The flag on every other pstack skill stays. No README line claims unslop is slash-only, so the README is unchanged.

Blast Radius

Two lines. After the plugin updates, the agent can auto-select unslop from its description. /unslop still works as before. Skills that cite unslop by name (poteto-mode, technical-writing, teach, recall, blast-radius, show-me-your-work, automate-me) are not affected.

Verification

  • rg -n 'disable-model-invocation' pstack/skills/unslop/SKILL.md returns nothing.
  • plugin.json reports 0.15.3.
  • node scripts/validate-plugins.mjs prints "All plugins validated successfully." with ajv and ajv-formats installed as the CI workflow installs them.
  • git diff --stat origin/main...HEAD is two files, one insertion, two deletions.
Open in Web Open in Cursor 

cursoragent and others added 2 commits September 15, 2026 13:58
Remove disable-model-invocation from the unslop frontmatter. The
description says the skill must always apply, but the flag limited it
to an explicit /unslop call. The agent can now select unslop on its own
when it writes prose. Name and description are unchanged. No other
skill's flag changes.

Co-authored-by: lauren <poteto@users.noreply.github.com>
Patch release for the unslop model-invocation fix.

Co-authored-by: lauren <poteto@users.noreply.github.com>
@cursor

cursor Bot commented Sep 18, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Superseded by #396. That PR cherry-picks this PR's unslop commit, which removes disable-model-invocation: true from pstack/skills/unslop/SKILL.md. It ships the fix with the orchestrate playbook removal as 0.15.3. Close this PR when #396 merges.

@Wsr-7

Wsr-7 commented Sep 24, 2026 •

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Superseded by #396. That PR cherry-picks this PR's unslop commit, which removes disable-model-invocation: true from pstack/skills/unslop/SKILL.md. It ships the fix with the orchestrate playbook removal as 0.15.3. Close this PR when #396 merges.

This treatment is as strange as adding disable-model-invocation to unslop. It was originally expected that this PR would be replaced by #396, but #396 has been closed. So which is the final repair PR? -- Delete only one line of simple switches. Cursor's issue management looks very chaotic🤔.

fmal added a commit to fmal/dotfiles that referenced this pull request Sep 27, 2026
file-pr now writes the title and body with technical-writing, then
applies unslop, and runs code-simplifier over the diff before commit.
The GOOD examples now pass both skills.

Local exception in technical-writing and unslop: drop
`disable-model-invocation: true`. The Claude Code Skill tool refuses a
skill with that flag unless the user typed its name this turn. A skill
body never counts as typed, so file-pr could not reach either skill.
Upstream PR cursor/plugins#379 proposes the same change for unslop.

Also drop "Must always apply" from the unslop description. With the
flag gone, that sentence would load the full skill on nearly every
turn.
nexxeln added a commit to nexxeln/oc-pstack that referenced this pull request Oct 2, 2026
Adopts cursor/plugins#379 by poteto as a port patch until it merges upstream.
@poteto poteto closed this Oct 3, 2026
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants