Skip to content

fix(telos): align dashboard engineer cap to 16 (was split 10/16)#1313

Closed
juliedavila wants to merge 1 commit into
danielmiessler:mainfrom
juliedavila:fix/telos-engineer-count
Closed

fix(telos): align dashboard engineer cap to 16 (was split 10/16)#1313
juliedavila wants to merge 1 commit into
danielmiessler:mainfrom
juliedavila:fix/telos-engineer-count

Conversation

@juliedavila

@juliedavila juliedavila commented May 29, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Releases/v5.0.0/.claude/skills/Telos/SKILL.md named two different caps for the dashboard-build engineer fan-out, and each one appeared twice:

  • L3 (description): "up to 16 parallel engineers"
  • L265 (CRITICAL build instruction): "up to 16 parallel engineers"
  • L73 (routing comment): "up to 10 parallel engineers"
  • L383 (Parallel Execution summary): "Up to 10 engineers for dashboard builds"

The CRITICAL directive on L265 is the line that drives build-time behavior, and it says 16, with the description agreeing. I assume 16 as the cap you meant and lines 73/383 as leftovers from an earlier number, so this raises those two to 16. All four references now agree.

If 10 was the ceiling you want here, I can flip it the other way.

L73 (routing comment) and L383 (Parallel Execution summary) said "up to 10"
while the description (L3) and the CRITICAL build instruction (L265) said
"up to 16". The CRITICAL line governs build-time behavior, so 16 is the
operative cap; this raises the two stale references to match.

@asdf8675309 asdf8675309 left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

There are only 10 Engineer's listed in Line 271:280 - so 10 is the correct number of fan out.
L265 says 16
Could add more Engineers if needed.

@danielmiessler

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Owner

Thanks @juliedavila, good eyes on the 10/16 inconsistency. The current Telos skill is aligned at 16 everywhere, so this is fixed in the latest release. The repo is generated from our source tree, so we port and close rather than merge. Closing as already-fixed. Appreciated!

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