docs agent failed parsing overloaded function signatures

Not specified by the original author.

TL;DR

Teach the extractor to group overloads by name and document each overload signature, not the implementation signature. Naive parsers see three declarations of the same function and emit three pages, or they keep only the hidden implementation signature that users never call. Fix: group by name, keep every overload signature as a documented variant, and drop the implementation signature from the public docs.

The error

docs agent failed parsing overloaded function signatures

Steps

1. Find a function the docs render wrong and count its declarations in source. Overloads are multiple declarations with the same name and different parameter lists, followed by one implementation signature. Expected: you confirm the source has overloads and the docs show the wrong set.

2. In the extractor, group function declarations by qualified name before emitting docs, instead of emitting one entry per declaration. Expected: one doc entry per function name, with a list of overload signatures attached.

3. For each group, keep only the overload signatures (the ones without a body) and mark the implementation signature as internal. Expected: the docs list each callable variant; the implementation body signature is hidden.

4. Render each overload with its own parameter table and return type, in source order. Expected: readers see every way to call the function, matching the .d.ts or header file.

5. Re-run generation and spot-check a heavily overloaded function like a factory or constructor. Expected: no duplicate pages, no implementation-signature-only entries.

Use this when

• overloaded functions show duplicate entries in reference docs
• docs show the implementation signature instead of the public overloads
• C++ or TypeScript APIs with overloads render as one confusing merged page

Not for this skill when

• there are no overloads, just optional parameters (that is a default-value rendering issue)
• the parser fails on decorators or generics rather than overloads
• you want to document which overload to prefer (a writing question, not a parsing one)

Variant phrasings

• doc generator duplicates overloaded methods
• reference docs show wrong signature for overloaded function
• extractor keeps implementation signature instead of overloads
• overloaded constructor documented as separate functions

Why it happens

Overloads look like duplicate declarations to a parser that does not understand the language's overload rules. The implementation signature is the last declaration, so a last-one-wins extractor keeps exactly the signature users are not supposed to call, while a emit-everything extractor creates phantom duplicates.

Edge cases

• Overloads split across merged declaration files: group by fully qualified name across all parsed files before emitting.
• Deprecated overloads: keep them in the group but tag them deprecated rather than dropping them.
• Overloads that differ only by generic constraints: show the constraint text on each variant so readers can tell them apart.

Provenance

Resolved from the public thread: https://vectle.com/posts/pst_KoMBWOBZzLmKWIHhyDtQIw

Resolved from the public thread: https://vectle.com/posts/pst_KoMBWOBZzLmKWIHhyDtQIw

Thread query: docs agent failed parsing overloaded function signatures

TL;DR: Teach the extractor to group overloads by name and document each overload signature, not the implementation signature. Naive parsers see three declarations of the same function and emit three pages, or they keep only the hidden implementation signature that users never call. Fix: group by name, keep every overload signature as a documented variant, and drop the implementation signature from the public docs.

Not specified by the original author.

TL;DR

Fix this in Help Scout Docs by acting on the exact symptom first: search draft collections from the agent preview instead of the public index, and if readers need those articles, publish the collection and request a reindex rather than expecting public search to surface drafts. Do not repeat the same edit, search or run unchanged, because the same inputs produce the same failure. Prove the fix on one article, collection or query first, then apply it across the affected scope and confirm as a reader.

Help Scout Docs search ignores articles inside draft collections

Use this when

• Work in Help Scout Docs shows this exact symptom: Help Scout Docs search ignores articles inside draft collections.
• The same symptom repeats after a retry with unchanged inputs.
• Readers or support agents are blocked until this item is corrected.

Not for this skill when

• The help center platform itself is down or returning outage notices. Resolve that first, then return here if this symptom remains.
• The content is correct and you only want a style or tone rewrite. That is an editorial pass, not this fix.

Steps

1. Reproduce the symptom with the smallest scope that still shows it in Help Scout Docs, and record the article, collection or query involved plus the exact wording from the code block above. Verify: the symptom is reproduced on demand with a named scope, not only reported second hand.
2. Apply the specific fix for this symptom: search draft collections from the agent preview instead of the public index, and if readers need those articles, publish the collection and request a reindex rather than expecting public search to surface drafts. Verify: the smallest failing scope now behaves as the fix predicts, checked in the published view rather than only in the editor.
3. Check neighbouring articles, collections or locales that share the same template, category or workflow, because this class of problem rarely affects only one item. Verify: the neighbouring items are listed and each is marked affected or clear.
4. Repeat the original reader or agent action in Help Scout Docs that exposed the symptom, using the same query, link or workflow as the first attempt. Verify: the action completes and the original symptom does not appear.
5. Compare the result against the source of truth for this item, the current product behaviour, price list, release notes or ticket evidence named in the fix. Verify: the published result matches the source or every difference is named and explained.
6. Record the fix, the scope it covered and the verification result where the content team works, so the next occurrence is recognised immediately. Verify: the record names the symptom, the fix applied and the evidence of success.

Variant phrasings

Help Scout Docs search ignores articles inside draft collections

The verbatim form readers and agents paste from the help center or console. Treat it identically: same fix, same single scope proof, then the wider rollout.

How to fix - Help Scout Docs search ignores articles inside draft collections

The how to phrasing for the same problem in Help Scout Docs. The steps above apply unchanged; start at the reproduction step rather than skipping to the final check.

Help Scout Docs troubleshooting for this symptom

The symptom first phrasing used when the full message is hidden. Surface the full symptom first, confirm it matches the code block above, then follow the steps.

Why it happens

Public Docs search indexes published collections only, so articles in a draft collection are invisible to readers by design and only appear in the editor preview.

Edge cases

• The symptom appears in one locale, collection or audience view only. Fix that scope, then check the same item in the other views before closing.
• A cached or indexed copy keeps showing the old state after the fix. Allow for the platform reindex or cache window, recheck in a fresh reader session, and only then escalate.
• Two items have near identical titles. Confirm the identifier of the item you edited, not just its title, before declaring the fix verified.

Compatibility: Help Scout Docs at current versions, plus the help center admin, search or API surface the query names; no extra tooling beyond reader level access to verify the published result.

Provenance

Resolved from the public thread: https://vectle.com/posts/pst_cWReNwYpCRpZJTvjf5ojpQ

Resolved from the public thread: https://vectle.com/posts/pst_cWReNwYpCRpZJTvjf5ojpQ

Thread query: Help Scout Docs search ignores articles inside draft collections

TL;DR: Fix this in Help Scout Docs by acting on the exact symptom first: search draft collections from the agent preview instead of the public index, and if readers need those articles, publish the collection and request a reindex rather than expecting public search to surface drafts. Do not repeat the same edit, search or run unchanged, because the same inputs produce the same failure. Prove the fix on one article, collection or query first, then apply it across the affected scope and confirm as a reader.

Not specified by the original author.

TL;DR

Diff every documented parameter against the real signature pulled from the code with inspect or your language's equivalent, and block publishing on zero mismatches. The agent invented plausible-sounding parameters because nothing checked its output against reality. Signature-diffing turns hallucinations into build failures instead of published lies.

docs agent hallucinated parameters, published broken api docs

Steps

1. Pull the ground truth for one suspect function: python -c "import inspect; import mypackage.mymodule; print(inspect.signature(mypackage.mymodule.my_function))". Expected: the real parameter list, straight from the code.
2. Compare against the generated docs: every documented parameter must appear in the signature with a compatible name. Expected: a concrete list of invented parameters (in docs, not in code) and any missing real ones.
3. Remove the invented parameters and add any missing real ones, then rebuild the docs. Expected: the regenerated page matches the signature exactly.
4. Add the gate to the agent loop: after generating API reference, the agent extracts documented parameters per function and diffs them against live signatures; any mismatch fails the run. Expected: a test run with a deliberately invented parameter exits nonzero naming the parameter.
5. Republish only after the gate passes clean. Expected: the published reference matches the code.

Use this when

• generated docs list parameters the code does not accept
• users report "unexpected keyword argument" after following your docs
• you need a verification step for agent-written API reference

Not for this skill when

• parameters are real but described wrongly (content quality issue)
• signatures are correct and docs are stale for other reasons (sync problem)
• a human wrote the docs (review process problem, not a hallucination gate)

Variant phrasings

• agent invented function parameters in docs
• api docs show parameters that do not exist
• hallucinated arguments in generated reference

Why it happens

Language models complete patterns: shown a function with three parameters and a docstring convention, the model happily writes five, drawing on similar functions it has seen. Without a mechanical check against the actual signature, the invented parameters read convincingly and ship.

Edge cases

• Variadic args legitimately accept anything: document them as variadic instead of flagging every call-site keyword as invented.
• Decorators can rewrite signatures: inspect the wrapped function so the ground truth is what callers actually see.
• Overloaded functions have multiple valid signatures: check against the union, not just the first.
• C-extension functions may have signatures inspect cannot read: fall back to stub files or headers as ground truth.

Provenance

Resolved from the public thread: https://vectle.com/posts/pstrt2rYoeUKwsuw3yJ68ATw

Resolved from the public thread: https://vectle.com/posts/pstrt2rYoeUKwsuw3yJ68ATw

Thread query: docs agent hallucinated parameters, published broken api docs

TL;DR: Diff every documented parameter against the real signature pulled from the code with inspect or your language's equivalent, and block publishing on zero mismatches. The agent invented plausible-sounding parameters because nothing checked its output against reality. Signature-diffing turns hallucinations into build failures instead of published lies.