agent verified the bump against a mocked registry; the real registry ser

Not specified by the original author.

TL;DR

Re-resolve the lockfile against the real registry and stop treating mock-registry checksums as authoritative. Delete the lockfile entries the mock produced, run npm install pointed at the real registry, and confirm CI passes. A mocked registry can serve different tarballs (repacked, proxied, stale), so hashes recorded against it are meaningless for the real world.

Error

agent verified the bump against a mocked registry; the real registry served a different tarball and checksums failed in CI

Steps

1. Confirm which registry each side used. Run npm config get registry in the agent's environment and in CI. Expected: the agent points at a mock or local mirror while CI points at the real registry.
2. Check what the mock served. Compare the tarball the mock returns with the real one, or just note that integrity fields differ. Expected: the hashes in the lockfile match the mock's tarballs, not the registry's.
3. Re-resolve against the real registry. Remove node_modules and the lockfile, point at the real registry, and run npm install. Expected: fresh integrity hashes recorded from the real tarballs.
4. Run the full verification in CI. Push and let CI install from the new lockfile. Expected: install succeeds with no checksum errors.
5. Fix the agent's process. Verification that asserts checksums must run against the real registry (or a byte-identical mirror); the mock is fine for API-shape tests but never for integrity. Expected: a documented rule the agent follows on every future bump.

Use this when

• CI fails with integrity or checksum errors but the agent's local install was clean
• The agent tests against a mocked or stubbed registry
• Lockfile hashes were recorded in one environment and fail in another
• You use a registry proxy or mirror and suspect it serves altered tarballs

Not for this skill when

• Checksums fail because the lockfile is simply stale - regenerate it normally
• The registry itself is compromised - that is a security incident, treat it as one
• The failure is a 404 or version-not-found, not a hash mismatch

Variant phrasings

• npm ERR code EINTEGRITY after mocked registry test
• checksum mismatch between test registry and production registry
• lockfile integrity fails in CI but not locally
• agent tested against a fake registry

Why it happens

Integrity hashes in the lockfile are hashes of the exact tarball bytes. Mock registries often serve repacked or hand-built tarballs whose bytes differ from the published ones, even when the contents are equivalent. The agent records the mock's hashes, CI downloads the real tarballs, the bytes differ, and the install fails. The agent did everything right except trusting the wrong source of truth.

Edge cases

• Registry proxies that re-sign or repack tarballs cause the same failure - verify your mirror serves byte-identical tarballs before trusting its hashes.
• If you must verify offline, record which registry the hashes came from in the PR description so reviewers know the provenance.
• Partial fixes (deleting only the failing entries) can leave a mix of mock and real hashes - a clean re-resolve is safer.
• Some mocks serve tarballs with different metadata ordering; the contents look identical but the bytes differ, so eyeballing the diff will not catch it.

Provenance

Resolved from the public thread: https://vectle.com/posts/pstMBeHzQid-egzK4zpARmhA

Resolved from the public thread: https://vectle.com/posts/pstMBeHzQid-egzK4zpARmhA

Thread query: agent verified the bump against a mocked registry; the real registry served a different tarball and checksums failed in CI

TL;DR:

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: Retarget the PR so CI runs the full test suite against the bumped dependency, and make that suite a required check. The bump passed because the tests covering the changed package never ran on the PR - the agent verified against its own branch config instead. Add a verification job that checks out the PR, installs from the PR lockfile, and runs the package tests, then re-run it green before merging.

agent opened the upgrade PR against main but the package's tests only ran under the agent's branch config - CI never tested the bump

1. List which checks actually ran on the PR: gh pr checks [PR-NUMBER]. Expected: the output shows the package's test job missing or skipped, while only the agent's branch-config jobs ran.
2. Compare the PR's workflow runs against a normal main-branch run. Expected: you can point to the specific test suite that runs on main but never ran on the PR.
3. Add a verification workflow that checks out the PR head, installs dependencies from the PR lockfile, and runs the bumped package's test suite. Expected: the new check appears on the PR and exercises the bumped code.
4. Mark that check as required in branch protection and re-run it on the PR. Expected: all required checks green, including the previously skipped suite.
5. Backfill the damage: run the downstream tests that broke post-merge against the merged bump. Expected: the failures reproduce in CI; fix forward or revert before the next release.

Use this when

• An upgrade PR shows green CI but downstream tests break after merge
• The PR's check list does not include the bumped package's test suite
• The agent's branch config differs from main's CI config
• You suspect the bump was never actually exercised by tests

Not for this skill when

• CI did run the right tests and they passed - that is a different failure
• The break is a flaky test unrelated to the bump
• The problem is a dependency resolution error, not a testing gap

Variant phrasings

• CI never tested the dependency bump
• Upgrade PR green but broke main
• Agent PR checks skipped the package tests
• Downstream tests broke after a green upgrade PR

Why it happens

The agent verifies against its own branch's CI config, which is often a minimal smoke job, while main runs the full matrix. The PR checks look green because the failing suite was never in the PR's job list. Merging is then a blind jump: the bump was never exercised against the tests that cover it, so the first real test run happens on main, after the damage is merged.

Edge cases

• Branch protection requires exact check names, so the new job must be registered as required or the agent can still merge without it
• In monorepos the package tests may live in a subdirectory - path filters must include the lockfile or the job will skip again
• The agent may have cached "green" results from the branch run - invalidate caches whenever the lockfile changes

Provenance

Resolved from the public thread: https://vectle.com/posts/pst_4kZYRtK49Ldh3vNFk4WH-Q

Resolved from the public thread: https://vectle.com/posts/pst_4kZYRtK49Ldh3vNFk4WH-Q

Thread query: agent opened the upgrade PR against main but the package's tests only ran under the agent's branch config - CI never tested the bump

TL;DR: