Statement

Selection

The configuration of the planner agent explicitly prevents code changes from being produced in the same conversation.

Yes*

The planner agent is violating its allowed tools by attempting internet access, and removing search will resolve the issue.

No

Adding a repository-level .github/copilot-instructions.md file that requires the agent to run tests and linters will mitigate the stalled pull request that has a failing CI anti-pattern.

Yes

*Interpreting “code changes” as direct file modifications by the correctly loaded planner, not code suggestions printed in chat or changes after switching agents.

The intended first selection is Yes: the planner has a read-oriented tool set, explicit planning-only instructions, and a handoff that does not automatically submit the implementation prompt. When this profile is correctly loaded and enforced, the planner lacks an editing tool for direct file modification. However, this does not prevent it from displaying proposed code in a response, nor does it permanently restrict another agent subsequently selected in the conversation. Unexpected file edits warrant checking the active profile and actual tool availability.

The second selection is No. The configured fetch capability permits network retrieval, so an internet-access attempt does not itself demonstrate tool misuse. Furthermore, firewall failures in the GitHub coding agent environment must be investigated in that environment; removing local search capability does not address their cause.

The third selection is Yes because repository instructions can specify the commands and expectations for testing and linting, helping reduce pull requests that fail CI. This mitigation does not independently resolve blocked network dependencies.

Relevant curriculum topics are planning/execution boundaries and diagnosis of agent anti-patterns.