fix(validate): support enum-based multi-exit and upgrade json-cas to 0.5.3
Two fixes for 'uwf thread start solve-issue' failures:
1. json-cas 0.5.2 (npm) was missing oneOf in ALLOWED_SCHEMA_KEYS.
Published json-cas 0.5.3 with the fix, bumped all packages to ^0.5.3.
2. Semantic validator only recognized oneOf-based multi-exit schemas.
Roles using $status with enum (e.g. enum: [approved, rejected]) were
incorrectly treated as single-exit. Added isEnumMultiExit() support.
Changes:
- validate-semantic.ts: isEnumMultiExit(), getEnumStatuses(), checkSingleExitMustache()
- All package.json: @uncaged/json-cas ^0.5.2 → ^0.5.3
- validate-semantic.test.ts: 5 new enum multi-exit tests (Suite 3b)
- solve-issue-tea-worktree.test.ts: updated for current workflow structure
小橘 🍊
This commit is contained in:
+175
-69
@@ -1,92 +1,198 @@
|
||||
name: "solve-issue"
|
||||
description: "End-to-end issue resolution"
|
||||
description: "TDD-driven issue resolution for small, focused changes. Loop protection relies on engine maxRounds."
|
||||
roles:
|
||||
planner:
|
||||
description: "Creates implementation plan"
|
||||
goal: "You are a planning agent. You analyze issues and create implementation plans grounded in the actual codebase."
|
||||
description: "Analyzes issue and outputs a TDD test spec"
|
||||
goal: "You are a planning agent. You analyze Gitea issues and produce a TDD test specification that downstream roles will implement and verify."
|
||||
capabilities:
|
||||
- issue-analysis
|
||||
- planning
|
||||
- file-read
|
||||
- shell
|
||||
procedure: |
|
||||
1. Locate the code repository:
|
||||
- Check if the current working directory is the repo (look for package.json, .git, etc.)
|
||||
- If the task mentions a repo URL, clone it first.
|
||||
- If this is a new project, create the repo and note the path.
|
||||
2. Explore the codebase — read the relevant source files mentioned in the issue. Understand the current architecture, types, and conventions (check CLAUDE.md, CONTRIBUTING.md, .cursor/rules/).
|
||||
3. Identify which files need changes and what the changes should be, with specific code references.
|
||||
4. Output the plan with:
|
||||
- `repoPath`: absolute path to the repository root
|
||||
- `plan`: detailed implementation plan with file paths and code references
|
||||
- `steps`: concrete action items for the developer
|
||||
output: |
|
||||
Provide repoPath, plan summary, and steps in the frontmatter.
|
||||
The plan MUST reference actual file paths and code structures you found by reading the source.
|
||||
Do NOT guess — if you haven't read a file, read it before referencing it.
|
||||
On first run (no previous steps):
|
||||
1. Read the issue and all comments from Gitea using `tea issues <number> -r <owner/repo>`
|
||||
2. Look for project conventions files (CLAUDE.md, CONTRIBUTING.md, .cursor/rules/) in the repo
|
||||
3. Assess whether the issue has enough information to produce a test spec
|
||||
4. If insufficient info: comment on the issue via `echo "..." | tea comment <number> -r <owner/repo>` (skip if you already commented), then output $status=insufficient_info
|
||||
5. If sufficient: produce a detailed TDD test spec in markdown covering all scenarios
|
||||
|
||||
On subsequent runs (bounced back by tester with fix_spec):
|
||||
1. Read the tester's output from the previous step to understand what's wrong with the spec
|
||||
2. Revise the test spec accordingly
|
||||
|
||||
After producing the test spec:
|
||||
1. Store it via `uwf cas put-text "<markdown content>"` and capture the returned hash
|
||||
2. Put the hash in frontmatter.plan (required when $status=ready)
|
||||
3. Set repoPath to the absolute path of the repository root
|
||||
output: "Output a brief summary of the test spec. Set $status to ready (with plan hash and repoPath) or insufficient_info."
|
||||
frontmatter:
|
||||
type: object
|
||||
properties:
|
||||
$status:
|
||||
enum: ["_"]
|
||||
repoPath:
|
||||
type: string
|
||||
plan:
|
||||
type: string
|
||||
required: [$status, repoPath, plan]
|
||||
oneOf:
|
||||
- properties:
|
||||
$status: { const: "ready" }
|
||||
plan: { type: string }
|
||||
repoPath: { type: string }
|
||||
required: [$status, plan, repoPath]
|
||||
- properties:
|
||||
$status: { const: "insufficient_info" }
|
||||
required: [$status]
|
||||
developer:
|
||||
description: "Implements code changes"
|
||||
goal: "You are a developer agent. You implement code changes according to plans."
|
||||
description: "TDD implementation per test spec"
|
||||
goal: "You are a developer agent. You implement code changes following TDD — write tests first, then implementation."
|
||||
capabilities:
|
||||
- file-edit
|
||||
- shell
|
||||
- testing
|
||||
- coding
|
||||
procedure: |
|
||||
1. Read the planner's output to get the repoPath and implementation plan.
|
||||
2. cd to the repoPath before making any changes.
|
||||
3. Create a feature branch from the default branch.
|
||||
4. Implement the plan — write code, tests, and ensure existing tests pass.
|
||||
5. Run the project's lint/check command (e.g. `bun run check`, `npm run lint`) and fix ALL errors before proceeding. Build and lint must pass cleanly.
|
||||
6. Commit your changes with a descriptive message referencing the issue.
|
||||
output: "List all files changed and provide a summary of the implementation."
|
||||
IMPORTANT: Always work in a git worktree, NEVER modify the main working directory directly.
|
||||
The repo path and other details are provided in your task prompt.
|
||||
|
||||
Before starting any work, set up an isolated worktree:
|
||||
1. cd into the repo path provided in your task prompt
|
||||
2. `git fetch origin` to get latest refs
|
||||
3. First time (no existing branch):
|
||||
- `git worktree add .worktrees/fix/<issue-number>-<short-slug> -b fix/<issue-number>-<short-slug> origin/main`
|
||||
- `cd .worktrees/fix/<issue-number>-<short-slug> && bun install`
|
||||
4. If bounced back from reviewer or tester (branch already exists):
|
||||
- cd into the existing worktree under `.worktrees/fix/<issue-number>-<short-slug>`
|
||||
- `git fetch origin && git rebase origin/main`
|
||||
5. ALL subsequent work must happen inside the worktree directory.
|
||||
|
||||
Then implement TDD:
|
||||
6. Read the test spec from CAS: `uwf cas get <plan hash>` (find the hash from the planner's output in your task prompt)
|
||||
7. If bounced back from reviewer or tester: read the previous role's feedback in your task prompt
|
||||
8. Write tests first based on the spec
|
||||
9. Implement the code to make tests pass
|
||||
10. Ensure `bun run build` passes with no errors
|
||||
11. Run `bun test` to verify all tests pass
|
||||
|
||||
If you cannot complete the implementation (e.g. the issue is too complex, blocked by external factors,
|
||||
or repeated attempts fail), set $status=failed with a reason.
|
||||
output: "List all files changed and provide a summary. Set $status to done (with branch/worktree), or failed (with reason)."
|
||||
frontmatter:
|
||||
type: object
|
||||
properties:
|
||||
$status:
|
||||
enum: ["_"]
|
||||
filesChanged:
|
||||
type: array
|
||||
items:
|
||||
type: string
|
||||
summary:
|
||||
type: string
|
||||
required: [$status, filesChanged, summary]
|
||||
oneOf:
|
||||
- properties:
|
||||
$status: { const: "done" }
|
||||
branch: { type: string }
|
||||
worktree: { type: string }
|
||||
required: [$status, branch, worktree]
|
||||
- properties:
|
||||
$status: { const: "failed" }
|
||||
reason: { type: string }
|
||||
required: [$status, reason]
|
||||
reviewer:
|
||||
description: "Reviews code changes"
|
||||
goal: "You are a code reviewer. You review implementations for correctness and quality."
|
||||
description: "Code standards compliance check"
|
||||
goal: "You are a code reviewer. You verify code standards compliance — NOT functionality (that's the tester's job)."
|
||||
capabilities:
|
||||
- code-review
|
||||
- static-analysis
|
||||
procedure: |
|
||||
1. Run hard checks first — build (`bun run build` or equivalent) and lint (`bunx biome check .` or equivalent) MUST pass with zero errors. If they fail, reject immediately.
|
||||
2. Then review code quality: correctness, edge cases, naming, project conventions (CLAUDE.md), and test coverage.
|
||||
3. Only reject for hard check failures or genuine correctness/security issues. Style suggestions alone should not block approval.
|
||||
output: "Approve or reject with detailed comments explaining your decision."
|
||||
The worktree path is provided in your task prompt. cd into it first.
|
||||
|
||||
Before reviewing, verify the git branch:
|
||||
1. Run `git branch --show-current` — confirm the branch name references the issue number being worked on
|
||||
2. If the branch doesn't correspond to the issue, flag it in your output and reject
|
||||
|
||||
Then perform code review:
|
||||
Hard checks (must all pass):
|
||||
3. `bun run build` — no build errors
|
||||
4. `bunx biome check` — no lint violations
|
||||
5. TypeScript strict mode — no type errors
|
||||
|
||||
Soft checks (review against project conventions if CLAUDE.md / .cursor/rules exist):
|
||||
- Naming conventions, module boundaries, code style
|
||||
- No `console.log` in production code
|
||||
- No dynamic imports in production code
|
||||
|
||||
Only review standards compliance. Do NOT test functionality.
|
||||
If rejecting, you MUST explain the specific reason in your output.
|
||||
output: "Explain your decision with specific file/line references. Set $status to approved (with branch/worktree) or rejected (with comments)."
|
||||
frontmatter:
|
||||
type: object
|
||||
properties:
|
||||
$status:
|
||||
enum: ["approved", "rejected"]
|
||||
comments:
|
||||
type: string
|
||||
required: [$status, comments]
|
||||
oneOf:
|
||||
- properties:
|
||||
$status: { const: "approved" }
|
||||
branch: { type: string }
|
||||
worktree: { type: string }
|
||||
required: [$status, branch, worktree]
|
||||
- properties:
|
||||
$status: { const: "rejected" }
|
||||
comments: { type: string }
|
||||
worktree: { type: string }
|
||||
required: [$status, comments, worktree]
|
||||
tester:
|
||||
description: "Functional correctness verification"
|
||||
goal: "You are a tester agent. You verify that the implementation correctly satisfies every scenario in the test spec."
|
||||
capabilities:
|
||||
- testing
|
||||
procedure: |
|
||||
The worktree path is provided in your task prompt. cd into it first.
|
||||
|
||||
1. Run `bun test` for automated test verification
|
||||
2. Read the test spec from CAS: `uwf cas get <plan hash>` (find the hash from the planner step in the thread history)
|
||||
3. Verify each scenario in the spec is covered and passing
|
||||
4. Determine outcome:
|
||||
- passed: all scenarios verified, tests pass
|
||||
- fix_code: tests fail or implementation doesn't match spec → send back to developer
|
||||
- fix_spec: the spec itself is wrong or incomplete → send back to planner
|
||||
output: "Report test results per scenario. Set $status to passed (with branch/worktree), fix_code (with report), or fix_spec (with report)."
|
||||
frontmatter:
|
||||
oneOf:
|
||||
- properties:
|
||||
$status: { const: "passed" }
|
||||
branch: { type: string }
|
||||
worktree: { type: string }
|
||||
required: [$status, branch, worktree]
|
||||
- properties:
|
||||
$status: { const: "fix_code" }
|
||||
report: { type: string }
|
||||
required: [$status, report]
|
||||
- properties:
|
||||
$status: { const: "fix_spec" }
|
||||
report: { type: string }
|
||||
required: [$status, report]
|
||||
committer:
|
||||
description: "Commits and creates PR"
|
||||
goal: "You are a committer agent. You create a clean commit and push a PR linking the original issue."
|
||||
capabilities: []
|
||||
procedure: |
|
||||
The worktree path, branch name, and repo info are provided in your task prompt.
|
||||
cd into the worktree first.
|
||||
|
||||
Note: You inherit the developer's worktree and branch. Do NOT create a new branch.
|
||||
1. Stage all changes: `git add -A`
|
||||
2. Commit with a descriptive message referencing the issue: `git commit -m "type: description\n\nFixes #N"`
|
||||
3. Push the branch: `git push -u origin <branch-name>`
|
||||
- If push hook fails: capture the error log in your output, mark hook_failed
|
||||
4. On push success: create a PR via `tea pr create --repo <owner/repo> --title "..." --description "..."`
|
||||
- Extract owner/repo from: `git remote get-url origin | sed 's/.*[:/]\([^/]*\/[^.]*\).*/\1/'`
|
||||
- PR description must include: What / Why / Changes / Ref sections, with `Fixes #N` in Ref
|
||||
- On tea failure: capture stderr/stdout, include PR details for manual creation, mark hook_failed
|
||||
5. After PR creation, clean up the worktree:
|
||||
- cd to the repo root (parent of .worktrees)
|
||||
- `git worktree remove <worktree-path>`
|
||||
output: "Include PR URL on success or error log on failure. Set $status to committed (with prUrl) or hook_failed (with error)."
|
||||
frontmatter:
|
||||
oneOf:
|
||||
- properties:
|
||||
$status: { const: "committed" }
|
||||
prUrl: { type: string }
|
||||
required: [$status, prUrl]
|
||||
- properties:
|
||||
$status: { const: "hook_failed" }
|
||||
error: { type: string }
|
||||
required: [$status, error]
|
||||
graph:
|
||||
$START:
|
||||
_: { role: "planner", prompt: "Analyze the issue described in the task and produce a detailed implementation plan." }
|
||||
_: { role: "planner", prompt: "Analyze the issue and produce an implementation plan." }
|
||||
planner:
|
||||
_: { role: "developer", prompt: "Implement the plan from the planner. Write code, tests, and ensure existing tests pass." }
|
||||
insufficient_info: { role: "$END", prompt: "Insufficient information to proceed; end the workflow." }
|
||||
ready: { role: "developer", prompt: "Implement the TDD test spec (CAS hash: {{{plan}}}) in repo {{{repoPath}}}." }
|
||||
developer:
|
||||
_: { role: "reviewer", prompt: "Review the developer's implementation against the plan for correctness and quality." }
|
||||
done: { role: "reviewer", prompt: "Review branch {{{branch}}} at {{{worktree}}} for code standards compliance." }
|
||||
failed: { role: "$END", prompt: "Developer failed: {{{reason}}}. Ending workflow." }
|
||||
reviewer:
|
||||
approved: { role: "$END", prompt: "The review passed. Complete the workflow." }
|
||||
rejected: { role: "developer", prompt: "The reviewer rejected your implementation. Read their feedback and fix the issues: {{{comments}}}" }
|
||||
rejected: { role: "developer", prompt: "Reviewer rejected: {{{comments}}}. Fix the issues in repo {{{worktree}}}." }
|
||||
approved: { role: "tester", prompt: "Review passed. Run tests on branch {{{branch}}} at {{{worktree}}}." }
|
||||
tester:
|
||||
fix_code: { role: "developer", prompt: "Tests found code issues: {{{report}}}. Fix and re-submit." }
|
||||
fix_spec: { role: "planner", prompt: "Tests found spec issues: {{{report}}}. Revise the test spec." }
|
||||
passed: { role: "committer", prompt: "All tests passed. Commit and push branch {{{branch}}} from {{{worktree}}}." }
|
||||
committer:
|
||||
hook_failed: { role: "developer", prompt: "Push hook failed: {{{error}}}. Fix and re-submit." }
|
||||
committed: { role: "$END", prompt: "PR created: {{{prUrl}}}. Workflow complete." }
|
||||
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user