united-workforce/.workflows/solve-issue.yaml

name: "solve-issue"
description: "TDD-driven issue resolution for small, focused changes"
roles:
  planner:
    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
    procedure: |
      On first run (no previous steps):
      1. Read the issue and all comments from Gitea using `tea issues <number> --repo <owner/repo>`
      2. Read CLAUDE.md (or equivalent project conventions file) to understand coding standards
      3. Assess whether the issue has enough information to produce a test spec
      4. If insufficient info: comment on the issue via `tea issues comment <number> "..."` (skip if you already commented), then output status=insufficient_info and terminate
      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 "<markdown content>"` and capture the returned hash
      2. Put the hash in meta.plan
    output: "Output a brief summary of the test spec. The full spec is stored in CAS — put its hash in meta.plan."
    meta:
      type: object
      properties:
        status:
          type: string
          enum: [ready, insufficient_info]
        plan:
          type: string
      required: [status]
  developer:
    description: "TDD implementation per test spec"
    goal: "You are a developer agent. You implement code changes following TDD — write tests first, then implementation."
    capabilities:
      - cursor-agent
    procedure: |
      1. Read the test spec from CAS: `uwf cas get <plan hash>` (find the hash from the latest planner step's meta.plan)
      2. If bounced back from reviewer or tester: read the previous role's output to understand what needs fixing
      3. Write tests first based on the spec
      4. Implement the code to make tests pass
      5. Ensure `npm run build` passes with no errors
      6. Run `npm test` to verify all tests pass
    output: "List all files changed and provide a summary of the implementation."
    meta:
      type: object
      properties:
        status:
          type: string
          enum: [done, failed]
      required: [status]
  reviewer:
    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: |
      Hard checks (must all pass):
      1. `npm run build` — no build errors
      2. `npx biome check` — no lint violations
      3. TypeScript strict mode — no type errors

      Soft checks (review against CLAUDE.md conventions):
      - Functional-first: `function` + `type`, not `class` + `interface`
      - No optional properties (`?:`) — use `T | null`
      - Naming conventions (kebab-case files, PascalCase types, camelCase functions)
      - Module boundary discipline (folder exports via index.ts)
      - No `console.log` (use structured logger)
      - 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: "Approve or reject with detailed comments explaining your decision."
    meta:
      type: object
      properties:
        approved:
          type: boolean
      required: [approved]
  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: |
      1. Run `npm test` for automated test verification
      2. Read the test spec from CAS: `uwf cas get <plan hash>` (find the hash from the latest planner step's meta.plan)
      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 and verification status for each scenario in the spec."
    meta:
      type: object
      properties:
        status:
          type: string
          enum: [passed, fix_code, fix_spec]
      required: [status]
  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: |
      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 --title "..." --description "..."`
         - PR description must link the issue with `Fixes #N`
    output: "Report whether commit and PR creation succeeded. Include the PR URL on success or error log on failure."
    meta:
      type: object
      properties:
        success:
          type: boolean
      required: [success]
conditions:
  insufficientInfo:
    description: "Planner determined there's not enough info to proceed"
    expression: "steps[-1].output.status = 'insufficient_info'"
  ready:
    description: "Planner produced a test spec"
    expression: "steps[-1].output.status = 'ready'"
  devDone:
    description: "Developer finished implementation"
    expression: "steps[-1].output.status = 'done'"
  devFailed:
    description: "Developer failed to implement"
    expression: "steps[-1].output.status = 'failed'"
  notApproved:
    description: "Reviewer rejected the implementation"
    expression: "steps[-1].output.approved = false"
  approved:
    description: "Reviewer approved the implementation"
    expression: "steps[-1].output.approved = true"
  fixCode:
    description: "Tester found code issues"
    expression: "steps[-1].output.status = 'fix_code'"
  fixSpec:
    description: "Tester found spec issues"
    expression: "steps[-1].output.status = 'fix_spec'"
  passed:
    description: "Tester verified all scenarios pass"
    expression: "steps[-1].output.status = 'passed'"
  hookFailed:
    description: "Push hook failed"
    expression: "steps[-1].output.success = false"
  pushSuccess:
    description: "Commit and PR created successfully"
    expression: "steps[-1].output.success = true"
graph:
  $START:
    - role: "planner"
      condition: null
  planner:
    - role: "$END"
      condition: "insufficientInfo"
    - role: "developer"
      condition: "ready"
  developer:
    - role: "$END"
      condition: "devFailed"
    - role: "reviewer"
      condition: "devDone"
  reviewer:
    - role: "developer"
      condition: "notApproved"
    - role: "tester"
      condition: "approved"
  tester:
    - role: "developer"
      condition: "fixCode"
    - role: "planner"
      condition: "fixSpec"
    - role: "committer"
      condition: "passed"
  committer:
    - role: "developer"
      condition: "hookFailed"
    - role: "$END"
      condition: "pushSuccess"