From de832efac6eb6a1c269e02155964bf4f38148f61 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: toki Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2026 12:56:38 +0900 Subject: [PATCH] sync: agent-ops from agentic-framework v1.1.124 --- agent-ops/.version | 2 +- agent-ops/skills/common/code-review/SKILL.md | 13 +++++++------ agent-ops/skills/common/plan/SKILL.md | 1 + 3 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) diff --git a/agent-ops/.version b/agent-ops/.version index b176d89..59aa759 100644 --- a/agent-ops/.version +++ b/agent-ops/.version @@ -1 +1 @@ -1.1.122 +1.1.124 diff --git a/agent-ops/skills/common/code-review/SKILL.md b/agent-ops/skills/common/code-review/SKILL.md index f97d84f..010b23b 100644 --- a/agent-ops/skills/common/code-review/SKILL.md +++ b/agent-ops/skills/common/code-review/SKILL.md @@ -94,6 +94,7 @@ Review routing rules: - Route reviews so a normal mixed backlog can use both lanes substantially. This is not a per-review quota; neither `local` nor `cloud` is the default catch-all. - `local`: first-pass and review-detectable work, including multi-file or API/call-site reviews when scope is bounded and verification can be rerun or reasoned about locally. - `local-G01` through `local-G10` and `cloud-G01` through `cloud-G10` are valid. Do not treat high grade as an implicit cloud route; grade is scoped within the selected lane. +- Repair non-behavioral review artifact drift during review instead of failing solely for it when implementation correctness, tests, and contracts remain judgeable. - `cloud`: reviews requiring stronger-than-local judgment or evidence recovery: weak verification that review cannot compensate for, security/auth, storage/migration, concurrency, protocol/schema, cross-domain behavior with hard-to-review failure modes, repeated non-trivial Required issues, or untrusted verification evidence. - `cloud-G07` or higher is mandatory only when terminal-agent or external interactive behavior is central and cannot be made deterministic for local review: shell/CLI workflow implementation, bin script orchestration, process control, stdout/stderr parsing, exit-status contracts, long-running command diagnosis, terminal benchmark-style tasks, real bin/smoke/integration failures after unit tests passed, TUI/PTY/browser/screen repaint/cursor stream behavior, or rerun-mismatched verification trust failures. @@ -101,7 +102,7 @@ Directory states: | State | Meaning | |-------|---------| -| `PLAN-*-G??.md` + `CODE_REVIEW-*-G??.md` stub or placeholders | Implementation is pending/incomplete; review should fail completeness if invoked | +| `PLAN-*-G??.md` + unfilled `CODE_REVIEW-*-G??.md` stub/placeholders | Implementation is not judgeable; review should fail completeness if invoked | | `PLAN-*-G??.md` + `CODE_REVIEW-*-G??.md` with filled `사용자 리뷰 요청` | Implementation claims a user-only blocker; review validates the request and writes `USER_REVIEW.md` only if justified | | `PLAN-*-G??.md` + filled `CODE_REVIEW-*-G??.md` | Ready for code-review skill | | `complete.log` + `*.log` files | Task complete (PASS or user-review-resolved PASS), before final task-directory archive move | @@ -149,10 +150,10 @@ The diff is the starting point, not the boundary. Follow behavior and API connec Before writing the verdict: - Compare actual source files against every planned checklist item. -- Compare the plan `구현 체크리스트` and review stub `구현 체크리스트`; item text/order must match. +- Compare the plan `구현 체크리스트` and review stub `구현 체크리스트`; repair non-behavioral drift when implementation remains judgeable. - If a checklist item contains integrated verification for a feature, treat that feature item as incomplete until both implementation evidence and the matching verification output are present. Do not accept a separate unchecked completion-criteria item as a substitute. -- Confirm the implementation marked the matching checklist items in the active review file, including the final mandatory `CODE_REVIEW-*-G??.md` completion item. -- Treat blank placeholder sections, missing actual implementation notes, missing checklist completion, or missing actual stdout/stderr in the active review file as a completeness or verification-trust failure. This alone does not trigger `USER_REVIEW.md`; route it to a normal follow-up plan unless there is separate user-only blocker evidence. +- Confirm the implementation marked the matching checklist items in the active review file, including the final mandatory `CODE_REVIEW-*-G??.md` completion item; repair clear artifact drift when evidence supports completion. +- Treat review artifact gaps as failures only when they prevent judging implementation correctness, tests, contracts, or verification trust. - Read the `사용자 리뷰 요청` section. If `상태` is not `없음`, validate the exact decision needed, blocker evidence, command output or not-run reason, why automatic follow-up cannot resolve it, and resume condition before deciding whether the user-review gate triggers. - Grep renamed/removed symbols for stale references. - Confirm every required test exists, name matches, and assertions are meaningful. @@ -182,7 +183,7 @@ Severity semantics: Issue severity: -- `Required`: correctness, API contract, missing required test, missing verification that was integrated into a feature item, plan-completeness issue, or incomplete/placeholder `CODE_REVIEW-*-G??.md` content required from the implementing agent. +- `Required`: correctness, API contract, missing required test, missing integrated verification, plan-completeness issue, or review artifact gaps that prevent judging implementation quality. - `Suggested`: useful improvement that should enter the loop but does not block correctness. - `Nit`: tiny cleanup; may be recorded without forcing WARN. @@ -414,7 +415,7 @@ Report Required/Suggested counts, archive names, the final task archive path for | Dimension | Check | |-----------|-------| | Correctness | Logic, edge cases, concurrency, errors | -| Completeness | All planned checklist items done, including integrated implementation+verification feature items and matching plan/review `구현 체크리스트` completion | +| Completeness | Planned implementation/verification items are done; review artifact drift is repaired when judgeable | | Test coverage | Required tests present and meaningful | | API contract | Call sites, compatibility, docs | | Code quality | No debug prints, dead code, leftover TODOs | diff --git a/agent-ops/skills/common/plan/SKILL.md b/agent-ops/skills/common/plan/SKILL.md index c59ba29..b904196 100644 --- a/agent-ops/skills/common/plan/SKILL.md +++ b/agent-ops/skills/common/plan/SKILL.md @@ -100,6 +100,7 @@ Routing rules: - Use `cloud-GNN` when the task needs stronger reasoning or evidence recovery than local should be expected to provide: unclear external behavior, weak or missing verification for user-visible behavior, high-risk architecture judgment, security/auth/storage/concurrency/protocol changes with hard-to-review failure modes, repeated local failure, or verification trust failures. - Use `cloud-G07` or higher only when terminal-agent or external interactive behavior is central and cannot be made deterministic for local handling: shell/CLI workflow implementation, bin script orchestration, process control, stdout/stderr parsing, exit-status contracts, long-running command diagnosis, terminal benchmark-style tasks, TUI/PTY/browser/screen repaint/cursor stream behavior, or real bin/smoke/integration failures after unit tests passed. - Review uses the same balance: choose `local` for review-detectable work with bounded scope and rerunnable verification, and choose `cloud` for reviews requiring frontier-level judgment across weak tests, security/auth, storage/migration, concurrency, protocol/schema, cross-domain behavior, repeated Required issues, or untrusted verification evidence. +- Treat non-behavioral review artifact drift as reviewer-repairable unless it prevents judging implementation correctness, tests, or contracts. - Raise `GNN` with scope, ambiguity, missing tests, irreversible behavior, and blast radius after lane selection; keep grade model-independent. Directory states: