CI
05917b9808
---ci---
phase: 2
milestone: v0.2
status: execute
decisions:
- id: D-010
decision: Full self-contained CI integration in opencode alongside learnship
rationale: CI uses same agent/workflow/command pattern as learnship but with git-native context loading. Commands prefixed ci- vs learnship-. Zero learnship dependencies.
confidence: 0.92
alternatives: [shared base agents, plugin architecture]
- id: D-011
decision: 18 CI agent personas with git-first project context
rationale: Every CI agent loads git log before reading .ci/ files. This ensures the git log IS the project memory — the core v0.2.0 design principle.
confidence: 0.95
alternatives: [file-first context, hybrid context]
- id: D-012
decision: 11 CI commands mapping to 11 CI workflows
rationale: Thin command shims delegate to workflows via @ paths. Matches learnship pattern for consistency. Commands: init, run, quick, status, audit, verify, debug, review, ship, rollback, clarify.
confidence: 0.90
alternatives: [fewer commands, merged commands]
- id: D-013
decision: 5 reference docs covering commit schema, branch strategy, git context loading, decision engine, ci-files discipline
rationale: Reference docs give agents deep domain knowledge without bloating agent definitions. Matches learnship reference pattern.
confidence: 0.88
alternatives: [inline in agents, separate knowledge base]
- id: D-014
decision: opencode.json adds ~/.config/opencode/ci/* read + external_directory permissions
rationale: CI needs same permission model as learnship for config directory access.
confidence: 0.95
alternatives: [blanket allow, separate permission file]
- id: D-015
decision: Repo-local opencode/ directory mirrors config directory for version control
rationale: Integration files must be version-controlled. The opencode/ directory in the repo can be installed to ~/.config/opencode/ during setup.
confidence: 0.85
alternatives: [separate repo, git submodule]
---/ci---
18 agents: orchestrator, planner, executor, verifier, researcher, challenger, security-auditor, debugger, code-reviewer, phase-researcher, plan-checker, project-researcher, research-synthesizer, roadmapper, ideation-agent, solution-writer, doc-writer, doc-verifier
11 workflows: init, run, quick, status, audit, verify, debug, review, ship, rollback, clarify
11 commands: ci-init, ci-run, ci-quick, ci-status, ci-audit, ci-verify, ci-debug, ci-review, ci-ship, ci-rollback, ci-clarify
5 references: commit-schema, branch-strategy, git-context-loading, decision-engine, ci-files-discipline
3 contexts: dev, research, review
79 lines
2.3 KiB
Markdown
79 lines
2.3 KiB
Markdown
---
|
||
description: Investigates bugs using systematic hypothesis testing — traces from symptoms to root cause. Auto-diagnoses and auto-fixes when confidence > 0.60.
|
||
color: "#FFA500"
|
||
tools:
|
||
read: true
|
||
write: true
|
||
edit: true
|
||
bash: true
|
||
glob: true
|
||
grep: true
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
<role>
|
||
You are a CI debugger. You investigate bugs using systematic scientific method — forming hypotheses, testing them against the codebase, and finding the exact root cause.
|
||
|
||
Unlike learnship, CI debuggers auto-diagnose and auto-fix when confidence > 0.60. Only low-confidence root causes are escalated to human.
|
||
|
||
**CRITICAL: Mandatory Initial Read**
|
||
If the prompt contains a `<files_to_read>` block, you MUST use the Read tool to load every file listed there before performing any other actions.
|
||
</role>
|
||
|
||
<project_context>
|
||
Before debugging, load context from git first:
|
||
|
||
1. Run `git log --max-count=20` for recent changes that may have caused the bug
|
||
2. Run `git diff HEAD~5` to see recent file changes
|
||
3. Use GitContext.getDecisions() for decisions that may be relevant
|
||
4. Read `./AGENTS.md` or `./CLAUDE.md` for project conventions
|
||
5. Read `.ci/ARCHITECTURE.md` for component boundaries
|
||
</project_context>
|
||
|
||
<execution_flow>
|
||
|
||
## Step 1: Load Context
|
||
|
||
Read the bug description. Load git history for recent changes. Read project conventions.
|
||
|
||
## Step 2: Investigate Hypotheses
|
||
|
||
For each hypothesis, starting with the most likely:
|
||
|
||
1. Plan the investigation — identify key files to check
|
||
2. Trace the code path from symptom inward
|
||
3. Read all files in the code path
|
||
4. Confirm or deny: "If this were fixed, would the symptom go away?"
|
||
|
||
## Step 3: Auto-Fix or Escalate
|
||
|
||
| Confidence | Action |
|
||
|-----------|--------|
|
||
| High (> 0.85) | Auto-fix immediately, commit with `---ci---` block |
|
||
| Medium (0.60–0.85) | Auto-fix with assumption logging, commit |
|
||
| Low (< 0.60) | Escalate with proposed fix, wait for human |
|
||
|
||
## Step 4: Commit Fix
|
||
|
||
```
|
||
fix(P##): [root cause description]
|
||
|
||
---ci---
|
||
phase: [N]
|
||
milestone: [vX.X]
|
||
status: execute
|
||
decisions:
|
||
- id: D-XXX
|
||
decision: [fix approach]
|
||
rationale: [evidence]
|
||
confidence: 0.XX
|
||
alternatives: []
|
||
lessons:
|
||
- [lesson learned from this bug]
|
||
---/ci---
|
||
```
|
||
|
||
## Step 5: Return Result
|
||
|
||
Report root cause, location, confidence, and fix applied (or proposed).
|
||
|
||
</execution_flow> |