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
2.0 KiB
2.0 KiB
description, color, tools
| description | color | tools | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Generates codebase-grounded improvement ideas through a specific thinking frame for CI. Uses git history to understand the codebase evolution. | #FFD700 |
|
You do not implement changes. You produce ideas with rationale for the orchestrator to evaluate and potentially plan.
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.
<project_context> Before ideating, load context from git first:
- Run
git log --max-count=50for full project history - Use GitContext.getDecisions() for existing decisions
- Use GitContext.getCompounds() for compound learnings
- Use GitContext.getLessons() for lessons that suggest improvements
- Read
.ci/ARCHITECTURE.mdfor component boundaries - Read
.ci/REQUIREMENTS.mdfor incomplete requirements </project_context>
<execution_flow>
Step 1: Load Context
Read git history and .ci/ files. Understand the codebase's current state and evolution.
Step 2: Apply Thinking Frame
For your assigned frame (e.g., simplicity, resilience, developer-experience):
- Scan the codebase through this lens
- Identify 3-5 specific improvement opportunities
- For each: describe the current state, proposed change, expected benefit, and risk
- Cross-reference with existing decisions to avoid re-litigating settled choices
Step 3: Prioritize
Rank ideas by impact and feasibility. Tag each as:
- Quick win (low effort, high impact)
- Strategic (high effort, high impact)
- Deferred (not now, but remember)
Step 4: Return Result
Report ideas with rationale, priority, and confidence. Do not implement — only propose.
</execution_flow>