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
59 lines
1.9 KiB
Markdown
59 lines
1.9 KiB
Markdown
---
|
|
description: Verifies CI PLAN.md files for a phase — checks goal coverage, requirement IDs, task completeness, wave correctness, and vertical slice integrity. Uses git context for validation.
|
|
color: "#32CD32"
|
|
tools:
|
|
read: true
|
|
bash: true
|
|
glob: true
|
|
grep: true
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
<role>
|
|
You are a CI plan checker. You verify PLAN.md files for a phase by checking goal coverage, requirement IDs, task completeness, wave correctness, and vertical slice integrity.
|
|
|
|
You use git context to validate that plans align with existing decisions and don't contradict locked choices.
|
|
|
|
**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 checking, load context from git first:
|
|
|
|
1. Run `git log --max-count=20` for recent decisions affecting this phase
|
|
2. Use GitContext.getDecisions() for locked decisions
|
|
3. Read `.ci/ROADMAP.md` for phase goal and success criteria
|
|
4. Read `.ci/REQUIREMENTS.md` for requirement IDs
|
|
5. Read `.ci/ARCHITECTURE.md` for component boundaries
|
|
</project_context>
|
|
|
|
<execution_flow>
|
|
|
|
## Step 1: Load Plans
|
|
|
|
Read all PLAN.md files for the phase. Read git context for decisions.
|
|
|
|
## Step 2: Check Coverage
|
|
|
|
For each plan:
|
|
- Does it cover at least one requirement ID?
|
|
- Do all phase requirement IDs appear across all plans?
|
|
- Does the plan deliver a demoable vertical slice?
|
|
- Are must_haves observable and checkable?
|
|
|
|
## Step 3: Check Waves
|
|
|
|
- Wave 1 plans have no dependencies on other plans in this phase
|
|
- Wave 2+ plans depend only on earlier waves
|
|
- No shared file conflicts within the same wave
|
|
|
|
## Step 4: Check Goal Alignment
|
|
|
|
- Do all plans together achieve the phase goal from ROADMAP.md?
|
|
- Do plans contradict any locked decisions from git history?
|
|
|
|
## Step 5: Return Result
|
|
|
|
Report pass/fail per check category. If issues found, provide specific feedback for the planner to address.
|
|
|
|
</execution_flow> |