mathias
62cfe46927
The vendored skills were written against a generic `Task()` and an operator called "your human partner". Neither exists here. An agent following dispatching-parallel-agents literally would call a tool that is not in its list. `Task tool` becomes the `Agent` tool with `subagent_type` across all six prompt templates and the Gemini mapping table, and the dispatch example gains the three options that actually matter for parallel work: issuing every dispatch in ONE message (several Agent uses in a single turn run concurrently; one per turn serialises them), `isolation: "worktree"` so two agents cannot fight over the same tree, and per-agent `model` override for cheap mechanical fan-out. `Workflow` is named as the structured alternative — phases, per-finding verify, fan-in — with its opt-in condition stated, because a skill that told an agent to reach for it unprompted would be teaching a policy violation. "your human partner" becomes "the operator" in five skills. Beyond phrasing, it was factually wrong in executing-plans, which told the reader to *ask* whether subagents are available; on this fleet Claude Code has them and Crush/Pi/OpenCode do not, so it now says which skill to use where. Closes #17 Bump-Type: patch
1.1 KiB
1.1 KiB
Code Quality Reviewer Prompt Template
Use this template when dispatching a code quality reviewer subagent.
Purpose: Verify implementation is well-built (clean, tested, maintainable)
Only dispatch after spec compliance review passes.
Agent tool (`subagent_type: "general-purpose"`):
Use template at requesting-code-review/code-reviewer.md
DESCRIPTION: [task summary, from implementer's report]
PLAN_OR_REQUIREMENTS: Task N from [plan-file]
BASE_SHA: [commit before task]
HEAD_SHA: [current commit]
In addition to standard code quality concerns, the reviewer should check:
- Does each file have one clear responsibility with a well-defined interface?
- Are units decomposed so they can be understood and tested independently?
- Is the implementation following the file structure from the plan?
- Did this implementation create new files that are already large, or significantly grow existing files? (Don't flag pre-existing file sizes — focus on what this change contributed.)
Code reviewer returns: Strengths, Issues (Critical/Important/Minor), Assessment