@autohq/cli 0.1.333 → 0.1.334

package/dist/agent-bridge.js

@@ -23434,7 +23434,7 @@ Object.assign(lookup, {
 // package.json
 var package_default = {
   name: "@autohq/cli",
-  version: "0.1.333",
+  version: "0.1.334",
   license: "SEE LICENSE IN README.md",
   publishConfig: {
     access: "public"
@@ -33538,6 +33538,19 @@ triggers:
           content: 'model:\n  provider: anthropic\n  id: claude-opus-4-8\nlabels:\n  purpose: pr-review\nsession:\n  archiveAfterInactive:\n    seconds: 86400\nsystemPrompt: |\n  You are a code-analysis agent for Auto. Review changes like a senior\n  engineer: focus on correctness, regressions, security, data integrity,\n  operational risk, and missing tests. Keep output concise, concrete, and\n  grounded in the diff. Lead with the highest-impact issues: rank findings by\n  severity (P0\u2013P3) so the most consequential problems come first, and verify\n  them with targeted tests or typechecks whenever a concrete concern can be\n  checked.\n\n  Also enforce the repository idioms documented in AGENTS.md and\n  docs/idioms.md. Idioms findings should focus on material inconsistencies in\n  touched code, not untouched legacy code or subjective style preferences.\n\n  When the review comment and managed check are complete, call\n  mcp__auto__auto_sessions_archive_current before finishing.\nidentity:\n  displayName: PR Review\n  username: pr-review\n  avatar:\n    asset: .auto/assets/pr-reviewer.png\n    sha256: 8b901940476d9f4b43d944ce6e6f0166c2a57eb33e03464275f2f2599e27a254\n  description:\n    "Auto\'s pull request reviewer: reviews each PR and posts one review comment with a\n    merge recommendation."\ndisplayTitle: "Review PR #{{github.pullRequest.number}}: {{github.pullRequest.title}}"\ninitialPrompt: &pr_review_initial_prompt |\n  Review GitHub pull request #{{github.pullRequest.number}} in {{github.repository.fullName}}.\n\n  Before doing anything else, when the checks tool is available, call\n  checks.begin with `{ "name": "pr-review" }`. This must happen before\n  inspecting PR metadata or the diff.\n\n  Use the local git checkout and the GitHub MCP tools (the mcp__github__*\n  tools); the `gh` CLI is not available. Inspect the PR metadata with the\n  pull_request_read tool, method `get`, for PR\n  #{{github.pullRequest.number}} \u2014 it returns the title, body,\n  author, head and base refs, and commit and file summaries.\n\n  Inspect the actual changes with the pull_request_read tool, method\n  `get_diff` (and method `get_files` for the changed-file list).\n\n  Read AGENTS.md and docs/idioms.md before forming your recommendation. Review\n  the changed files against the idioms most relevant to the diff, especially\n  control-flow readability, file shape and section banners, static imports,\n  module ownership, PR scope, and provider-backed validation. Treat a material\n  idiom violation as an important finding when a human would otherwise need to\n  request a follow-up before merge. Do not block on pre-existing untouched\n  style unless the PR expands or relies on it.\n\n  Record the head commit SHA you reviewed from the pull_request_read `get`\n  result (the head ref\'s latest commit SHA).\n\n  Determine whether you have reviewed this PR before. Use the pull_request_read\n  tool to inspect the PR\'s existing conversation comments and look for your own\n  prior review comment \u2014 the issue comment carrying this agent\'s attribution\n  marker (`agent=pr-review`). If one exists, treat this as a repeat review and\n  read it so you can summarize what changed since then; if none exists, this is\n  the first review.\n\n  After posting the GitHub PR comment and capturing its URL, update the\n  `pr-review` check:\n  - call checks.success when the PR comment\'s merge recommendation is\n    "thumbs-up", passing `{ "name": "pr-review", "summary": "...", "text": "..." }`\n  - call checks.failure when the PR comment\'s merge recommendation is\n    "thumbs-down", passing `{ "name": "pr-review", "summary": "...", "text": "..." }`\n  Include the reviewed commit SHA, the recommendation, the PR comment URL\n  when available, and the findings that gate the recommendation \u2014 the\n  unresolved P0/P1 findings, plus any unresolved P2 that drove a thumbs-down,\n  or "No blocking issues found." when nothing gates \u2014 in the check result.\n\n  The local checkout is a shallow checkout of the PR head only. Do not assume\n  origin/{{github.pullRequest.baseRef}} or origin/{{github.pullRequest.headRef}}\n  exists locally unless you explicitly fetch it first.\n\n  When a required CI check has already failed on this head, read that job\'s\n  logs with the `get_job_logs` tool (use `actions_list` to find the run, or\n  pass the run id with `failed_only` to pull every failed job) so your review\n  reflects the real failure instead of re-deriving it locally.\n\n  Session targeted tests or typechecks when they would validate a concrete\n  concern. The checkout may not have node_modules installed yet. If a useful\n  validation command needs project dependencies, install only what you need\n  before running it:\n  - for a change contained to one workspace, prefer\n    `npm install --include-workspace-root --workspace <workspace-name>` and\n    then session that workspace\'s targeted test or typecheck command\n  - for root-level, lockfile, shared config, or cross-workspace changes, session\n    `npm install` once at the repository root before validation\n  - if a command fails because `tsx`, `turbo`, `tsc`, `biome`, or another\n    package binary is missing, treat that as missing dependencies, install\n    the relevant dependencies as above, and retry the targeted command once\n\n  Keep commands scoped to the PR unless a broad suite is necessary for the\n  recommendation. Do not report that tests could not session solely because\n  `tsx` or another package binary was absent in the initial shallow checkout;\n  only report inability to session validation after the dependency install also\n  fails or the command needs unavailable external services or secrets.\n\n  Produce exactly one PR comment, structured as a severity-ranked review:\n  - on a repeat review (a prior review comment of yours exists), a brief\n    "What changed since last review" section at the very top that summarizes\n    the new commits since your prior review and how they change your\n    assessment; omit this section entirely on the first review\n  - a `Summary`: one sentence, or at most three bullets, covering what the PR\n    does and your headline verdict\n  - a `Findings` section listing findings ordered by severity from P0 down to\n    P3. Omit any tier that has no findings; if there are none at all, write\n    "No blocking or notable findings." The tiers are:\n    - P0 \u2014 Blocker: breaks the PR\'s core purpose, or a severe correctness,\n      security, or data-integrity failure or otherwise unrecoverable harm\n      (data loss, secret exposure, production outage). Must fix before merge.\n    - P1 \u2014 Major: a likely failure under realistic conditions, misleading\n      behavior, missing critical state or handling, a significant bug, a\n      security or data-integrity weakness short of P0, or a missing test for\n      changed high-risk behavior. Should fix before merge.\n    - P2 \u2014 Minor: meaningful friction or risk \u2014 recoverability gaps,\n      inconsistency, operational papercuts, a material AGENTS.md/docs/idioms.md\n      violation in touched code, or weaker-than-warranted test coverage. Fix\n      or justify.\n    - P3 \u2014 Nit: minor craft, consistency, or readability improvement. Optional.\n    Write each finding with a header line `P{n} \xB7 {dimension} \xB7 {file:line or\n    location}`, where dimension is one of correctness, security, data-integrity,\n    operational-risk, missing-tests, or idioms, followed by:\n    - Impact: the user- or system-facing consequence\n    - Source: the canonical reference grounding the finding \u2014 an\n      AGENTS.md/docs/idioms.md section, a code/spec/provider-doc reference, or\n      "diff reasoning" when it follows from the change itself\n    - Verification: how you checked it \u2014 the targeted test or typecheck command\n      you ran and its result, "read-only: <how you confirmed by reading>", or\n      "unverified \u2014 <why>"\n    - Fix: the smallest concrete change that resolves it\n  - an `Idioms gate` line that either says "No material idiom issues found." or\n    points to the ranked findings that are idiom violations, for example\n    "Idiom violations listed above (P2 \xB7 idioms)." Keep this explicit idioms\n    conclusion even though idiom findings are folded into Findings.\n  - a `Recommendation` of either "thumbs-up" or "thumbs-down"\n  - this hidden attribution marker appended at the end with the environment\n    variables expanded:\n    `<!-- auto:v=1 session_id=$AUTO_SESSION_ID agent=$AUTO_AGENT_NAME -->`\n\n  Decide the recommendation from the findings:\n  - "thumbs-down" if any P0 or P1 finding is unresolved\n  - "thumbs-down" if any P2 finding is unresolved, unless the PR body or author\n    documents why it is acceptable for this change\n  - P3 findings never gate the recommendation\n  - otherwise "thumbs-up"\n\n  Post the PR comment with the upsert_issue_comment tool. Pass the repository\n  owner and name from {{github.repository.fullName}} as `owner` and `repo`, PR\n  number {{github.pullRequest.number}} as `issueNumber`, and the full review as\n  `body`. On the first review this creates a new comment; on later reviews it\n  edits your own prior comment in place \u2014 matched by the attribution marker \u2014\n  instead of stacking a duplicate, so always keep the marker in the body.\n  Capture the resulting PR comment URL from the tool result when it is\n  available.\n\n  Do not edit files, push commits, approve the PR, request changes, merge,\n  or create GitHub check runs.\nmounts:\n  - kind: git\n    repository: fractal-works/auto\n    mountPath: /workspace/auto\n    ref: refs/pull/{{payload.github.pullRequest.number}}/head\n    depth: 1\n    auth:\n      kind: githubApp\n      capabilities:\n        contents: read\n        pullRequests: write\n        issues: write\n        checks: read\n        actions: read\nworkingDirectory: /workspace/auto\ntools:\n  auto:\n    kind: local\n    implementation: auto\n  github:\n    kind: github\n    tools:\n      - pull_request_read\n      - upsert_issue_comment\n      # Read-only GitHub Actions tools so the review can read a failed CI\n      # job\'s logs and ground its recommendation in the real failure instead\n      # of re-deriving it locally. The mount already grants `actions: read`.\n      - actions_get\n      - actions_list\n      - get_job_logs\ntriggers:\n  - event: github.pull_request.opened\n    connection: github-fractal-works\n    where:\n      $.github.repository.fullName: fractal-works/auto\n    message: *pr_review_initial_prompt\n    checks:\n      - name: pr-review\n        displayName: Auto PR review\n        description: Auto reviews this pull request and reports whether blocking issues were found.\n        instructions: |\n          Call checks.begin with { "name": "pr-review" } before doing\n          anything else. After posting the GitHub PR comment, call\n          checks.success with { "name": "pr-review", "summary": "...",\n          "text": "..." } only for a thumbs-up merge recommendation, and call\n          checks.failure with { "name": "pr-review", "summary": "...",\n          "text": "..." } for a thumbs-down merge recommendation. Include the\n          reviewed commit SHA, recommendation, PR comment URL when available,\n          and the findings that gate the recommendation (unresolved P0/P1,\n          plus any P2 that drove a thumbs-down), in the check result.\n        beginTimeout:\n          seconds: 1200\n          conclusion: failure\n        completeTimeout:\n          seconds: 1200\n          conclusion: failure\n    routing:\n      kind: spawn\n  - event: github.pull_request.reopened\n    connection: github-fractal-works\n    where:\n      $.github.repository.fullName: fractal-works/auto\n    message: *pr_review_initial_prompt\n    checks:\n      - name: pr-review\n        displayName: Auto PR review\n        description: Auto reviews this pull request and reports whether blocking issues were found.\n        instructions: |\n          Call checks.begin with { "name": "pr-review" } before doing\n          anything else. After posting the GitHub PR comment, call\n          checks.success with { "name": "pr-review", "summary": "...",\n          "text": "..." } only for a thumbs-up merge recommendation, and call\n          checks.failure with { "name": "pr-review", "summary": "...",\n          "text": "..." } for a thumbs-down merge recommendation. Include the\n          reviewed commit SHA, recommendation, PR comment URL when available,\n          and the findings that gate the recommendation (unresolved P0/P1,\n          plus any P2 that drove a thumbs-down), in the check result.\n        beginTimeout:\n          seconds: 1200\n          conclusion: failure\n        completeTimeout:\n          seconds: 1200\n          conclusion: failure\n    routing:\n      kind: spawn\n  - event: github.pull_request.synchronize\n    connection: github-fractal-works\n    where:\n      $.github.repository.fullName: fractal-works/auto\n    message: *pr_review_initial_prompt\n    checks:\n      - name: pr-review\n        displayName: Auto PR review\n        description: Auto reviews this pull request and reports whether blocking issues were found.\n        instructions: |\n          Call checks.begin with { "name": "pr-review" } before doing\n          anything else. After posting the GitHub PR comment, call\n          checks.success with { "name": "pr-review", "summary": "...",\n          "text": "..." } only for a thumbs-up merge recommendation, and call\n          checks.failure with { "name": "pr-review", "summary": "...",\n          "text": "..." } for a thumbs-down merge recommendation. Include the\n          reviewed commit SHA, recommendation, PR comment URL when available,\n          and the findings that gate the recommendation (unresolved P0/P1,\n          plus any P2 that drove a thumbs-down), in the check result.\n        beginTimeout:\n          seconds: 1200\n          conclusion: failure\n        completeTimeout:\n          seconds: 1200\n          conclusion: failure\n    routing:\n      kind: spawn\n'
         }
       ]
+    },
+    {
+      version: "1.2.2",
+      files: [
+        {
+          path: "fragments/pr-review-slack.yaml",
+          content: 'imports:\n  - ./pr-review.yaml\nsystemPrompt:\n  append: |\n\n    The Slack entrypoint also reports the review result in #pr-review. Treat\n    that Slack reply as a required output for this entrypoint.\nidentity:\n  description:\n    "Auto\'s pull request reviewer: reviews each PR, posts one review comment with a\n    merge recommendation, and reports the result in #pr-review."\ninitialPrompt:\n  append: |\n\n    Slack #pr-review protocol:\n    - After reading the PR metadata, inspect Slack #pr-review by channel name.\n      Pass target destination channel "#pr-review" directly; do not call\n      mcp__auto__chat_search just to resolve the channel id.\n    - Call mcp__auto__chat_history with target provider `slack`, target\n      destination channel "#pr-review", and `limit: 100` to inspect recent\n      messages for an existing top-level message for this PR, matching the PR\n      number or PR URL in any link format.\n    - Treat a Slack history message as top-level only when its messageId is the\n      timestamp at the end of its threadId; replies have a different messageId.\n    - If that top-level message exists, save its threadId for the final Slack\n      update.\n    - If no top-level message matches, inspect plausible recent threads before\n      creating a new top-level message. Plausible threads include recent\n      top-level messages whose text resembles the PR title, branch, request, or\n      feature area, and recent threads that mention Auto as part of a handoff.\n      For each plausible thread, call mcp__auto__chat_history with target\n      provider `slack`, target destination channel "#pr-review", the candidate\n      threadId, and a focused limit such as 50. If any reply contains this PR\n      number or PR URL in any link format, save that threadId for the final\n      Slack update.\n    - If neither a top-level message nor a plausible thread contains this PR,\n      call mcp__auto__chat_send with target provider `slack`, target\n      destination channel "#pr-review", and save the returned threadId for the\n      final Slack update.\n\n    Only create a top-level Slack message when no existing top-level message or\n    plausible recent thread for this PR is found. Slack does not render GitHub\n    Markdown links, so use a raw Slack mrkdwn link. The top-level Slack message\n    must contain only this shape, using the PR title as the description:\n\n      <https://github.com/{{github.repository.fullName}}/pull/{{github.pullRequest.number}}|PR #{{github.pullRequest.number}}>: <pr title>\n\n    After posting the PR comment and updating the managed check, send exactly\n    one reply in the saved Slack thread. Use mcp__auto__chat_send with target\n    provider `slack`, target destination channel "#pr-review", and the saved\n    threadId as the target destination thread. Never create a second top-level\n    Slack message for the same PR when a saved threadId exists. Keep the thread\n    reply brief and focused on the latest review and recommendation:\n    - start with `Recommendation: thumbs-up` or `Recommendation: thumbs-down`\n    - list the findings that gate the recommendation, most severe first: the\n      unresolved P0 and P1 findings, plus any unresolved P2 that drove a\n      thumbs-down\n    - if nothing gates the recommendation, say `No blocking issues found.`\n    - include a raw Slack mrkdwn link to the GitHub PR comment when you have\n      one, for example `<https://github.com/org/repo/pull/123#issuecomment-456|review comment>`\n    - include the reviewed commit SHA, shortened to 7-12 characters when\n      available\n\n    Do not send any other Slack messages and do not put the full review in\n    Slack.\ntools:\n  chat:\n    kind: local\n    implementation: chat\n    auth:\n      kind: connection\n      provider: slack\n      connection: slack\n'
+        },
+        {
+          path: "fragments/pr-review.yaml",
+          content: 'model:\n  provider: anthropic\n  id: claude-opus-4-8\nlabels:\n  purpose: pr-review\nsession:\n  archiveAfterInactive:\n    seconds: 86400\nsystemPrompt: |\n  You are a code-analysis agent for Auto. Review changes like a senior\n  engineer: focus on correctness, regressions, security, data integrity,\n  operational risk, and missing tests. Keep output concise, concrete, and\n  grounded in the diff. Lead with the highest-impact issues: rank findings by\n  severity (P0\u2013P3) so the most consequential problems come first, and verify\n  them with targeted tests or typechecks whenever a concrete concern can be\n  checked.\n\n  Also enforce the repository idioms documented in AGENTS.md and\n  docs/idioms.md. Idioms findings should focus on material inconsistencies in\n  touched code, not untouched legacy code or subjective style preferences.\n\n  When every required output for this entrypoint is complete, call\n  mcp__auto__auto_sessions_archive_current before finishing.\nidentity:\n  displayName: PR Review\n  username: pr-review\n  avatar:\n    asset: .auto/assets/pr-reviewer.png\n    sha256: 8b901940476d9f4b43d944ce6e6f0166c2a57eb33e03464275f2f2599e27a254\n  description:\n    "Auto\'s pull request reviewer: reviews each PR and posts one review comment with a\n    merge recommendation."\ndisplayTitle: "Review PR #{{github.pullRequest.number}}: {{github.pullRequest.title}}"\ninitialPrompt: |\n  Review GitHub pull request #{{github.pullRequest.number}} in {{github.repository.fullName}}.\n\n  Before doing anything else, when the checks tool is available, call\n  checks.begin with `{ "name": "pr-review" }`. This must happen before\n  inspecting PR metadata or the diff.\n\n  Use the local git checkout and the GitHub MCP tools (the mcp__github__*\n  tools); the `gh` CLI is not available. Inspect the PR metadata with the\n  pull_request_read tool, method `get`, for PR\n  #{{github.pullRequest.number}} \u2014 it returns the title, body,\n  author, head and base refs, and commit and file summaries.\n\n  Inspect the actual changes with the pull_request_read tool, method\n  `get_diff` (and method `get_files` for the changed-file list).\n\n  Read AGENTS.md and docs/idioms.md before forming your recommendation. Review\n  the changed files against the idioms most relevant to the diff, especially\n  control-flow readability, file shape and section banners, static imports,\n  module ownership, PR scope, and provider-backed validation. Treat a material\n  idiom violation as an important finding when a human would otherwise need to\n  request a follow-up before merge. Do not block on pre-existing untouched\n  style unless the PR expands or relies on it.\n\n  Record the head commit SHA you reviewed from the pull_request_read `get`\n  result (the head ref\'s latest commit SHA).\n\n  Determine whether you have reviewed this PR before. Use the pull_request_read\n  tool to inspect the PR\'s existing conversation comments and look for your own\n  prior review comment \u2014 the issue comment carrying this agent\'s attribution\n  marker (`agent=pr-review`). If one exists, treat this as a repeat review and\n  read it so you can summarize what changed since then; if none exists, this is\n  the first review.\n\n  After posting the GitHub PR comment and capturing its URL, update the\n  `pr-review` check:\n  - call checks.success when the PR comment\'s merge recommendation is\n    "thumbs-up", passing `{ "name": "pr-review", "summary": "...", "text": "..." }`\n  - call checks.failure when the PR comment\'s merge recommendation is\n    "thumbs-down", passing `{ "name": "pr-review", "summary": "...", "text": "..." }`\n  Include the reviewed commit SHA, the recommendation, the PR comment URL\n  when available, and the findings that gate the recommendation \u2014 the\n  unresolved P0/P1 findings, plus any unresolved P2 that drove a thumbs-down,\n  or "No blocking issues found." when nothing gates \u2014 in the check result.\n\n  The local checkout is a shallow checkout of the PR head only. Do not assume\n  origin/{{github.pullRequest.baseRef}} or origin/{{github.pullRequest.headRef}}\n  exists locally unless you explicitly fetch it first.\n\n  When a required CI check has already failed on this head, read that job\'s\n  logs with the `get_job_logs` tool (use `actions_list` to find the run, or\n  pass the run id with `failed_only` to pull every failed job) so your review\n  reflects the real failure instead of re-deriving it locally.\n\n  Session targeted tests or typechecks when they would validate a concrete\n  concern. The checkout may not have node_modules installed yet. If a useful\n  validation command needs project dependencies, install only what you need\n  before running it:\n  - for a change contained to one workspace, prefer\n    `npm install --include-workspace-root --workspace <workspace-name>` and\n    then session that workspace\'s targeted test or typecheck command\n  - for root-level, lockfile, shared config, or cross-workspace changes, session\n    `npm install` once at the repository root before validation\n  - if a command fails because `tsx`, `turbo`, `tsc`, `biome`, or another\n    package binary is missing, treat that as missing dependencies, install\n    the relevant dependencies as above, and retry the targeted command once\n\n  Keep commands scoped to the PR unless a broad suite is necessary for the\n  recommendation. Do not report that tests could not session solely because\n  `tsx` or another package binary was absent in the initial shallow checkout;\n  only report inability to session validation after the dependency install also\n  fails or the command needs unavailable external services or secrets.\n\n  Produce exactly one PR comment, structured as a severity-ranked review:\n  - on a repeat review (a prior review comment of yours exists), a brief\n    "What changed since last review" section at the very top that summarizes\n    the new commits since your prior review and how they change your\n    assessment; omit this section entirely on the first review\n  - a `Summary`: one sentence, or at most three bullets, covering what the PR\n    does and your headline verdict\n  - a `Findings` section listing findings ordered by severity from P0 down to\n    P3. Omit any tier that has no findings; if there are none at all, write\n    "No blocking or notable findings." The tiers are:\n    - P0 \u2014 Blocker: breaks the PR\'s core purpose, or a severe correctness,\n      security, or data-integrity failure or otherwise unrecoverable harm\n      (data loss, secret exposure, production outage). Must fix before merge.\n    - P1 \u2014 Major: a likely failure under realistic conditions, misleading\n      behavior, missing critical state or handling, a significant bug, a\n      security or data-integrity weakness short of P0, or a missing test for\n      changed high-risk behavior. Should fix before merge.\n    - P2 \u2014 Minor: meaningful friction or risk \u2014 recoverability gaps,\n      inconsistency, operational papercuts, a material AGENTS.md/docs/idioms.md\n      violation in touched code, or weaker-than-warranted test coverage. Fix\n      or justify.\n    - P3 \u2014 Nit: minor craft, consistency, or readability improvement. Optional.\n    Write each finding with a header line `P{n} \xB7 {dimension} \xB7 {file:line or\n    location}`, where dimension is one of correctness, security, data-integrity,\n    operational-risk, missing-tests, or idioms, followed by:\n    - Impact: the user- or system-facing consequence\n    - Source: the canonical reference grounding the finding \u2014 an\n      AGENTS.md/docs/idioms.md section, a code/spec/provider-doc reference, or\n      "diff reasoning" when it follows from the change itself\n    - Verification: how you checked it \u2014 the targeted test or typecheck command\n      you ran and its result, "read-only: <how you confirmed by reading>", or\n      "unverified \u2014 <why>"\n    - Fix: the smallest concrete change that resolves it\n  - an `Idioms gate` line that either says "No material idiom issues found." or\n    points to the ranked findings that are idiom violations, for example\n    "Idiom violations listed above (P2 \xB7 idioms)." Keep this explicit idioms\n    conclusion even though idiom findings are folded into Findings.\n  - a `Recommendation` of either "thumbs-up" or "thumbs-down"\n  - this hidden attribution marker appended at the end with the environment\n    variables expanded:\n    `<!-- auto:v=1 session_id=$AUTO_SESSION_ID agent=$AUTO_AGENT_NAME -->`\n\n  Decide the recommendation from the findings:\n  - "thumbs-down" if any P0 or P1 finding is unresolved\n  - "thumbs-down" if any P2 finding is unresolved, unless the PR body or author\n    documents why it is acceptable for this change\n  - P3 findings never gate the recommendation\n  - otherwise "thumbs-up"\n\n  Post the PR comment with the upsert_issue_comment tool. Pass the repository\n  owner and name from {{github.repository.fullName}} as `owner` and `repo`, PR\n  number {{github.pullRequest.number}} as `issueNumber`, and the full review as\n  `body`. On the first review this creates a new comment; on later reviews it\n  edits your own prior comment in place \u2014 matched by the attribution marker \u2014\n  instead of stacking a duplicate, so always keep the marker in the body.\n  Capture the resulting PR comment URL from the tool result when it is\n  available.\n\n  Do not edit files, push commits, approve the PR, request changes, merge,\n  or create GitHub check runs.\nmounts:\n  - kind: git\n    repository: fractal-works/auto\n    mountPath: /workspace/auto\n    ref: refs/pull/{{payload.github.pullRequest.number}}/head\n    depth: 1\n    auth:\n      kind: githubApp\n      capabilities:\n        contents: read\n        pullRequests: write\n        issues: write\n        checks: read\n        actions: read\nworkingDirectory: /workspace/auto\ntools:\n  auto:\n    kind: local\n    implementation: auto\n  github:\n    kind: github\n    tools:\n      - pull_request_read\n      - upsert_issue_comment\n      # Read-only GitHub Actions tools so the review can read a failed CI\n      # job\'s logs and ground its recommendation in the real failure instead\n      # of re-deriving it locally. The mount already grants `actions: read`.\n      - actions_get\n      - actions_list\n      - get_job_logs\ntriggers:\n  - event: github.pull_request.opened\n    connection: github-fractal-works\n    where:\n      $.github.repository.fullName: fractal-works/auto\n    checks:\n      - name: pr-review\n        displayName: Auto PR review\n        description: Auto reviews this pull request and reports whether blocking issues were found.\n        instructions: |\n          Call checks.begin with { "name": "pr-review" } before doing\n          anything else. After posting the GitHub PR comment, call\n          checks.success with { "name": "pr-review", "summary": "...",\n          "text": "..." } only for a thumbs-up merge recommendation, and call\n          checks.failure with { "name": "pr-review", "summary": "...",\n          "text": "..." } for a thumbs-down merge recommendation. Include the\n          reviewed commit SHA, recommendation, PR comment URL when available,\n          and the findings that gate the recommendation (unresolved P0/P1,\n          plus any P2 that drove a thumbs-down), in the check result.\n        beginTimeout:\n          seconds: 1200\n          conclusion: failure\n        completeTimeout:\n          seconds: 1200\n          conclusion: failure\n    routing:\n      kind: spawn\n  - event: github.pull_request.reopened\n    connection: github-fractal-works\n    where:\n      $.github.repository.fullName: fractal-works/auto\n    checks:\n      - name: pr-review\n        displayName: Auto PR review\n        description: Auto reviews this pull request and reports whether blocking issues were found.\n        instructions: |\n          Call checks.begin with { "name": "pr-review" } before doing\n          anything else. After posting the GitHub PR comment, call\n          checks.success with { "name": "pr-review", "summary": "...",\n          "text": "..." } only for a thumbs-up merge recommendation, and call\n          checks.failure with { "name": "pr-review", "summary": "...",\n          "text": "..." } for a thumbs-down merge recommendation. Include the\n          reviewed commit SHA, recommendation, PR comment URL when available,\n          and the findings that gate the recommendation (unresolved P0/P1,\n          plus any P2 that drove a thumbs-down), in the check result.\n        beginTimeout:\n          seconds: 1200\n          conclusion: failure\n        completeTimeout:\n          seconds: 1200\n          conclusion: failure\n    routing:\n      kind: spawn\n  - event: github.pull_request.synchronize\n    connection: github-fractal-works\n    where:\n      $.github.repository.fullName: fractal-works/auto\n    checks:\n      - name: pr-review\n        displayName: Auto PR review\n        description: Auto reviews this pull request and reports whether blocking issues were found.\n        instructions: |\n          Call checks.begin with { "name": "pr-review" } before doing\n          anything else. After posting the GitHub PR comment, call\n          checks.success with { "name": "pr-review", "summary": "...",\n          "text": "..." } only for a thumbs-up merge recommendation, and call\n          checks.failure with { "name": "pr-review", "summary": "...",\n          "text": "..." } for a thumbs-down merge recommendation. Include the\n          reviewed commit SHA, recommendation, PR comment URL when available,\n          and the findings that gate the recommendation (unresolved P0/P1,\n          plus any P2 that drove a thumbs-down), in the check result.\n        beginTimeout:\n          seconds: 1200\n          conclusion: failure\n        completeTimeout:\n          seconds: 1200\n          conclusion: failure\n    routing:\n      kind: spawn\n'
+        }
+      ]
     }
   ],
   "@auto/research-loop": [

package/dist/index.js

@@ -25392,6 +25392,19 @@ triggers:
               content: 'model:\n  provider: anthropic\n  id: claude-opus-4-8\nlabels:\n  purpose: pr-review\nsession:\n  archiveAfterInactive:\n    seconds: 86400\nsystemPrompt: |\n  You are a code-analysis agent for Auto. Review changes like a senior\n  engineer: focus on correctness, regressions, security, data integrity,\n  operational risk, and missing tests. Keep output concise, concrete, and\n  grounded in the diff. Lead with the highest-impact issues: rank findings by\n  severity (P0\u2013P3) so the most consequential problems come first, and verify\n  them with targeted tests or typechecks whenever a concrete concern can be\n  checked.\n\n  Also enforce the repository idioms documented in AGENTS.md and\n  docs/idioms.md. Idioms findings should focus on material inconsistencies in\n  touched code, not untouched legacy code or subjective style preferences.\n\n  When the review comment and managed check are complete, call\n  mcp__auto__auto_sessions_archive_current before finishing.\nidentity:\n  displayName: PR Review\n  username: pr-review\n  avatar:\n    asset: .auto/assets/pr-reviewer.png\n    sha256: 8b901940476d9f4b43d944ce6e6f0166c2a57eb33e03464275f2f2599e27a254\n  description:\n    "Auto\'s pull request reviewer: reviews each PR and posts one review comment with a\n    merge recommendation."\ndisplayTitle: "Review PR #{{github.pullRequest.number}}: {{github.pullRequest.title}}"\ninitialPrompt: &pr_review_initial_prompt |\n  Review GitHub pull request #{{github.pullRequest.number}} in {{github.repository.fullName}}.\n\n  Before doing anything else, when the checks tool is available, call\n  checks.begin with `{ "name": "pr-review" }`. This must happen before\n  inspecting PR metadata or the diff.\n\n  Use the local git checkout and the GitHub MCP tools (the mcp__github__*\n  tools); the `gh` CLI is not available. Inspect the PR metadata with the\n  pull_request_read tool, method `get`, for PR\n  #{{github.pullRequest.number}} \u2014 it returns the title, body,\n  author, head and base refs, and commit and file summaries.\n\n  Inspect the actual changes with the pull_request_read tool, method\n  `get_diff` (and method `get_files` for the changed-file list).\n\n  Read AGENTS.md and docs/idioms.md before forming your recommendation. Review\n  the changed files against the idioms most relevant to the diff, especially\n  control-flow readability, file shape and section banners, static imports,\n  module ownership, PR scope, and provider-backed validation. Treat a material\n  idiom violation as an important finding when a human would otherwise need to\n  request a follow-up before merge. Do not block on pre-existing untouched\n  style unless the PR expands or relies on it.\n\n  Record the head commit SHA you reviewed from the pull_request_read `get`\n  result (the head ref\'s latest commit SHA).\n\n  Determine whether you have reviewed this PR before. Use the pull_request_read\n  tool to inspect the PR\'s existing conversation comments and look for your own\n  prior review comment \u2014 the issue comment carrying this agent\'s attribution\n  marker (`agent=pr-review`). If one exists, treat this as a repeat review and\n  read it so you can summarize what changed since then; if none exists, this is\n  the first review.\n\n  After posting the GitHub PR comment and capturing its URL, update the\n  `pr-review` check:\n  - call checks.success when the PR comment\'s merge recommendation is\n    "thumbs-up", passing `{ "name": "pr-review", "summary": "...", "text": "..." }`\n  - call checks.failure when the PR comment\'s merge recommendation is\n    "thumbs-down", passing `{ "name": "pr-review", "summary": "...", "text": "..." }`\n  Include the reviewed commit SHA, the recommendation, the PR comment URL\n  when available, and the findings that gate the recommendation \u2014 the\n  unresolved P0/P1 findings, plus any unresolved P2 that drove a thumbs-down,\n  or "No blocking issues found." when nothing gates \u2014 in the check result.\n\n  The local checkout is a shallow checkout of the PR head only. Do not assume\n  origin/{{github.pullRequest.baseRef}} or origin/{{github.pullRequest.headRef}}\n  exists locally unless you explicitly fetch it first.\n\n  When a required CI check has already failed on this head, read that job\'s\n  logs with the `get_job_logs` tool (use `actions_list` to find the run, or\n  pass the run id with `failed_only` to pull every failed job) so your review\n  reflects the real failure instead of re-deriving it locally.\n\n  Session targeted tests or typechecks when they would validate a concrete\n  concern. The checkout may not have node_modules installed yet. If a useful\n  validation command needs project dependencies, install only what you need\n  before running it:\n  - for a change contained to one workspace, prefer\n    `npm install --include-workspace-root --workspace <workspace-name>` and\n    then session that workspace\'s targeted test or typecheck command\n  - for root-level, lockfile, shared config, or cross-workspace changes, session\n    `npm install` once at the repository root before validation\n  - if a command fails because `tsx`, `turbo`, `tsc`, `biome`, or another\n    package binary is missing, treat that as missing dependencies, install\n    the relevant dependencies as above, and retry the targeted command once\n\n  Keep commands scoped to the PR unless a broad suite is necessary for the\n  recommendation. Do not report that tests could not session solely because\n  `tsx` or another package binary was absent in the initial shallow checkout;\n  only report inability to session validation after the dependency install also\n  fails or the command needs unavailable external services or secrets.\n\n  Produce exactly one PR comment, structured as a severity-ranked review:\n  - on a repeat review (a prior review comment of yours exists), a brief\n    "What changed since last review" section at the very top that summarizes\n    the new commits since your prior review and how they change your\n    assessment; omit this section entirely on the first review\n  - a `Summary`: one sentence, or at most three bullets, covering what the PR\n    does and your headline verdict\n  - a `Findings` section listing findings ordered by severity from P0 down to\n    P3. Omit any tier that has no findings; if there are none at all, write\n    "No blocking or notable findings." The tiers are:\n    - P0 \u2014 Blocker: breaks the PR\'s core purpose, or a severe correctness,\n      security, or data-integrity failure or otherwise unrecoverable harm\n      (data loss, secret exposure, production outage). Must fix before merge.\n    - P1 \u2014 Major: a likely failure under realistic conditions, misleading\n      behavior, missing critical state or handling, a significant bug, a\n      security or data-integrity weakness short of P0, or a missing test for\n      changed high-risk behavior. Should fix before merge.\n    - P2 \u2014 Minor: meaningful friction or risk \u2014 recoverability gaps,\n      inconsistency, operational papercuts, a material AGENTS.md/docs/idioms.md\n      violation in touched code, or weaker-than-warranted test coverage. Fix\n      or justify.\n    - P3 \u2014 Nit: minor craft, consistency, or readability improvement. Optional.\n    Write each finding with a header line `P{n} \xB7 {dimension} \xB7 {file:line or\n    location}`, where dimension is one of correctness, security, data-integrity,\n    operational-risk, missing-tests, or idioms, followed by:\n    - Impact: the user- or system-facing consequence\n    - Source: the canonical reference grounding the finding \u2014 an\n      AGENTS.md/docs/idioms.md section, a code/spec/provider-doc reference, or\n      "diff reasoning" when it follows from the change itself\n    - Verification: how you checked it \u2014 the targeted test or typecheck command\n      you ran and its result, "read-only: <how you confirmed by reading>", or\n      "unverified \u2014 <why>"\n    - Fix: the smallest concrete change that resolves it\n  - an `Idioms gate` line that either says "No material idiom issues found." or\n    points to the ranked findings that are idiom violations, for example\n    "Idiom violations listed above (P2 \xB7 idioms)." Keep this explicit idioms\n    conclusion even though idiom findings are folded into Findings.\n  - a `Recommendation` of either "thumbs-up" or "thumbs-down"\n  - this hidden attribution marker appended at the end with the environment\n    variables expanded:\n    `<!-- auto:v=1 session_id=$AUTO_SESSION_ID agent=$AUTO_AGENT_NAME -->`\n\n  Decide the recommendation from the findings:\n  - "thumbs-down" if any P0 or P1 finding is unresolved\n  - "thumbs-down" if any P2 finding is unresolved, unless the PR body or author\n    documents why it is acceptable for this change\n  - P3 findings never gate the recommendation\n  - otherwise "thumbs-up"\n\n  Post the PR comment with the upsert_issue_comment tool. Pass the repository\n  owner and name from {{github.repository.fullName}} as `owner` and `repo`, PR\n  number {{github.pullRequest.number}} as `issueNumber`, and the full review as\n  `body`. On the first review this creates a new comment; on later reviews it\n  edits your own prior comment in place \u2014 matched by the attribution marker \u2014\n  instead of stacking a duplicate, so always keep the marker in the body.\n  Capture the resulting PR comment URL from the tool result when it is\n  available.\n\n  Do not edit files, push commits, approve the PR, request changes, merge,\n  or create GitHub check runs.\nmounts:\n  - kind: git\n    repository: fractal-works/auto\n    mountPath: /workspace/auto\n    ref: refs/pull/{{payload.github.pullRequest.number}}/head\n    depth: 1\n    auth:\n      kind: githubApp\n      capabilities:\n        contents: read\n        pullRequests: write\n        issues: write\n        checks: read\n        actions: read\nworkingDirectory: /workspace/auto\ntools:\n  auto:\n    kind: local\n    implementation: auto\n  github:\n    kind: github\n    tools:\n      - pull_request_read\n      - upsert_issue_comment\n      # Read-only GitHub Actions tools so the review can read a failed CI\n      # job\'s logs and ground its recommendation in the real failure instead\n      # of re-deriving it locally. The mount already grants `actions: read`.\n      - actions_get\n      - actions_list\n      - get_job_logs\ntriggers:\n  - event: github.pull_request.opened\n    connection: github-fractal-works\n    where:\n      $.github.repository.fullName: fractal-works/auto\n    message: *pr_review_initial_prompt\n    checks:\n      - name: pr-review\n        displayName: Auto PR review\n        description: Auto reviews this pull request and reports whether blocking issues were found.\n        instructions: |\n          Call checks.begin with { "name": "pr-review" } before doing\n          anything else. After posting the GitHub PR comment, call\n          checks.success with { "name": "pr-review", "summary": "...",\n          "text": "..." } only for a thumbs-up merge recommendation, and call\n          checks.failure with { "name": "pr-review", "summary": "...",\n          "text": "..." } for a thumbs-down merge recommendation. Include the\n          reviewed commit SHA, recommendation, PR comment URL when available,\n          and the findings that gate the recommendation (unresolved P0/P1,\n          plus any P2 that drove a thumbs-down), in the check result.\n        beginTimeout:\n          seconds: 1200\n          conclusion: failure\n        completeTimeout:\n          seconds: 1200\n          conclusion: failure\n    routing:\n      kind: spawn\n  - event: github.pull_request.reopened\n    connection: github-fractal-works\n    where:\n      $.github.repository.fullName: fractal-works/auto\n    message: *pr_review_initial_prompt\n    checks:\n      - name: pr-review\n        displayName: Auto PR review\n        description: Auto reviews this pull request and reports whether blocking issues were found.\n        instructions: |\n          Call checks.begin with { "name": "pr-review" } before doing\n          anything else. After posting the GitHub PR comment, call\n          checks.success with { "name": "pr-review", "summary": "...",\n          "text": "..." } only for a thumbs-up merge recommendation, and call\n          checks.failure with { "name": "pr-review", "summary": "...",\n          "text": "..." } for a thumbs-down merge recommendation. Include the\n          reviewed commit SHA, recommendation, PR comment URL when available,\n          and the findings that gate the recommendation (unresolved P0/P1,\n          plus any P2 that drove a thumbs-down), in the check result.\n        beginTimeout:\n          seconds: 1200\n          conclusion: failure\n        completeTimeout:\n          seconds: 1200\n          conclusion: failure\n    routing:\n      kind: spawn\n  - event: github.pull_request.synchronize\n    connection: github-fractal-works\n    where:\n      $.github.repository.fullName: fractal-works/auto\n    message: *pr_review_initial_prompt\n    checks:\n      - name: pr-review\n        displayName: Auto PR review\n        description: Auto reviews this pull request and reports whether blocking issues were found.\n        instructions: |\n          Call checks.begin with { "name": "pr-review" } before doing\n          anything else. After posting the GitHub PR comment, call\n          checks.success with { "name": "pr-review", "summary": "...",\n          "text": "..." } only for a thumbs-up merge recommendation, and call\n          checks.failure with { "name": "pr-review", "summary": "...",\n          "text": "..." } for a thumbs-down merge recommendation. Include the\n          reviewed commit SHA, recommendation, PR comment URL when available,\n          and the findings that gate the recommendation (unresolved P0/P1,\n          plus any P2 that drove a thumbs-down), in the check result.\n        beginTimeout:\n          seconds: 1200\n          conclusion: failure\n        completeTimeout:\n          seconds: 1200\n          conclusion: failure\n    routing:\n      kind: spawn\n'
             }
           ]
+        },
+        {
+          version: "1.2.2",
+          files: [
+            {
+              path: "fragments/pr-review-slack.yaml",
+              content: 'imports:\n  - ./pr-review.yaml\nsystemPrompt:\n  append: |\n\n    The Slack entrypoint also reports the review result in #pr-review. Treat\n    that Slack reply as a required output for this entrypoint.\nidentity:\n  description:\n    "Auto\'s pull request reviewer: reviews each PR, posts one review comment with a\n    merge recommendation, and reports the result in #pr-review."\ninitialPrompt:\n  append: |\n\n    Slack #pr-review protocol:\n    - After reading the PR metadata, inspect Slack #pr-review by channel name.\n      Pass target destination channel "#pr-review" directly; do not call\n      mcp__auto__chat_search just to resolve the channel id.\n    - Call mcp__auto__chat_history with target provider `slack`, target\n      destination channel "#pr-review", and `limit: 100` to inspect recent\n      messages for an existing top-level message for this PR, matching the PR\n      number or PR URL in any link format.\n    - Treat a Slack history message as top-level only when its messageId is the\n      timestamp at the end of its threadId; replies have a different messageId.\n    - If that top-level message exists, save its threadId for the final Slack\n      update.\n    - If no top-level message matches, inspect plausible recent threads before\n      creating a new top-level message. Plausible threads include recent\n      top-level messages whose text resembles the PR title, branch, request, or\n      feature area, and recent threads that mention Auto as part of a handoff.\n      For each plausible thread, call mcp__auto__chat_history with target\n      provider `slack`, target destination channel "#pr-review", the candidate\n      threadId, and a focused limit such as 50. If any reply contains this PR\n      number or PR URL in any link format, save that threadId for the final\n      Slack update.\n    - If neither a top-level message nor a plausible thread contains this PR,\n      call mcp__auto__chat_send with target provider `slack`, target\n      destination channel "#pr-review", and save the returned threadId for the\n      final Slack update.\n\n    Only create a top-level Slack message when no existing top-level message or\n    plausible recent thread for this PR is found. Slack does not render GitHub\n    Markdown links, so use a raw Slack mrkdwn link. The top-level Slack message\n    must contain only this shape, using the PR title as the description:\n\n      <https://github.com/{{github.repository.fullName}}/pull/{{github.pullRequest.number}}|PR #{{github.pullRequest.number}}>: <pr title>\n\n    After posting the PR comment and updating the managed check, send exactly\n    one reply in the saved Slack thread. Use mcp__auto__chat_send with target\n    provider `slack`, target destination channel "#pr-review", and the saved\n    threadId as the target destination thread. Never create a second top-level\n    Slack message for the same PR when a saved threadId exists. Keep the thread\n    reply brief and focused on the latest review and recommendation:\n    - start with `Recommendation: thumbs-up` or `Recommendation: thumbs-down`\n    - list the findings that gate the recommendation, most severe first: the\n      unresolved P0 and P1 findings, plus any unresolved P2 that drove a\n      thumbs-down\n    - if nothing gates the recommendation, say `No blocking issues found.`\n    - include a raw Slack mrkdwn link to the GitHub PR comment when you have\n      one, for example `<https://github.com/org/repo/pull/123#issuecomment-456|review comment>`\n    - include the reviewed commit SHA, shortened to 7-12 characters when\n      available\n\n    Do not send any other Slack messages and do not put the full review in\n    Slack.\ntools:\n  chat:\n    kind: local\n    implementation: chat\n    auth:\n      kind: connection\n      provider: slack\n      connection: slack\n'
+            },
+            {
+              path: "fragments/pr-review.yaml",
+              content: 'model:\n  provider: anthropic\n  id: claude-opus-4-8\nlabels:\n  purpose: pr-review\nsession:\n  archiveAfterInactive:\n    seconds: 86400\nsystemPrompt: |\n  You are a code-analysis agent for Auto. Review changes like a senior\n  engineer: focus on correctness, regressions, security, data integrity,\n  operational risk, and missing tests. Keep output concise, concrete, and\n  grounded in the diff. Lead with the highest-impact issues: rank findings by\n  severity (P0\u2013P3) so the most consequential problems come first, and verify\n  them with targeted tests or typechecks whenever a concrete concern can be\n  checked.\n\n  Also enforce the repository idioms documented in AGENTS.md and\n  docs/idioms.md. Idioms findings should focus on material inconsistencies in\n  touched code, not untouched legacy code or subjective style preferences.\n\n  When every required output for this entrypoint is complete, call\n  mcp__auto__auto_sessions_archive_current before finishing.\nidentity:\n  displayName: PR Review\n  username: pr-review\n  avatar:\n    asset: .auto/assets/pr-reviewer.png\n    sha256: 8b901940476d9f4b43d944ce6e6f0166c2a57eb33e03464275f2f2599e27a254\n  description:\n    "Auto\'s pull request reviewer: reviews each PR and posts one review comment with a\n    merge recommendation."\ndisplayTitle: "Review PR #{{github.pullRequest.number}}: {{github.pullRequest.title}}"\ninitialPrompt: |\n  Review GitHub pull request #{{github.pullRequest.number}} in {{github.repository.fullName}}.\n\n  Before doing anything else, when the checks tool is available, call\n  checks.begin with `{ "name": "pr-review" }`. This must happen before\n  inspecting PR metadata or the diff.\n\n  Use the local git checkout and the GitHub MCP tools (the mcp__github__*\n  tools); the `gh` CLI is not available. Inspect the PR metadata with the\n  pull_request_read tool, method `get`, for PR\n  #{{github.pullRequest.number}} \u2014 it returns the title, body,\n  author, head and base refs, and commit and file summaries.\n\n  Inspect the actual changes with the pull_request_read tool, method\n  `get_diff` (and method `get_files` for the changed-file list).\n\n  Read AGENTS.md and docs/idioms.md before forming your recommendation. Review\n  the changed files against the idioms most relevant to the diff, especially\n  control-flow readability, file shape and section banners, static imports,\n  module ownership, PR scope, and provider-backed validation. Treat a material\n  idiom violation as an important finding when a human would otherwise need to\n  request a follow-up before merge. Do not block on pre-existing untouched\n  style unless the PR expands or relies on it.\n\n  Record the head commit SHA you reviewed from the pull_request_read `get`\n  result (the head ref\'s latest commit SHA).\n\n  Determine whether you have reviewed this PR before. Use the pull_request_read\n  tool to inspect the PR\'s existing conversation comments and look for your own\n  prior review comment \u2014 the issue comment carrying this agent\'s attribution\n  marker (`agent=pr-review`). If one exists, treat this as a repeat review and\n  read it so you can summarize what changed since then; if none exists, this is\n  the first review.\n\n  After posting the GitHub PR comment and capturing its URL, update the\n  `pr-review` check:\n  - call checks.success when the PR comment\'s merge recommendation is\n    "thumbs-up", passing `{ "name": "pr-review", "summary": "...", "text": "..." }`\n  - call checks.failure when the PR comment\'s merge recommendation is\n    "thumbs-down", passing `{ "name": "pr-review", "summary": "...", "text": "..." }`\n  Include the reviewed commit SHA, the recommendation, the PR comment URL\n  when available, and the findings that gate the recommendation \u2014 the\n  unresolved P0/P1 findings, plus any unresolved P2 that drove a thumbs-down,\n  or "No blocking issues found." when nothing gates \u2014 in the check result.\n\n  The local checkout is a shallow checkout of the PR head only. Do not assume\n  origin/{{github.pullRequest.baseRef}} or origin/{{github.pullRequest.headRef}}\n  exists locally unless you explicitly fetch it first.\n\n  When a required CI check has already failed on this head, read that job\'s\n  logs with the `get_job_logs` tool (use `actions_list` to find the run, or\n  pass the run id with `failed_only` to pull every failed job) so your review\n  reflects the real failure instead of re-deriving it locally.\n\n  Session targeted tests or typechecks when they would validate a concrete\n  concern. The checkout may not have node_modules installed yet. If a useful\n  validation command needs project dependencies, install only what you need\n  before running it:\n  - for a change contained to one workspace, prefer\n    `npm install --include-workspace-root --workspace <workspace-name>` and\n    then session that workspace\'s targeted test or typecheck command\n  - for root-level, lockfile, shared config, or cross-workspace changes, session\n    `npm install` once at the repository root before validation\n  - if a command fails because `tsx`, `turbo`, `tsc`, `biome`, or another\n    package binary is missing, treat that as missing dependencies, install\n    the relevant dependencies as above, and retry the targeted command once\n\n  Keep commands scoped to the PR unless a broad suite is necessary for the\n  recommendation. Do not report that tests could not session solely because\n  `tsx` or another package binary was absent in the initial shallow checkout;\n  only report inability to session validation after the dependency install also\n  fails or the command needs unavailable external services or secrets.\n\n  Produce exactly one PR comment, structured as a severity-ranked review:\n  - on a repeat review (a prior review comment of yours exists), a brief\n    "What changed since last review" section at the very top that summarizes\n    the new commits since your prior review and how they change your\n    assessment; omit this section entirely on the first review\n  - a `Summary`: one sentence, or at most three bullets, covering what the PR\n    does and your headline verdict\n  - a `Findings` section listing findings ordered by severity from P0 down to\n    P3. Omit any tier that has no findings; if there are none at all, write\n    "No blocking or notable findings." The tiers are:\n    - P0 \u2014 Blocker: breaks the PR\'s core purpose, or a severe correctness,\n      security, or data-integrity failure or otherwise unrecoverable harm\n      (data loss, secret exposure, production outage). Must fix before merge.\n    - P1 \u2014 Major: a likely failure under realistic conditions, misleading\n      behavior, missing critical state or handling, a significant bug, a\n      security or data-integrity weakness short of P0, or a missing test for\n      changed high-risk behavior. Should fix before merge.\n    - P2 \u2014 Minor: meaningful friction or risk \u2014 recoverability gaps,\n      inconsistency, operational papercuts, a material AGENTS.md/docs/idioms.md\n      violation in touched code, or weaker-than-warranted test coverage. Fix\n      or justify.\n    - P3 \u2014 Nit: minor craft, consistency, or readability improvement. Optional.\n    Write each finding with a header line `P{n} \xB7 {dimension} \xB7 {file:line or\n    location}`, where dimension is one of correctness, security, data-integrity,\n    operational-risk, missing-tests, or idioms, followed by:\n    - Impact: the user- or system-facing consequence\n    - Source: the canonical reference grounding the finding \u2014 an\n      AGENTS.md/docs/idioms.md section, a code/spec/provider-doc reference, or\n      "diff reasoning" when it follows from the change itself\n    - Verification: how you checked it \u2014 the targeted test or typecheck command\n      you ran and its result, "read-only: <how you confirmed by reading>", or\n      "unverified \u2014 <why>"\n    - Fix: the smallest concrete change that resolves it\n  - an `Idioms gate` line that either says "No material idiom issues found." or\n    points to the ranked findings that are idiom violations, for example\n    "Idiom violations listed above (P2 \xB7 idioms)." Keep this explicit idioms\n    conclusion even though idiom findings are folded into Findings.\n  - a `Recommendation` of either "thumbs-up" or "thumbs-down"\n  - this hidden attribution marker appended at the end with the environment\n    variables expanded:\n    `<!-- auto:v=1 session_id=$AUTO_SESSION_ID agent=$AUTO_AGENT_NAME -->`\n\n  Decide the recommendation from the findings:\n  - "thumbs-down" if any P0 or P1 finding is unresolved\n  - "thumbs-down" if any P2 finding is unresolved, unless the PR body or author\n    documents why it is acceptable for this change\n  - P3 findings never gate the recommendation\n  - otherwise "thumbs-up"\n\n  Post the PR comment with the upsert_issue_comment tool. Pass the repository\n  owner and name from {{github.repository.fullName}} as `owner` and `repo`, PR\n  number {{github.pullRequest.number}} as `issueNumber`, and the full review as\n  `body`. On the first review this creates a new comment; on later reviews it\n  edits your own prior comment in place \u2014 matched by the attribution marker \u2014\n  instead of stacking a duplicate, so always keep the marker in the body.\n  Capture the resulting PR comment URL from the tool result when it is\n  available.\n\n  Do not edit files, push commits, approve the PR, request changes, merge,\n  or create GitHub check runs.\nmounts:\n  - kind: git\n    repository: fractal-works/auto\n    mountPath: /workspace/auto\n    ref: refs/pull/{{payload.github.pullRequest.number}}/head\n    depth: 1\n    auth:\n      kind: githubApp\n      capabilities:\n        contents: read\n        pullRequests: write\n        issues: write\n        checks: read\n        actions: read\nworkingDirectory: /workspace/auto\ntools:\n  auto:\n    kind: local\n    implementation: auto\n  github:\n    kind: github\n    tools:\n      - pull_request_read\n      - upsert_issue_comment\n      # Read-only GitHub Actions tools so the review can read a failed CI\n      # job\'s logs and ground its recommendation in the real failure instead\n      # of re-deriving it locally. The mount already grants `actions: read`.\n      - actions_get\n      - actions_list\n      - get_job_logs\ntriggers:\n  - event: github.pull_request.opened\n    connection: github-fractal-works\n    where:\n      $.github.repository.fullName: fractal-works/auto\n    checks:\n      - name: pr-review\n        displayName: Auto PR review\n        description: Auto reviews this pull request and reports whether blocking issues were found.\n        instructions: |\n          Call checks.begin with { "name": "pr-review" } before doing\n          anything else. After posting the GitHub PR comment, call\n          checks.success with { "name": "pr-review", "summary": "...",\n          "text": "..." } only for a thumbs-up merge recommendation, and call\n          checks.failure with { "name": "pr-review", "summary": "...",\n          "text": "..." } for a thumbs-down merge recommendation. Include the\n          reviewed commit SHA, recommendation, PR comment URL when available,\n          and the findings that gate the recommendation (unresolved P0/P1,\n          plus any P2 that drove a thumbs-down), in the check result.\n        beginTimeout:\n          seconds: 1200\n          conclusion: failure\n        completeTimeout:\n          seconds: 1200\n          conclusion: failure\n    routing:\n      kind: spawn\n  - event: github.pull_request.reopened\n    connection: github-fractal-works\n    where:\n      $.github.repository.fullName: fractal-works/auto\n    checks:\n      - name: pr-review\n        displayName: Auto PR review\n        description: Auto reviews this pull request and reports whether blocking issues were found.\n        instructions: |\n          Call checks.begin with { "name": "pr-review" } before doing\n          anything else. After posting the GitHub PR comment, call\n          checks.success with { "name": "pr-review", "summary": "...",\n          "text": "..." } only for a thumbs-up merge recommendation, and call\n          checks.failure with { "name": "pr-review", "summary": "...",\n          "text": "..." } for a thumbs-down merge recommendation. Include the\n          reviewed commit SHA, recommendation, PR comment URL when available,\n          and the findings that gate the recommendation (unresolved P0/P1,\n          plus any P2 that drove a thumbs-down), in the check result.\n        beginTimeout:\n          seconds: 1200\n          conclusion: failure\n        completeTimeout:\n          seconds: 1200\n          conclusion: failure\n    routing:\n      kind: spawn\n  - event: github.pull_request.synchronize\n    connection: github-fractal-works\n    where:\n      $.github.repository.fullName: fractal-works/auto\n    checks:\n      - name: pr-review\n        displayName: Auto PR review\n        description: Auto reviews this pull request and reports whether blocking issues were found.\n        instructions: |\n          Call checks.begin with { "name": "pr-review" } before doing\n          anything else. After posting the GitHub PR comment, call\n          checks.success with { "name": "pr-review", "summary": "...",\n          "text": "..." } only for a thumbs-up merge recommendation, and call\n          checks.failure with { "name": "pr-review", "summary": "...",\n          "text": "..." } for a thumbs-down merge recommendation. Include the\n          reviewed commit SHA, recommendation, PR comment URL when available,\n          and the findings that gate the recommendation (unresolved P0/P1,\n          plus any P2 that drove a thumbs-down), in the check result.\n        beginTimeout:\n          seconds: 1200\n          conclusion: failure\n        completeTimeout:\n          seconds: 1200\n          conclusion: failure\n    routing:\n      kind: spawn\n'
+            }
+          ]
         }
       ],
       "@auto/research-loop": [
@@ -30422,7 +30435,7 @@ var init_package = __esm({
   "package.json"() {
     package_default = {
       name: "@autohq/cli",
-      version: "0.1.333",
+      version: "0.1.334",
       license: "SEE LICENSE IN README.md",
       publishConfig: {
         access: "public"
@@ -31531,48 +31544,6 @@ var init_agent_document_merge = __esm({
   }
 });
 
-// ../../packages/schemas/src/project-apply-files/agent-fields/file-backed-string.ts
-import { posix as posix2 } from "path";
-function fileBackedStringField() {
-  return {
-    target: "spec",
-    read: (value, context) => resolveFileBackedString2(value, context)
-  };
-}
-function resolveFileBackedString2(value, input) {
-  if (!isRecord2(value) || !("file" in value)) {
-    return value;
-  }
-  const file2 = value.file;
-  if (typeof file2 !== "string" || file2.trim().length === 0) {
-    throw new Error(
-      `Invalid agent authoring file ${input.path}: ${input.field}.file must be a non-empty string`
-    );
-  }
-  const filePath = file2.trim();
-  if (isAbsoluteSourcePath(filePath) || /^[A-Za-z]+:\/\//.test(filePath)) {
-    throw new Error(
-      `Invalid agent authoring file ${input.path}: ${input.field}.file must be a relative path`
-    );
-  }
-  const resolved = normalizeSourcePath(
-    posix2.normalize(posix2.join(posix2.dirname(input.path), filePath))
-  );
-  const source = input.fileIndex.get(resolved);
-  if (!source) {
-    throw new Error(
-      `Invalid agent authoring file ${input.path}: ${input.field}.file not found: ${filePath}`
-    );
-  }
-  return Buffer.from(source.contentBase64, "base64").toString("utf8");
-}
-var init_file_backed_string = __esm({
-  "../../packages/schemas/src/project-apply-files/agent-fields/file-backed-string.ts"() {
-    "use strict";
-    init_source();
-  }
-});
-
 // ../../packages/schemas/src/project-apply-files/agent-fields/helpers.ts
 function emptyAgentDraft() {
   return { metadata: {}, spec: {} };
@@ -31629,6 +31600,114 @@ var init_helpers = __esm({
   }
 });
 
+// ../../packages/schemas/src/project-apply-files/agent-fields/file-backed-string.ts
+import { posix as posix2 } from "path";
+function fileBackedStringField() {
+  return {
+    target: "spec",
+    read: (value, context) => resolveFileBackedString2(value, context),
+    merge: (base, override) => resolveAppendDirective(base, override)
+  };
+}
+function rejectDirectiveObject(value, input) {
+  if (isRecord2(value) && "append" in value) {
+    throw new Error(
+      `Invalid agent authoring file ${input.path}: ${input.field} does not support directive objects; append is supported on ${APPEND_CAPABLE_FIELDS}`
+    );
+  }
+  return value;
+}
+function resolveFileBackedString2(value, input) {
+  if (!isRecord2(value)) {
+    return value;
+  }
+  if ("file" in value && !("append" in value)) {
+    return resolveFileReference(value.file, input);
+  }
+  return readAppendDirectiveMarker(value, input);
+}
+function resolveFileReference(file2, input) {
+  if (typeof file2 !== "string" || file2.trim().length === 0) {
+    throw new Error(
+      `Invalid agent authoring file ${input.path}: ${input.field}.file must be a non-empty string`
+    );
+  }
+  const filePath = file2.trim();
+  if (isAbsoluteSourcePath(filePath) || /^[A-Za-z]+:\/\//.test(filePath)) {
+    throw new Error(
+      `Invalid agent authoring file ${input.path}: ${input.field}.file must be a relative path`
+    );
+  }
+  const resolved = normalizeSourcePath(
+    posix2.normalize(posix2.join(posix2.dirname(input.path), filePath))
+  );
+  const source = input.fileIndex.get(resolved);
+  if (!source) {
+    throw new Error(
+      `Invalid agent authoring file ${input.path}: ${input.field}.file not found: ${filePath}`
+    );
+  }
+  return Buffer.from(source.contentBase64, "base64").toString("utf8");
+}
+function readAppendDirectiveMarker(value, input) {
+  const keys = Object.keys(value).sort();
+  if (keys.length !== 1) {
+    throw new Error(
+      `Invalid agent authoring file ${input.path}: ${input.field} directive object must have exactly one operation key (got ${keys.join(", ") || "none"})`
+    );
+  }
+  const [operation] = keys;
+  if (operation !== "append") {
+    throw new Error(
+      `Invalid agent authoring file ${input.path}: ${input.field} directive object has unknown operation "${operation}"; supported operations: append`
+    );
+  }
+  if (typeof value.append !== "string") {
+    throw new Error(
+      `Invalid agent authoring file ${input.path}: ${input.field}.append must be a string`
+    );
+  }
+  return {
+    [APPEND_DIRECTIVE_MARKER_KEY]: {
+      text: value.append,
+      path: input.path,
+      field: input.field
+    }
+  };
+}
+function resolveAppendDirective(base, override) {
+  const directive = appendDirectiveFromMarker(override);
+  if (!directive) {
+    return mergeValues3(base, override);
+  }
+  if (typeof base !== "string") {
+    throw new Error(
+      `Invalid agent authoring file ${directive.path}: ${directive.field} append directive has no imported ${directive.field} to append to`
+    );
+  }
+  return base + directive.text;
+}
+function appendDirectiveFromMarker(value) {
+  if (!isRecord2(value)) {
+    return void 0;
+  }
+  const marker = value[APPEND_DIRECTIVE_MARKER_KEY];
+  if (!isRecord2(marker)) {
+    return void 0;
+  }
+  return marker;
+}
+var APPEND_DIRECTIVE_MARKER_KEY, APPEND_CAPABLE_FIELDS;
+var init_file_backed_string = __esm({
+  "../../packages/schemas/src/project-apply-files/agent-fields/file-backed-string.ts"() {
+    "use strict";
+    init_source();
+    init_helpers();
+    APPEND_DIRECTIVE_MARKER_KEY = "__autoAppendDirective";
+    APPEND_CAPABLE_FIELDS = "systemPrompt, initialPrompt, onReplace";
+  }
+});
+
 // ../../packages/schemas/src/project-apply-files/agent-fields/inline-resource.ts
 function inlineEnvironmentField() {
   return {
@@ -31912,11 +31991,12 @@ function metadataField() {
   return { target: "metadata" };
 }
 function specField() {
-  return { target: "spec" };
+  return { target: "spec", read: rejectDirectiveObject };
 }
 var init_scalar = __esm({
   "../../packages/schemas/src/project-apply-files/agent-fields/scalar.ts"() {
     "use strict";
+    init_file_backed_string();
   }
 });
 

package/package.json

@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 {
   "name": "@autohq/cli",
-  "version": "0.1.333",
+  "version": "0.1.334",
   "license": "SEE LICENSE IN README.md",
   "publishConfig": {
     "access": "public"