@codeam/shared 2.61.22 → 2.61.23

package/dist/index.mjs

@@ -1022,6 +1022,94 @@ function getIntegrationBranding(id) {
   return INTEGRATION_BRANDING[id] ?? null;
 }
 
+// src/skills/registry.ts
+var CODE_REVIEW_BODY = `Use this skill when reviewing a pull request. It defines what a high-signal
+review looks like so your inline comments are worth the author's time.
+
+## Review priorities (in order)
+1. **Correctness** \u2014 does the change do what the PR says, and only that? Trace the
+   changed paths for logic errors, off-by-one, null/undefined, wrong branch, and
+   inverted conditions. State a concrete failure scenario (inputs \u2192 wrong output)
+   for anything you flag as a bug.
+2. **Security** \u2014 untrusted input reaching a sink (SQL, shell, path, HTML), secrets
+   in code/logs, authz gaps, credentials passed via argv instead of env.
+3. **Tests** \u2014 does the change carry tests that would fail without it? Missing
+   coverage on a bug-prone path is a finding.
+4. **Clarity / reuse** \u2014 duplicated logic, a simpler existing helper, a name that
+   misleads. Only raise these when they materially affect maintainability.
+
+## Comment discipline
+- One finding per comment, anchored to the exact line.
+- Lead with severity: **blocker**, **should-fix**, or **nit**.
+- Say WHY (the failure or risk), not just WHAT. Propose the fix when it is short.
+- Do NOT restate the diff, praise trivially, or nitpick style a formatter owns.
+- If the PR is correct and well-tested, say so plainly and approve \u2014 a clean review
+  is a valid outcome, not a failure to find something.
+
+## Scope
+Review only what the diff changes and its direct blast radius. Do not demand
+unrelated refactors.`;
+var CODE_REVIEW_INSTRUCTION = `When reviewing this PR, prioritize correctness first, then security, then test
+coverage, then clarity/reuse. One finding per inline comment, anchored to the exact
+line, each led by a severity tag (blocker/should-fix/nit) and a concrete reason
+(the failure scenario or risk), not a restatement of the diff. If the change is
+correct and well-tested, approve and say so \u2014 finding nothing is a valid outcome.
+Review only the diff and its direct blast radius; do not demand unrelated refactors.`;
+var RESOLVE_CONFLICTS_BODY = `Use this skill when resolving merge conflicts on a pull request. The goal is a
+merge that preserves BOTH sides' intent, not one that just makes the file compile.
+
+## Method
+1. Understand each conflict hunk before editing: what did HEAD change, what did the
+   base branch change, and WHY. Read the surrounding function, not just the markers.
+2. Prefer a union of intents. Drop a side only when the two changes are genuinely
+   mutually exclusive \u2014 and when you do, keep the side that matches the PR's purpose.
+3. Never leave a conflict marker (\`<<<<<<<\`, \`=======\`, \`>>>>>>>\`) behind. Grep for
+   them before committing.
+4. After resolving, the code must build and its tests must pass. Run them. A merge
+   that resolves markers but breaks the build is not done.
+5. For lockfiles/generated files, regenerate rather than hand-merge.
+
+## Commit
+One commit that explains what was reconciled and any intent you had to choose
+between. Then push the branch.`;
+var RESOLVE_CONFLICTS_INSTRUCTION = `When resolving these merge conflicts, preserve both sides' intent \u2014 read each hunk's
+surrounding code to understand what HEAD and the base branch each changed and why,
+and prefer a union of intents; drop a side only when the two are mutually exclusive,
+keeping the side that matches the PR's purpose. Leave no conflict markers behind
+(grep for them). Regenerate lockfiles rather than hand-merging them. The result must
+build and pass tests \u2014 run them \u2014 before you commit and push.`;
+var SKILL_REGISTRY = {
+  "code-review": {
+    id: "code-review",
+    name: "Code Review",
+    description: `High-signal PR review: prioritize correctness \u2192 security \u2192 tests \u2192 clarity, one anchored finding per comment.`,
+    source: "curated",
+    delivery: {
+      skillFile: { body: CODE_REVIEW_BODY },
+      instruction: { body: CODE_REVIEW_INSTRUCTION }
+    }
+  },
+  "resolve-conflicts": {
+    id: "resolve-conflicts",
+    name: "Resolve Conflicts",
+    description: `Merge-conflict resolution that preserves both sides' intent, leaves no markers, and keeps the build green.`,
+    source: "curated",
+    delivery: {
+      skillFile: { body: RESOLVE_CONFLICTS_BODY },
+      instruction: { body: RESOLVE_CONFLICTS_INSTRUCTION }
+    }
+  }
+};
+function isSkillId(id) {
+  return Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty.call(SKILL_REGISTRY, id);
+}
+function getSkillDefinition(id) {
+  return isSkillId(id) ? SKILL_REGISTRY[id] : null;
+}
+function skillHasRail(id, rail) {
+  return Boolean(SKILL_REGISTRY[id].delivery[rail]);
+}
+
 // src/api-url.ts
 var DEFAULT_API_BASE_URL = "https://api.codeagent-mobile.com";
 var DEV_API_BASE_URL = "https://dev-api.codeagent-mobile.com";
@@ -1233,6 +1321,7 @@ export {
   PREVIEW_DETECT_PROMPT,
   PROTOCOL_VERSION,
   PUBLIC_TO_INTERNAL,
+  SKILL_REGISTRY,
   SSE_SOCKET_TIMEOUT_MS,
   TERMINAL_AGENT_PREFIX,
   UNKNOWN_MODEL_PRICING,
@@ -1246,6 +1335,7 @@ export {
   getIntegrationBranding,
   getIntegrationsByCategory,
   getPricing,
+  getSkillDefinition,
   headroomKindFor,
   headroomModelPredownloadScript,
   headroomPipPackage,
@@ -1256,10 +1346,12 @@ export {
   isKnownIntegrationId,
   isKnownModel,
   isLinkedAgentId,
+  isSkillId,
   normalizeAgentId,
   publicToInternal,
   renderToLines,
   resolveApiBaseUrl,
+  skillHasRail,
   toRemoteCommand,
   tryGetContextWindow
 };