@codyswann/lisa 2.211.2 → 2.211.3
This diff represents the content of publicly available package versions that have been released to one of the supported registries. The information contained in this diff is provided for informational purposes only and reflects changes between package versions as they appear in their respective public registries.
- package/package.json +1 -1
- package/plugins/lisa/.claude-plugin/plugin.json +1 -1
- package/plugins/lisa/.codex-plugin/plugin.json +1 -1
- package/plugins/lisa/rules/reference/intent-routing.md +2 -2
- package/plugins/lisa-agy/plugin.json +1 -1
- package/plugins/lisa-cdk/.claude-plugin/plugin.json +1 -1
- package/plugins/lisa-cdk/.codex-plugin/plugin.json +1 -1
- package/plugins/lisa-cdk-agy/plugin.json +1 -1
- package/plugins/lisa-cdk-copilot/.claude-plugin/plugin.json +1 -1
- package/plugins/lisa-cdk-cursor/.claude-plugin/plugin.json +1 -1
- package/plugins/lisa-copilot/.claude-plugin/plugin.json +1 -1
- package/plugins/lisa-copilot/rules/reference/intent-routing.md +2 -2
- package/plugins/lisa-cursor/.claude-plugin/plugin.json +1 -1
- package/plugins/lisa-cursor/rules/intent-routing-reference.mdc +2 -2
- package/plugins/lisa-expo/.claude-plugin/plugin.json +1 -1
- package/plugins/lisa-expo/.codex-plugin/plugin.json +1 -1
- package/plugins/lisa-expo-agy/plugin.json +1 -1
- package/plugins/lisa-expo-copilot/.claude-plugin/plugin.json +1 -1
- package/plugins/lisa-expo-cursor/.claude-plugin/plugin.json +1 -1
- package/plugins/lisa-harper-fabric/.claude-plugin/plugin.json +1 -1
- package/plugins/lisa-harper-fabric/.codex-plugin/plugin.json +1 -1
- package/plugins/lisa-harper-fabric-agy/plugin.json +1 -1
- package/plugins/lisa-harper-fabric-copilot/.claude-plugin/plugin.json +1 -1
- package/plugins/lisa-harper-fabric-cursor/.claude-plugin/plugin.json +1 -1
- package/plugins/lisa-nestjs/.claude-plugin/plugin.json +1 -1
- package/plugins/lisa-nestjs/.codex-plugin/plugin.json +1 -1
- package/plugins/lisa-nestjs-agy/plugin.json +1 -1
- package/plugins/lisa-nestjs-copilot/.claude-plugin/plugin.json +1 -1
- package/plugins/lisa-nestjs-cursor/.claude-plugin/plugin.json +1 -1
- package/plugins/lisa-openclaw/.claude-plugin/plugin.json +1 -1
- package/plugins/lisa-openclaw/.codex-plugin/plugin.json +1 -1
- package/plugins/lisa-openclaw-agy/plugin.json +1 -1
- package/plugins/lisa-openclaw-copilot/.claude-plugin/plugin.json +1 -1
- package/plugins/lisa-openclaw-cursor/.claude-plugin/plugin.json +1 -1
- package/plugins/lisa-phaser/.claude-plugin/plugin.json +1 -1
- package/plugins/lisa-phaser/.codex-plugin/plugin.json +1 -1
- package/plugins/lisa-phaser-agy/plugin.json +1 -1
- package/plugins/lisa-phaser-copilot/.claude-plugin/plugin.json +1 -1
- package/plugins/lisa-phaser-cursor/.claude-plugin/plugin.json +1 -1
- package/plugins/lisa-rails/.claude-plugin/plugin.json +1 -1
- package/plugins/lisa-rails/.codex-plugin/plugin.json +1 -1
- package/plugins/lisa-rails-agy/plugin.json +1 -1
- package/plugins/lisa-rails-copilot/.claude-plugin/plugin.json +1 -1
- package/plugins/lisa-rails-cursor/.claude-plugin/plugin.json +1 -1
- package/plugins/lisa-typescript/.claude-plugin/plugin.json +1 -1
- package/plugins/lisa-typescript/.codex-plugin/plugin.json +1 -1
- package/plugins/lisa-typescript-agy/plugin.json +1 -1
- package/plugins/lisa-typescript-copilot/.claude-plugin/plugin.json +1 -1
- package/plugins/lisa-typescript-cursor/.claude-plugin/plugin.json +1 -1
- package/plugins/lisa-wiki/.claude-plugin/plugin.json +1 -1
- package/plugins/lisa-wiki/.codex-plugin/plugin.json +1 -1
- package/plugins/lisa-wiki-agy/plugin.json +1 -1
- package/plugins/lisa-wiki-copilot/.claude-plugin/plugin.json +1 -1
- package/plugins/lisa-wiki-cursor/.claude-plugin/plugin.json +1 -1
- package/plugins/src/base/rules/reference/intent-routing.md +2 -2
package/package.json
CHANGED
|
@@ -95,7 +95,7 @@
|
|
|
95
95
|
"ws": ">=8.20.1"
|
|
96
96
|
},
|
|
97
97
|
"name": "@codyswann/lisa",
|
|
98
|
-
"version": "2.211.
|
|
98
|
+
"version": "2.211.3",
|
|
99
99
|
"description": "Claude Code governance framework that applies guardrails, guidance, and automated enforcement to projects",
|
|
100
100
|
"main": "dist/index.js",
|
|
101
101
|
"exports": {
|
|
@@ -67,8 +67,8 @@ Sequence:
|
|
|
67
67
|
2. `product-specialist` -- define user goals, user flows (Gherkin), acceptance criteria, error states, UX concerns, and out-of-scope items
|
|
68
68
|
3. **Edge Case Brainstorm sub-flow** -- run the PRD candidate through the edge-case checklist; fold accepted cases into acceptance criteria, out-of-scope, or open questions
|
|
69
69
|
4. `architecture-specialist` -- assess technical feasibility, identify constraints, map existing system boundaries
|
|
70
|
-
5. Synthesize findings into a PRD containing: problem statement, user stories, acceptance criteria, technical constraints, open questions, and proposed scope
|
|
71
|
-
6. **Plan Phase Tooling** -- review all available skills and agents (project-defined, plugin-provided, and built-in) and determine which ones the Plan phase will need. For each recommended skill or agent, state why it is needed. If no skills or agents beyond the defaults are identified, explicitly justify why the standard set is sufficient. Include this as a "Recommended Tooling for Plan Phase" section in the PRD.
|
|
70
|
+
5. Synthesize findings into a PRD containing: problem statement, user stories, acceptance criteria, technical constraints, open questions, and proposed scope. Any technically viable but genuinely unresolved choice discovered during drafting (for example, a library, framework, or architecture decision with more than one live candidate) MUST be captured as an entry under open questions -- never written into any other section, including the "Recommended Tooling for Plan Phase" section in step 6, as though it were already decided. Every open-questions entry MUST include the drafter's own recommended resolution, with a one-sentence rationale, alongside the question; an open question must never be left bare.
|
|
71
|
+
6. **Plan Phase Tooling** -- review all available skills and agents (project-defined, plugin-provided, and built-in) and determine which ones the Plan phase will need. For each recommended skill or agent, state why it is needed. If no skills or agents beyond the defaults are identified, explicitly justify why the standard set is sufficient. Include this as a "Recommended Tooling for Plan Phase" section in the PRD. This section documents settled recommendations for how to run the Plan phase, meaning which skills or agents to use; it MUST NOT be used to record an unresolved product or technical decision, such as "use library X" when X vs. Y was never actually decided. If step 5 surfaced an unresolved technical choice, it belongs in open questions with a recommendation, not here.
|
|
72
72
|
7. **Create the PRD in the configured source** -- invoke `lisa-prd-source-write` with the synthesized PRD (`title`, `body`, `initial_role` resolved from the caller's `prd_ready` flag — `draft` by default, `ready` when `prd_ready=true`, plus any `dedupe_key`/`marker`/`source_ref` the caller passed). The PRD **lives in the source** (Notion page / Confluence page / GitHub issue / Linear project per `.lisa.config.json` `source`); there is no separate document artifact. A `source` must be configured — if it is not, stop and report it. `prd-source-write` dedupes by marker, so re-running against the same idea references the existing PRD instead of creating a duplicate.
|
|
73
73
|
8. **Record Research usage on the PRD artifact** -- invoke `lisa-usage-accounting` against the created PRD/source artifact so it gains a direct `research` usage entry in the canonical `## Lisa Usage` section at creation time. If the runtime cannot provide trustworthy usage, still write the row with `source: unavailable` and nullable token/cost fields; missing usage is never treated as zero or silently omitted.
|
|
74
74
|
9. `learner` -- capture discoveries for future sessions
|
|
@@ -67,8 +67,8 @@ Sequence:
|
|
|
67
67
|
2. `product-specialist` -- define user goals, user flows (Gherkin), acceptance criteria, error states, UX concerns, and out-of-scope items
|
|
68
68
|
3. **Edge Case Brainstorm sub-flow** -- run the PRD candidate through the edge-case checklist; fold accepted cases into acceptance criteria, out-of-scope, or open questions
|
|
69
69
|
4. `architecture-specialist` -- assess technical feasibility, identify constraints, map existing system boundaries
|
|
70
|
-
5. Synthesize findings into a PRD containing: problem statement, user stories, acceptance criteria, technical constraints, open questions, and proposed scope
|
|
71
|
-
6. **Plan Phase Tooling** -- review all available skills and agents (project-defined, plugin-provided, and built-in) and determine which ones the Plan phase will need. For each recommended skill or agent, state why it is needed. If no skills or agents beyond the defaults are identified, explicitly justify why the standard set is sufficient. Include this as a "Recommended Tooling for Plan Phase" section in the PRD.
|
|
70
|
+
5. Synthesize findings into a PRD containing: problem statement, user stories, acceptance criteria, technical constraints, open questions, and proposed scope. Any technically viable but genuinely unresolved choice discovered during drafting (for example, a library, framework, or architecture decision with more than one live candidate) MUST be captured as an entry under open questions -- never written into any other section, including the "Recommended Tooling for Plan Phase" section in step 6, as though it were already decided. Every open-questions entry MUST include the drafter's own recommended resolution, with a one-sentence rationale, alongside the question; an open question must never be left bare.
|
|
71
|
+
6. **Plan Phase Tooling** -- review all available skills and agents (project-defined, plugin-provided, and built-in) and determine which ones the Plan phase will need. For each recommended skill or agent, state why it is needed. If no skills or agents beyond the defaults are identified, explicitly justify why the standard set is sufficient. Include this as a "Recommended Tooling for Plan Phase" section in the PRD. This section documents settled recommendations for how to run the Plan phase, meaning which skills or agents to use; it MUST NOT be used to record an unresolved product or technical decision, such as "use library X" when X vs. Y was never actually decided. If step 5 surfaced an unresolved technical choice, it belongs in open questions with a recommendation, not here.
|
|
72
72
|
7. **Create the PRD in the configured source** -- invoke `lisa-prd-source-write` with the synthesized PRD (`title`, `body`, `initial_role` resolved from the caller's `prd_ready` flag — `draft` by default, `ready` when `prd_ready=true`, plus any `dedupe_key`/`marker`/`source_ref` the caller passed). The PRD **lives in the source** (Notion page / Confluence page / GitHub issue / Linear project per `.lisa.config.json` `source`); there is no separate document artifact. A `source` must be configured — if it is not, stop and report it. `prd-source-write` dedupes by marker, so re-running against the same idea references the existing PRD instead of creating a duplicate.
|
|
73
73
|
8. **Record Research usage on the PRD artifact** -- invoke `lisa-usage-accounting` against the created PRD/source artifact so it gains a direct `research` usage entry in the canonical `## Lisa Usage` section at creation time. If the runtime cannot provide trustworthy usage, still write the row with `source: unavailable` and nullable token/cost fields; missing usage is never treated as zero or silently omitted.
|
|
74
74
|
9. `learner` -- capture discoveries for future sessions
|
|
@@ -72,8 +72,8 @@ Sequence:
|
|
|
72
72
|
2. `product-specialist` -- define user goals, user flows (Gherkin), acceptance criteria, error states, UX concerns, and out-of-scope items
|
|
73
73
|
3. **Edge Case Brainstorm sub-flow** -- run the PRD candidate through the edge-case checklist; fold accepted cases into acceptance criteria, out-of-scope, or open questions
|
|
74
74
|
4. `architecture-specialist` -- assess technical feasibility, identify constraints, map existing system boundaries
|
|
75
|
-
5. Synthesize findings into a PRD containing: problem statement, user stories, acceptance criteria, technical constraints, open questions, and proposed scope
|
|
76
|
-
6. **Plan Phase Tooling** -- review all available skills and agents (project-defined, plugin-provided, and built-in) and determine which ones the Plan phase will need. For each recommended skill or agent, state why it is needed. If no skills or agents beyond the defaults are identified, explicitly justify why the standard set is sufficient. Include this as a "Recommended Tooling for Plan Phase" section in the PRD.
|
|
75
|
+
5. Synthesize findings into a PRD containing: problem statement, user stories, acceptance criteria, technical constraints, open questions, and proposed scope. Any technically viable but genuinely unresolved choice discovered during drafting (for example, a library, framework, or architecture decision with more than one live candidate) MUST be captured as an entry under open questions -- never written into any other section, including the "Recommended Tooling for Plan Phase" section in step 6, as though it were already decided. Every open-questions entry MUST include the drafter's own recommended resolution, with a one-sentence rationale, alongside the question; an open question must never be left bare.
|
|
76
|
+
6. **Plan Phase Tooling** -- review all available skills and agents (project-defined, plugin-provided, and built-in) and determine which ones the Plan phase will need. For each recommended skill or agent, state why it is needed. If no skills or agents beyond the defaults are identified, explicitly justify why the standard set is sufficient. Include this as a "Recommended Tooling for Plan Phase" section in the PRD. This section documents settled recommendations for how to run the Plan phase, meaning which skills or agents to use; it MUST NOT be used to record an unresolved product or technical decision, such as "use library X" when X vs. Y was never actually decided. If step 5 surfaced an unresolved technical choice, it belongs in open questions with a recommendation, not here.
|
|
77
77
|
7. **Create the PRD in the configured source** -- invoke `lisa-prd-source-write` with the synthesized PRD (`title`, `body`, `initial_role` resolved from the caller's `prd_ready` flag — `draft` by default, `ready` when `prd_ready=true`, plus any `dedupe_key`/`marker`/`source_ref` the caller passed). The PRD **lives in the source** (Notion page / Confluence page / GitHub issue / Linear project per `.lisa.config.json` `source`); there is no separate document artifact. A `source` must be configured — if it is not, stop and report it. `prd-source-write` dedupes by marker, so re-running against the same idea references the existing PRD instead of creating a duplicate.
|
|
78
78
|
8. **Record Research usage on the PRD artifact** -- invoke `lisa-usage-accounting` against the created PRD/source artifact so it gains a direct `research` usage entry in the canonical `## Lisa Usage` section at creation time. If the runtime cannot provide trustworthy usage, still write the row with `source: unavailable` and nullable token/cost fields; missing usage is never treated as zero or silently omitted.
|
|
79
79
|
9. `learner` -- capture discoveries for future sessions
|
|
@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
|
|
|
1
1
|
{
|
|
2
2
|
"name": "lisa-openclaw",
|
|
3
|
-
"version": "2.211.
|
|
3
|
+
"version": "2.211.3",
|
|
4
4
|
"description": "Connect staff roles to Telegram or Slack via OpenClaw — facilitator/specialist hub-and-spoke routing and repo-coding topics, for Claude Code and Codex",
|
|
5
5
|
"author": {
|
|
6
6
|
"name": "Cody Swann"
|
|
@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
|
|
|
1
1
|
{
|
|
2
2
|
"name": "lisa-openclaw",
|
|
3
|
-
"version": "2.211.
|
|
3
|
+
"version": "2.211.3",
|
|
4
4
|
"description": "Connect staff roles to Telegram or Slack via OpenClaw — facilitator/specialist hub-and-spoke routing and repo-coding topics, across Claude and Codex.",
|
|
5
5
|
"author": {
|
|
6
6
|
"name": "Cody Swann"
|
|
@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
|
|
|
1
1
|
{
|
|
2
2
|
"name": "lisa-openclaw",
|
|
3
|
-
"version": "2.211.
|
|
3
|
+
"version": "2.211.3",
|
|
4
4
|
"description": "Connect staff roles to Telegram or Slack via OpenClaw — facilitator/specialist hub-and-spoke routing and repo-coding topics, for Claude Code and Codex",
|
|
5
5
|
"author": {
|
|
6
6
|
"name": "Cody Swann"
|
|
@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
|
|
|
1
1
|
{
|
|
2
2
|
"name": "lisa-openclaw",
|
|
3
|
-
"version": "2.211.
|
|
3
|
+
"version": "2.211.3",
|
|
4
4
|
"description": "Connect staff roles to Telegram or Slack via OpenClaw — facilitator/specialist hub-and-spoke routing and repo-coding topics, for Claude Code and Codex",
|
|
5
5
|
"author": {
|
|
6
6
|
"name": "Cody Swann"
|
|
@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
|
|
|
1
1
|
{
|
|
2
2
|
"name": "lisa-openclaw",
|
|
3
|
-
"version": "2.211.
|
|
3
|
+
"version": "2.211.3",
|
|
4
4
|
"description": "Connect staff roles to Telegram or Slack via OpenClaw — facilitator/specialist hub-and-spoke routing and repo-coding topics, for Claude Code and Codex",
|
|
5
5
|
"author": {
|
|
6
6
|
"name": "Cody Swann"
|
|
@@ -67,8 +67,8 @@ Sequence:
|
|
|
67
67
|
2. `product-specialist` -- define user goals, user flows (Gherkin), acceptance criteria, error states, UX concerns, and out-of-scope items
|
|
68
68
|
3. **Edge Case Brainstorm sub-flow** -- run the PRD candidate through the edge-case checklist; fold accepted cases into acceptance criteria, out-of-scope, or open questions
|
|
69
69
|
4. `architecture-specialist` -- assess technical feasibility, identify constraints, map existing system boundaries
|
|
70
|
-
5. Synthesize findings into a PRD containing: problem statement, user stories, acceptance criteria, technical constraints, open questions, and proposed scope
|
|
71
|
-
6. **Plan Phase Tooling** -- review all available skills and agents (project-defined, plugin-provided, and built-in) and determine which ones the Plan phase will need. For each recommended skill or agent, state why it is needed. If no skills or agents beyond the defaults are identified, explicitly justify why the standard set is sufficient. Include this as a "Recommended Tooling for Plan Phase" section in the PRD.
|
|
70
|
+
5. Synthesize findings into a PRD containing: problem statement, user stories, acceptance criteria, technical constraints, open questions, and proposed scope. Any technically viable but genuinely unresolved choice discovered during drafting (for example, a library, framework, or architecture decision with more than one live candidate) MUST be captured as an entry under open questions -- never written into any other section, including the "Recommended Tooling for Plan Phase" section in step 6, as though it were already decided. Every open-questions entry MUST include the drafter's own recommended resolution, with a one-sentence rationale, alongside the question; an open question must never be left bare.
|
|
71
|
+
6. **Plan Phase Tooling** -- review all available skills and agents (project-defined, plugin-provided, and built-in) and determine which ones the Plan phase will need. For each recommended skill or agent, state why it is needed. If no skills or agents beyond the defaults are identified, explicitly justify why the standard set is sufficient. Include this as a "Recommended Tooling for Plan Phase" section in the PRD. This section documents settled recommendations for how to run the Plan phase, meaning which skills or agents to use; it MUST NOT be used to record an unresolved product or technical decision, such as "use library X" when X vs. Y was never actually decided. If step 5 surfaced an unresolved technical choice, it belongs in open questions with a recommendation, not here.
|
|
72
72
|
7. **Create the PRD in the configured source** -- invoke `lisa-prd-source-write` with the synthesized PRD (`title`, `body`, `initial_role` resolved from the caller's `prd_ready` flag — `draft` by default, `ready` when `prd_ready=true`, plus any `dedupe_key`/`marker`/`source_ref` the caller passed). The PRD **lives in the source** (Notion page / Confluence page / GitHub issue / Linear project per `.lisa.config.json` `source`); there is no separate document artifact. A `source` must be configured — if it is not, stop and report it. `prd-source-write` dedupes by marker, so re-running against the same idea references the existing PRD instead of creating a duplicate.
|
|
73
73
|
8. **Record Research usage on the PRD artifact** -- invoke `lisa-usage-accounting` against the created PRD/source artifact so it gains a direct `research` usage entry in the canonical `## Lisa Usage` section at creation time. If the runtime cannot provide trustworthy usage, still write the row with `source: unavailable` and nullable token/cost fields; missing usage is never treated as zero or silently omitted.
|
|
74
74
|
9. `learner` -- capture discoveries for future sessions
|