@codyswann/lisa 2.99.0 → 2.99.1
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/skills/intake-explain/SKILL.md +74 -0
- package/plugins/lisa-cdk/.claude-plugin/plugin.json +1 -1
- package/plugins/lisa-cdk/.codex-plugin/plugin.json +1 -1
- package/plugins/lisa-expo/.claude-plugin/plugin.json +1 -1
- package/plugins/lisa-expo/.codex-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-nestjs/.claude-plugin/plugin.json +1 -1
- package/plugins/lisa-nestjs/.codex-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-rails/.claude-plugin/plugin.json +1 -1
- package/plugins/lisa-rails/.codex-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-wiki/.claude-plugin/plugin.json +1 -1
- package/plugins/lisa-wiki/.codex-plugin/plugin.json +1 -1
- package/plugins/src/base/skills/intake-explain/SKILL.md +74 -0
package/package.json
CHANGED
|
@@ -82,7 +82,7 @@
|
|
|
82
82
|
"lodash": ">=4.18.1"
|
|
83
83
|
},
|
|
84
84
|
"name": "@codyswann/lisa",
|
|
85
|
-
"version": "2.99.
|
|
85
|
+
"version": "2.99.1",
|
|
86
86
|
"description": "Claude Code governance framework that applies guardrails, guidance, and automated enforcement to projects",
|
|
87
87
|
"main": "dist/index.js",
|
|
88
88
|
"exports": {
|
|
@@ -26,6 +26,26 @@ Inspect exactly one repo-scoped item reference:
|
|
|
26
26
|
|
|
27
27
|
The skill must determine whether the item belongs to the PRD lifecycle or the build lifecycle, then explain the item's status using the **same contract** Lisa already uses for `/lisa:intake` and `/lisa:repair-intake`. Do **not** invent a second source of truth for queue detection, lifecycle role naming, repo scoping, or repair eligibility.
|
|
28
28
|
|
|
29
|
+
## Operator usage
|
|
30
|
+
|
|
31
|
+
Typical entrypoints:
|
|
32
|
+
|
|
33
|
+
```text
|
|
34
|
+
/lisa:intake-explain https://github.com/acme/repo/issues/123
|
|
35
|
+
/lisa:intake-explain owner/repo#123
|
|
36
|
+
/lisa:intake-explain ENG-123
|
|
37
|
+
/lisa:intake-explain https://linear.app/acme/issue/ENG-123/example
|
|
38
|
+
```
|
|
39
|
+
|
|
40
|
+
Use this command when an operator needs one deterministic answer to questions like:
|
|
41
|
+
|
|
42
|
+
- "Would Lisa intake this item right now, or skip it?"
|
|
43
|
+
- "Is this state still product-owned, or has it crossed into a Lisa-owned lane?"
|
|
44
|
+
- "Is repair eligible yet, or am I still waiting on staleness or backoff?"
|
|
45
|
+
- "Is the real next step `/lisa:intake`, `/lisa:repair-intake`, blocker cleanup, decomposition, or manual product clarification?"
|
|
46
|
+
|
|
47
|
+
Keep the diagnosis terminal-first and human-readable: observable item facts first, then the smallest useful next command or manual action.
|
|
48
|
+
|
|
29
49
|
## Contract reuse
|
|
30
50
|
|
|
31
51
|
Resolve item family, queue source/tracker, and lifecycle role names from `.lisa.config.json` plus the same defaults the active intake and repair flows already consume.
|
|
@@ -53,6 +73,28 @@ Render a stable terminal-first diagnosis for one item:
|
|
|
53
73
|
|
|
54
74
|
Keep observable item facts separate from the recommended next step so operators can tell what Lisa knows versus what Lisa suggests.
|
|
55
75
|
|
|
76
|
+
## Verdicts and next actions
|
|
77
|
+
|
|
78
|
+
Use verdicts as stable operator language, not as an excuse to dump raw tracker state:
|
|
79
|
+
|
|
80
|
+
- `ELIGIBLE_FOR_INTAKE`: the item is in the correct actionable lane and Lisa could pick it up with `/lisa:intake`.
|
|
81
|
+
- `ELIGIBLE_FOR_REPAIR`: the item is Lisa-owned, stale or stuck enough to qualify for `/lisa:repair-intake`, and repair suppression rules are not currently preventing action.
|
|
82
|
+
- `WAITING_ON_STALENESS`: the item is Lisa-owned but too fresh to repair yet; explain which activity signal or freshness window is still protecting it from a repair loop.
|
|
83
|
+
- `HELD_BY_BLOCKERS`: the item is otherwise actionable, but explicit blockers or dependency holds mean Lisa would wait rather than claim it.
|
|
84
|
+
- `NON_LEAF_CONTAINER`: the item is structurally a container, childless Epic/Story/Spike, or otherwise not directly buildable; explain that direct build pickup is disallowed until decomposition or reclassification happens.
|
|
85
|
+
- `PRODUCT_OWNED_STATE`: the item is currently in a product-owned role or pre-intake lane, so Lisa should not mutate it yet.
|
|
86
|
+
- `MISCONFIGURED`: Lisa could not resolve the item's queue, lifecycle namespace, repo scope, or another required contract signal confidently enough to explain actionability.
|
|
87
|
+
|
|
88
|
+
Each verdict must carry a concrete next action:
|
|
89
|
+
|
|
90
|
+
- Prefer `/lisa:intake` for `ELIGIBLE_FOR_INTAKE`.
|
|
91
|
+
- Prefer `/lisa:repair-intake` for `ELIGIBLE_FOR_REPAIR`.
|
|
92
|
+
- Prefer "wait and re-check later" for `WAITING_ON_STALENESS`.
|
|
93
|
+
- Prefer blocker resolution for `HELD_BY_BLOCKERS`.
|
|
94
|
+
- Prefer decomposition or type correction for `NON_LEAF_CONTAINER`.
|
|
95
|
+
- Prefer manual product clarification or the upstream product workflow for `PRODUCT_OWNED_STATE`.
|
|
96
|
+
- Prefer fixing config, lifecycle adoption, or repo scoping for `MISCONFIGURED`.
|
|
97
|
+
|
|
56
98
|
## Gate and ownership expectations
|
|
57
99
|
|
|
58
100
|
The explanation must stay aligned with existing Lisa rules:
|
|
@@ -63,6 +105,26 @@ The explanation must stay aligned with existing Lisa rules:
|
|
|
63
105
|
- If a claimed, in-review, or blocked item is not yet repairable, explain the relevant staleness or backoff condition at a human-readable level.
|
|
64
106
|
- If the repo or lifecycle namespace is unresolved, report `MISCONFIGURED` instead of pretending the item is idle or actionable.
|
|
65
107
|
|
|
108
|
+
## Rule explanation expectations
|
|
109
|
+
|
|
110
|
+
The `Why:` line should name the decisive Lisa contract in plain English rather than only echoing a raw status label. Good explanations usually mention one of:
|
|
111
|
+
|
|
112
|
+
- the lifecycle role boundary (`product-owned` versus `Lisa-owned`)
|
|
113
|
+
- the leaf-only gate
|
|
114
|
+
- the repo-scope gate
|
|
115
|
+
- an active blocker or dependency hold
|
|
116
|
+
- staleness or repair-backoff suppression
|
|
117
|
+
- an unresolved config or lifecycle-adoption contract
|
|
118
|
+
|
|
119
|
+
The `Next action:` line should stay small and specific. Prefer one actionable follow-up over a menu:
|
|
120
|
+
|
|
121
|
+
- `/lisa:intake <queue>` when the item is ready for normal pickup
|
|
122
|
+
- `/lisa:repair-intake <queue>` when Lisa-owned stuck work is now repairable
|
|
123
|
+
- "resolve blocker `#123`" when a dependency hold is decisive
|
|
124
|
+
- "decompose into leaf tickets" when the issue is a non-leaf container
|
|
125
|
+
- "manual product clarification" when Lisa is not the current owner
|
|
126
|
+
- "fix `.lisa.config.json` or lifecycle labels" when the problem is misconfiguration
|
|
127
|
+
|
|
66
128
|
## Output shape
|
|
67
129
|
|
|
68
130
|
Use a stable grouped shape so one diagnosis is easy to scan:
|
|
@@ -78,6 +140,18 @@ Next action: <smallest useful follow-up>
|
|
|
78
140
|
|
|
79
141
|
When helpful, include one short `Signals:` or `Relevant refs:` line for the exact blockers, staleness timestamps, parent/child classification, or repair markers that justify the verdict.
|
|
80
142
|
|
|
143
|
+
One acceptable rendering pattern is:
|
|
144
|
+
|
|
145
|
+
```text
|
|
146
|
+
Item: CodySwannGT/lisa#123
|
|
147
|
+
Lifecycle: BUILD
|
|
148
|
+
Role: status:blocked (Lisa-owned)
|
|
149
|
+
Verdict: ELIGIBLE_FOR_REPAIR
|
|
150
|
+
Why: The issue is already in a Lisa-owned blocked lane, its last meaningful activity is stale, and no repair-backoff marker is suppressing a new repair pass.
|
|
151
|
+
Next action: /lisa:repair-intake github
|
|
152
|
+
Signals: blocker cleared; last activity 6d ago; repo:lisa
|
|
153
|
+
```
|
|
154
|
+
|
|
81
155
|
## Rules
|
|
82
156
|
|
|
83
157
|
- Stay **read-only**. Never claim, relabel, transition, comment on, create, decompose, or repair work from this skill.
|
|
@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
|
|
|
1
1
|
{
|
|
2
2
|
"name": "lisa-openclaw",
|
|
3
|
-
"version": "2.99.
|
|
3
|
+
"version": "2.99.1",
|
|
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": "2.99.
|
|
3
|
+
"version": "2.99.1",
|
|
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"
|
|
@@ -26,6 +26,26 @@ Inspect exactly one repo-scoped item reference:
|
|
|
26
26
|
|
|
27
27
|
The skill must determine whether the item belongs to the PRD lifecycle or the build lifecycle, then explain the item's status using the **same contract** Lisa already uses for `/lisa:intake` and `/lisa:repair-intake`. Do **not** invent a second source of truth for queue detection, lifecycle role naming, repo scoping, or repair eligibility.
|
|
28
28
|
|
|
29
|
+
## Operator usage
|
|
30
|
+
|
|
31
|
+
Typical entrypoints:
|
|
32
|
+
|
|
33
|
+
```text
|
|
34
|
+
/lisa:intake-explain https://github.com/acme/repo/issues/123
|
|
35
|
+
/lisa:intake-explain owner/repo#123
|
|
36
|
+
/lisa:intake-explain ENG-123
|
|
37
|
+
/lisa:intake-explain https://linear.app/acme/issue/ENG-123/example
|
|
38
|
+
```
|
|
39
|
+
|
|
40
|
+
Use this command when an operator needs one deterministic answer to questions like:
|
|
41
|
+
|
|
42
|
+
- "Would Lisa intake this item right now, or skip it?"
|
|
43
|
+
- "Is this state still product-owned, or has it crossed into a Lisa-owned lane?"
|
|
44
|
+
- "Is repair eligible yet, or am I still waiting on staleness or backoff?"
|
|
45
|
+
- "Is the real next step `/lisa:intake`, `/lisa:repair-intake`, blocker cleanup, decomposition, or manual product clarification?"
|
|
46
|
+
|
|
47
|
+
Keep the diagnosis terminal-first and human-readable: observable item facts first, then the smallest useful next command or manual action.
|
|
48
|
+
|
|
29
49
|
## Contract reuse
|
|
30
50
|
|
|
31
51
|
Resolve item family, queue source/tracker, and lifecycle role names from `.lisa.config.json` plus the same defaults the active intake and repair flows already consume.
|
|
@@ -53,6 +73,28 @@ Render a stable terminal-first diagnosis for one item:
|
|
|
53
73
|
|
|
54
74
|
Keep observable item facts separate from the recommended next step so operators can tell what Lisa knows versus what Lisa suggests.
|
|
55
75
|
|
|
76
|
+
## Verdicts and next actions
|
|
77
|
+
|
|
78
|
+
Use verdicts as stable operator language, not as an excuse to dump raw tracker state:
|
|
79
|
+
|
|
80
|
+
- `ELIGIBLE_FOR_INTAKE`: the item is in the correct actionable lane and Lisa could pick it up with `/lisa:intake`.
|
|
81
|
+
- `ELIGIBLE_FOR_REPAIR`: the item is Lisa-owned, stale or stuck enough to qualify for `/lisa:repair-intake`, and repair suppression rules are not currently preventing action.
|
|
82
|
+
- `WAITING_ON_STALENESS`: the item is Lisa-owned but too fresh to repair yet; explain which activity signal or freshness window is still protecting it from a repair loop.
|
|
83
|
+
- `HELD_BY_BLOCKERS`: the item is otherwise actionable, but explicit blockers or dependency holds mean Lisa would wait rather than claim it.
|
|
84
|
+
- `NON_LEAF_CONTAINER`: the item is structurally a container, childless Epic/Story/Spike, or otherwise not directly buildable; explain that direct build pickup is disallowed until decomposition or reclassification happens.
|
|
85
|
+
- `PRODUCT_OWNED_STATE`: the item is currently in a product-owned role or pre-intake lane, so Lisa should not mutate it yet.
|
|
86
|
+
- `MISCONFIGURED`: Lisa could not resolve the item's queue, lifecycle namespace, repo scope, or another required contract signal confidently enough to explain actionability.
|
|
87
|
+
|
|
88
|
+
Each verdict must carry a concrete next action:
|
|
89
|
+
|
|
90
|
+
- Prefer `/lisa:intake` for `ELIGIBLE_FOR_INTAKE`.
|
|
91
|
+
- Prefer `/lisa:repair-intake` for `ELIGIBLE_FOR_REPAIR`.
|
|
92
|
+
- Prefer "wait and re-check later" for `WAITING_ON_STALENESS`.
|
|
93
|
+
- Prefer blocker resolution for `HELD_BY_BLOCKERS`.
|
|
94
|
+
- Prefer decomposition or type correction for `NON_LEAF_CONTAINER`.
|
|
95
|
+
- Prefer manual product clarification or the upstream product workflow for `PRODUCT_OWNED_STATE`.
|
|
96
|
+
- Prefer fixing config, lifecycle adoption, or repo scoping for `MISCONFIGURED`.
|
|
97
|
+
|
|
56
98
|
## Gate and ownership expectations
|
|
57
99
|
|
|
58
100
|
The explanation must stay aligned with existing Lisa rules:
|
|
@@ -63,6 +105,26 @@ The explanation must stay aligned with existing Lisa rules:
|
|
|
63
105
|
- If a claimed, in-review, or blocked item is not yet repairable, explain the relevant staleness or backoff condition at a human-readable level.
|
|
64
106
|
- If the repo or lifecycle namespace is unresolved, report `MISCONFIGURED` instead of pretending the item is idle or actionable.
|
|
65
107
|
|
|
108
|
+
## Rule explanation expectations
|
|
109
|
+
|
|
110
|
+
The `Why:` line should name the decisive Lisa contract in plain English rather than only echoing a raw status label. Good explanations usually mention one of:
|
|
111
|
+
|
|
112
|
+
- the lifecycle role boundary (`product-owned` versus `Lisa-owned`)
|
|
113
|
+
- the leaf-only gate
|
|
114
|
+
- the repo-scope gate
|
|
115
|
+
- an active blocker or dependency hold
|
|
116
|
+
- staleness or repair-backoff suppression
|
|
117
|
+
- an unresolved config or lifecycle-adoption contract
|
|
118
|
+
|
|
119
|
+
The `Next action:` line should stay small and specific. Prefer one actionable follow-up over a menu:
|
|
120
|
+
|
|
121
|
+
- `/lisa:intake <queue>` when the item is ready for normal pickup
|
|
122
|
+
- `/lisa:repair-intake <queue>` when Lisa-owned stuck work is now repairable
|
|
123
|
+
- "resolve blocker `#123`" when a dependency hold is decisive
|
|
124
|
+
- "decompose into leaf tickets" when the issue is a non-leaf container
|
|
125
|
+
- "manual product clarification" when Lisa is not the current owner
|
|
126
|
+
- "fix `.lisa.config.json` or lifecycle labels" when the problem is misconfiguration
|
|
127
|
+
|
|
66
128
|
## Output shape
|
|
67
129
|
|
|
68
130
|
Use a stable grouped shape so one diagnosis is easy to scan:
|
|
@@ -78,6 +140,18 @@ Next action: <smallest useful follow-up>
|
|
|
78
140
|
|
|
79
141
|
When helpful, include one short `Signals:` or `Relevant refs:` line for the exact blockers, staleness timestamps, parent/child classification, or repair markers that justify the verdict.
|
|
80
142
|
|
|
143
|
+
One acceptable rendering pattern is:
|
|
144
|
+
|
|
145
|
+
```text
|
|
146
|
+
Item: CodySwannGT/lisa#123
|
|
147
|
+
Lifecycle: BUILD
|
|
148
|
+
Role: status:blocked (Lisa-owned)
|
|
149
|
+
Verdict: ELIGIBLE_FOR_REPAIR
|
|
150
|
+
Why: The issue is already in a Lisa-owned blocked lane, its last meaningful activity is stale, and no repair-backoff marker is suppressing a new repair pass.
|
|
151
|
+
Next action: /lisa:repair-intake github
|
|
152
|
+
Signals: blocker cleared; last activity 6d ago; repo:lisa
|
|
153
|
+
```
|
|
154
|
+
|
|
81
155
|
## Rules
|
|
82
156
|
|
|
83
157
|
- Stay **read-only**. Never claim, relabel, transition, comment on, create, decompose, or repair work from this skill.
|