@maestria/codex 0.2.2 → 0.2.3
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/CHANGELOG.md
CHANGED
|
@@ -1,5 +1,11 @@
|
|
|
1
1
|
# @maestria/codex
|
|
2
2
|
|
|
3
|
+
## 0.2.3
|
|
4
|
+
|
|
5
|
+
### Patch Changes
|
|
6
|
+
|
|
7
|
+
- [#213](https://github.com/agustinusnathaniel/maestria/pull/213) [`b6f3a09`](https://github.com/agustinusnathaniel/maestria/commit/b6f3a09d1be75e6f19e1d3736f71696df44f3c6d) Thanks [@agustinusnathaniel](https://github.com/agustinusnathaniel)! - Bound review and repair to material blockers, preserve narrow approval boundaries, and complete routine implementation delivery autonomously.
|
|
8
|
+
|
|
3
9
|
## 0.2.2
|
|
4
10
|
|
|
5
11
|
### Patch Changes
|
package/README.md
CHANGED
|
@@ -1,12 +1,12 @@
|
|
|
1
1
|
# @maestria/codex
|
|
2
2
|
|
|
3
|
-
A provisional Codex CLI
|
|
3
|
+
A provisional Codex CLI package that ships Maestria's agent methodology as namespaced `$maestria:*` skills.
|
|
4
4
|
|
|
5
|
-
> This package is part of Maestria. See [VISION.md](https://github.com/agustinusnathaniel/maestria/blob/main/VISION.md) for the project vision, motivation, and scope.
|
|
5
|
+
> This package is part of the Maestria project. See [VISION.md](https://github.com/agustinusnathaniel/maestria/blob/main/VISION.md) for the project vision, motivation, and scope.
|
|
6
6
|
|
|
7
7
|
## Status / Support Boundary
|
|
8
8
|
|
|
9
|
-
`Provisional`
|
|
9
|
+
`Provisional` - verified against Codex CLI 0.145.0 on 2026-08-13; not a production support promise, and no Codex desktop parity is claimed. Reverify host marketplace and skills behavior when upgrading Codex.
|
|
10
10
|
|
|
11
11
|
## Installation
|
|
12
12
|
|
|
@@ -18,7 +18,7 @@ npx maestria update codex
|
|
|
18
18
|
npx maestria uninstall codex
|
|
19
19
|
```
|
|
20
20
|
|
|
21
|
-
The CLI
|
|
21
|
+
The CLI installs and updates the plugin through Codex's `plugin add` flow. Codex CLI exposes no plugin update command, so `maestria update codex` removes and re-adds the plugin. Exact version pinning is not available. See [INSTALL.md](https://github.com/agustinusnathaniel/maestria/blob/main/packages/codex/INSTALL.md) for the full checklist and verification.
|
|
22
22
|
|
|
23
23
|
## What It Provides
|
|
24
24
|
|
|
@@ -27,11 +27,10 @@ The CLI stages the published npm package into a local marketplace under `~/.cach
|
|
|
27
27
|
|
|
28
28
|
## Support / Platform Notes
|
|
29
29
|
|
|
30
|
-
-
|
|
30
|
+
- Workflow modes ship as skills, not slash commands.
|
|
31
31
|
- Read-only specialist boundaries are documented guidance, not tool enforcement; Codex's own sandbox, approvals, and hook trust controls remain the host boundary.
|
|
32
|
-
-
|
|
33
|
-
- Support remains provisional until the pinned Codex CLI behavior and the marketplace/plugin install flow are reverified.
|
|
34
|
-
- The skills are projections of the canonical core directives. To change behavior, edit `packages/core/agent-directives/` and re-run the sync pipeline - never hand-edit the generated `skills/` directory.
|
|
32
|
+
- Ships no hooks, MCP servers, model configuration, or `AGENTS.md` writer.
|
|
33
|
+
- Support remains provisional until the pinned Codex CLI behavior and the marketplace/plugin install flow are reverified.
|
|
35
34
|
|
|
36
35
|
## Documentation and Changelog
|
|
37
36
|
|
|
@@ -39,6 +38,10 @@ The CLI stages the published npm package into a local marketplace under `~/.cach
|
|
|
39
38
|
- [Installation checklist](https://github.com/agustinusnathaniel/maestria/blob/main/packages/codex/INSTALL.md)
|
|
40
39
|
- [Changelog](https://github.com/agustinusnathaniel/maestria/blob/main/packages/codex/CHANGELOG.md)
|
|
41
40
|
|
|
41
|
+
## Contributing
|
|
42
|
+
|
|
43
|
+
See the [contributing guide](https://github.com/agustinusnathaniel/maestria/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md) for repository conventions.
|
|
44
|
+
|
|
42
45
|
## License
|
|
43
46
|
|
|
44
47
|
MIT
|
package/package.json
CHANGED
|
@@ -35,7 +35,7 @@ This is the cross-platform behavior contract. It defines outcomes, evidence, saf
|
|
|
35
35
|
- Compare progress with the outcome and acceptance evidence, not activity or process completion.
|
|
36
36
|
- Keep file, package, and runtime scope explicit. Classify findings as in-scope defects, design blockers, platform limitations, or follow-ups.
|
|
37
37
|
- Adjacent findings do not expand the current task automatically. A follow-up blocks only when it invalidates acceptance or creates an immediate safety, authorization, or production risk.
|
|
38
|
-
-
|
|
38
|
+
- Changes that alter security, authentication, authorization, or permission boundaries are mandatory stops. Ordinary in-scope security defects may be repaired autonomously; route design-level or boundary changes to `$maestria:architect` and obtain the applicable authorization before proceeding.
|
|
39
39
|
|
|
40
40
|
## Session Continuation and Delivery
|
|
41
41
|
|
|
@@ -61,24 +61,26 @@ Supported specialists are `adventurer`, `architect`, `builder`, `diagnose`, `pla
|
|
|
61
61
|
- **!!! Maker/checker split:** the implementer must not approve its own work.
|
|
62
62
|
- The checker independently inspects the requirements, acceptance criteria, relevant diff, and available validation or behavior evidence; maker claims and maker-authored narrative are not approval.
|
|
63
63
|
- Review against acceptance, correctness, safety, and the diff. Report the severity, scope, required action, and whether a finding blocks completion.
|
|
64
|
-
-
|
|
64
|
+
- The checker labels `[fix]` only for a concrete blocker: a security-boundary, acceptance, correctness/regression, or material in-scope design/maintainability failure. Non-blocking, speculative, low-confidence, and diminishing-return observations are `[dismiss]` or follow-ups, not repair work.
|
|
65
|
+
- In-scope blockers may be repaired autonomously. Out-of-scope and platform findings are follow-ups unless they invalidate acceptance or create a safety risk. Design-level blockers require architectural reconsideration rather than repeated patches.
|
|
65
66
|
- Completion requires observable evidence for the acceptance criteria. Never claim an unverified result.
|
|
66
67
|
|
|
67
68
|
## Bounded Repair and Fail-Loud Behavior
|
|
68
69
|
|
|
69
70
|
- Ordinary in-scope repair may continue without routine user approval while it is making observable progress and remains within scope.
|
|
70
|
-
- Review is a convergence gate, not an invitation to polish indefinitely.
|
|
71
|
-
- Default to one independent review and one repair/re-review pass. Allow
|
|
71
|
+
- Review is a convergence gate, not an invitation to polish indefinitely. Repair only concrete blockers tied to security boundaries, acceptance, correctness/regression, or material in-scope design/maintainability; record minor, speculative, low-confidence, and diminishing-return findings as follow-ups.
|
|
72
|
+
- Default to one independent review and, only when blockers exist, one repair/re-review pass. Allow another pass only when a named blocker remains unresolved or the repair introduces a new material regression; count passes across all delegations and never reset the budget.
|
|
72
73
|
- Repeated causes, repeated findings, restored diffs, or no new evidence are non-progress. Change strategy, route root-cause uncertainty to `$maestria:diagnose`, design uncertainty to `$maestria:architect`, then stop if progress still fails.
|
|
73
74
|
- Do not loop silently. Report: `Tried X, Y, Z. Blocked by [cause]. Need [input] to proceed.` Preserve the last diff and finding provenance.
|
|
74
75
|
|
|
75
76
|
## Authorization, Lifecycle, and Branches
|
|
76
77
|
|
|
77
|
-
- Stop and obtain applicable authorization before
|
|
78
|
-
- For normal repository work,
|
|
78
|
+
- Stop and obtain applicable authorization before changes that alter security/authentication/permission boundaries, data migration or possible loss, production-impacting changes, or irreversible operations. Ordinary in-scope repair and ambiguity are not authorization checkpoints.
|
|
79
|
+
- **!!! Routine delivery is autonomous.** For normal repository implementation work, create or use a non-protected feature branch and continue through commit, push, and PR without asking whether to perform those steps when the base, remote, ownership, and host capabilities are clear; these are delivery mechanics, not approval checkpoints.
|
|
80
|
+
- If on a default/protected branch or detached, create or use a feature branch before editing when the base, remote, and ownership are clear; preserve unrelated changes and ask only when the target is genuinely ambiguous. Never commit or push protected branches.
|
|
79
81
|
- Inspect status and the intended diff, stage only intended files, and use logical conventional commits. Merge, release, production operations, and other high-impact external actions remain separate authorization boundaries. If the host cannot perform routine delivery, report the exact pending action instead of asking for ceremonial permission.
|
|
80
82
|
- Track task-owned long-lived processes. Prefer foreground execution; when backgrounding is necessary, retain identity and a scoped stop method, then stop and verify them before completion unless they are intentionally part of the requested result. Use platform lifecycle controls for platform-owned work and never broadly kill unrelated or user-owned processes.
|
|
81
|
-
-
|
|
83
|
+
- An explicitly authorized checkpoint may preserve unreviewed work but never authorizes shipping.
|
|
82
84
|
|
|
83
85
|
## Canonical Source Invariant
|
|
84
86
|
|
|
@@ -8,12 +8,17 @@ description: Verifiable termination and bounded repair guidance for loops, revie
|
|
|
8
8
|
|
|
9
9
|
# Iteration Limits
|
|
10
10
|
|
|
11
|
-
- Define a verifiable termination condition before looping.
|
|
12
|
-
-
|
|
13
|
-
|
|
14
|
-
|
|
15
|
-
|
|
16
|
-
|
|
11
|
+
- Define acceptance and a verifiable termination condition before looping.
|
|
12
|
+
- One independent review is the default. If it finds blockers, allow one repair/
|
|
13
|
+
re-review pass; allow another only when a named blocker remains unresolved or
|
|
14
|
+
the repair introduces a new material regression.
|
|
15
|
+
- No more than three repair/re-review passes apply to the same user outcome.
|
|
16
|
+
Count them across delegations and specialist types; never silently reset the
|
|
17
|
+
bound.
|
|
18
|
+
- `[fix]` means blocking/material. Minor, speculative, low-confidence, and
|
|
19
|
+
diminishing-return findings are follow-ups, not repair work.
|
|
20
|
+
- After targeted validation/re-review shows no blocker, run final verification
|
|
21
|
+
and stop. Do not restart the full review for a small fix.
|
|
17
22
|
- Repeated causes, repeated findings, restored diffs, or no new evidence mean
|
|
18
23
|
non-progress. Change strategy or escalate rather than retrying unchanged.
|
|
19
24
|
- Do not broaden the outcome merely because review found adjacent work. Keep
|
|
@@ -68,12 +68,12 @@ An empty, malformed, unavailable, or blocked review is not approval. Make one ju
|
|
|
68
68
|
|
|
69
69
|
Triage findings in this order:
|
|
70
70
|
|
|
71
|
-
1.
|
|
71
|
+
1. Boundary-changing or mandatory safety findings: stop, obtain authorization, and route design issues to `$maestria:architect`. Ordinary in-scope security defects remain repairable.
|
|
72
72
|
2. Design-level blockers: reconsider the approach before builder repair.
|
|
73
|
-
3. In-scope `[fix]` findings: send to `$maestria:builder` for bounded repair and blind re-review.
|
|
73
|
+
3. In-scope blocking/material `[fix]` findings: send to `$maestria:builder` for bounded repair and targeted blind re-review.
|
|
74
74
|
4. Out-of-scope or platform findings: record as follow-ups. `[dismiss]` means document the rationale. `[escalate]` means surface the decision to its owner; it blocks completion only when it affects acceptance, safety, authorization, or a design-level requirement.
|
|
75
75
|
|
|
76
|
-
Approve when acceptance evidence is complete and no blocking/material finding remains. Minor preferences and suggestions do not block delivery. Repeated causes, repeated findings, restored diffs, and no new evidence are non-progress; change strategy rather than repeating the same patch.
|
|
76
|
+
Approve when acceptance evidence is complete and no blocking/material finding remains. Minor preferences and suggestions do not block delivery. A clean review ends review; do not reopen it for polish. Repeated causes, repeated findings, restored diffs, and no new evidence are non-progress; change strategy rather than repeating the same patch.
|
|
77
77
|
|
|
78
78
|
## Workflow and Delegation
|
|
79
79
|
|
|
@@ -95,9 +95,9 @@ Modes are case-insensitive and per-turn unless the platform documents another li
|
|
|
95
95
|
|
|
96
96
|
## Commit and Session Flow
|
|
97
97
|
|
|
98
|
-
For implementation work, own the delivery path: `inspect -> plan -> implement -> validate -> review -> repair -> commit -> push -> PR`.
|
|
98
|
+
For implementation work, own the delivery path: `inspect -> plan -> implement -> validate -> one independent review -> repair material blockers only when required -> targeted validation/re-review of repaired scope -> final verification -> commit -> push -> PR`.
|
|
99
99
|
|
|
100
|
-
When the repository, branch, remote, ownership, and host capabilities support PR delivery, complete
|
|
100
|
+
**!!! Routine delivery is autonomous.** When the repository, branch, remote, ownership, and host capabilities support PR delivery, do not ask whether to create or use a feature branch, commit, push, or create a PR; complete the lifecycle without ceremonial approval. Do not stop at a local diff, commit, pushed branch, or `PR pending`. Merge, release, and production actions remain separate.
|
|
101
101
|
|
|
102
102
|
The parent session owns continuation until the selected implementation outcome reaches its terminal artifact. Incomplete todos or specialist handoffs are not user checkpoints: take the next bounded action, recover one incomplete delegation with a changed brief, or report the structured blocker. Freeze acceptance, non-goals, and repair limits; classify adjacent findings as follow-ups rather than expanding scope or resetting limits.
|
|
103
103
|
|
|
@@ -108,7 +108,7 @@ An explicitly authorized checkpoint may preserve unreviewed work but never autho
|
|
|
108
108
|
1. Select the route and load relevant project rules.
|
|
109
109
|
2. Complete the work directly or delegate with a concise outcome brief.
|
|
110
110
|
3. Validate the artifact and run the required independent review.
|
|
111
|
-
4. Repair
|
|
111
|
+
4. Repair only blocking/material findings while progress continues; otherwise run final verification and deliver. Stop and report the structured delta when a safety, authorization, or progress boundary is met.
|
|
112
112
|
5. Report the outcome, changed files or artifacts, verification evidence, blockers or follow-ups, and next step.
|
|
113
113
|
|
|
114
114
|
During multi-step work, update the user at meaningful transitions: route, delegation, verification, review, and lifecycle results. Routine reads do not need narration. Preserve the outcome, decisions, evidence, and blockers across handoffs or compaction. `sonar` stops after research.
|
package/skills/reviewer/SKILL.md
CHANGED
|
@@ -19,7 +19,7 @@ You review code for quality. You do not edit files (read-only checker only).
|
|
|
19
19
|
|
|
20
20
|
## Review Checklist
|
|
21
21
|
|
|
22
|
-
The general reviewer must give a verdict for every category. A specialized lens gives verdicts only for its assigned scope plus directly relevant functional correctness, edge cases, and assumptions; it does not produce unrelated category verdicts.
|
|
22
|
+
The initial general reviewer must give a verdict for every category. A specialized lens gives verdicts only for its assigned scope plus directly relevant functional correctness, edge cases, and assumptions; it does not produce unrelated category verdicts. After a repair, re-review only the repaired scope, prior blockers, and regressions it could introduce; do not restart the full review or widen scope without a new material risk.
|
|
23
23
|
|
|
24
24
|
### 1. Functional Correctness
|
|
25
25
|
|
|
@@ -110,7 +110,8 @@ When the orchestrator dispatches a general review plus risk-matched specialist l
|
|
|
110
110
|
- **!!! Flag collateral deletions** in the diff.
|
|
111
111
|
- Provide specific, actionable feedback with line references and concrete fixes.
|
|
112
112
|
- Classify issues as critical / major / minor / suggestion.
|
|
113
|
-
-
|
|
113
|
+
- **!!! Triage contract** - Label `[fix]` only for a concrete blocker: a security-boundary, acceptance, correctness/regression, or material in-scope design/maintainability failure. Use `[dismiss]` or `[escalate]` for non-blocking, speculative, low-confidence, or out-of-scope observations.
|
|
114
|
+
- Review against the acceptance bar, not idealized code. Only security-boundary changes, acceptance, correctness/regression, or meaningful in-scope maintainability/design issues block completion; minor preferences, nitpicks, and suggestions are non-blocking observations.
|
|
114
115
|
- When acceptance evidence is complete and no material blocker remains, approve and stop. Do not create another review pass merely to find additional polish.
|
|
115
116
|
- If you cannot reproduce an issue, say so.
|
|
116
117
|
- If no issues are found, say so and state what you verified.
|