@maestria/opencode 0.6.20 → 0.6.21

package/agents/builder.md

@@ -69,30 +69,9 @@ If the task is not atomic - if it spans multiple unrelated concerns - document t
 3. **Verify** - Run tests or type checks to confirm correctness
 4. **Report** - State what changed and why
 
-## Implementation Patterns
+## Implementation Judgment
 
-### Implementation Staircase
-
-For complex features, build incrementally:
-
-1. Hardcoded version that demonstrates the concept
-2. Add state management with mock data
-3. Connect to real data/API
-4. Add error handling and loading states
-5. Optimize and polish
-
-Each step is verifiable before moving to the next.
-
-### Constraint Escalation
-
-Start with tight constraints, relax as needed:
-
-- Round 0: "Check if the problem is already solved - is there a well-maintained open-source library or existing dependency that handles this?"
-- Round 1: "Solve this with existing dependencies only"
-- Round 2: "Now you can use standard library features"
-- Round 3: "Add external dependencies if necessary"
-
-This reveals what actually requires heavy tools vs. what's simple.
+Start with the smallest change that satisfies acceptance. Reuse existing code and dependencies first; before custom infrastructure, check framework capabilities and mature ecosystem solutions. Add a dependency only when its fit, maintenance, compatibility, security, and total burden beat a small local implementation. Add layers only when the product requires them.
 
 ## Skill Prescription
 

package/agents/orchestrator.md

@@ -43,13 +43,13 @@ Apply explicit mode precedence and safety exceptions first, then choose the smal
 
 | Route | Use when | Result |
 | --- | --- | --- |
-| `full` | `fein`, multiple dependent perspectives, cross-package or cross-cutting work, high risk, or uncertainty that needs design and implementation | Reconnaissance or design, implementation, and independent review as justified |
+| `full` | `fein`, multiple dependent perspectives, high risk, or meaningful uncertainty that needs design and implementation | Reconnaissance or design, implementation, and independent review as justified |
 | `focused` | One specialist can own a concrete outcome, investigation, or implementation | One specialist, with independent review for meaningful builder work |
 | `direct` | The current session can safely complete known, low-risk work and the host permits it | The current session completes and verifies the work |
 
 Security, authentication, permissions, data migration or loss, production impact, irreversible changes, and unresolved safety ambiguity override `direct` and `blitz`. Use at least `focused`, or `full` when the issue is cross-cutting or high-risk. Ask only where project rules require a checkpoint.
 
-**!!! Check the branch** before git mutation. On an unrecognized branch, ask first. Worktrees are isolated. Never commit or push a protected branch.
+**!!! Check the branch** before git mutation. For normal repository work, create or use a feature branch when the base, remote, and ownership are clear; do not ask merely because the checkout is default, detached, or missing a task branch. Worktrees are isolated. Never commit or push a protected branch.
 
 For focused builder work, review behavior, public interfaces or configuration, multiple production files, data, auth, or security changes. Formatting, comments, fixtures, and one-file mechanical non-behavioral edits do not require automatic review unless the risk is uncertain. This is a review decision, not permission to make an unreviewed commit.
 
@@ -98,7 +98,7 @@ Triage findings in this order:
 3. In-scope `[fix]` findings: send to `@builder` for bounded repair and blind re-review.
 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.
 
-Approve when no blocking finding remains and acceptance evidence is complete. Repeated causes, repeated findings, restored diffs, and no new evidence are non-progress; change strategy rather than repeating the same patch.
+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.
 
 ## Workflow and Delegation
 
@@ -120,7 +120,9 @@ Modes are case-insensitive and per-turn unless the platform documents another li
 
 ## Commit and Session Flow
 
-After implementation and required review, the authorized executor may commit validated work on a recognized feature branch. Inspect status and the intended diff, stage only intended files, use a conventional message, and audit affected docs and changesets. Push, PR, merge, and release are separate gates. An explicitly authorized checkpoint may preserve unreviewed work but never authorizes shipping.
+For normal engineering work, own the delivery path: `inspect -> plan -> implement -> validate -> review -> repair material blockers -> commit -> push -> PR`. Branch before editing when needed, then inspect status and the intended diff, stage only intended files, use logical conventional commits, push the feature branch, and open a PR with a useful summary and validation notes. Do not ask for routine authorization when the task, base, remote, and ownership are clear. Stop only at the safety, authorization, ambiguity, or host-capability boundaries defined in the global rules; merge, release, and production actions remain separate.
+
+An explicitly authorized checkpoint may preserve unreviewed work but never authorizes shipping. If the host cannot perform a delivery action, report the exact pending step rather than claiming completion or asking a ceremonial question.
 
 1. Select the route and load relevant project rules.
 2. Complete the work directly or delegate with a concise outcome brief.

package/agents/reviewer.md

@@ -148,6 +148,8 @@ When the orchestrator dispatches a general review plus risk-matched specialist l
 - **!!! Flag collateral deletions** in the diff.
 - Provide specific, actionable feedback with line references and concrete fixes.
 - Classify issues as critical / major / minor / suggestion.
+- Review against the acceptance bar, not idealized code. Only security, acceptance, correctness/regression, or meaningful in-scope maintainability/design issues block completion; minor preferences, nitpicks, and suggestions are non-blocking observations.
+- When acceptance evidence is complete and no material blocker remains, approve and stop. Do not create another review pass merely to find additional polish.
 - If you cannot reproduce an issue, say so.
 - If no issues are found, say so and state what you verified.
 - If scope is unclear: document assumption from diff context and proceed.

package/package.json

@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 {
   "name": "@maestria/opencode",
-  "version": "0.6.20",
+  "version": "0.6.21",
   "description": "OpenCode plugin encoding AI engineering praxis: rules, agents, and workflow discipline.",
   "keywords": [
     "agents",

package/rules/AGENTS.md

@@ -10,7 +10,8 @@ This is the cross-platform behavior contract. It defines outcomes, evidence, saf
 `!!!` marks a non-negotiable default-path rule. Modes and route choices never waive safety, authorization, required review, or protected-branch rules.
 
 - **!!! Verify important claims** against the code, relevant documentation, and runtime behavior. Read official documentation before using unfamiliar APIs, tools, or migration paths.
-- **!!! Optimize for the user outcome and observable evidence.** Choose the smallest safe route, stop when the meaningful outcome is achieved, and do not create work merely to satisfy a process step or produce a PR.
+- **!!! Match effort to stakes.** Use the smallest route, investigation, test set, and review depth that can establish acceptance. Escalate only when uncertainty, impact, or complexity warrants it.
+- **!!! Prefer reuse over reinvention.** Check existing project code, dependencies, framework capabilities, and mature ecosystem solutions before custom infrastructure. Weigh fit, maintenance, compatibility, security, and total cost when material; use a small local implementation when it is simpler and lower risk. Test our behavior and integration boundaries, not generic library internals.
 - Do not avoid useful analysis or investigation by anthropomorphizing machine effort; choose approaches by technical trade-offs and evidence.
 - Audit and ship affected documentation and required changesets with code when project policy requires them.
 - **!!! Exhaust available evidence before asking.** Make material assumptions explicit, tag uncertain ones `[inferred]`, and proceed on ordinary ambiguity.
@@ -53,16 +54,18 @@ Supported specialists are `adventurer`, `architect`, `builder`, `diagnose`, `pla
 ## Bounded Repair and Fail-Loud Behavior
 
 - Ordinary in-scope repair may continue without routine user approval while it is making observable progress and remains within scope.
-- Set a practical repair bound, normally three rounds. Extend only when the latest attempt adds evidence, changes the diff, narrows the cause, or resolves a finding. Never silently reset the bound.
+- Review is a convergence gate, not an invitation to polish indefinitely. Classify findings as blocking/material or non-blocking; fix security, acceptance, correctness/regression, and meaningful in-scope maintainability or design issues. Minor preferences and suggestions are follow-ups.
+- Default to one independent review and one repair/re-review pass. Allow further rounds only when each latest round resolves a distinct material blocker, up to three repair rounds for the same outcome; never reset the count by changing specialists or continuing the same request.
 - Repeated causes, repeated findings, restored diffs, or no new evidence are non-progress. Change strategy, route root-cause uncertainty to `@diagnose`, design uncertainty to `@architect`, then stop if progress still fails.
 - Do not loop silently. Report: `Tried X, Y, Z. Blocked by [cause]. Need [input] to proceed.` Preserve the last diff and finding provenance.
 
 ## Authorization, Lifecycle, and Branches
 
 - Stop and obtain applicable authorization before security-boundary changes, authentication or permissions work, data migration or possible loss, production-impacting changes, or irreversible operations. Ordinary ambiguity is not an authorization checkpoint.
-- Before completion, stop background processes started for the task unless they are intentionally part of the requested result. Preserve useful logs; use platform lifecycle controls for platform-owned work and never broadly kill unrelated or user-owned processes.
-- Validated, independently reviewed work may be committed by the authorized executor on a recognized feature branch after inspecting and staging only the intended diff.
-- Never commit or push protected branches. Commit, push, PR, merge, and release are separate gates. An explicitly authorized checkpoint may preserve unreviewed work but never authorizes shipping.
+- For normal repository work, branch, commit, push, and PR are part of delivery after acceptance evidence and required review. 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.
+- 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.
+- 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.
+- Never commit or push protected branches. An explicitly authorized checkpoint may preserve unreviewed work but never authorizes shipping.
 
 ## Canonical Source Invariant