@melihmucuk/pi-crew 1.0.0

package/package.json

@@ -0,0 +1,52 @@
+{
+  "name": "@melihmucuk/pi-crew",
+  "version": "1.0.0",
+  "type": "module",
+  "description": "Non-blocking subagent orchestration for pi coding agent",
+  "files": [
+    "dist/",
+    "agents/",
+    "prompts/",
+    "docs/architecture.md"
+  ],
+  "author": "Melih Mucuk",
+  "license": "MIT",
+  "keywords": [
+    "pi-package",
+    "ai",
+    "agents",
+    "subagent",
+    "orchestration",
+    "coding-agent"
+  ],
+  "pi": {
+    "extensions": [
+      "./dist/index.js"
+    ],
+    "prompts": [
+      "./prompts"
+    ],
+    "video": "https://monkeys-team.ams3.cdn.digitaloceanspaces.com/pi-crew-demo.mp4"
+  },
+  "scripts": {
+    "clean": "rm -rf dist",
+    "build": "npm run clean && tsc",
+    "typecheck": "tsc --noEmit"
+  },
+  "peerDependencies": {
+    "@mariozechner/pi-ai": "*",
+    "@mariozechner/pi-agent-core": "*",
+    "@mariozechner/pi-coding-agent": "*",
+    "@mariozechner/pi-tui": "*",
+    "@sinclair/typebox": "*"
+  },
+  "devDependencies": {
+    "@mariozechner/pi-ai": "^0.64.0",
+    "@mariozechner/pi-agent-core": "^0.64.0",
+    "@mariozechner/pi-coding-agent": "^0.64.0",
+    "@mariozechner/pi-tui": "^0.64.0",
+    "@sinclair/typebox": "^0.34.49",
+    "@types/node": "^22.19.3",
+    "typescript": "^5.9.3"
+  }
+}

package/prompts/pi-crew:review.md

@@ -0,0 +1,168 @@
+---
+description: Run parallel code and quality reviews to ensure high standards and catch issues early.
+---
+
+# Parallel Review
+
+## Input
+
+**Additional instructions**: `$ARGUMENTS`
+
+## Role
+
+This is an orchestration prompt.
+Your job is to determine review scope with minimal context gathering, prepare a short review brief, spawn the reviewer subagents, wait for both results, and merge them into one final report.
+
+Do not do the reviewers' job.
+
+## Operating Boundaries
+
+- Do not read full files before spawning subagents.
+- Do not dump raw diffs into the prompt.
+- Do not inspect every changed file manually.
+- Collect only enough git context to determine scope and produce a short summary.
+- Detailed diff reading, file reading, and issue analysis belong to the subagents.
+- Use targeted extra reads only when file names and diff stats are insufficient.
+
+## Required Workflow
+
+### 1) Determine scope
+
+Default scope, unless the user specifies otherwise:
+
+- recent commits
+- staged changes
+- unstaged changes
+- untracked files
+
+Collect:
+
+- repo root
+- current branch
+- `git status --short`
+- `git log --oneline --decorate -n 5`
+- `git diff --stat --cached`
+- `git diff --stat`
+- untracked file list
+
+Do not collect full diffs by default.
+Use `git diff --cached` or `git diff` only if diff stats and file names are insufficient.
+
+Recent commit range:
+
+- use `HEAD~3..HEAD` if at least 3 commits exist
+- otherwise use the widest reachable history range
+
+For that range, collect:
+
+- `git diff --stat <range>`
+- `git diff --name-only <range>`
+
+Use `git diff <range>` only if needed for a short summary.
+
+If the user gives a commit, branch, file, or extra focus area, include it as additional context.
+
+### 2) Prepare subagent context
+
+Prepare a short brief with:
+
+- review scope
+- commit range
+- staged/unstaged/untracked state
+- changed files
+- one-line summary per file or file group
+- additional user instructions
+
+Summary rules:
+
+- infer first from file paths, status codes, and diff stats
+- read only specific files or hunks if needed
+- keep it short
+- do not perform review analysis here
+
+### 3) Spawn reviewers
+
+Call `crew_list` first and verify:
+
+- `code-reviewer`
+- `quality-reviewer`
+
+Spawn both in parallel.
+Each task must include:
+
+- repo root
+- review scope
+- commit range
+- staged/unstaged/untracked info
+- changed files
+- short change summary
+- user instructions
+- explicit instruction to inspect diffs and files itself
+- explicit instruction to follow its own output format strictly
+
+### 4) Wait
+
+Do not produce a final response until both subagents return.
+Do not synthesize partial results.
+Wait for two separate `crew-result` messages.
+
+### 5) Merge reports
+
+Final output must be in the same language as the user's prompt.
+Use the structure below directly. Do not read any subagent definition files just to reconstruct the format.
+
+Order:
+
+#### A. Consensus Findings
+
+**[SEVERITY] Category: Brief title**
+File: `path/to/file.ts:123` or `path/to/file.ts` (section)
+Issue: Clear merged explanation
+Context/Impact: Runtime or maintenance impact
+Suggestion: Clear fix direction
+Reported by: `code-reviewer`, `quality-reviewer`
+
+Rules:
+
+- do not repeat the same issue
+- merge equivalent findings
+- if needed, use the stronger justified severity
+
+#### B. Code Review Findings
+
+**[SEVERITY] Category: Brief title**
+File: `path/to/file.ts:123`
+Issue: ...
+Context: ...
+Suggestion: ...
+Reported by: `code-reviewer`
+
+#### C. Quality Review Findings
+
+**[SEVERITY] Category: Brief title**
+File: `path/to/file.ts` (functionName or section, line range if identifiable)
+Issue: ...
+Impact: ...
+Suggestion: ...
+Reported by: `quality-reviewer`
+
+#### D. Final Summary
+
+**Combined Review Summary**
+Files reviewed: [count or list]
+Consensus findings: [count]
+Code review findings: [count by severity]
+Quality review findings: [count by severity]
+Strong signals: [titles found by both reviewers or `none`]
+Overall assessment: [short clear assessment]
+
+## Synthesis Rules
+
+- do not repeat overlapping issues
+- merge close variants into one item
+- do not invent resolution for reviewer conflicts
+- if both say `No issues found.`, say so explicitly
+- if only one reviewer reports an issue, do not present it as consensus
+- sort by severity
+- no unnecessary introduction
+- review only, no code changes