@olegkoval/agent-skills 1.25.0 → 1.26.0

package/packages/software-development/geminiloop/adapters/claude/skills/geminiloop/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,238 @@
+---
+name: geminiloop
+description: >
+  Iteratively satisfy Gemini Code Assist's review on a GitHub PR, but treat every Gemini comment
+  SKEPTICALLY (Gemini Code Assist is materially more error-prone than Greptile): verify each finding
+  against the real code first, fix ONLY the genuinely-correct ones, and rebut + resolve false
+  positives WITHOUT changing correct code. Repeat until no unresolved Gemini comments remain. Use
+  when the user wants to clear a PR's Gemini Code Assist review.
+compatibility: GitHub only (Gemini Code Assist is a GitHub app). Requires git + gh (GitHub CLI) authenticated, and the Gemini Code Assist app installed on the repo.
+metadata:
+  version: "1.0"
+allowed-tools: Bash(gh:*) Bash(git:*)
+---
+<!-- Generated by scripts/build-adapters.sh. Do not edit directly. -->
+
+# Geminiloop
+
+Drive a GitHub PR until Gemini Code Assist has no unresolved comments — **but do not cargo-cult
+its suggestions.** Gemini is often confidently wrong. Every comment is a *claim to verify*, not an
+instruction to obey. A wrong suggestion applied is worse than the comment itself.
+
+## How Gemini differs from other review bots
+
+- **No check-run, no score.** Gemini does not publish a `X/5` confidence or a `greptile` check. It
+  posts a **PR review** (state `COMMENTED`) authored by `gemini-code-assist[bot]` with a
+  `## Code Review` summary body plus inline review comments. Detection is by polling the *reviews*
+  endpoint, not a check-run. "Satisfied" = zero unresolved comments (each either fixed or rebutted),
+  since there is no numeric target.
+- **Auto-reviews on push/open.** It reviews automatically when a PR opens or gets new commits;
+  `/gemini review` forces a fresh pass.
+- **Severity, not confidence.** Inline comments carry a priority badge (a `![critical]` /
+  `![high]` / `![medium]` / `![low]` shields image) at the top of the body. Weight `critical`/`high`
+  seriously; treat `medium`/`low` as usually-skippable nits unless clearly correct.
+- **Higher false-positive rate.** This is the whole point of the skill: bias toward *rebut* over
+  *change*.
+
+## Not for
+
+- GitLab / Perforce (Gemini Code Assist is GitHub-only). For other review bots this catalog ships
+  `codexloop`, `coderabbitloop`, and `qodoloop`; for CI failures rather than review comments, use
+  `ci-fix-loop`.
+
+## 1. Identify the PR
+
+```bash
+gh pr view --json number,headRefName,headRefOid -q '{number,branch:.headRefName,head:.headRefOid}'
+```
+
+Switch to the PR branch if not already on it. Capture `OWNER`/`REPO` (`gh repo view --json owner,name`).
+
+## 2. The loop (max 5 iterations)
+
+Keep an explicit iteration counter and stop at 5 — the cap is a real bound to enforce, not a
+figure of speech. Each pass through A–G is one iteration; on hitting the cap, go straight to the
+report and list what is still unresolved rather than starting a sixth.
+
+### A. Ensure a fresh Gemini review on the current head
+
+Gemini auto-reviews new commits, but force a deterministic pass and record the head SHA:
+
+```bash
+HEAD_SHA=$(gh pr view <PR> --json headRefOid -q .headRefOid)
+# Only trigger if no gemini review already exists for this exact SHA:
+HAVE=$(gh api repos/{owner}/{repo}/pulls/<PR>/reviews --paginate \
+  --jq "[.[] | select(.user.login==\"gemini-code-assist[bot]\" and .commit_id==\"$HEAD_SHA\")] | length")
+if [ "$HAVE" = "0" ]; then gh pr comment <PR> --body "/gemini review"; fi
+```
+
+Poll for the review of THIS head to land. No check-run exists, so poll the reviews endpoint — and
+poll it on a **deadline**, never `while true`: a review that never arrives must end the skill with
+an honest timeout, not hang it.
+
+```bash
+# 10-minute deadline, one retry, then give up.
+wait_for_review() {                       # $1 = attempt label
+  local deadline=$(( SECONDS + 600 ))
+  while [ "$SECONDS" -lt "$deadline" ]; do
+    R=$(gh api repos/{owner}/{repo}/pulls/<PR>/reviews --paginate \
+      --jq "[.[] | select(.user.login==\"gemini-code-assist[bot]\" and .commit_id==\"$HEAD_SHA\")] | last")
+    if [ -n "$R" ] && [ "$R" != "null" ]; then return 0; fi
+    echo "waiting for Gemini review of $HEAD_SHA ($1)..."; sleep 15
+  done
+  return 1
+}
+
+if ! wait_for_review "first wait"; then
+  echo "no Gemini review after 10m — retrying once"     # say the retry out loud
+  gh pr comment <PR> --body "/gemini review"
+  if ! wait_for_review "after retry"; then
+    echo "Gemini did not review $HEAD_SHA after a retry; stopping and reporting."
+    exit 1                                # honest timeout, never a success claim
+  fi
+fi
+```
+
+Report the retry in the final summary; two silent timeouts are the failure mode this guard exists
+to prevent.
+
+### B. Fetch the findings
+
+- **Summary** (the `## Code Review` body): the review `.body` from the object above — read the
+  overall take and the severity spread.
+- **Unresolved inline comments** on the current head:
+
+```bash
+gh api repos/{owner}/{repo}/pulls/<PR>/comments --paginate \
+  --jq '.[] | select(.user.login=="gemini-code-assist[bot]") | {id, path, line, body}'
+```
+
+Also pull the review threads + their resolved state via GraphQL (see step F) so you only act on
+unresolved ones.
+
+### C. Critically evaluate EACH comment (the core of this skill)
+
+For every comment, **verify the claim against the actual code and repo conventions before touching
+anything.** Read the file, the surrounding code, the types, and any call sites. Then classify:
+
+1. **CORRECT + actionable** — the finding is real and the fix improves the code. → fix it (step D).
+2. **FALSE POSITIVE / technically wrong** — the claim doesn't hold. → do **NOT** change code; write a
+   specific, evidence-based reply (cite the exact code/line/behavior that disproves it), then resolve.
+3. **Valid but out-of-scope / stylistic nit** that conflicts with repo convention or the PR's intent
+   → briefly decline with a reason, then resolve. Do not expand the PR's scope to satisfy a nit.
+
+**Hard rules:**
+- **Never modify correct code just to silence Gemini.** Prefer a reasoned rebuttal.
+- When uncertain whether a claim holds, **investigate** (read more code, run the type-checker / tests)
+  rather than assume Gemini is right. Default to skepticism.
+- If a suggested change would break other call sites, alter public behavior, or contradict a verified
+  repo convention, it is a category-2 rebuttal, not a fix.
+- Never fabricate identifiers to satisfy a comment (e.g. a Linear/ticket prefix). If Gemini asks for a
+  ticket reference and none exists, say so; do not invent one.
+
+**Gemini's common failure modes to watch for (default these to category 2):**
+- Hallucinated APIs, options, or framework behavior stated as fact.
+- "Add a null/undefined check" where the type already guarantees presence.
+- Suggestions that compile-break or break other callers.
+- Security/perf warnings with no actual exploit path or measurable cost.
+- Restating library/framework semantics incorrectly.
+- Style demands that contradict the repo's existing, consistent pattern.
+
+### D. Apply fixes — category 1 only
+
+Make the minimal correct change. Re-run the local gate if the repo has one (typecheck/tests) before
+moving on.
+
+### E. Commit and push FIRST, before resolving anything
+
+Order matters. A resolved thread is a claim that the fix is on the branch, so the push has to
+succeed before the claim is made — otherwise a failed commit or push leaves the PR unfixed with the
+finding marked resolved, and nobody looks at it again.
+
+If step D changed code:
+
+```bash
+# Stage ONLY the files your fixes touched — never `git add -A`, which sweeps up
+# unrelated work and untracked secrets sitting in the worktree.
+git status --short                     # look before you stage
+git add <path> [<path>...]             # the files named in the findings you fixed
+git commit -m "address gemini review feedback (geminiloop iteration N)"
+git push
+```
+
+Author the commit per the repo's norms (e.g. the user's identity; no AI attribution if that is the
+convention). Confirm the push actually landed before continuing:
+
+```bash
+git rev-parse HEAD
+gh pr view <PR> --json headRefOid -q .headRefOid   # must match
+```
+
+If they differ, stop: the fix is not on the PR, so nothing may be resolved yet.
+
+### F. Reply to and resolve every addressed thread
+
+Only now, with the fixes pushed, reply and resolve. Fetch unresolved threads, **following
+pagination** — a PR with more than 100 threads will otherwise look clean while unresolved findings
+sit on page two:
+
+```bash
+# Loop until hasNextPage is false, passing endCursor back in as $cursor.
+CURSOR=null
+while : ; do
+  PAGE=$(gh api graphql -F cursor="$CURSOR" -f query='
+  query($cursor: String) {
+    repository(owner: "OWNER", name: "REPO") {
+      pullRequest(number: PR_NUMBER) {
+        reviewThreads(first: 100, after: $cursor) {
+          pageInfo { hasNextPage endCursor }
+          nodes { id isResolved comments(first: 1) { nodes { databaseId author { login } path body } } }
+        }
+      }
+    }
+  }')
+  echo "$PAGE"          # collect nodes from every page before deciding the PR is clean
+  PI='.data.repository.pullRequest.reviewThreads.pageInfo'
+  [ "$(echo "$PAGE" | jq -r "$PI.hasNextPage")" = "true" ] || break
+  CURSOR=$(echo "$PAGE" | jq -r "$PI.endCursor")
+done
+```
+
+Reply on a thread's comment via `gh api repos/{owner}/{repo}/pulls/<PR>/comments -f body="..." -F in_reply_to=<comment_id>`,
+then resolve:
+
+```bash
+gh api graphql -f query='mutation { resolveReviewThread(input: {threadId: "THREAD_ID"}) { thread { isResolved } } }'
+```
+
+Resolve a thread only for comments authored by `gemini-code-assist[bot]` that you have fixed or
+rebutted — never blanket-resolve, and never resolve a human reviewer's thread.
+
+Threads you are **rebutting** need no push, so they may be replied to and resolved regardless of
+whether step D changed code.
+
+### G. Re-review
+
+Pushing re-triggers Gemini automatically; go back to **A** with the new head SHA. If step D changed
+nothing (all comments were rebutted), skip the push, ensure all threads are resolved, and exit.
+
+## 3. Exit conditions
+
+Stop when **any** is true:
+- Zero unresolved `gemini-code-assist[bot]` comments remain, and every comment this round was fixed
+  or rebutted+resolved. (There is no score to hit — this is "done".)
+- Max iterations (5) reached — report what remains.
+
+## 4. Report
+
+```text
+Geminiloop complete.
+  PR:                 #<n>
+  Iterations:         N
+  Comments fixed:     N   (genuinely-correct findings)
+  Comments rebutted:  N   (false positives / nits, resolved with rationale)
+  Remaining:          0
+```
+
+If it stopped at max iterations, list the remaining threads with your current assessment
+(fix-pending vs disputed) so a human can arbitrate.

package/packages/software-development/geminiloop/adapters/codex/README.md

@@ -0,0 +1,25 @@
+# Codex Adapter for geminiloop
+
+This is a Codex-specific adapter for the `olko:geminiloop` skill.
+The canonical skill definition is in `../../SKILL.md`.
+
+## Usage
+
+Invoke in a Codex session:
+
+```
+Use the olko:geminiloop skill to clear the Gemini Code Assist review on this PR.
+```
+
+## Workflow
+
+See `../../SKILL.md` for the full workflow: post `/gemini review` when no review exists for the
+current head, poll the reviews endpoint until it lands (Gemini publishes no check-run or score, so
+detection is by review rather than by check), then evaluate every inline comment against the real
+code before touching anything — fix only the findings that hold, rebut the rest with evidence,
+reply to and resolve each thread, push, and repeat until no unresolved comments remain or the
+iteration cap is reached. The procedure is plain `git`/`gh` and is agent-agnostic.
+
+Inline comments carry a priority badge (`critical`/`high`/`medium`/`low`); weight the top two
+seriously and treat the bottom two as usually-skippable nits unless clearly correct. The skill
+biases toward rebutting over changing: never modify correct code to silence the bot.

package/packages/software-development/geminiloop/adapters/cursor/plugin.json

@@ -0,0 +1,6 @@
+{
+  "name": "olko:geminiloop",
+  "version": "0.1.0",
+  "description": "Iteratively drives a GitHub PR to zero unresolved Gemini Code Assist comments — treats each one as a claim to verify, fixes only the genuinely-correct findings, and rebuts the rest with evidence instead of editing correct code.",
+  "skills": "skills/"
+}

package/packages/software-development/geminiloop/adapters/cursor/skills/geminiloop/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,239 @@
+---
+name: geminiloop
+description: >
+  Iteratively satisfy Gemini Code Assist's review on a GitHub PR, but treat every Gemini comment
+  SKEPTICALLY (Gemini Code Assist is materially more error-prone than Greptile): verify each finding
+  against the real code first, fix ONLY the genuinely-correct ones, and rebut + resolve false
+  positives WITHOUT changing correct code. Repeat until no unresolved Gemini comments remain. Use
+  when the user wants to clear a PR's Gemini Code Assist review.
+compatibility: GitHub only (Gemini Code Assist is a GitHub app). Requires git + gh (GitHub CLI) authenticated, and the Gemini Code Assist app installed on the repo.
+metadata:
+  targets: ["cursor"]
+  version: "1.0"
+allowed-tools: Bash(gh:*) Bash(git:*)
+---
+<!-- Generated by scripts/build-adapters.sh. Do not edit directly. -->
+
+# Geminiloop
+
+Drive a GitHub PR until Gemini Code Assist has no unresolved comments — **but do not cargo-cult
+its suggestions.** Gemini is often confidently wrong. Every comment is a *claim to verify*, not an
+instruction to obey. A wrong suggestion applied is worse than the comment itself.
+
+## How Gemini differs from other review bots
+
+- **No check-run, no score.** Gemini does not publish a `X/5` confidence or a `greptile` check. It
+  posts a **PR review** (state `COMMENTED`) authored by `gemini-code-assist[bot]` with a
+  `## Code Review` summary body plus inline review comments. Detection is by polling the *reviews*
+  endpoint, not a check-run. "Satisfied" = zero unresolved comments (each either fixed or rebutted),
+  since there is no numeric target.
+- **Auto-reviews on push/open.** It reviews automatically when a PR opens or gets new commits;
+  `/gemini review` forces a fresh pass.
+- **Severity, not confidence.** Inline comments carry a priority badge (a `![critical]` /
+  `![high]` / `![medium]` / `![low]` shields image) at the top of the body. Weight `critical`/`high`
+  seriously; treat `medium`/`low` as usually-skippable nits unless clearly correct.
+- **Higher false-positive rate.** This is the whole point of the skill: bias toward *rebut* over
+  *change*.
+
+## Not for
+
+- GitLab / Perforce (Gemini Code Assist is GitHub-only). For other review bots this catalog ships
+  `codexloop`, `coderabbitloop`, and `qodoloop`; for CI failures rather than review comments, use
+  `ci-fix-loop`.
+
+## 1. Identify the PR
+
+```bash
+gh pr view --json number,headRefName,headRefOid -q '{number,branch:.headRefName,head:.headRefOid}'
+```
+
+Switch to the PR branch if not already on it. Capture `OWNER`/`REPO` (`gh repo view --json owner,name`).
+
+## 2. The loop (max 5 iterations)
+
+Keep an explicit iteration counter and stop at 5 — the cap is a real bound to enforce, not a
+figure of speech. Each pass through A–G is one iteration; on hitting the cap, go straight to the
+report and list what is still unresolved rather than starting a sixth.
+
+### A. Ensure a fresh Gemini review on the current head
+
+Gemini auto-reviews new commits, but force a deterministic pass and record the head SHA:
+
+```bash
+HEAD_SHA=$(gh pr view <PR> --json headRefOid -q .headRefOid)
+# Only trigger if no gemini review already exists for this exact SHA:
+HAVE=$(gh api repos/{owner}/{repo}/pulls/<PR>/reviews --paginate \
+  --jq "[.[] | select(.user.login==\"gemini-code-assist[bot]\" and .commit_id==\"$HEAD_SHA\")] | length")
+if [ "$HAVE" = "0" ]; then gh pr comment <PR> --body "/gemini review"; fi
+```
+
+Poll for the review of THIS head to land. No check-run exists, so poll the reviews endpoint — and
+poll it on a **deadline**, never `while true`: a review that never arrives must end the skill with
+an honest timeout, not hang it.
+
+```bash
+# 10-minute deadline, one retry, then give up.
+wait_for_review() {                       # $1 = attempt label
+  local deadline=$(( SECONDS + 600 ))
+  while [ "$SECONDS" -lt "$deadline" ]; do
+    R=$(gh api repos/{owner}/{repo}/pulls/<PR>/reviews --paginate \
+      --jq "[.[] | select(.user.login==\"gemini-code-assist[bot]\" and .commit_id==\"$HEAD_SHA\")] | last")
+    if [ -n "$R" ] && [ "$R" != "null" ]; then return 0; fi
+    echo "waiting for Gemini review of $HEAD_SHA ($1)..."; sleep 15
+  done
+  return 1
+}
+
+if ! wait_for_review "first wait"; then
+  echo "no Gemini review after 10m — retrying once"     # say the retry out loud
+  gh pr comment <PR> --body "/gemini review"
+  if ! wait_for_review "after retry"; then
+    echo "Gemini did not review $HEAD_SHA after a retry; stopping and reporting."
+    exit 1                                # honest timeout, never a success claim
+  fi
+fi
+```
+
+Report the retry in the final summary; two silent timeouts are the failure mode this guard exists
+to prevent.
+
+### B. Fetch the findings
+
+- **Summary** (the `## Code Review` body): the review `.body` from the object above — read the
+  overall take and the severity spread.
+- **Unresolved inline comments** on the current head:
+
+```bash
+gh api repos/{owner}/{repo}/pulls/<PR>/comments --paginate \
+  --jq '.[] | select(.user.login=="gemini-code-assist[bot]") | {id, path, line, body}'
+```
+
+Also pull the review threads + their resolved state via GraphQL (see step F) so you only act on
+unresolved ones.
+
+### C. Critically evaluate EACH comment (the core of this skill)
+
+For every comment, **verify the claim against the actual code and repo conventions before touching
+anything.** Read the file, the surrounding code, the types, and any call sites. Then classify:
+
+1. **CORRECT + actionable** — the finding is real and the fix improves the code. → fix it (step D).
+2. **FALSE POSITIVE / technically wrong** — the claim doesn't hold. → do **NOT** change code; write a
+   specific, evidence-based reply (cite the exact code/line/behavior that disproves it), then resolve.
+3. **Valid but out-of-scope / stylistic nit** that conflicts with repo convention or the PR's intent
+   → briefly decline with a reason, then resolve. Do not expand the PR's scope to satisfy a nit.
+
+**Hard rules:**
+- **Never modify correct code just to silence Gemini.** Prefer a reasoned rebuttal.
+- When uncertain whether a claim holds, **investigate** (read more code, run the type-checker / tests)
+  rather than assume Gemini is right. Default to skepticism.
+- If a suggested change would break other call sites, alter public behavior, or contradict a verified
+  repo convention, it is a category-2 rebuttal, not a fix.
+- Never fabricate identifiers to satisfy a comment (e.g. a Linear/ticket prefix). If Gemini asks for a
+  ticket reference and none exists, say so; do not invent one.
+
+**Gemini's common failure modes to watch for (default these to category 2):**
+- Hallucinated APIs, options, or framework behavior stated as fact.
+- "Add a null/undefined check" where the type already guarantees presence.
+- Suggestions that compile-break or break other callers.
+- Security/perf warnings with no actual exploit path or measurable cost.
+- Restating library/framework semantics incorrectly.
+- Style demands that contradict the repo's existing, consistent pattern.
+
+### D. Apply fixes — category 1 only
+
+Make the minimal correct change. Re-run the local gate if the repo has one (typecheck/tests) before
+moving on.
+
+### E. Commit and push FIRST, before resolving anything
+
+Order matters. A resolved thread is a claim that the fix is on the branch, so the push has to
+succeed before the claim is made — otherwise a failed commit or push leaves the PR unfixed with the
+finding marked resolved, and nobody looks at it again.
+
+If step D changed code:
+
+```bash
+# Stage ONLY the files your fixes touched — never `git add -A`, which sweeps up
+# unrelated work and untracked secrets sitting in the worktree.
+git status --short                     # look before you stage
+git add <path> [<path>...]             # the files named in the findings you fixed
+git commit -m "address gemini review feedback (geminiloop iteration N)"
+git push
+```
+
+Author the commit per the repo's norms (e.g. the user's identity; no AI attribution if that is the
+convention). Confirm the push actually landed before continuing:
+
+```bash
+git rev-parse HEAD
+gh pr view <PR> --json headRefOid -q .headRefOid   # must match
+```
+
+If they differ, stop: the fix is not on the PR, so nothing may be resolved yet.
+
+### F. Reply to and resolve every addressed thread
+
+Only now, with the fixes pushed, reply and resolve. Fetch unresolved threads, **following
+pagination** — a PR with more than 100 threads will otherwise look clean while unresolved findings
+sit on page two:
+
+```bash
+# Loop until hasNextPage is false, passing endCursor back in as $cursor.
+CURSOR=null
+while : ; do
+  PAGE=$(gh api graphql -F cursor="$CURSOR" -f query='
+  query($cursor: String) {
+    repository(owner: "OWNER", name: "REPO") {
+      pullRequest(number: PR_NUMBER) {
+        reviewThreads(first: 100, after: $cursor) {
+          pageInfo { hasNextPage endCursor }
+          nodes { id isResolved comments(first: 1) { nodes { databaseId author { login } path body } } }
+        }
+      }
+    }
+  }')
+  echo "$PAGE"          # collect nodes from every page before deciding the PR is clean
+  PI='.data.repository.pullRequest.reviewThreads.pageInfo'
+  [ "$(echo "$PAGE" | jq -r "$PI.hasNextPage")" = "true" ] || break
+  CURSOR=$(echo "$PAGE" | jq -r "$PI.endCursor")
+done
+```
+
+Reply on a thread's comment via `gh api repos/{owner}/{repo}/pulls/<PR>/comments -f body="..." -F in_reply_to=<comment_id>`,
+then resolve:
+
+```bash
+gh api graphql -f query='mutation { resolveReviewThread(input: {threadId: "THREAD_ID"}) { thread { isResolved } } }'
+```
+
+Resolve a thread only for comments authored by `gemini-code-assist[bot]` that you have fixed or
+rebutted — never blanket-resolve, and never resolve a human reviewer's thread.
+
+Threads you are **rebutting** need no push, so they may be replied to and resolved regardless of
+whether step D changed code.
+
+### G. Re-review
+
+Pushing re-triggers Gemini automatically; go back to **A** with the new head SHA. If step D changed
+nothing (all comments were rebutted), skip the push, ensure all threads are resolved, and exit.
+
+## 3. Exit conditions
+
+Stop when **any** is true:
+- Zero unresolved `gemini-code-assist[bot]` comments remain, and every comment this round was fixed
+  or rebutted+resolved. (There is no score to hit — this is "done".)
+- Max iterations (5) reached — report what remains.
+
+## 4. Report
+
+```text
+Geminiloop complete.
+  PR:                 #<n>
+  Iterations:         N
+  Comments fixed:     N   (genuinely-correct findings)
+  Comments rebutted:  N   (false positives / nits, resolved with rationale)
+  Remaining:          0
+```
+
+If it stopped at max iterations, list the remaining threads with your current assessment
+(fix-pending vs disputed) so a human can arbitrate.

package/packages/software-development/geminiloop/adapters/grok/plugin.json

@@ -0,0 +1,6 @@
+{
+  "name": "olko:geminiloop",
+  "version": "0.1.0",
+  "description": "Iteratively drives a GitHub PR to zero unresolved Gemini Code Assist comments — treats each one as a claim to verify, fixes only the genuinely-correct findings, and rebuts the rest with evidence instead of editing correct code.",
+  "skills": "skills/"
+}