@surething/cockpit 1.0.211 → 1.0.213

package/.next-prod/server/chunks/7828.js

@@ -0,0 +1,425 @@
+"use strict";exports.id=7828,exports.ids=[7828],exports.modules={97828:(a,b,c)=>{c.d(b,{M:()=>e});let d={qa:{zh:`进入需求澄清讨论模式
+尝试理解用户的需求并给出你对需求的理解，有不明确的点需要向我确认，避免理解不一致而导致无效的代码修改
+遵循 KISS 原则
+输出理解，不改代码`,en:`Enter requirement clarification mode.
+Understand the user's needs and state your understanding.
+Ask for clarification on ambiguous points to avoid unnecessary code changes.
+Follow the KISS principle.
+Output your understanding only; do not modify code.`},fx:{zh:"进入bug证据链分析模式，只分析不修改代码，给出详细推理过程",en:`Enter bug evidence chain analysis mode.
+Analyze only; do not modify code.
+Provide a detailed reasoning process.`},ex:{zh:`---
+name: ex
+description: "结构化讨论 skill：用'问题研究 + 假设-验证循环 + 发散-收敛-发散-迭代验证-总结 + What/Why/How + 对比矩阵'方法论分析复杂问题。用户通过 \`/ex\` 显式触发。仅分析不改代码。"
+---
+
+# ex — 结构化讨论 skill
+
+用一套固定的思考骨架分析复杂问题。**只输出分析，不修改代码。**
+
+## 入口：复杂度判断
+
+收到问题后，**先判断复杂度**：
+
+- **简单问题** → 直接简答，**不套方法论**（KISS）
+- **复杂问题** → 走完整方法论骨架（下方 6 步）
+
+判断标准（任一即视为复杂）：
+- 涉及多个候选方案需要权衡
+- 存在多个可能假设需要验证
+- 跨多个模块/系统/层次
+- 用户明确要求深入讨论
+
+## 方法论骨架（仅复杂问题）
+
+按顺序一次性走完，**不中途停下问用户**：
+
+\`\`\`
+1. 问题研究    用 What / Why / How 三个切面把问题本身研究清楚
+2. 发散        穷举可能的假设、方案、视角
+3. 收敛        筛出 Top 1-3
+4. 再发散      对优选做深入展开（细节、风险、边界条件）
+5. 迭代验证    用代码检索 / Web 搜索 / Bash 实验 验证关键假设
+6. 总结        给结论；若多方案/多假设并排，用对比矩阵
+\`\`\`
+
+### What / Why / How 切面（贯穿全流程）
+
+- **What**：问题/方案是什么，边界在哪
+- **Why**：为什么会有这个问题、为什么选这个方案
+- **How**：怎么实现、怎么落地、怎么验证
+
+## 执行规则
+
+### 一次性走完，不打断用户
+
+- 全程**不调用 AskUserQuestion**
+- 信息不足时 → 明确标注 **"⚠️ 待补充：xxx"**，由用户后续追问补充
+- 不要因为信息不全就中断流程，能推到哪推到哪
+
+### 验证手段
+
+允许的验证方式：
+
+| 手段 | 工具 | 使用场景 |
+|---|---|---|
+| 代码检索 | Grep / Read / Glob | 在仓库中找证据验证假设 |
+| Web 搜索 | WebSearch / WebFetch | 查官方文档、外部资料 |
+| Bash 实验 | Bash | 跑小命令、测试脚本、curl |
+
+**禁止**：通过 AskUserQuestion 向用户提问验证。
+
+## 输出规则
+
+- **不强制固定输出结构**，按问题特点灵活组织
+- **对比矩阵不是必选项**，仅在"多方案/多假设需要并排比较"时才出
+- 简单问题就简短回答，不要为了套框架而套框架
+
+## 不做什么
+
+- ❌ 不修改代码（这是讨论 skill，不是实施 skill）
+- ❌ 不中途问用户（一次走完）
+- ❌ 不强制对每个问题都输出对比矩阵
+- ❌ 不和 \`/qa\`、\`/fx\` 抢戏 —— 三者并列，由用户显式选择触发
+`,en:`---
+name: ex
+description: "Structured discussion skill: analyze complex problems with the methodology of 'problem study + hypothesis-verify loop + diverge-converge-diverge-iterate-verify-summarize + What/Why/How + comparison matrix'. Explicitly triggered by the user via \`/ex\`. Analysis only; do not modify code."
+---
+
+# ex — structured discussion skill
+
+Analyze complex problems with a fixed thinking skeleton. **Output analysis only; do not modify code.**
+
+## Entry: complexity check
+
+When the question arrives, **first judge complexity**:
+
+- **Simple problem** → answer directly, **do not apply the methodology** (KISS)
+- **Complex problem** → run the full 6-step skeleton below
+
+Treat as complex if any of these holds:
+- Multiple candidate solutions need trade-off
+- Multiple hypotheses need verification
+- Spans multiple modules / systems / layers
+- The user explicitly asks for deep discussion
+
+## Methodology skeleton (complex problems only)
+
+Run in order, **in one pass, without stopping to ask the user**:
+
+\`\`\`
+1. Problem study   Clarify the problem itself through What / Why / How
+2. Diverge         Enumerate candidate hypotheses, solutions, perspectives
+3. Converge        Pick the top 1-3
+4. Diverge again   Deep-dive into the chosen ones (details, risks, edge cases)
+5. Iterate-verify  Verify key hypotheses via code search / web search / bash experiments
+6. Summarize       Conclude; use a comparison matrix when multiple options sit side by side
+\`\`\`
+
+### What / Why / How facets (cross-cutting)
+
+- **What**: what is the problem / solution, what is the boundary
+- **Why**: why does this problem exist, why pick this solution
+- **How**: how to implement / land / verify it
+
+## Execution rules
+
+### Run once, never interrupt the user
+
+- **Never call AskUserQuestion**
+- When information is missing → explicitly mark **"⚠️ Pending: xxx"** and let the user follow up later
+- Do not stop just because info is incomplete; push as far as the evidence allows
+
+### Verification means
+
+Allowed verification tools:
+
+| Means | Tools | Use case |
+|---|---|---|
+| Code search | Grep / Read / Glob | Find in-repo evidence for hypotheses |
+| Web search | WebSearch / WebFetch | Look up official docs and external material |
+| Bash experiments | Bash | Run small commands, test scripts, curl |
+
+**Forbidden**: verifying by asking the user via AskUserQuestion.
+
+## Output rules
+
+- **No mandatory output template** — organize by what the problem needs
+- **Comparison matrix is optional** — use it only when multiple options / hypotheses must sit side by side
+- Simple questions get short answers; do not over-frame for the sake of framing
+
+## What this skill does NOT do
+
+- ❌ Do not modify code (this is a discussion skill, not an implementation skill)
+- ❌ Do not interrupt the user mid-flow (one-shot)
+- ❌ Do not force a comparison matrix on every question
+- ❌ Do not compete with \`/qa\` or \`/fx\` — the three are siblings, triggered explicitly by the user`},go:{zh:`---
+name: go
+description: "基于已有调研结论，按最小可交付可验证拆分原则连续推进落地。每阶段写代码 → 自运行验证 → 输出【交付总结 + 验证报告】 → 自动进入下一阶段，全部完成后再做端到端回看。用于：调研已收敛、用户说『开始落地 / 开始实施 / go』，希望自动连续推进不被中途打断。"
+argument-hint: "[调研结论路径 / 简述 / 留空表示沿用当前会话上文]"
+---
+
+# 落地模式 (Landing Mode)
+
+把已经收敛的调研结论，按 MVP 自动连续落地，每阶段内闭环验证，全部完成后统一回看。
+
+## 触发条件（必须全部满足）
+
+1. 调研/方案讨论阶段已结束，结论已收敛
+2. 用户明确要"开始落地 / 实施 / go"
+3. 用户希望自动连续推进，不需要每阶段停下来确认
+
+任一不满足，先回 \`qa\` 模式澄清。
+
+## 前置检查（开始前必做）
+
+确认以下信息**已掌握**，缺一项就停下来问，不要猜：
+
+| 项 | 来源 |
+|---|---|
+| 调研结论 | 会话上文 / 用户指定的文档路径 / 直接粘贴 |
+| 落地范围 | 做什么、不做什么 |
+| 验收标准 | 怎么算"端到端跑通" |
+| 工作目录与技术栈 | 项目根路径、语言、框架 |
+
+## 执行循环
+
+\`\`\`
+while 还有未完成的 MVP 子任务:
+  1. 选定下一个最小闭环子任务
+     - 可交付：能独立存在的产物
+     - 可验证：有明确的运行/检查方式
+  2. 写代码（最小变更，KISS）
+  3. 自运行验证：跑命令、调接口、看输出，不依赖用户点头
+  4. 输出【阶段 N 交付总结 + 验证报告】
+  5. 不停顿，进入下一阶段
+end while
+
+最后输出【整体回看：端到端交互验证 + 总交付清单】
+\`\`\`
+
+## 每阶段输出格式
+
+\`\`\`markdown
+### 阶段 N：<子任务名>
+
+**交付总结**
+- 目标：<这阶段要达成什么>
+- 变更：
+  - <文件1>: <做了什么>
+  - <文件2>: <做了什么>
+- 状态：✅ 完成 / ⚠️ 部分完成 / ❌ 阻塞
+
+**验证报告**
+- 验证方式：<跑了什么命令 / 调了什么接口>
+- 验证结果：<输出摘要 / 关键指标>
+- 遗留问题：<无 / 列表>
+\`\`\`
+
+## 最终回看格式
+
+\`\`\`markdown
+## 整体回看
+
+### 端到端交互验证
+- 场景：<完整用户流程描述>
+- 步骤：<1 → 2 → 3>
+- 结果：<跑通 / 失败点>
+
+### 总交付清单
+| 阶段 | 子任务 | 关键产物 | 状态 |
+
+### 已知遗留
+<无 / 列出未解决项及优先级建议>
+\`\`\`
+
+## 何时停下来问（仅限三种情况）
+
+1. **阻塞性歧义**：缺关键信息无法推进（未知 API 契约、不明业务规则）
+2. **破坏性操作**：删数据、强推远端、改 git 历史等不可逆动作
+3. **方案分叉**：发现调研结论没覆盖的关键选型决策
+
+**不要因为以下原因停**：
+- "这步看起来重要要不要确认" → 不要，按 KISS 默认做
+- "可能想这样可能想那样" → 选最简实现继续
+- "完成一阶段汇报等批复" → 不要，直接进下一阶段
+
+## 关键原则
+
+- **KISS 优于完备**：能跑通的最小实现 > 大而全
+- **运行优于阅读**：实际跑起来验证 > 静态看代码
+- **连续优于停顿**：自动推进 > 频繁问询
+- **回看优于中断**：最后统一 review > 中途打断
+`,en:`---
+name: go
+description: "Based on prior research conclusions, drive landing forward in minimum-deliverable-verifiable slices. Per stage: write code → self-verify → emit [delivery summary + verification report] → auto advance to the next stage; after all stages, do one end-to-end recap. Use when: research is converged, the user says 'start landing / start implementing / go', and wants continuous progress without mid-stage interruption."
+argument-hint: "[research conclusion path / brief / leave empty to reuse current session context]"
+---
+
+# Landing Mode (落地模式)
+
+Take the already-converged research conclusion and land it as MVP slices continuously and automatically; each stage closes its own verification loop, with one end-to-end recap at the very end.
+
+## Trigger conditions (all must hold)
+
+1. The research / discussion phase has ended and the conclusion has converged
+2. The user explicitly says "start landing / implement / go"
+3. The user wants continuous, automatic progress without per-stage confirmation
+
+If any condition fails, fall back to \`qa\` mode for clarification first.
+
+## Pre-flight check (mandatory before starting)
+
+Confirm the following are **in hand**; if any is missing, stop and ask — do not guess:
+
+| Item | Source |
+|---|---|
+| Research conclusion | Session context / a path the user gives / pasted text |
+| Landing scope | What's in, what's out |
+| Acceptance criteria | What counts as "end-to-end runs" |
+| Working directory and stack | Project root path, language, framework |
+
+## Execution loop
+
+\`\`\`
+while there are unfinished MVP sub-tasks:
+  1. Pick the next minimum closed-loop sub-task
+     - Deliverable: a standalone artifact
+     - Verifiable: a clear way to run / check it
+  2. Write code (minimum change, KISS)
+  3. Self-verify: run commands, hit endpoints, read output — do not wait for the user's nod
+  4. Emit [Stage N delivery summary + verification report]
+  5. No pause; proceed to the next stage
+end while
+
+Finally emit [Overall recap: end-to-end interaction verification + total delivery list]
+\`\`\`
+
+## Per-stage output format
+
+\`\`\`markdown
+### Stage N: <sub-task name>
+
+**Delivery summary**
+- Goal: <what this stage achieves>
+- Changes:
+  - <file1>: <what was done>
+  - <file2>: <what was done>
+- Status: ✅ done / ⚠️ partial / ❌ blocked
+
+**Verification report**
+- How verified: <commands run / endpoints called>
+- Result: <output summary / key metrics>
+- Residual issues: <none / list>
+\`\`\`
+
+## Final recap format
+
+\`\`\`markdown
+## Overall recap
+
+### End-to-end interaction verification
+- Scenario: <full user-flow description>
+- Steps: <1 → 2 → 3>
+- Result: <passes / failure points>
+
+### Total delivery list
+| Stage | Sub-task | Key artifact | Status |
+
+### Known residuals
+<none / list with suggested priority>
+\`\`\`
+
+## When to stop and ask (only three cases)
+
+1. **Blocking ambiguity**: a key piece of info is missing and progress is impossible (unknown API contract, unclear business rule)
+2. **Destructive operation**: deleting data, force-pushing, rewriting git history, or other irreversible actions
+3. **Branching decision**: a key design choice the research did not cover
+
+**Do NOT stop for**:
+- "This step looks important, should I confirm?" → No, do the KISS default
+- "Maybe this way, maybe that way" → Pick the simplest implementation and continue
+- "Done with a stage, awaiting sign-off" → No, go straight to the next stage
+
+## Key principles
+
+- **KISS over completeness**: a minimal runnable implementation > grand-and-complete
+- **Running over reading**: actually run it to verify > stare at code
+- **Continuous over pausing**: auto-advance > frequent asking
+- **Recap over interruption**: one final review > mid-flow breaks
+`},cg:{zh:`进入项目图谱探索模式（CodeGraph）
+
+CodeGraph = 项目预建的符号 + 调用图索引 + git 协同视图。6 个接口各回答一类问题：
+
+| 问题 | 接口 |
+|---|---|
+| X 在哪定义 / 有哪些同名符号？ | search?q=X |
+| 谁调用 X？ | callers?qname=X |
+| X 调用了什么？ | callees?qname=X |
+| 改 X 会影响哪些符号？ | impact?qname=X&depth=2 |
+| 文件 F 有哪些符号？ | file?path=F |
+| 文件 F 常和哪些文件一起改？（约定耦合 / 双写注册表） | coedit?filePath=F |
+
+所有响应都是坐标 / 文件路径，不含源码——比 grep 字面匹配精确，比 Read 全文扫描省 token。
+
+## 6 个图谱接口（{{BASE_URL}}）
+
+# search: 按名字找符号 → file / qname / kind / startLine / endLine / params
+curl -fsS "{{BASE_URL}}/api/projectGraph/search?cwd=$PWD&q=<NAME>"
+
+# callers / callees: 1-hop 调用关系
+curl -fsS "{{BASE_URL}}/api/projectGraph/callers?cwd=$PWD&qname=<QNAME>"
+curl -fsS "{{BASE_URL}}/api/projectGraph/callees?cwd=$PWD&qname=<QNAME>"
+
+# impact: 传递性 callers BFS（depth 1-5，默认 2）
+curl -fsS "{{BASE_URL}}/api/projectGraph/impact?cwd=$PWD&qname=<QNAME>&depth=2"
+
+# file: 文件符号树（无源码）
+curl -fsS "{{BASE_URL}}/api/projectGraph/file?cwd=$PWD&path=<REL_PATH>"
+
+# coedit: 与目标文件协同编辑的文件 = git log 历史 + 当前 working tree 同时被改的文件
+#   抓 call-graph 抓不到的"约定耦合"(平行注册表 / 双写 / 同名 .md 配置等)
+curl -fsS "{{BASE_URL}}/api/projectGraph/coedit?cwd=$PWD&filePath=<REL_PATH>"
+
+## 技术契约
+- 接口只返坐标，源码用 Read 自取：\`Read offset=startLine limit=endLine-startLine+1\`
+- qname 用 \`Parent>Child\` 形式（不是 \`.\`），直接复用 search 返回的 \`qualifiedName\`
+- 同名符号跨多文件时响应里 \`ambiguousIn\` 列出，加 \`&filePath=<rel>\` 消歧`,en:`Enter project graph exploration mode (CodeGraph).
+
+CodeGraph = pre-built symbol + call-graph index + git co-edit view. Six endpoints, each answers one class of question:
+
+| Question | Endpoint |
+|---|---|
+| Where is X defined / which files share the name? | search?q=X |
+| Who calls X? | callers?qname=X |
+| What does X call? | callees?qname=X |
+| Changing X affects which symbols? | impact?qname=X&depth=2 |
+| What symbols does file F contain? | file?path=F |
+| Which files are commonly edited alongside F? (conventional coupling / parallel registries) | coedit?filePath=F |
+
+All responses are coordinates / file paths — never source. More precise than grep's textual match, cheaper in tokens than Reading whole files.
+
+## The 6 graph endpoints ({{BASE_URL}})
+
+# search: find symbols by name → file / qname / kind / startLine / endLine / params
+curl -fsS "{{BASE_URL}}/api/projectGraph/search?cwd=$PWD&q=<NAME>"
+
+# callers / callees: 1-hop call relations
+curl -fsS "{{BASE_URL}}/api/projectGraph/callers?cwd=$PWD&qname=<QNAME>"
+curl -fsS "{{BASE_URL}}/api/projectGraph/callees?cwd=$PWD&qname=<QNAME>"
+
+# impact: transitive callers BFS (depth 1-5, default 2)
+curl -fsS "{{BASE_URL}}/api/projectGraph/impact?cwd=$PWD&qname=<QNAME>&depth=2"
+
+# file: file symbol tree (no source)
+curl -fsS "{{BASE_URL}}/api/projectGraph/file?cwd=$PWD&path=<REL_PATH>"
+
+# coedit: files commonly edited alongside the target = git log history + current working-tree co-edits
+#   catches "conventional coupling" the call-graph can't see (parallel registries / double-writes / sibling .md configs)
+curl -fsS "{{BASE_URL}}/api/projectGraph/coedit?cwd=$PWD&filePath=<REL_PATH>"
+
+## Technical contract
+- Endpoints return coordinates only. Fetch source with Read: \`Read offset=startLine limit=endLine-startLine+1\`
+- qname uses \`Parent>Child\` form (not \`.\`); copy \`qualifiedName\` from search's response directly
+- Cross-file name collisions are listed in \`ambiguousIn\` — pass \`&filePath=<rel>\` to disambiguate`,labelZh:"探索问题：",labelEn:"Exploration: "}};function e(a,b="en",c){var f,g;let h,i=a.trimStart(),j=i.match(/^\/([a-zA-Z]+)(?:\s+|$)/);if(!j)return a;let k=j[1],l=b.startsWith("zh")?"zh":"en",m=d[k],n=m?.[l];if(!n)return a;let o=function(a){if(a){let b=new URL(a.url),c=a.headers.get("x-forwarded-proto"),d=a.headers.get("x-forwarded-host");return c||d?`${c??b.protocol.replace(":","")}://${d??b.host}`:b.origin}let b=process.env.COCKPIT_PORT||process.env.PORT||"3457";return`http://localhost:${b}`}(c),p=n.replaceAll("{{BASE_URL}}",o),q=i.slice(j[0].length).trimStart(),r=(f=m,(h="zh"===(g=l)?f.labelZh:f.labelEn)||("zh"===g?"问题：":"Question: "));return q?`${p}
+
+${r}${q}`:p}}};