agentsys 5.1.0 → 5.2.1

package/adapters/opencode/skills/debate/SKILL.md

@@ -1,245 +0,0 @@
----
-name: debate
-description: "Structured AI debate templates and synthesis. Use when orchestrating multi-round debates between AI tools, 'debate topic', 'argue about', 'stress test idea', 'devil advocate'."
-version: 5.1.0
-argument-hint: "[topic] [--proposer=tool] [--challenger=tool] [--rounds=N] [--effort=level]"
----
-
-> **OpenCode Note**: Invoke agents using `@agent-name` syntax.
-> Available agents: task-discoverer, exploration-agent, planning-agent,
-> implementation-agent, deslop-agent, delivery-validator, sync-docs-agent, consult-agent
-> Example: `@exploration-agent analyze the codebase`
-
-
-# debate
-
-Prompt templates, context assembly rules, and synthesis format for structured multi-round debates between AI tools.
-
-## Arguments
-
-Parse from `$ARGUMENTS`:
-- **topic**: The debate question/topic (required)
-- **--proposer**: Tool for the proposer role (claude, gemini, codex, opencode, copilot)
-- **--challenger**: Tool for the challenger role (must differ from proposer)
-- **--rounds**: Number of back-and-forth rounds (1-5, default: 2)
-- **--effort**: Thinking effort applied to all tool invocations (low, medium, high, max)
-- **--model-proposer**: Specific model for proposer (optional)
-- **--model-challenger**: Specific model for challenger (optional)
-
-## Universal Rules
-
-ALL participants (proposer AND challenger) MUST support claims with specific evidence (file path, code pattern, benchmark, or documented behavior). Unsupported claims from either side will be flagged by the other participant and noted in the verdict. This applies to every round.
-
-## Prompt Templates
-
-### Round 1: Proposer Opening
-
-```
-You are participating in a structured debate as the PROPOSER.
-
-Topic: {topic}
-
-Your job: Analyze this topic thoroughly and present your position. Take a clear stance. Do not hedge excessively.
-
-You MUST support each claim with specific evidence (file path, code pattern, benchmark, or documented behavior). Unsupported claims will be challenged. "I think" or "generally speaking" without evidence is not acceptable.
-
-Provide your analysis:
-```
-
-### Round 1: Challenger Response
-
-```
-You are participating in a structured debate as the CHALLENGER.
-
-Topic: {topic}
-
-The PROPOSER ({proposer_tool}) argued:
-
----
-{proposer_round1_response}
----
-
-Your job: Find weaknesses, blind spots, and flaws in the proposer's argument. You MUST identify at least one genuine flaw or overlooked consideration before agreeing on anything. Propose concrete alternatives where you disagree.
-
-Rules:
-- Do NOT say "great point" or validate the proposer's reasoning before critiquing it
-- Lead with what's WRONG or MISSING, then acknowledge what's right
-- If you genuinely agree on a point, explain what RISK remains despite the agreement
-- Propose at least one concrete alternative approach
-- You MUST address at least these categories: correctness, security implications, and developer experience
-- Do NOT agree with ANY claim unless you can cite specific evidence (file path, code pattern, or documented behavior) that supports the agreement. Unsupported agreement is not allowed.
-- If the proposer makes a claim without evidence, call it out: "This claim is unsupported."
-
-Provide your challenge:
-```
-
-### Round 2+: Proposer Defense
-
-```
-You are the PROPOSER in round {round} of a structured debate.
-
-Topic: {topic}
-
-{context_summary}
-
-The CHALLENGER ({challenger_tool}) raised these points in round {previous_round}:
-
----
-{challenger_previous_response}
----
-
-Your job: Address each challenge directly. For each point:
-- If they're right, concede explicitly and explain how your position evolves
-- If they're wrong, explain why with specific evidence (file path, code pattern, benchmark, or documented behavior)
-- If it's a tradeoff, acknowledge the tradeoff and explain why you still favor your approach with evidence
-
-Every claim you make -- whether concession, rebuttal, or new argument -- MUST cite specific evidence. The challenger will reject unsupported claims.
-
-Do NOT simply restate your original position. Your response must show you engaged with the specific challenges raised.
-
-Provide your defense:
-```
-
-### Round 2+: Challenger Follow-up
-
-*(JavaScript reference - not executable in OpenCode)*
-
-## Context Assembly
-
-### Rounds 1-2: Full context
-
-Include the full text of all prior exchanges in the prompt. Context is small enough (typically under 5000 tokens total).
-
-Format for context block:
-```
-Previous exchanges:
-
-Round 1 - Proposer ({proposer_tool}):
-{full response}
-
-Round 1 - Challenger ({challenger_tool}):
-{full response}
-```
-
-### Round 3+: Summarized context
-
-For rounds 3 and beyond, replace full exchange text from rounds 1 through N-2 with a summary. Only include the most recent round's responses in full.
-
-Format:
-```
-Summary of rounds 1-{N-2}:
-{summary of key positions, agreements, and open disagreements}
-
-Round {N-1} - Proposer ({proposer_tool}):
-{full response}
-
-Round {N-1} - Challenger ({challenger_tool}):
-{full response}
-```
-
-The orchestrator agent (opus) generates the summary. Target: 500-800 tokens. MUST preserve:
-- Each side's core position
-- All concessions (verbatim quotes, not paraphrased)
-- All evidence citations that support agreements
-- Points of disagreement (unresolved)
-- Any contradictions between rounds (e.g., proposer concedes in round 1 but walks it back in round 2 -- note both explicitly)
-
-## Synthesis Format
-
-After all rounds complete, the orchestrator produces this structured output:
-
-```
-## Debate Summary
-
-**Topic**: {topic}
-**Proposer**: {proposer_tool} ({proposer_model})
-**Challenger**: {challenger_tool} ({challenger_model})
-**Rounds**: {rounds_completed}
-**Rigor**: Structured perspective comparison (prompt-enforced adversarial rules, no deterministic verification)
-
-### Verdict
-
-{winner_tool} had the stronger argument because: {specific reasoning citing debate evidence}
-
-### Debate Quality
-
-Rate the debate on these dimensions:
-- **Genuine disagreement**: Did the challenger maintain independent positions, or converge toward the proposer? (high/medium/low)
-- **Evidence quality**: Did both sides cite specific examples, or argue from generalities? (high/medium/low)
-- **Challenge depth**: Were the challenges substantive, or surface-level? (high/medium/low)
-
-### Key Agreements
-- {agreed point 1} (evidence: {what supports this agreement})
-- {agreed point 2} (evidence: {what supports this agreement})
-
-### Key Disagreements
-- {point}: {proposer_tool} argues {X}, {challenger_tool} argues {Y}
-
-### Unresolved Questions
-- {question that neither side adequately addressed}
-
-### Recommendation
-{Orchestrator's recommendation - must pick a direction, not "both have merit"}
-```
-
-**Synthesis rules:**
-- The verdict MUST pick a side. "Both approaches have merit" is NOT acceptable.
-- Cite specific arguments from the debate as evidence for the verdict.
-- The recommendation must be actionable - what should the user DO based on this debate.
-- Unresolved questions highlight where the debate fell short, not where both sides are "equally valid."
-
-## State File Schema
-
-Save to `{AI_STATE_DIR}/debate/last-debate.json`:
-
-```json
-{
-  "id": "debate-{ISO timestamp}-{4 char random hex}",
-  "topic": "original topic text",
-  "proposer": {"tool": "claude", "model": "opus"},
-  "challenger": {"tool": "gemini", "model": "gemini-3-pro"},
-  "effort": "high",
-  "rounds_completed": 2,
-  "max_rounds": 2,
-  "status": "completed",
-  "exchanges": [
-    {"round": 1, "role": "proposer", "tool": "claude", "response": "...", "duration_ms": 8500},
-    {"round": 1, "role": "challenger", "tool": "gemini", "response": "...", "duration_ms": 12000},
-    {"round": 2, "role": "proposer", "tool": "claude", "response": "...", "duration_ms": 9200},
-    {"round": 2, "role": "challenger", "tool": "gemini", "response": "...", "duration_ms": 11000}
-  ],
-  "verdict": {
-    "winner": "claude",
-    "reasoning": "...",
-    "agreements": ["..."],
-    "disagreements": ["..."],
-    "recommendation": "..."
-  },
-  "timestamp": "{ISO 8601 timestamp}"
-}
-```
-
-Platform state directory:
-- Claude Code: `.claude/`
-- OpenCode: `.opencode/`
-- Codex CLI: `.codex/`
-
-## Error Handling
-
-| Error | Action |
-|-------|--------|
-| Proposer fails round 1 | Abort debate. Cannot proceed without opening position. |
-| Challenger fails round 1 | Show proposer's position with note: "[WARN] Challenger failed. Showing proposer's uncontested position." |
-| Any tool fails mid-debate | Synthesize from completed rounds. Note incomplete round in output. |
-| All rounds timeout | "[ERROR] Debate failed: all tool invocations timed out." |
-
-## Consult Skill Integration
-
-Each tool invocation uses the existing `consult` skill from the consult plugin. The orchestrator invokes it as:
-
-```
-Skill: consult
-Args: "{debate prompt with context}" --tool={tool} --effort={effort} --model={model}
-```
-
-The consult skill handles: provider command building, safe question passing (temp file), output parsing, and secret redaction. The debate skill does NOT duplicate this logic.

package/adapters/opencode/skills/deslop/SKILL.md

@@ -1,168 +0,0 @@
----
-name: deslop
-description: "Use when user wants to clean AI slop from code. Use for cleanup, remove debug statements, find ghost code, repo hygiene."
-version: 5.1.0
-argument-hint: "[report|apply] [--scope=all|diff|path] [--thoroughness=quick|normal|deep]"
----
-
-> **OpenCode Note**: Invoke agents using `@agent-name` syntax.
-> Available agents: task-discoverer, exploration-agent, planning-agent,
-> implementation-agent, deslop-agent, delivery-validator, sync-docs-agent, consult-agent
-> Example: `@exploration-agent analyze the codebase`
-
-
-# deslop
-
-Clean AI slop from code with certainty-based findings and auto-fixes.
-
-## Parse Arguments
-
-*(JavaScript reference - not executable in OpenCode)*
-
-## Input
-
-Arguments: `[report|apply] [--scope=<path>|all|diff] [--thoroughness=quick|normal|deep]`
-
-- **Mode**: `report` (default) or `apply`
-- **Scope**: What to scan
-  - `all` (default): Entire codebase
-  - `diff`: Only files changed in current branch
-  - `<path>`: Specific directory or file
-- **Thoroughness**: Analysis depth (default: `normal`)
-  - `quick`: Regex patterns only
-  - `normal`: + multi-pass analyzers
-  - `deep`: + CLI tools (jscpd, madge) if available
-
-## Detection Pipeline
-
-### Phase 1: Run Detection Script
-
-The detection script is at `../../scripts/detect.js` relative to this skill.
-
-**Run detection** (use relative path from skill directory):
-```bash
-# Scripts are at plugin root: ../../scripts/ from skills/deslop/
-node ../../scripts/detect.js . --thoroughness normal --compact --max 50
-```
-
-**For diff scope** (only changed files):
-```bash
-BASE=$(git symbolic-ref refs/remotes/origin/HEAD 2>/dev/null | sed 's@^refs/remotes/origin/@@' || echo "main")
-# Use newline-separated list to safely handle filenames with special chars
-git diff --name-only origin/${BASE}..HEAD 2>/dev/null | \
-  xargs -d '\n' node ../../scripts/detect.js --thoroughness normal --compact
-```
-
-**Note**: The relative path `../../scripts/detect.js` navigates from `skills/deslop/` up to the plugin root where `scripts/` lives.
-
-### Phase 2: Repo-Map Enhancement (Optional)
-
-If repo-map exists, enhance detection with AST-based analysis:
-
-*(JavaScript reference - not executable in OpenCode)*
-
-### Phase 3: Aggregate and Prioritize
-
-Sort findings by:
-1. **Certainty**: HIGH before MEDIUM before LOW
-2. **Severity**: high before medium before low
-3. **Fix complexity**: auto-fixable before manual
-
-### Phase 4: Return Structured Results
-
-Skill returns structured JSON - does NOT apply fixes (orchestrator handles that).
-
-## Output Format
-
-JSON structure between markers:
-
-```
-=== DESLOP_RESULT ===
-{
-  "mode": "report|apply",
-  "scope": "all|diff|path",
-  "filesScanned": N,
-  "findings": [
-    {
-      "file": "src/api.js",
-      "line": 42,
-      "pattern": "debug-statement",
-      "message": "console.log found",
-      "certainty": "HIGH",
-      "severity": "medium",
-      "autoFix": true,
-      "fixType": "remove-line"
-    }
-  ],
-  "fixes": [
-    {
-      "file": "src/api.js",
-      "line": 42,
-      "fixType": "remove-line",
-      "pattern": "debug-statement"
-    }
-  ],
-  "summary": {
-    "high": N,
-    "medium": N,
-    "low": N,
-    "autoFixable": N
-  }
-}
-=== END_RESULT ===
-```
-
-## Certainty Levels
-
-| Level | Meaning | Action |
-|-------|---------|--------|
-| **HIGH** | Definitely slop, safe to auto-fix | Auto-fix via simple-fixer |
-| **MEDIUM** | Likely slop, needs verification | Review first |
-| **LOW** | Possible slop, context-dependent | Flag only |
-
-## Pattern Categories
-
-### HIGH Certainty (Auto-Fixable)
-
-- `debug-statement`: console.log, console.debug, print, println!
-- `debug-import`: Unused debug/logging imports
-- `placeholder-text`: "Lorem ipsum", "TODO: implement"
-- `empty-catch`: Empty catch blocks without comment
-- `trailing-whitespace`: Trailing whitespace
-- `mixed-indentation`: Mixed tabs/spaces
-
-### MEDIUM Certainty (Review Required)
-
-- `excessive-comments`: Comment/code ratio > 2:1
-- `doc-code-ratio`: JSDoc > 3x function body
-- `stub-function`: Returns placeholder value only
-- `dead-code`: Unreachable after return/throw
-- `infrastructure-without-impl`: DB clients created but never used
-
-### LOW Certainty (Flag Only)
-
-- `over-engineering`: File/export ratio > 20x
-- `buzzword-inflation`: Claims without evidence
-- `shotgun-surgery`: Files frequently change together
-
-## Fix Types
-
-| Fix Type | Action | Patterns |
-|----------|--------|----------|
-| `remove-line` | Delete line | debug-statement, debug-import |
-| `add-comment` | Add explanation | empty-catch |
-| `remove-block` | Delete code block | stub-function with TODO |
-
-## Error Handling
-
-- **Git not available**: Skip git-dependent checks
-- **Invalid scope**: Return error in JSON
-- **Parse errors**: Skip file, continue scan
-
-## Integration
-
-This skill is invoked by:
-- `deslop-agent` for `/deslop` command
-- `/next-task` Phase 8 (pre-review gates) with `scope=diff`
-
-The orchestrator spawns `simple-fixer` to apply HIGH certainty fixes.

package/adapters/opencode/skills/discover-tasks/SKILL.md

@@ -1,101 +0,0 @@
----
-name: discover-tasks
-description: "Use when user asks to \"discover tasks\", \"find next task\", or \"prioritize issues\". Discovers and ranks tasks from GitHub, GitLab, local files, and custom sources."
-version: 5.1.0
----
-
-# discover-tasks
-
-Discover tasks from configured sources, validate them, and present for user selection.
-
-## Workflow
-
-### Phase 1: Load Policy and Claimed Tasks
-
-*(JavaScript reference - not executable in OpenCode)*
-
-### Phase 2: Fetch Tasks by Source
-
-**Source types:**
-- `github` / `gh-issues`: GitHub CLI
-- `gitlab`: GitLab CLI
-- `local` / `tasks-md`: Local markdown files
-- `custom`: CLI/MCP/Skill tool
-- `other`: Agent interprets description
-
-**GitHub Issues:**
-```bash
-# Fetch with pagination awareness
-gh issue list --state open \
-  --json number,title,body,labels,assignees,createdAt,url \
-  --limit 100 > /tmp/gh-issues.json
-```
-
-**GitLab Issues:**
-```bash
-glab issue list --state opened --output json --per-page 100 > /tmp/glab-issues.json
-```
-
-**Local tasks.md:**
-```bash
-for f in PLAN.md tasks.md TODO.md; do
-  [ -f "$f" ] && grep -n '^\s*- \[ \]' "$f"
-done
-```
-
-**Custom Source:**
-*(JavaScript reference - not executable in OpenCode)*
-
-### Phase 3: Filter and Score
-
-**Exclude claimed tasks:**
-*(JavaScript reference - not executable in OpenCode)*
-
-**Apply priority filter:**
-*(JavaScript reference - not executable in OpenCode)*
-
-**Score tasks:**
-*(JavaScript reference - not executable in OpenCode)*
-
-### Phase 4: Present to User via AskUserQuestion
-
-**CRITICAL**: Labels MUST be max 30 characters (OpenCode limit).
-
-- Use AskUserQuestion tool for user input
-
-
-### Phase 5: Update State
-
-*(JavaScript reference - not executable in OpenCode)*
-
-### Phase 6: Post Comment (GitHub only)
-
-```bash
-gh issue comment "$TASK_ID" --body "[BOT] Workflow started for this issue."
-```
-
-## Output Format
-
-```markdown
-## Task Selected
-
-**Task**: #{id} - {title}
-**Source**: {source}
-**URL**: {url}
-
-Proceeding to worktree setup...
-```
-
-## Error Handling
-
-If no tasks found:
-1. Suggest creating issues
-2. Suggest running /audit-project
-3. Suggest using 'all' priority filter
-
-## Constraints
-
-- MUST use AskUserQuestion for task selection (not plain text)
-- Labels MUST be max 30 characters
-- Exclude tasks already claimed by other workflows
-- Top 5 tasks only