agestra 4.3.4 → 4.4.0

package/hooks/user-prompt-submit.js

@@ -0,0 +1,70 @@
+#!/usr/bin/env node
+
+// Agestra UserPromptSubmit hook
+// Detects user intent and injects Agestra tool suggestions as additionalContext.
+
+let input = "";
+process.stdin.on("data", (chunk) => { input += chunk; });
+process.stdin.on("end", () => {
+  try {
+    const data = JSON.parse(input);
+    const prompt = (data.prompt || "").toLowerCase();
+
+    const reviewKeywords = [
+      "리뷰", "review", "점검", "검사", "보안", "security", "버그", "bug",
+      "하드코딩", "중복 코드", "레거시", "스파게티", "품질", "quality",
+      "문제 있", "what's wrong", "check for", "audit", "코드 확인",
+      "テスト", "レビュー", "审查", "检查",
+    ];
+    const ideaKeywords = [
+      "아이디어", "idea", "개선", "뭐 추가", "뭐가 부족", "비슷한",
+      "improve", "feature", "what should", "what's missing", "유사",
+      "경쟁", "competitor", "다음에 뭘", "만들 가치",
+      "改善", "アイデア", "改进", "想法",
+    ];
+    const designKeywords = [
+      "설계", "design", "아키텍처", "architect", "구조", "어떻게 만들",
+      "방향", "approach", "trade-off", "트레이드오프",
+      "設計", "アーキテクチャ", "架构",
+    ];
+
+    const matched = [];
+    if (reviewKeywords.some((k) => prompt.includes(k))) matched.push("review");
+    if (ideaKeywords.some((k) => prompt.includes(k))) matched.push("idea");
+    if (designKeywords.some((k) => prompt.includes(k))) matched.push("design");
+
+    if (matched.length > 0) {
+      const lines = [
+        "[Agestra] 외부 AI(Ollama, Gemini, Codex)와 팀을 구성하여 작업할 수 있습니다.",
+        "사용자에게 팀 모드 사용 여부를 제안하세요.",
+        "",
+      ];
+
+      if (matched.includes("review")) {
+        lines.push("• 코드 리뷰 → `environment_check` 실행 후 모드 선택 제공:");
+        lines.push("  - Claude only: agestra-reviewer 단독 실행");
+        lines.push("  - 각자 독립: 팀(moderator + reviewer + 외부 AI) 각자 리뷰 → 취합 문서");
+        lines.push("  - 끝장토론: 각자 독립 + 합의까지 반복 리뷰");
+      }
+      if (matched.includes("idea")) {
+        lines.push("• 아이디어 탐색 → `environment_check` 실행 후 모드 선택 제공:");
+        lines.push("  - Claude only: agestra-ideator 단독 탐색");
+        lines.push("  - 각자 독립: 팀(moderator + ideator + 외부 AI) 각자 탐색 → 취합 문서");
+        lines.push("  - 끝장토론: 각자 독립 + 합의까지 반복 토론");
+      }
+      if (matched.includes("design")) {
+        lines.push("• 설계 탐색 → `environment_check` 실행 후 모드 선택 제공:");
+        lines.push("  - Claude only: agestra-designer 단독 설계");
+        lines.push("  - 각자 독립: 팀(moderator + designer + 외부 AI) 각자 설계 → 취합 문서");
+        lines.push("  - 끝장토론: 각자 독립 + 합의까지 반복 토론");
+      }
+
+      lines.push("");
+      lines.push("반드시 `environment_check`를 먼저 호출하여 사용 가능한 프로바이더를 확인한 후, 모드 선택지를 사용자에게 보여주세요.");
+
+      console.log(JSON.stringify({ additionalContext: lines.join("\n") }));
+    }
+  } catch (e) {
+    // silent — do not block user prompt on error
+  }
+});

package/package.json

@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 {
   "name": "agestra",
-  "version": "4.3.4",
+  "version": "4.4.0",
   "description": "Claude Code plugin — orchestrate Ollama, Gemini, and Codex for multi-AI debates, cross-validation, and GraphRAG memory",
   "type": "module",
   "packageManager": "npm@11.11.0",
@@ -21,15 +21,18 @@
     "hooks/",
     "skills/"
   ],
-  "scripts": {
-    "build": "turbo build",
-    "test": "turbo test",
-    "dev": "turbo dev",
-    "lint": "turbo lint",
-    "clean": "turbo clean",
-    "bundle": "node scripts/bundle.mjs",
-    "prepublishOnly": "npm run build && npm run bundle"
-  },
+  "scripts": {
+    "sync:metadata": "node scripts/sync-metadata.mjs",
+    "prebuild": "npm run sync:metadata",
+    "build": "turbo build",
+    "test": "turbo test",
+    "dev": "turbo dev",
+    "lint": "turbo lint",
+    "clean": "turbo clean",
+    "prebundle": "npm run sync:metadata",
+    "bundle": "node scripts/bundle.mjs",
+    "prepublishOnly": "npm run build && npm run bundle"
+  },
   "keywords": [
     "claude-code-plugin",
     "mcp",

package/skills/design.md

@@ -63,16 +63,87 @@ Brownfield: modifying or extending existing code.
 - Round 10: soft warning — "We're at 10 rounds. Current ambiguity: {score}%. Continue or proceed?"
 - Round 20: hard cap — proceed with current clarity, note the risk
 
-### Phase 2: Explore
+### Phase 2: Check environment and select mode
 
+Call `environment_check` to determine available providers.
+
+Present mode selection (in the user's language):
+
+| Option | Condition | Description |
+|--------|-----------|-------------|
+| **Claude only** | Always | 플러그인 전문 에이전트가 소크라테스식 질문으로 아키텍처 탐색 |
+| **각자 독립** | 1+ provider available | 에이전트 팀(moderator + designer + 외부 AI)이 각자 독립 설계 후 취합 문서 작성 |
+| **끝장토론** | 1+ provider available | 각자 독립 설계 후 취합 문서를 돌아가며 분석/피드백, 모두 동의할 때까지 |
+
+Only show options whose conditions are met. If no providers are available, run Claude only.
+
+### Phase 3: Execute
+
+#### If "Claude only":
+Proceed to Phase 4 (Explore → Propose → Refine → Document) directly using `agestra-designer` agent.
+
+#### If "각자 독립":
+
+**팀 구성:** `agestra-moderator` (리더) + `agestra-designer` (Claude) + 사용 가능한 외부 AI (gemini, codex, ollama 등)
+
+1. In parallel:
+   - Spawn the `agestra-designer` agent for Claude's independent architecture exploration.
+     After the agent completes, save Claude's result as a document via `workspace_create_document`:
+     - **title:** `Architecture Design — claude/designer`
+     - **metadata:** `{ "Provider": "claude/designer", "Task": "{subject}", "Mode": "Independent" }`
+     - **content:** The designer agent's full output.
+   - For each available provider, call `ai_chat` with `save_as_document`:
+     - **save_as_document.title:** `Architecture Design — {provider}`
+     - **save_as_document.metadata:** `{ "Task": "{subject}", "Mode": "Independent" }`
+     - **prompt:** Propose an architecture approach for [subject]. Consider existing patterns in the codebase, trade-offs (complexity, performance, maintainability), and implementation steps. Present 2-3 distinct approaches with pros/cons for each.
+
+2. Collect all document IDs.
+
+3. Spawn the `agestra-moderator` agent in **Independent Aggregation** mode:
+   - Pass the document ID list.
+   - Moderator reads each document, classifies consensus/unique/disputed approaches.
+   - Moderator creates an aggregated document via `workspace_create_document`.
+
+4. Present summary report to the user:
+   - Key consensus approaches (1-3 lines).
+   - Notable unique design ideas (if any).
+   - Trade-off disagreements (if any).
+   - Individual + aggregated document IDs.
+
+#### If "끝장토론":
+
+**팀 구성:** `agestra-moderator` (리더) + `agestra-designer` (Claude) + 사용 가능한 외부 AI (gemini, codex, ollama 등)
+
+1. Execute "각자 독립" steps 1-3 above (independent work + initial aggregation).
+   - The moderator's integrated document becomes the starting document.
+
+2. Document review rounds (no max — until all agree):
+   a. Moderator sends the current document to each AI for review:
+      - Claude: spawn `agestra-designer` → analyze document → section-by-section feedback
+      - Other providers: `agent_debate_turn` with the document as prompt, requesting agree/disagree per section
+   b. Moderator collects all feedback.
+   c. Classify: agree/disagree per section per provider.
+   d. Revise document incorporating disagreement feedback.
+   e. If all providers agree on all sections → consensus reached.
+   f. If not → next round with revised document.
+   g. **Every 10 rounds:** Ask the user whether to continue or stop with current state.
+
+3. Present the final document:
+   - Consensus sections: marked as agreed
+   - Disputed sections: show split positions with each provider's rationale
+
+### Phase 4: Design process (Claude only mode)
+
+If running Claude only, execute the following design phases:
+
+#### 4a: Explore
 Search the codebase for relevant existing patterns:
 - Use Glob to find related files by name
 - Use Grep to find similar implementations
 - Use Read to understand existing architecture
 - Note conventions: naming, file organization, patterns used
 
-### Phase 3: Propose
-
+#### 4b: Propose
 Present 2-3 distinct approaches. For each:
 - **Approach name** — one-line summary
 - **How it works** — architecture overview
@@ -80,16 +151,14 @@ Present 2-3 distinct approaches. For each:
 - **Trade-offs** — pros and cons
 - **Effort** — relative complexity (low/medium/high)
 
-### Phase 4: Refine
-
+#### 4c: Refine
 Based on user feedback:
 - Deep-dive into the selected approach
 - Address concerns raised
 - Detail component boundaries and data flow
 - Identify risks and mitigation
 
-### Phase 5: Document
-
+#### 4d: Document
 Write a design document to `docs/plans/` with this structure:
 
 ```markdown

package/skills/idea.md

@@ -68,29 +68,98 @@ After gathering context:
 
 **Early exit:** If the user provides enough context upfront (specific competitors, clear scope, concrete goals), skip remaining questions and proceed to Phase 2. Do not force unnecessary rounds.
 
-### Phase 2: Research Similar Projects
+### Phase 2: Check environment and select mode
 
+Call `environment_check` to determine available providers.
+
+Present mode selection (in the user's language):
+
+| Option | Condition | Description |
+|--------|-----------|-------------|
+| **Claude only** | Always | 플러그인 전문 에이전트가 단독으로 개선점 탐색 |
+| **각자 독립** | 1+ provider available | 에이전트 팀(moderator + ideator + 외부 AI)이 각자 독립 탐색 후 취합 문서 작성 |
+| **끝장토론** | 1+ provider available | 각자 독립 탐색 후 취합 문서를 돌아가며 분석/피드백, 모두 동의할 때까지 |
+
+Only show options whose conditions are met. If no providers are available, run Claude only.
+
+### Phase 3: Execute
+
+#### If "Claude only":
+Proceed to Phase 4 (Research) directly using `agestra-ideator` agent.
+
+#### If "각자 독립":
+
+**팀 구성:** `agestra-moderator` (리더) + `agestra-ideator` (Claude) + 사용 가능한 외부 AI (gemini, codex, ollama 등)
+
+1. In parallel:
+   - Spawn the `agestra-ideator` agent for Claude's independent improvement research.
+     After the agent completes, save Claude's result as a document via `workspace_create_document`:
+     - **title:** `Idea Exploration — claude/ideator`
+     - **metadata:** `{ "Provider": "claude/ideator", "Task": "{topic}", "Mode": "Independent" }`
+     - **content:** The ideator agent's full output.
+   - For each available provider, call `ai_chat` with `save_as_document`:
+     - **save_as_document.title:** `Idea Exploration — {provider}`
+     - **save_as_document.metadata:** `{ "Task": "{topic}", "Mode": "Independent" }`
+     - **prompt:** Research improvements for [topic]. Look at similar projects, common user complaints, missing features, and opportunities. For each suggestion, provide: title, category (UX/Performance/Feature/Integration/DX), source of the idea, priority (HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW), and a brief description.
+
+2. Collect all document IDs.
+
+3. Spawn the `agestra-moderator` agent in **Independent Aggregation** mode:
+   - Pass the document ID list.
+   - Moderator reads each document, classifies consensus/unique/disputed suggestions.
+   - Moderator creates an aggregated document via `workspace_create_document`.
+
+4. Present summary report to the user:
+   - Key consensus suggestions (1-3 lines).
+   - Notable unique ideas (if any).
+   - Priority disagreements (if any).
+   - Individual + aggregated document IDs.
+
+#### If "끝장토론":
+
+**팀 구성:** `agestra-moderator` (리더) + `agestra-ideator` (Claude) + 사용 가능한 외부 AI (gemini, codex, ollama 등)
+
+1. Execute "각자 독립" steps 1-3 above (independent work + initial aggregation).
+   - The moderator's integrated document becomes the starting document.
+
+2. Document review rounds (no max — until all agree):
+   a. Moderator sends the current document to each AI for review:
+      - Claude: spawn `agestra-ideator` → analyze document → section-by-section feedback
+      - Other providers: `agent_debate_turn` with the document as prompt, requesting agree/disagree per section
+   b. Moderator collects all feedback.
+   c. Classify: agree/disagree per section per provider.
+   d. Revise document incorporating disagreement feedback.
+   e. If all providers agree on all sections → consensus reached.
+   f. If not → next round with revised document.
+   g. **Every 10 rounds:** Ask the user whether to continue or stop with current state.
+
+3. Present the final document:
+   - Consensus sections: marked as agreed
+   - Disputed sections: show split positions with each provider's rationale
+
+### Phase 4: Research (Claude only mode)
+
+If running Claude only, execute the following research phases:
+
+#### 4a: Research Similar Projects
 - Use WebSearch to find similar tools, libraries, and projects
 - Look for: direct competitors, adjacent tools, inspirational projects
 - Collect names, URLs, and key differentiators
 
-### Phase 3: Collect Pain Points
-
+#### 4b: Collect Pain Points
 - WebSearch for complaints about similar tools (GitHub issues, forums, discussions)
 - WebFetch relevant issue pages and discussion threads
 - Identify recurring themes in user feedback
 - Note what users wish existed but doesn't
 
-### Phase 4: Feature Comparison
-
+#### 4c: Feature Comparison
 Build a comparison table:
 
 | Feature | This Project | Competitor A | Competitor B |
 |---------|-------------|-------------|-------------|
 | Feature 1 | Yes/No | Yes/No | Yes/No |
 
-### Phase 5: Generate Suggestions
-
+#### 4d: Generate Suggestions
 For each suggestion:
 - **Title** — clear, actionable name
 - **Category** — UX, Performance, Feature, Integration, DX
@@ -99,8 +168,7 @@ For each suggestion:
 - **Effort** — estimated complexity
 - **Description** — what it does and why it matters
 
-### Phase 6: Prioritized Recommendations
-
+#### 4e: Prioritized Recommendations
 Present a ranked list:
 1. **Quick wins** — high impact, low effort
 2. **Strategic investments** — high impact, high effort

package/skills/review.md

@@ -0,0 +1,133 @@
+---
+name: agestra-review
+description: >
+  Use when reviewing code quality, finding bugs, checking security, auditing hardcoding,
+  detecting duplicate or dead code, or verifying test coverage. Triggers on:
+  "review code", "check security", "find bugs", "code quality", "audit this",
+  "any issues?", "what's wrong with this code", "check for problems",
+  "코드 리뷰", "품질 검증", "보안 확인", "버그 찾아", "점검해줘", "문제 있어?",
+  "하드코딩 확인", "중복 코드", "레거시 코드", "스파게티 코드",
+  "コードレビュー", "品質チェック", "代码审查", "代码检查"
+---
+
+## Purpose
+
+Post-implementation code quality verification. Find problems — security vulnerabilities, orphan systems, hardcoding, duplicate code, legacy code, spaghetti code, missing tests, and spec drift.
+
+## Workflow
+
+### Phase 1: Determine Scope
+
+Ask the user what to review:
+
+| Option | Description |
+|--------|-------------|
+| **전체 프로젝트** | 프로젝트 전체를 리뷰 |
+| **일부 지정** | 특정 파일, 디렉토리, 또는 영역을 지정하여 리뷰 |
+
+### Phase 2: Choose Focus Areas
+
+Ask what to focus on (multiSelect):
+
+| Option | Description |
+|--------|-------------|
+| **전체 점검** | 아래 모든 항목을 점검 |
+| **보안 취약점** | OWASP top 10 (인젝션, 인증, XSS 등) |
+| **하드코딩** | 매직넘버, 하드코딩된 URL, 임베디드 자격증명 |
+| **중복 코드** | 반복되는 로직, 복사-붙여넣기 코드 |
+| **레거시 코드** | 더 이상 사용되지 않는 코드, 고아 시스템, 데드 코드 |
+| **스파게티 코드** | 과도한 복잡성, 긴 함수, 깊은 중첩, 얽힌 의존성 |
+| **테스트 커버리지** | 테스트 없는 공개 함수, 엣지케이스 미커버 |
+| **i18n** | 번역 함수 없이 하드코딩된 UI 문자열 |
+| **스펙 불일치** | 설계 문서와 실제 구현의 차이 |
+
+### Phase 3: Check environment and select mode
+
+Call `environment_check` to determine available providers.
+
+Present mode selection (in the user's language):
+
+| Option | Condition | Description |
+|--------|-----------|-------------|
+| **Claude only** | Always | 플러그인 전문 에이전트가 단독 리뷰 |
+| **각자 독립** | 1+ provider available | 에이전트 팀(moderator + reviewer + 외부 AI)이 각자 독립 리뷰 후 취합 문서 작성 |
+| **끝장토론** | 1+ provider available | 각자 독립 리뷰 후 취합 문서를 돌아가며 분석/피드백, 모두 동의할 때까지 |
+
+Only show options whose conditions are met. If no providers are available, run Claude only.
+
+### Phase 4: Execute
+
+#### If "Claude only":
+Spawn the `agestra-reviewer` agent with the target and selected focus areas as context.
+
+#### If "각자 독립":
+
+**팀 구성:** `agestra-moderator` (리더) + `agestra-reviewer` (Claude) + 사용 가능한 외부 AI (gemini, codex, ollama 등)
+
+1. In parallel:
+   - Spawn the `agestra-reviewer` agent for Claude's independent analysis.
+     After the agent completes, save Claude's result as a document via `workspace_create_document`:
+     - **title:** `Code Review — claude/reviewer`
+     - **metadata:** `{ "Provider": "claude/reviewer", "Task": "{review target}", "Focus": "{selected focus areas}", "Mode": "Independent" }`
+     - **content:** The reviewer agent's full output.
+   - For each available provider, call `ai_chat` with `save_as_document`:
+     - **save_as_document.title:** `Code Review — {provider}`
+     - **save_as_document.metadata:** `{ "Task": "{review target}", "Focus": "{selected focus areas}", "Mode": "Independent" }`
+     - **prompt:** Review the following code. Focus on: [selected focus areas]. For each finding, provide severity (CRITICAL/HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW), file:line location, and evidence. Target: [the review target]
+
+2. Collect all document IDs.
+
+3. Spawn the `agestra-moderator` agent in **Independent Aggregation** mode:
+   - Pass the document ID list.
+   - Moderator reads each document, classifies consensus/unique/disputed findings.
+   - Moderator creates an aggregated document via `workspace_create_document`.
+
+4. Present summary report to the user:
+   - Key consensus findings (1-3 lines).
+   - Notable unique findings (if any).
+   - Disputed points (if any).
+   - Individual + aggregated document IDs.
+
+#### If "끝장토론":
+
+**팀 구성:** `agestra-moderator` (리더) + `agestra-reviewer` (Claude) + 사용 가능한 외부 AI (gemini, codex, ollama 등)
+
+1. Execute "각자 독립" steps 1-3 above (independent work + initial aggregation).
+   - The moderator's integrated document becomes the starting document.
+
+2. Document review rounds (no max — until all agree):
+   a. Moderator sends the current document to each AI for review:
+      - Claude: spawn `agestra-reviewer` → analyze document → section-by-section feedback
+      - Other providers: `agent_debate_turn` with the document as prompt, requesting agree/disagree per section
+   b. Moderator collects all feedback.
+   c. Classify: agree/disagree per section per provider.
+   d. Revise document incorporating disagreement feedback.
+   e. If all providers agree on all sections → consensus reached.
+   f. If not → next round with revised document.
+   g. **Every 10 rounds:** Ask the user whether to continue or stop with current state.
+
+3. Present the final document:
+   - Consensus sections: marked as agreed
+   - Disputed sections: show split positions with each provider's rationale
+
+### Phase 5: TRUST 5 Quality Gate
+
+After review (any mode), evaluate TRUST 5:
+
+| Gate | Criteria |
+|------|----------|
+| **Tested** | Changed public functions: 85%+ covered |
+| **Readable** | No magic numbers, functions <= 50 lines |
+| **Unified** | Follows project conventions |
+| **Secured** | OWASP top 10 clean |
+| **Trackable** | Changes traceable to design docs |
+
+Verdict: 5/5 PASS → Quality Gate passed / 4/5 → CONDITIONAL / Secured FAIL or 3+ → BLOCK
+
+## Constraints
+
+- READ-ONLY. Do not modify any files.
+- Every finding must cite a specific file and line number.
+- Do not speculate. If you cannot verify, do not report.
+- Do not praise code quality. Silence means approval.
+- Communicate in the user's language.

package/hooks/user-prompt-submit.md

@@ -1,11 +0,0 @@
----
-event: UserPromptSubmit
----
-
-If the user's message involves code review, design discussion, idea exploration, comparing options, validation, or parallel work — output exactly:
-
-```
-AGESTRA_SUGGESTION
-```
-
-Otherwise output nothing.