automatasaurus 0.1.13 → 0.1.15

This diff represents the content of publicly available package versions that have been released to one of the supported registries. The information contained in this diff is provided for informational purposes only and reflects changes between package versions as they appear in their respective public registries.
package/package.json CHANGED
@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
1
1
  {
2
2
  "name": "automatasaurus",
3
- "version": "0.1.13",
3
+ "version": "0.1.15",
4
4
  "description": "Automated software development workflow powered by Claude Code",
5
5
  "type": "module",
6
6
  "bin": {
@@ -98,22 +98,6 @@ Provide structured feedback:
98
98
 
99
99
  Load the `code-review` skill for detailed guidance.
100
100
 
101
- ### Review Philosophy
102
-
103
- Have a **slight bias towards moving forward** - avoid nitpicks and style debates that slow down shipping. But still request changes for legitimate problems.
104
-
105
- **Request changes for:**
106
- - Security vulnerabilities
107
- - Bugs that will cause runtime errors
108
- - Breaking existing functionality
109
- - Missing critical requirements
110
- - Significant architectural issues
111
-
112
- **Don't block for (suggest as non-blocking instead):**
113
- - Style preferences
114
- - Minor refactoring opportunities (create follow-up issue)
115
- - Nitpicks that don't affect functionality
116
-
117
101
  ### Review Process
118
102
 
119
103
  ```bash
@@ -143,26 +143,6 @@ Or if reviewing a file directly, provide feedback in conversation.
143
143
 
144
144
  When reviewing a PR for UI/UX:
145
145
 
146
- ### Review Philosophy
147
-
148
- Have a **slight bias towards moving forward** - avoid nitpicks over minor visual details. But still request changes for legitimate UX, design quality, or accessibility problems.
149
-
150
- **Request changes for:**
151
- - Accessibility violations (WCAG failures)
152
- - Broken user flows or interactions
153
- - Missing critical UI states (error, loading)
154
- - Significant usability issues
155
- - Confusing or misleading interfaces (users can't understand what to do)
156
- - Visual hierarchy failures (nothing draws the eye, or wrong element is prominent)
157
- - Design token violations (hardcoded values instead of design system tokens)
158
- - Inconsistent patterns (reinventing UI that exists elsewhere in the app)
159
-
160
- **Don't block for (suggest as non-blocking instead):**
161
- - Minor spacing or alignment tweaks
162
- - Color shade preferences within the design system
163
- - Subjective opinions about aesthetic choices
164
- - "Could be more delightful" suggestions (functional but not exceptional)
165
-
166
146
  ### 1. Determine Relevance
167
147
 
168
148
  UI-relevant changes include:
@@ -2,7 +2,7 @@
2
2
  name: evolver
3
3
  description: Generate project-specific context files for sub-agents after planning. Synthesizes discovery and implementation plan into tailored guidance for each agent.
4
4
  tools: Read, Write, Glob
5
- model: sonnet
5
+ model: opus
6
6
  ---
7
7
 
8
8
  # Evolver Agent
@@ -82,12 +82,10 @@ Before implementation begins, spawn the Designer agent to establish the visual f
82
82
 
83
83
  ```
84
84
  Use the Task tool with:
85
- subagent_type: "general-purpose"
86
- model: "sonnet"
85
+ subagent_type: "designer"
86
+ model: "opus"
87
87
  description: "Create design language"
88
88
  prompt: |
89
- You are the Designer agent. Load your role from .claude/agents/designer/AGENT.md
90
-
91
89
  **[Designer]**
92
90
 
93
91
  Establish the design language and style guide for this project.
@@ -9,43 +9,18 @@ Guidelines for performing effective code reviews that catch issues, improve code
9
9
 
10
10
  ## Review Mindset
11
11
 
12
- ### Bias Towards Shipping
13
-
14
- **The primary goal is to get working code merged, not to achieve perfection.**
15
-
16
- Before requesting changes, always ask yourself:
17
- > "Is this feedback worth an additional review cycle?"
18
-
19
- Most feedback should be:
20
- - Approved with suggestions for the author to consider
21
- - Comments for future reference, not blocking
22
- - Follow-up issues for later improvement
23
-
24
- **Reserve "Request Changes" for actual problems:**
25
- - Security vulnerabilities
26
- - Bugs that will cause runtime errors
27
- - Breaking changes to existing functionality
28
- - Missing critical requirements
29
-
30
- **Do NOT block for:**
31
- - Style preferences (unless egregiously inconsistent)
32
- - "I would have done it differently"
33
- - Minor optimizations that don't matter at current scale
34
- - Missing tests for edge cases that are unlikely
35
- - Refactoring opportunities (create a follow-up issue instead)
12
+ Don't hold up PRs over trivial issues — but do request changes for anything substantive.
36
13
 
37
14
  ### Goals of Code Review
38
15
  1. **Catch real bugs** before they reach production
39
16
  2. **Prevent security issues** - the things that actually matter
40
17
  3. **Share knowledge** across the team
41
- 4. **Ship working software** - don't let perfect be the enemy of good
42
18
 
43
19
  ### The Right Attitude
44
20
  - You're reviewing the **code**, not the person
45
21
  - Assume good intent - the author tried their best
46
22
  - Be a collaborator, not a gatekeeper
47
23
  - Your job is to help ship good code, not to find fault
48
- - **Velocity matters** - every review cycle has a cost
49
24
 
50
25
  ## Review Process
51
26
 
@@ -246,8 +221,6 @@ Use prefixes to indicate importance:
246
221
  | **Question:** | Seeking to understand | As needed |
247
222
  | **Praise:** | Something done well | Often! |
248
223
 
249
- **Important:** Most comments should be Suggestions or Nits, not Blockers. If you find yourself writing many Blockers, reconsider whether they truly block shipping.
250
-
251
224
  ```markdown
252
225
  **Blocker:** This SQL query is vulnerable to injection. (Security - must fix)
253
226
 
@@ -270,18 +243,6 @@ Use prefixes to indicate importance:
270
243
 
271
244
  ## Common Review Scenarios
272
245
 
273
- ### When You'd Do It Differently
274
-
275
- Don't block for preference. Ask yourself:
276
- - Is their way wrong, or just different?
277
- - Does it work correctly?
278
- - Is it maintainable?
279
-
280
- If it's just different:
281
- ```markdown
282
- **Note:** I might have used X approach here, but this works well too. Not blocking.
283
- ```
284
-
285
246
  ### When Something Is Missing
286
247
 
287
248
  ```markdown
@@ -305,36 +266,26 @@ Don't just point out problems:
305
266
 
306
267
  ## Review Response Templates
307
268
 
308
- **Default to Approve.** Most reviews should approve, possibly with suggestions.
309
-
310
- ### Approve (Most Common)
269
+ ### Approve
311
270
  ```markdown
312
271
  **[Architect]** LGTM! Clean implementation, good test coverage.
313
272
 
314
- Minor suggestions (not blocking):
273
+ Suggestions:
315
274
  - Line 42: prefer const
316
275
  - Consider adding a comment explaining the retry logic
317
-
318
- Merging as-is is fine. Address these if you agree, or not - your call.
319
276
  ```
320
277
 
321
278
  ### Approve with Suggestions
322
279
  ```markdown
323
- **[Architect]** Approving - this is solid work.
280
+ **[Architect]** Approving with a few suggestions:
324
281
 
325
- A few things to consider (can address now or in follow-up):
326
282
  1. The validation could be more specific about what's wrong
327
283
  2. Consider adding logging for debugging
328
-
329
- Not blocking merge. Ship it!
330
284
  ```
331
285
 
332
- ### Request Changes (Rare - Use Sparingly)
333
-
334
- **Only use for genuine blockers: security issues, bugs, or missing critical functionality.**
335
-
286
+ ### Request Changes
336
287
  ```markdown
337
- **[Architect]** Good progress! Found one issue that needs fixing before merge:
288
+ **[Architect]** Found an issue that needs fixing before merge:
338
289
 
339
290
  **Blocker:**
340
291
  1. SQL injection vulnerability in the search query - this is a security risk
@@ -342,13 +293,6 @@ Not blocking merge. Ship it!
342
293
  Everything else looks good. Happy to re-review once the security fix is in.
343
294
  ```
344
295
 
345
- **Ask yourself before requesting changes:**
346
- - Will this cause a production incident if shipped?
347
- - Is this a security vulnerability?
348
- - Does it break existing functionality?
349
-
350
- If the answer to all three is "no", consider approving with suggestions instead.
351
-
352
296
  ### Decline (N/A)
353
297
  ```markdown
354
298
  **[UI/UX]** N/A - No UI changes in this PR.
@@ -368,7 +312,6 @@ Reviewed: Backend/infrastructure changes only, no user-facing impact.
368
312
  ### Don't
369
313
  - Nitpick excessively
370
314
  - Bike-shed on minor style issues
371
- - Block for preferences
372
315
  - Be condescending
373
316
  - Leave reviews hanging
374
317
 
@@ -167,12 +167,10 @@ Post design specifications as an issue comment following your AGENT.md template,
167
167
 
168
168
  ```
169
169
  Use the Task tool with:
170
- subagent_type: "general-purpose"
171
- model: "sonnet"
170
+ subagent_type: "designer"
171
+ model: "opus"
172
172
  description: "Designer specs for issue #{ISSUE_NUMBER}"
173
173
  prompt: |
174
- You are the Designer agent. Load your role from .claude/agents/designer/AGENT.md
175
-
176
174
  Read orchestration/issues/{ISSUE_NUMBER}-{slug}/BRIEFING-design-specs.md first.
177
175
 
178
176
  After completing your work, write your report to:
@@ -227,12 +225,10 @@ Implement issue #{ISSUE_NUMBER}: {title}
227
225
 
228
226
  ```
229
227
  Use the Task tool with:
230
- subagent_type: "general-purpose"
231
- model: "sonnet"
228
+ subagent_type: "developer"
229
+ model: "opus"
232
230
  description: "Implement issue #{ISSUE_NUMBER}"
233
231
  prompt: |
234
- You are the Developer agent. Load your role from .claude/agents/developer/AGENT.md
235
-
236
232
  Read orchestration/issues/{ISSUE_NUMBER}-{slug}/BRIEFING-implement.md first.
237
233
 
238
234
  After completing your work, write your report to:
@@ -345,12 +341,10 @@ Spawn all reviewers in parallel (single message, multiple Task calls):
345
341
  ```
346
342
  # Architect review
347
343
  Use the Task tool with:
348
- subagent_type: "general-purpose"
349
- model: "sonnet"
344
+ subagent_type: "architect"
345
+ model: "opus"
350
346
  description: "Architect review PR #{pr_number}"
351
347
  prompt: |
352
- You are the Architect agent. Load your role from .claude/agents/architect/AGENT.md
353
-
354
348
  Read orchestration/issues/{ISSUE_NUMBER}-{slug}/BRIEFING-architect-review.md first.
355
349
 
356
350
  After completing your review, write your report to:
@@ -358,12 +352,10 @@ Use the Task tool with:
358
352
 
359
353
  # Designer review (if UI)
360
354
  Use the Task tool with:
361
- subagent_type: "general-purpose"
362
- model: "sonnet"
355
+ subagent_type: "designer"
356
+ model: "opus"
363
357
  description: "Designer review PR #{pr_number}"
364
358
  prompt: |
365
- You are the Designer agent. Load your role from .claude/agents/designer/AGENT.md
366
-
367
359
  Read orchestration/issues/{ISSUE_NUMBER}-{slug}/BRIEFING-designer-review.md first.
368
360
 
369
361
  After completing your review, write your report to:
@@ -371,12 +363,10 @@ Use the Task tool with:
371
363
 
372
364
  # Tester verification
373
365
  Use the Task tool with:
374
- subagent_type: "general-purpose"
375
- model: "sonnet"
366
+ subagent_type: "tester"
367
+ model: "opus"
376
368
  description: "Tester verify PR #{pr_number}"
377
369
  prompt: |
378
- You are the Tester agent. Load your role from .claude/agents/tester/AGENT.md
379
-
380
370
  Read orchestration/issues/{ISSUE_NUMBER}-{slug}/BRIEFING-test.md first.
381
371
 
382
372
  After completing verification, write your report to:
@@ -437,12 +427,10 @@ Address review feedback on PR #{pr_number}.
437
427
 
438
428
  ```
439
429
  Use the Task tool with:
440
- subagent_type: "general-purpose"
441
- model: "sonnet"
430
+ subagent_type: "developer"
431
+ model: "opus"
442
432
  description: "Address feedback PR #{pr_number}"
443
433
  prompt: |
444
- You are the Developer agent. Load your role from .claude/agents/developer/AGENT.md
445
-
446
434
  Read orchestration/issues/{ISSUE_NUMBER}-{slug}/BRIEFING-address-feedback.md first.
447
435
 
448
436
  After completing fixes, write your report to: