codeply-cli 0.5.1 → 0.5.2

package/skills/agent-eval/SKILL.md

@@ -1,147 +1,147 @@
----
-name: agent-eval
-description: Head-to-head comparison of coding agents (Claude Code, Aider, Codex, etc.) on custom tasks with pass rate, cost, time, and consistency metrics
-license: MIT
-metadata:
-  origin: ECC
-tools: Read, Write, Edit, Bash, Grep, Glob
----
-
-# Agent Eval Skill
-
-A lightweight CLI tool for comparing coding agents head-to-head on reproducible tasks. Every "which coding agent is best?" comparison runs on vibes — this tool systematizes it.
-
-## When to Activate
-
-- Comparing coding agents (Claude Code, Aider, Codex, etc.) on your own codebase
-- Measuring agent performance before adopting a new tool or model
-- Running regression checks when an agent updates its model or tooling
-- Producing data-backed agent selection decisions for a team
-
-## Installation
-
-> **Note:** Install agent-eval from its repository after reviewing the source.
-
-## Core Concepts
-
-### YAML Task Definitions
-
-Define tasks declaratively. Each task specifies what to do, which files to touch, and how to judge success:
-
-```yaml
-name: add-retry-logic
-description: Add exponential backoff retry to the HTTP client
-repo: ./my-project
-files:
-  - src/http_client.py
-prompt: |
-  Add retry logic with exponential backoff to all HTTP requests.
-  Max 3 retries. Initial delay 1s, max delay 30s.
-judge:
-  - type: pytest
-    command: pytest tests/test_http_client.py -v
-  - type: grep
-    pattern: "exponential_backoff|retry"
-    files: src/http_client.py
-commit: "abc1234"  # pin to specific commit for reproducibility
-```
-
-### Git Worktree Isolation
-
-Each agent run gets its own git worktree — no Docker required. This provides reproducibility isolation so agents cannot interfere with each other or corrupt the base repo.
-
-### Metrics Collected
-
-| Metric | What It Measures |
-|--------|-----------------|
-| Pass rate | Did the agent produce code that passes the judge? |
-| Cost | API spend per task (when available) |
-| Time | Wall-clock seconds to completion |
-| Consistency | Pass rate across repeated runs (e.g., 3/3 = 100%) |
-
-## Workflow
-
-### 1. Define Tasks
-
-Create a `tasks/` directory with YAML files, one per task:
-
-```bash
-mkdir tasks
-# Write task definitions (see template above)
-```
-
-### 2. Run Agents
-
-Execute agents against your tasks:
-
-```bash
-agent-eval run --task tasks/add-retry-logic.yaml --agent claude-code --agent aider --runs 3
-```
-
-Each run:
-1. Creates a fresh git worktree from the specified commit
-2. Hands the prompt to the agent
-3. Runs the judge criteria
-4. Records pass/fail, cost, and time
-
-### 3. Compare Results
-
-Generate a comparison report:
-
-```bash
-agent-eval report --format table
-```
-
-```
-Task: add-retry-logic (3 runs each)
-┌──────────────┬───────────┬────────┬────────┬─────────────┐
-│ Agent        │ Pass Rate │ Cost   │ Time   │ Consistency │
-├──────────────┼───────────┼────────┼────────┼─────────────┤
-│ claude-code  │ 3/3       │ $0.12  │ 45s    │ 100%        │
-│ aider        │ 2/3       │ $0.08  │ 38s    │  67%        │
-└──────────────┴───────────┴────────┴────────┴─────────────┘
-```
-
-## Judge Types
-
-### Code-Based (deterministic)
-
-```yaml
-judge:
-  - type: pytest
-    command: pytest tests/ -v
-  - type: command
-    command: npm run build
-```
-
-### Pattern-Based
-
-```yaml
-judge:
-  - type: grep
-    pattern: "class.*Retry"
-    files: src/**/*.py
-```
-
-### Model-Based (LLM-as-judge)
-
-```yaml
-judge:
-  - type: llm
-    prompt: |
-      Does this implementation correctly handle exponential backoff?
-      Check for: max retries, increasing delays, jitter.
-```
-
-## Best Practices
-
-- **Start with 3-5 tasks** that represent your real workload, not toy examples
-- **Run at least 3 trials** per agent to capture variance — agents are non-deterministic
-- **Pin the commit** in your task YAML so results are reproducible across days/weeks
-- **Include at least one deterministic judge** (tests, build) per task — LLM judges add noise
-- **Track cost alongside pass rate** — a 95% agent at 10x the cost may not be the right choice
-- **Version your task definitions** — they are test fixtures, treat them as code
-
-## Links
-
-- Repository: [github.com/joaquinhuigomez/agent-eval](https://github.com/joaquinhuigomez/agent-eval)
+---
+name: agent-eval
+description: Head-to-head comparison of coding agents (Claude Code, Aider, Codex, etc.) on custom tasks with pass rate, cost, time, and consistency metrics
+license: MIT
+metadata:
+  origin: ECC
+tools: Read, Write, Edit, Bash, Grep, Glob
+---
+
+# Agent Eval Skill
+
+A lightweight CLI tool for comparing coding agents head-to-head on reproducible tasks. Every "which coding agent is best?" comparison runs on vibes — this tool systematizes it.
+
+## When to Activate
+
+- Comparing coding agents (Claude Code, Aider, Codex, etc.) on your own codebase
+- Measuring agent performance before adopting a new tool or model
+- Running regression checks when an agent updates its model or tooling
+- Producing data-backed agent selection decisions for a team
+
+## Installation
+
+> **Note:** Install agent-eval from its repository after reviewing the source.
+
+## Core Concepts
+
+### YAML Task Definitions
+
+Define tasks declaratively. Each task specifies what to do, which files to touch, and how to judge success:
+
+```yaml
+name: add-retry-logic
+description: Add exponential backoff retry to the HTTP client
+repo: ./my-project
+files:
+  - src/http_client.py
+prompt: |
+  Add retry logic with exponential backoff to all HTTP requests.
+  Max 3 retries. Initial delay 1s, max delay 30s.
+judge:
+  - type: pytest
+    command: pytest tests/test_http_client.py -v
+  - type: grep
+    pattern: "exponential_backoff|retry"
+    files: src/http_client.py
+commit: "abc1234"  # pin to specific commit for reproducibility
+```
+
+### Git Worktree Isolation
+
+Each agent run gets its own git worktree — no Docker required. This provides reproducibility isolation so agents cannot interfere with each other or corrupt the base repo.
+
+### Metrics Collected
+
+| Metric | What It Measures |
+|--------|-----------------|
+| Pass rate | Did the agent produce code that passes the judge? |
+| Cost | API spend per task (when available) |
+| Time | Wall-clock seconds to completion |
+| Consistency | Pass rate across repeated runs (e.g., 3/3 = 100%) |
+
+## Workflow
+
+### 1. Define Tasks
+
+Create a `tasks/` directory with YAML files, one per task:
+
+```bash
+mkdir tasks
+# Write task definitions (see template above)
+```
+
+### 2. Run Agents
+
+Execute agents against your tasks:
+
+```bash
+agent-eval run --task tasks/add-retry-logic.yaml --agent claude-code --agent aider --runs 3
+```
+
+Each run:
+1. Creates a fresh git worktree from the specified commit
+2. Hands the prompt to the agent
+3. Runs the judge criteria
+4. Records pass/fail, cost, and time
+
+### 3. Compare Results
+
+Generate a comparison report:
+
+```bash
+agent-eval report --format table
+```
+
+```
+Task: add-retry-logic (3 runs each)
+┌──────────────┬───────────┬────────┬────────┬─────────────┐
+│ Agent        │ Pass Rate │ Cost   │ Time   │ Consistency │
+├──────────────┼───────────┼────────┼────────┼─────────────┤
+│ claude-code  │ 3/3       │ $0.12  │ 45s    │ 100%        │
+│ aider        │ 2/3       │ $0.08  │ 38s    │  67%        │
+└──────────────┴───────────┴────────┴────────┴─────────────┘
+```
+
+## Judge Types
+
+### Code-Based (deterministic)
+
+```yaml
+judge:
+  - type: pytest
+    command: pytest tests/ -v
+  - type: command
+    command: npm run build
+```
+
+### Pattern-Based
+
+```yaml
+judge:
+  - type: grep
+    pattern: "class.*Retry"
+    files: src/**/*.py
+```
+
+### Model-Based (LLM-as-judge)
+
+```yaml
+judge:
+  - type: llm
+    prompt: |
+      Does this implementation correctly handle exponential backoff?
+      Check for: max retries, increasing delays, jitter.
+```
+
+## Best Practices
+
+- **Start with 3-5 tasks** that represent your real workload, not toy examples
+- **Run at least 3 trials** per agent to capture variance — agents are non-deterministic
+- **Pin the commit** in your task YAML so results are reproducible across days/weeks
+- **Include at least one deterministic judge** (tests, build) per task — LLM judges add noise
+- **Track cost alongside pass rate** — a 95% agent at 10x the cost may not be the right choice
+- **Version your task definitions** — they are test fixtures, treat them as code
+
+## Links
+
+- Repository: [github.com/joaquinhuigomez/agent-eval](https://github.com/joaquinhuigomez/agent-eval)

package/skills/agent-harness-construction/SKILL.md

@@ -1,74 +1,74 @@
----
-name: agent-harness-construction
-description: Design and optimize AI agent action spaces, tool definitions, and observation formatting for higher completion rates.
-metadata:
-  origin: ECC
----
-
-# Agent Harness Construction
-
-Use this skill when you are improving how an agent plans, calls tools, recovers from errors, and converges on completion.
-
-## Core Model
-
-Agent output quality is constrained by:
-1. Action space quality
-2. Observation quality
-3. Recovery quality
-4. Context budget quality
-
-## Action Space Design
-
-1. Use stable, explicit tool names.
-2. Keep inputs schema-first and narrow.
-3. Return deterministic output shapes.
-4. Avoid catch-all tools unless isolation is impossible.
-
-## Granularity Rules
-
-- Use micro-tools for high-risk operations (deploy, migration, permissions).
-- Use medium tools for common edit/read/search loops.
-- Use macro-tools only when round-trip overhead is the dominant cost.
-
-## Observation Design
-
-Every tool response should include:
-- `status`: success|warning|error
-- `summary`: one-line result
-- `next_actions`: actionable follow-ups
-- `artifacts`: file paths / IDs
-
-## Error Recovery Contract
-
-For every error path, include:
-- root cause hint
-- safe retry instruction
-- explicit stop condition
-
-## Context Budgeting
-
-1. Keep system prompt minimal and invariant.
-2. Move large guidance into skills loaded on demand.
-3. Prefer references to files over inlining long documents.
-4. Compact at phase boundaries, not arbitrary token thresholds.
-
-## Architecture Pattern Guidance
-
-- ReAct: best for exploratory tasks with uncertain path.
-- Function-calling: best for structured deterministic flows.
-- Hybrid (recommended): ReAct planning + typed tool execution.
-
-## Benchmarking
-
-Track:
-- completion rate
-- retries per task
-- pass@1 and pass@3
-- cost per successful task
-
-## Anti-Patterns
-
-- Too many tools with overlapping semantics.
-- Opaque tool output with no recovery hints.
-- Error-only output without next steps.
-- Context overloading with irrelevant references.
+---
+name: agent-harness-construction
+description: Design and optimize AI agent action spaces, tool definitions, and observation formatting for higher completion rates.
+metadata:
+  origin: ECC
+---
+
+# Agent Harness Construction
+
+Use this skill when you are improving how an agent plans, calls tools, recovers from errors, and converges on completion.
+
+## Core Model
+
+Agent output quality is constrained by:
+1. Action space quality
+2. Observation quality
+3. Recovery quality
+4. Context budget quality
+
+## Action Space Design
+
+1. Use stable, explicit tool names.
+2. Keep inputs schema-first and narrow.
+3. Return deterministic output shapes.
+4. Avoid catch-all tools unless isolation is impossible.
+
+## Granularity Rules
+
+- Use micro-tools for high-risk operations (deploy, migration, permissions).
+- Use medium tools for common edit/read/search loops.
+- Use macro-tools only when round-trip overhead is the dominant cost.
+
+## Observation Design
+
+Every tool response should include:
+- `status`: success|warning|error
+- `summary`: one-line result
+- `next_actions`: actionable follow-ups
+- `artifacts`: file paths / IDs
+
+## Error Recovery Contract
+
+For every error path, include:
+- root cause hint
+- safe retry instruction
+- explicit stop condition
+
+## Context Budgeting
+
+1. Keep system prompt minimal and invariant.
+2. Move large guidance into skills loaded on demand.
+3. Prefer references to files over inlining long documents.
+4. Compact at phase boundaries, not arbitrary token thresholds.
+
+## Architecture Pattern Guidance
+
+- ReAct: best for exploratory tasks with uncertain path.
+- Function-calling: best for structured deterministic flows.
+- Hybrid (recommended): ReAct planning + typed tool execution.
+
+## Benchmarking
+
+Track:
+- completion rate
+- retries per task
+- pass@1 and pass@3
+- cost per successful task
+
+## Anti-Patterns
+
+- Too many tools with overlapping semantics.
+- Opaque tool output with no recovery hints.
+- Error-only output without next steps.
+- Context overloading with irrelevant references.