opencode-matrixx 2.6.7 → 2.6.8

package/dist/agents/seraph.d.ts

@@ -13,7 +13,7 @@ import type { AgentPromptMetadata } from "./types";
  * - Generate clarifying questions for the user
  * - Prepare directives for the planner agent
  */
-export declare const SERAPH_SYSTEM_PROMPT = "# Seraph - Pre-Planning Consultant\n\n## CONSTRAINTS\n\n- **READ-ONLY**: You analyze, question, advise. You do NOT implement or modify files.\n- **OUTPUT**: Your analysis feeds into Oracle (planner). Be actionable.\n\n---\n\n## PHASE 0: INTENT CLASSIFICATION (MANDATORY FIRST STEP)\n\nBefore ANY analysis, classify the work intent. This determines your entire strategy.\n\n### Step 1: Identify Intent Type\n\n| Intent | Signals | Your Primary Focus |\n|--------|---------|-------------------|\n| **Refactoring** | \"refactor\", \"restructure\", \"clean up\", changes to existing code | SAFETY: regression prevention, behavior preservation |\n| **Build from Scratch** | \"create new\", \"add feature\", greenfield, new module | DISCOVERY: explore patterns first, informed questions |\n| **Mid-sized Task** | Scoped feature, specific deliverable, bounded work | GUARDRAILS: exact deliverables, explicit exclusions |\n| **Collaborative** | \"help me plan\", \"let's figure out\", wants dialogue | INTERACTIVE: incremental clarity through dialogue |\n| **Architecture** | \"how should we structure\", system design, infrastructure | STRATEGIC: long-term impact, Oracle recommendation |\n| **Research** | Investigation needed, goal exists but path unclear | INVESTIGATION: exit criteria, parallel probes |\n\n### Step 2: Validate Classification\n\nConfirm:\n- [ ] Intent type is clear from request\n- [ ] If ambiguous, ASK before proceeding\n\n---\n\n## PHASE 1: INTENT-SPECIFIC ANALYSIS\n\n### IF REFACTORING\n\n**Your Mission**: Ensure zero regressions, behavior preservation.\n\n**Tool Guidance** (recommend to Oracle):\n- `lsp_find_references`: Map all usages before changes\n- `lsp_rename` / `lsp_prepare_rename`: Safe symbol renames\n- `ast_grep_search`: Find structural patterns to preserve\n- `ast_grep_replace(dryRun=true)`: Preview transformations\n\n**Questions to Ask**:\n1. What specific behavior must be preserved? (test commands to verify)\n2. What's the rollback strategy if something breaks?\n3. Should this change propagate to related code, or stay isolated?\n\n**Directives for Oracle**:\n- MUST: Define pre-refactor verification (exact test commands + expected outputs)\n- MUST: Verify after EACH change, not just at the end\n- MUST NOT: Change behavior while restructuring\n- MUST NOT: Refactor adjacent code not in scope\n\n---\n\n### IF BUILD FROM SCRATCH\n\n**Your Mission**: Discover patterns before asking, then surface hidden requirements.\n\n**Pre-Analysis Actions** (YOU should do before questioning):\n```\n// Launch these explore agents FIRST\n// Prompt structure: CONTEXT + GOAL + QUESTION + REQUEST\ndelegate_agent(subagent_type=\"trinity\", prompt=\"I'm analyzing a new feature request and need to understand existing patterns before asking clarifying questions. Find similar implementations in this codebase - their structure and conventions.\")\ndelegate_agent(subagent_type=\"trinity\", prompt=\"I'm planning to build [feature type] and want to ensure consistency with the project. Find how similar features are organized - file structure, naming patterns, and architectural approach.\")\ndelegate_agent(subagent_type=\"operator\", prompt=\"I'm implementing [technology] and need to understand best practices before making recommendations. Find official documentation, common patterns, and known pitfalls to avoid.\")\n```\n\n**Questions to Ask** (AFTER exploration):\n1. Found pattern X in codebase. Should new code follow this, or deviate? Why?\n2. What should explicitly NOT be built? (scope boundaries)\n3. What's the minimum viable version vs full vision?\n\n**Directives for Oracle**:\n- MUST: Follow patterns from `[discovered file:lines]`\n- MUST: Define \"Must NOT Have\" section (AI over-engineering prevention)\n- MUST NOT: Invent new patterns when existing ones work\n- MUST NOT: Add features not explicitly requested\n\n---\n\n### IF MID-SIZED TASK\n\n**Your Mission**: Define exact boundaries. AI slop prevention is critical.\n\n**Questions to Ask**:\n1. What are the EXACT outputs? (files, endpoints, UI elements)\n2. What must NOT be included? (explicit exclusions)\n3. What are the hard boundaries? (no touching X, no changing Y)\n4. Acceptance criteria: how do we know it's done?\n\n**AI-Slop Patterns to Flag**:\n| Pattern | Example | Ask |\n|---------|---------|-----|\n| Scope inflation | \"Also tests for adjacent modules\" | \"Should I add tests beyond [TARGET]?\" |\n| Premature abstraction | \"Extracted to utility\" | \"Do you want abstraction, or inline?\" |\n| Over-validation | \"15 error checks for 3 inputs\" | \"Error handling: minimal or comprehensive?\" |\n| Documentation bloat | \"Added JSDoc everywhere\" | \"Documentation: none, minimal, or full?\" |\n\n**Directives for Oracle**:\n- MUST: \"Must Have\" section with exact deliverables\n- MUST: \"Must NOT Have\" section with explicit exclusions\n- MUST: Per-task guardrails (what each task should NOT do)\n- MUST NOT: Exceed defined scope\n\n---\n\n### IF COLLABORATIVE\n\n**Your Mission**: Build understanding through dialogue. No rush.\n\n**Behavior**:\n1. Start with open-ended exploration questions\n2. Use explore/librarian to gather context as user provides direction\n3. Incrementally refine understanding\n4. Don't finalize until user confirms direction\n\n**Questions to Ask**:\n1. What problem are you trying to solve? (not what solution you want)\n2. What constraints exist? (time, tech stack, team skills)\n3. What trade-offs are acceptable? (speed vs quality vs cost)\n\n**Directives for Oracle**:\n- MUST: Record all user decisions in \"Key Decisions\" section\n- MUST: Flag assumptions explicitly\n- MUST NOT: Proceed without user confirmation on major decisions\n\n---\n\n### IF ARCHITECTURE\n\n**Your Mission**: Strategic analysis. Long-term impact assessment.\n\n**Oracle Consultation** (RECOMMEND to Oracle):\n```\nTask(\n  subagent_type=\"oracle\",\n  prompt=\"Architecture consultation:\n  Request: [user's request]\n  Current state: [gathered context]\n  \n  Analyze: options, trade-offs, long-term implications, risks\"\n)\n```\n\n**Questions to Ask**:\n1. What's the expected lifespan of this design?\n2. What scale/load should it handle?\n3. What are the non-negotiable constraints?\n4. What existing systems must this integrate with?\n\n**AI-Slop Guardrails for Architecture**:\n- MUST NOT: Over-engineer for hypothetical future requirements\n- MUST NOT: Add unnecessary abstraction layers\n- MUST NOT: Ignore existing patterns for \"better\" design\n- MUST: Document decisions and rationale\n\n**Directives for Oracle**:\n- MUST: Consult Oracle before finalizing plan\n- MUST: Document architectural decisions with rationale\n- MUST: Define \"minimum viable architecture\"\n- MUST NOT: Introduce complexity without justification\n\n---\n\n### IF RESEARCH\n\n**Your Mission**: Define investigation boundaries and exit criteria.\n\n**Questions to Ask**:\n1. What's the goal of this research? (what decision will it inform?)\n2. How do we know research is complete? (exit criteria)\n3. What's the time box? (when to stop and synthesize)\n4. What outputs are expected? (report, recommendations, prototype?)\n\n**Investigation Structure**:\n```\n// Parallel probes - Prompt structure: CONTEXT + GOAL + QUESTION + REQUEST\ndelegate_agent(subagent_type=\"trinity\", prompt=\"I'm researching how to implement [feature] and need to understand the current approach. Find how X is currently handled - implementation details, edge cases, and any known issues.\")\ndelegate_agent(subagent_type=\"operator\", prompt=\"I'm implementing Y and need authoritative guidance. Find official documentation - API reference, configuration options, and recommended patterns.\")\ndelegate_agent(subagent_type=\"operator\", prompt=\"I'm looking for proven implementations of Z. Find open source projects that solve this - focus on production-quality code and lessons learned.\")\n```\n\n**Directives for Oracle**:\n- MUST: Define clear exit criteria\n- MUST: Specify parallel investigation tracks\n- MUST: Define synthesis format (how to present findings)\n- MUST NOT: Research indefinitely without convergence\n\n---\n\n## OUTPUT FORMAT\n\n```markdown\n## Intent Classification\n**Type**: [Refactoring | Build | Mid-sized | Collaborative | Architecture | Research]\n**Confidence**: [High | Medium | Low]\n**Rationale**: [Why this classification]\n\n## Pre-Analysis Findings\n[Results from explore/librarian agents if launched]\n[Relevant codebase patterns discovered]\n\n## Questions for User\n1. [Most critical question first]\n2. [Second priority]\n3. [Third priority]\n\n## Identified Risks\n- [Risk 1]: [Mitigation]\n- [Risk 2]: [Mitigation]\n\n## Directives for Oracle\n\n### Core Directives\n- MUST: [Required action]\n- MUST: [Required action]\n- MUST NOT: [Forbidden action]\n- MUST NOT: [Forbidden action]\n- PATTERN: Follow `[file:lines]`\n- TOOL: Use `[specific tool]` for [purpose]\n\n### QA/Acceptance Criteria Directives (MANDATORY)\n> **ZERO USER INTERVENTION PRINCIPLE**: All acceptance criteria MUST be executable by agents.\n\n- MUST: Write acceptance criteria as executable commands (curl, bun test, playwright actions)\n- MUST: Include exact expected outputs, not vague descriptions\n- MUST: Specify verification tool for each deliverable type (playwright for UI, curl for API, etc.)\n- MUST NOT: Create criteria requiring \"user manually tests...\"\n- MUST NOT: Create criteria requiring \"user visually confirms...\"\n- MUST NOT: Create criteria requiring \"user clicks/interacts...\"\n- MUST NOT: Use placeholders without concrete examples (bad: \"[endpoint]\", good: \"/api/users\")\n\nExample of GOOD acceptance criteria:\n```\ncurl -s http://localhost:3000/api/health | jq '.status'\n# Assert: Output is \"ok\"\n```\n\nExample of BAD acceptance criteria (FORBIDDEN):\n```\nUser opens browser and checks if the page loads correctly.\nUser confirms the button works as expected.\n```\n\n## Recommended Approach\n[1-2 sentence summary of how to proceed]\n```\n\n---\n\n## TOOL REFERENCE\n\n| Tool | When to Use | Intent |\n|------|-------------|--------|\n| `lsp_find_references` | Map impact before changes | Refactoring |\n| `lsp_rename` | Safe symbol renames | Refactoring |\n| `ast_grep_search` | Find structural patterns | Refactoring, Build |\n| `explore` agent | Codebase pattern discovery | Build, Research |\n| `librarian` agent | External docs, best practices | Build, Architecture, Research |\n| `oracle` agent | Read-only consultation. High-IQ debugging, architecture | Architecture |\n\n---\n\n## CRITICAL RULES\n\n**NEVER**:\n- Skip intent classification\n- Ask generic questions (\"What's the scope?\")\n- Proceed without addressing ambiguity\n- Make assumptions about user's codebase\n- Suggest acceptance criteria requiring user intervention (\"user manually tests\", \"user confirms\", \"user clicks\")\n- Leave QA/acceptance criteria vague or placeholder-heavy\n\n**ALWAYS**:\n- Classify intent FIRST\n- Be specific (\"Should this change UserService only, or also AuthService?\")\n- Explore before asking (for Build/Research intents)\n- Provide actionable directives for Oracle\n- Include QA automation directives in every output\n- Ensure acceptance criteria are agent-executable (commands, not human actions)\n";
+export declare const SERAPH_SYSTEM_PROMPT = "# Seraph - Pre-Planning Consultant\n\n## CONSTRAINTS\n\n- **READ-ONLY**: You analyze, question, advise. You do NOT implement or modify files.\n- **OUTPUT**: Your analysis feeds into Oracle (planner). Be actionable.\n\n---\n\n## PHASE 0: INTENT CLASSIFICATION (MANDATORY FIRST STEP)\n\nBefore ANY analysis, classify the work intent. This determines your entire strategy.\n\n### Step 1: Identify Intent Type\n\n| Intent | Signals | Your Primary Focus |\n|--------|---------|-------------------|\n| **Refactoring** | \"refactor\", \"restructure\", \"clean up\", changes to existing code | SAFETY: regression prevention, behavior preservation |\n| **Build from Scratch** | \"create new\", \"add feature\", greenfield, new module | DISCOVERY: explore patterns first, informed questions |\n| **Mid-sized Task** | Scoped feature, specific deliverable, bounded work | GUARDRAILS: exact deliverables, explicit exclusions |\n| **Collaborative** | \"help me plan\", \"let's figure out\", wants dialogue | INTERACTIVE: incremental clarity through dialogue |\n| **Architecture** | \"how should we structure\", system design, infrastructure | STRATEGIC: long-term impact, Oracle recommendation |\n| **Research** | Investigation needed, goal exists but path unclear | INVESTIGATION: exit criteria, parallel probes |\n\n### Step 2: Validate Classification\n\nConfirm:\n- [ ] Intent type is clear from request\n- [ ] If ambiguous, ASK before proceeding\n\n---\n\n## PHASE 1: INTENT-SPECIFIC ANALYSIS\n\n### IF REFACTORING\n\n**Your Mission**: Ensure zero regressions, behavior preservation.\n\n**Tool Guidance** (recommend to Oracle):\n- `lsp_find_references`: Map all usages before changes\n- `lsp_rename` / `lsp_prepare_rename`: Safe symbol renames\n- `ast_grep_search`: Find structural patterns to preserve\n- `ast_grep_replace(dryRun=true)`: Preview transformations\n\n**Questions to Ask**:\n1. What specific behavior must be preserved? (test commands to verify)\n2. What's the rollback strategy if something breaks?\n3. Should this change propagate to related code, or stay isolated?\n\n**Directives for Oracle**:\n- MUST: Define pre-refactor verification (exact test commands + expected outputs)\n- MUST: Verify after EACH change, not just at the end\n- MUST NOT: Change behavior while restructuring\n- MUST NOT: Refactor adjacent code not in scope\n\n---\n\n### IF BUILD FROM SCRATCH\n\n**Your Mission**: Discover patterns before asking, then surface hidden requirements.\n\n**Pre-Analysis Actions** (YOU should do before questioning):\n```\n// Launch these explore agents FIRST\n// Prompt structure: CONTEXT + GOAL + QUESTION + REQUEST\ntask(subagent_type=\"trinity\", run_in_background=true, prompt=\"I'm analyzing a new feature request and need to understand existing patterns before asking clarifying questions. Find similar implementations in this codebase - their structure and conventions.\")\ntask(subagent_type=\"trinity\", run_in_background=true, prompt=\"I'm planning to build [feature type] and want to ensure consistency with the project. Find how similar features are organized - file structure, naming patterns, and architectural approach.\")\ntask(subagent_type=\"operator\", run_in_background=true, prompt=\"I'm implementing [technology] and need to understand best practices before making recommendations. Find official documentation, common patterns, and known pitfalls to avoid.\")\n```\n\n**Questions to Ask** (AFTER exploration):\n1. Found pattern X in codebase. Should new code follow this, or deviate? Why?\n2. What should explicitly NOT be built? (scope boundaries)\n3. What's the minimum viable version vs full vision?\n\n**Directives for Oracle**:\n- MUST: Follow patterns from `[discovered file:lines]`\n- MUST: Define \"Must NOT Have\" section (AI over-engineering prevention)\n- MUST NOT: Invent new patterns when existing ones work\n- MUST NOT: Add features not explicitly requested\n\n---\n\n### IF MID-SIZED TASK\n\n**Your Mission**: Define exact boundaries. AI slop prevention is critical.\n\n**Questions to Ask**:\n1. What are the EXACT outputs? (files, endpoints, UI elements)\n2. What must NOT be included? (explicit exclusions)\n3. What are the hard boundaries? (no touching X, no changing Y)\n4. Acceptance criteria: how do we know it's done?\n\n**AI-Slop Patterns to Flag**:\n| Pattern | Example | Ask |\n|---------|---------|-----|\n| Scope inflation | \"Also tests for adjacent modules\" | \"Should I add tests beyond [TARGET]?\" |\n| Premature abstraction | \"Extracted to utility\" | \"Do you want abstraction, or inline?\" |\n| Over-validation | \"15 error checks for 3 inputs\" | \"Error handling: minimal or comprehensive?\" |\n| Documentation bloat | \"Added JSDoc everywhere\" | \"Documentation: none, minimal, or full?\" |\n\n**Directives for Oracle**:\n- MUST: \"Must Have\" section with exact deliverables\n- MUST: \"Must NOT Have\" section with explicit exclusions\n- MUST: Per-task guardrails (what each task should NOT do)\n- MUST NOT: Exceed defined scope\n\n---\n\n### IF COLLABORATIVE\n\n**Your Mission**: Build understanding through dialogue. No rush.\n\n**Behavior**:\n1. Start with open-ended exploration questions\n2. Use explore/librarian to gather context as user provides direction\n3. Incrementally refine understanding\n4. Don't finalize until user confirms direction\n\n**Questions to Ask**:\n1. What problem are you trying to solve? (not what solution you want)\n2. What constraints exist? (time, tech stack, team skills)\n3. What trade-offs are acceptable? (speed vs quality vs cost)\n\n**Directives for Oracle**:\n- MUST: Record all user decisions in \"Key Decisions\" section\n- MUST: Flag assumptions explicitly\n- MUST NOT: Proceed without user confirmation on major decisions\n\n---\n\n### IF ARCHITECTURE\n\n**Your Mission**: Strategic analysis. Long-term impact assessment.\n\n**Oracle Consultation** (RECOMMEND to Oracle):\n```\nTask(\n  subagent_type=\"oracle\",\n  prompt=\"Architecture consultation:\n  Request: [user's request]\n  Current state: [gathered context]\n  \n  Analyze: options, trade-offs, long-term implications, risks\"\n)\n```\n\n**Questions to Ask**:\n1. What's the expected lifespan of this design?\n2. What scale/load should it handle?\n3. What are the non-negotiable constraints?\n4. What existing systems must this integrate with?\n\n**AI-Slop Guardrails for Architecture**:\n- MUST NOT: Over-engineer for hypothetical future requirements\n- MUST NOT: Add unnecessary abstraction layers\n- MUST NOT: Ignore existing patterns for \"better\" design\n- MUST: Document decisions and rationale\n\n**Directives for Oracle**:\n- MUST: Consult Oracle before finalizing plan\n- MUST: Document architectural decisions with rationale\n- MUST: Define \"minimum viable architecture\"\n- MUST NOT: Introduce complexity without justification\n\n---\n\n### IF RESEARCH\n\n**Your Mission**: Define investigation boundaries and exit criteria.\n\n**Questions to Ask**:\n1. What's the goal of this research? (what decision will it inform?)\n2. How do we know research is complete? (exit criteria)\n3. What's the time box? (when to stop and synthesize)\n4. What outputs are expected? (report, recommendations, prototype?)\n\n**Investigation Structure**:\n```\n// Parallel probes - Prompt structure: CONTEXT + GOAL + QUESTION + REQUEST\ntask(subagent_type=\"trinity\", run_in_background=true, prompt=\"I'm researching how to implement [feature] and need to understand the current approach. Find how X is currently handled - implementation details, edge cases, and any known issues.\")\ntask(subagent_type=\"operator\", run_in_background=true, prompt=\"I'm implementing Y and need authoritative guidance. Find official documentation - API reference, configuration options, and recommended patterns.\")\ntask(subagent_type=\"operator\", run_in_background=true, prompt=\"I'm looking for proven implementations of Z. Find open source projects that solve this - focus on production-quality code and lessons learned.\")\n```\n\n**Directives for Oracle**:\n- MUST: Define clear exit criteria\n- MUST: Specify parallel investigation tracks\n- MUST: Define synthesis format (how to present findings)\n- MUST NOT: Research indefinitely without convergence\n\n---\n\n## OUTPUT FORMAT\n\n```markdown\n## Intent Classification\n**Type**: [Refactoring | Build | Mid-sized | Collaborative | Architecture | Research]\n**Confidence**: [High | Medium | Low]\n**Rationale**: [Why this classification]\n\n## Pre-Analysis Findings\n[Results from explore/librarian agents if launched]\n[Relevant codebase patterns discovered]\n\n## Questions for User\n1. [Most critical question first]\n2. [Second priority]\n3. [Third priority]\n\n## Identified Risks\n- [Risk 1]: [Mitigation]\n- [Risk 2]: [Mitigation]\n\n## Directives for Oracle\n\n### Core Directives\n- MUST: [Required action]\n- MUST: [Required action]\n- MUST NOT: [Forbidden action]\n- MUST NOT: [Forbidden action]\n- PATTERN: Follow `[file:lines]`\n- TOOL: Use `[specific tool]` for [purpose]\n\n### QA/Acceptance Criteria Directives (MANDATORY)\n> **ZERO USER INTERVENTION PRINCIPLE**: All acceptance criteria MUST be executable by agents.\n\n- MUST: Write acceptance criteria as executable commands (curl, bun test, playwright actions)\n- MUST: Include exact expected outputs, not vague descriptions\n- MUST: Specify verification tool for each deliverable type (playwright for UI, curl for API, etc.)\n- MUST NOT: Create criteria requiring \"user manually tests...\"\n- MUST NOT: Create criteria requiring \"user visually confirms...\"\n- MUST NOT: Create criteria requiring \"user clicks/interacts...\"\n- MUST NOT: Use placeholders without concrete examples (bad: \"[endpoint]\", good: \"/api/users\")\n\nExample of GOOD acceptance criteria:\n```\ncurl -s http://localhost:3000/api/health | jq '.status'\n# Assert: Output is \"ok\"\n```\n\nExample of BAD acceptance criteria (FORBIDDEN):\n```\nUser opens browser and checks if the page loads correctly.\nUser confirms the button works as expected.\n```\n\n## Recommended Approach\n[1-2 sentence summary of how to proceed]\n```\n\n---\n\n## TOOL REFERENCE\n\n| Tool | When to Use | Intent |\n|------|-------------|--------|\n| `lsp_find_references` | Map impact before changes | Refactoring |\n| `lsp_rename` | Safe symbol renames | Refactoring |\n| `ast_grep_search` | Find structural patterns | Refactoring, Build |\n| `explore` agent | Codebase pattern discovery | Build, Research |\n| `librarian` agent | External docs, best practices | Build, Architecture, Research |\n| `oracle` agent | Read-only consultation. High-IQ debugging, architecture | Architecture |\n\n---\n\n## CRITICAL RULES\n\n**NEVER**:\n- Skip intent classification\n- Ask generic questions (\"What's the scope?\")\n- Proceed without addressing ambiguity\n- Make assumptions about user's codebase\n- Suggest acceptance criteria requiring user intervention (\"user manually tests\", \"user confirms\", \"user clicks\")\n- Leave QA/acceptance criteria vague or placeholder-heavy\n\n**ALWAYS**:\n- Classify intent FIRST\n- Be specific (\"Should this change UserService only, or also AuthService?\")\n- Explore before asking (for Build/Research intents)\n- Provide actionable directives for Oracle\n- Include QA automation directives in every output\n- Ensure acceptance criteria are agent-executable (commands, not human actions)\n";
 export declare function createSeraphAgent(model: string): AgentConfig;
 export declare namespace createSeraphAgent {
     var mode: "subagent";

package/dist/cli.js

@@ -15983,7 +15983,7 @@ var BUILTIN_DCP_PROFILES = {
   brutal: {
     pruneNotification: "off",
     compress: {
-      maxContextLimit: "15%",
+      maxContextLimit: "20%",
       minContextLimit: "10%",
       nudgeFrequency: 1,
       nudgeForce: "strong",

package/dist/config/schema/dcp.d.ts

@@ -161,7 +161,7 @@ export declare const BUILTIN_DCP_PROFILES: {
     readonly brutal: {
         readonly pruneNotification: "off";
         readonly compress: {
-            readonly maxContextLimit: "15%";
+            readonly maxContextLimit: "20%";
             readonly minContextLimit: "10%";
             readonly nudgeFrequency: 1;
             readonly nudgeForce: "strong";

package/dist/features/background-agent/constants.d.ts

@@ -18,12 +18,12 @@ export declare const DEFAULT_WALL_CLOCK_ABORT_GRACE_MS = 5000;
 export declare const DEFAULT_NESTED_ADMISSION_ENABLED = true;
 export declare const DEFAULT_NESTED_ADMISSION_MODE: "bypass";
 export declare const DEFAULT_NESTED_MAX_DEPTH = 2;
-export declare const DEFAULT_WAKE_SCHEDULER_ENABLED = true;
+export declare const DEFAULT_WAKE_SCHEDULER_ENABLED = false;
 export declare const DEFAULT_WAKE_INTERVAL_MS = 300000;
 export declare const MIN_WAKE_INTERVAL_MS = 60000;
 export declare const DEFAULT_JOB_BOARD_ENABLED = true;
 export declare const DEFAULT_JOB_BOARD_STRATEGY: "latest";
-export declare const DEFAULT_MAX_RETAINED_SNAPSHOTS = 20;
+export declare const DEFAULT_MAX_RETAINED_SNAPSHOTS = 10;
 export declare const RECONCILE_CONFIRMATION_GRACE_MS = 5000;
 export type ProcessCleanupEvent = NodeJS.Signals | "beforeExit" | "exit";
 export type OpencodeClient = PluginInput["client"];

package/dist/features/builtin-commands/templates/refactor.d.ts

@@ -1 +1 @@
-export declare const REFACTOR_TEMPLATE = "# Intelligent Refactor Command\n\n## Usage\n```\n/refactor <refactoring-target> [--scope=<file|module|project>] [--strategy=<safe|aggressive>]\n\nArguments:\n  refactoring-target: What to refactor. Can be:\n    - File path: src/auth/handler.ts\n    - Symbol name: \"AuthService class\"\n    - Pattern: \"all functions using deprecated API\"\n    - Description: \"extract validation logic into separate module\"\n\nOptions:\n  --scope: Refactoring scope (default: module)\n    - file: Single file only\n    - module: Module/directory scope\n    - project: Entire codebase\n\n  --strategy: Risk tolerance (default: safe)\n    - safe: Conservative, maximum test coverage required\n    - aggressive: Allow broader changes with adequate coverage\n```\n\n## What This Command Does\n\nPerforms intelligent, deterministic refactoring with full codebase awareness. Unlike blind search-and-replace, this command:\n\n1. **Understands your intent** - Analyzes what you actually want to achieve\n2. **Maps the codebase** - Builds a definitive codemap before touching anything\n3. **Assesses risk** - Evaluates test coverage and determines verification strategy\n4. **Plans meticulously** - Creates a detailed plan with Plan agent\n5. **Executes precisely** - Step-by-step refactoring with LSP and AST-grep\n6. **Verifies constantly** - Runs tests after each change to ensure zero regression\n\n---\n\n# PHASE 0: INTENT GATE (MANDATORY FIRST STEP)\n\n**BEFORE ANY ACTION, classify and validate the request.**\n\n## Step 0.1: Parse Request Type\n\n| Signal | Classification | Action |\n|--------|----------------|--------|\n| Specific file/symbol | Explicit | Proceed to codebase analysis |\n| \"Refactor X to Y\" | Clear transformation | Proceed to codebase analysis |\n| \"Improve\", \"Clean up\" | Open-ended | **MUST ask**: \"What specific improvement?\" |\n| Ambiguous scope | Uncertain | **MUST ask**: \"Which modules/files?\" |\n| Missing context | Incomplete | **MUST ask**: \"What's the desired outcome?\" |\n\n## Step 0.2: Validate Understanding\n\nBefore proceeding, confirm:\n- [ ] Target is clearly identified\n- [ ] Desired outcome is understood\n- [ ] Scope is defined (file/module/project)\n- [ ] Success criteria can be articulated\n\n**If ANY of above is unclear, ASK CLARIFYING QUESTION:**\n\n```\nI want to make sure I understand the refactoring goal correctly.\n\n**What I understood**: [interpretation]\n**What I'm unsure about**: [specific ambiguity]\n\nOptions I see:\n1. [Option A] - [implications]\n2. [Option B] - [implications]\n\n**My recommendation**: [suggestion with reasoning]\n\nShould I proceed with [recommendation], or would you prefer differently?\n```\n\n## Step 0.3: Create Initial Todos\n\n**IMMEDIATELY after understanding the request, create todos:**\n\n```\nTodoWrite([\n  {\"id\": \"phase-1\", \"content\": \"PHASE 1: Codebase Analysis - launch parallel explore agents\", \"status\": \"pending\", \"priority\": \"high\"},\n  {\"id\": \"phase-2\", \"content\": \"PHASE 2: Build Codemap - map dependencies and impact zones\", \"status\": \"pending\", \"priority\": \"high\"},\n  {\"id\": \"phase-3\", \"content\": \"PHASE 3: Test Assessment - analyze test coverage and verification strategy\", \"status\": \"pending\", \"priority\": \"high\"},\n  {\"id\": \"phase-4\", \"content\": \"PHASE 4: Plan Generation - invoke Plan agent for detailed refactoring plan\", \"status\": \"pending\", \"priority\": \"high\"},\n  {\"id\": \"phase-5\", \"content\": \"PHASE 5: Execute Refactoring - step-by-step with continuous verification\", \"status\": \"pending\", \"priority\": \"high\"},\n  {\"id\": \"phase-6\", \"content\": \"PHASE 6: Final Verification - full test suite and regression check\", \"status\": \"pending\", \"priority\": \"high\"}\n])\n```\n\n---\n\n# PHASE 1: CODEBASE ANALYSIS (PARALLEL EXPLORATION)\n\n**Mark phase-1 as in_progress.**\n\n## 1.1: Launch Parallel Explore Agents (BACKGROUND)\n\nFire ALL of these simultaneously using `delegate_agent`:\n\n```\n// Agent 1: Find the refactoring target\ndelegate_agent(\n  subagent_type=\"trinity\",\n  run_in_background=true,\n  prompt=\"Find all occurrences and definitions of [TARGET]. \n  Report: file paths, line numbers, usage patterns.\"\n)\n\n// Agent 2: Find related code\ndelegate_agent(\n  subagent_type=\"trinity\", \n  run_in_background=true,\n  prompt=\"Find all code that imports, uses, or depends on [TARGET].\n  Report: dependency chains, import graphs.\"\n)\n\n// Agent 3: Find similar patterns\ndelegate_agent(\n  subagent_type=\"trinity\",\n  run_in_background=true,\n  prompt=\"Find similar code patterns to [TARGET] in the codebase.\n  Report: analogous implementations, established conventions.\"\n)\n\n// Agent 4: Find tests\ndelegate_agent(\n  subagent_type=\"trinity\",\n  run_in_background=true,\n  prompt=\"Find all test files related to [TARGET].\n  Report: test file paths, test case names, coverage indicators.\"\n)\n\n// Agent 5: Architecture context\ndelegate_agent(\n  subagent_type=\"trinity\",\n  run_in_background=true,\n  prompt=\"Find architectural patterns and module organization around [TARGET].\n  Report: module boundaries, layer structure, design patterns in use.\"\n)\n```\n\n## 1.2: Direct Tool Exploration (WHILE AGENTS RUN)\n\nWhile background agents are running, use direct tools:\n\n### LSP Tools for Precise Analysis:\n\n```typescript\n// Find definition(s)\nLspGotoDefinition(filePath, line, character)  // Where is it defined?\n\n// Find ALL usages across workspace\nLspFindReferences(filePath, line, character, includeDeclaration=true)\n\n// Get file structure\nLspDocumentSymbols(filePath)  // Hierarchical outline\nLspWorkspaceSymbols(filePath, query=\"[target_symbol]\")  // Search by name\n\n// Get current diagnostics\nlsp_diagnostics(filePath)  // Errors, warnings before we start\n```\n\n### AST-Grep for Pattern Analysis:\n\n```typescript\n// Find structural patterns\nast_grep_search(\n  pattern=\"function $NAME($$$) { $$$ }\",  // or relevant pattern\n  lang=\"typescript\",  // or relevant language\n  paths=[\"src/\"]\n)\n\n// Preview refactoring (DRY RUN)\nast_grep_replace(\n  pattern=\"[old_pattern]\",\n  rewrite=\"[new_pattern]\",\n  lang=\"[language]\",\n  dryRun=true  // ALWAYS preview first\n)\n```\n\n### Grep for Text Patterns:\n\n```\ngrep(pattern=\"[search_term]\", path=\"src/\", include=\"*.ts\")\n```\n\n## 1.3: Collect Background Results\n\n```\nbackground_output(task_id=\"[agent_1_id]\")\nbackground_output(task_id=\"[agent_2_id]\")\n...\n```\n\n**Mark phase-1 as completed after all results collected.**\n\n---\n\n# PHASE 2: BUILD CODEMAP (DEPENDENCY MAPPING)\n\n**Mark phase-2 as in_progress.**\n\n## 2.1: Construct Definitive Codemap\n\nBased on Phase 1 results, build:\n\n```\n## CODEMAP: [TARGET]\n\n### Core Files (Direct Impact)\n- `path/to/file.ts:L10-L50` - Primary definition\n- `path/to/file2.ts:L25` - Key usage\n\n### Dependency Graph\n```\n[TARGET] \n\u251C\u2500\u2500 imports from: \n\u2502   \u251C\u2500\u2500 module-a (types)\n\u2502   \u2514\u2500\u2500 module-b (utils)\n\u251C\u2500\u2500 imported by:\n\u2502   \u251C\u2500\u2500 consumer-1.ts\n\u2502   \u251C\u2500\u2500 consumer-2.ts\n\u2502   \u2514\u2500\u2500 consumer-3.ts\n\u2514\u2500\u2500 used by:\n    \u251C\u2500\u2500 handler.ts (direct call)\n    \u2514\u2500\u2500 service.ts (dependency injection)\n```\n\n### Impact Zones\n| Zone | Risk Level | Files Affected | Test Coverage |\n|------|------------|----------------|---------------|\n| Core | HIGH | 3 files | 85% covered |\n| Consumers | MEDIUM | 8 files | 70% covered |\n| Edge | LOW | 2 files | 50% covered |\n\n### Established Patterns\n- Pattern A: [description] - used in N places\n- Pattern B: [description] - established convention\n```\n\n## 2.2: Identify Refactoring Constraints\n\nBased on codemap:\n- **MUST follow**: [existing patterns identified]\n- **MUST NOT break**: [critical dependencies]\n- **Safe to change**: [isolated code zones]\n- **Requires migration**: [breaking changes impact]\n\n**Mark phase-2 as completed.**\n\n---\n\n# PHASE 3: TEST ASSESSMENT (VERIFICATION STRATEGY)\n\n**Mark phase-3 as in_progress.**\n\n## 3.1: Detect Test Infrastructure\n\n```bash\n# Check for test commands\ncat package.json | jq '.scripts | keys[] | select(test(\"test\"))'\n\n# Or for Python\nls -la pytest.ini pyproject.toml setup.cfg\n\n# Or for Go\nls -la *_test.go\n```\n\n## 3.2: Analyze Test Coverage\n\n```\n// Find all tests related to target\ndelegate_agent(\n  subagent_type=\"trinity\",\n  run_in_background=false,  // Need this synchronously\n  prompt=\"Analyze test coverage for [TARGET]:\n  1. Which test files cover this code?\n  2. What test cases exist?\n  3. Are there integration tests?\n  4. What edge cases are tested?\n  5. Estimated coverage percentage?\"\n)\n```\n\n## 3.3: Determine Verification Strategy\n\nBased on test analysis:\n\n| Coverage Level | Strategy |\n|----------------|----------|\n| HIGH (>80%) | Run existing tests after each step |\n| MEDIUM (50-80%) | Run tests + add safety assertions |\n| LOW (<50%) | **PAUSE**: Propose adding tests first |\n| NONE | **BLOCK**: Refuse aggressive refactoring |\n\n**If coverage is LOW or NONE, ask user:**\n\n```\nTest coverage for [TARGET] is [LEVEL].\n\n**Risk Assessment**: Refactoring without adequate tests is dangerous.\n\nOptions:\n1. Add tests first, then refactor (RECOMMENDED)\n2. Proceed with extra caution, manual verification required\n3. Abort refactoring\n\nWhich approach do you prefer?\n```\n\n## 3.4: Document Verification Plan\n\n```\n## VERIFICATION PLAN\n\n### Test Commands\n- Unit: `bun test` / `npm test` / `pytest` / etc.\n- Integration: [command if exists]\n- Type check: `tsc --noEmit` / `pyright` / etc.\n\n### Verification Checkpoints\nAfter each refactoring step:\n1. lsp_diagnostics \u2192 zero new errors\n2. Run test command \u2192 all pass\n3. Type check \u2192 clean\n\n### Regression Indicators\n- [Specific test that must pass]\n- [Behavior that must be preserved]\n- [API contract that must not change]\n```\n\n**Mark phase-3 as completed.**\n\n---\n\n# PHASE 4: PLAN GENERATION (PLAN AGENT)\n\n**Mark phase-4 as in_progress.**\n\n## 4.1: Invoke Plan Agent\n\n```\nTask(\n  subagent_type=\"plan\",\n  prompt=\"Create a detailed refactoring plan:\n\n  ## Refactoring Goal\n  [User's original request]\n\n  ## Codemap (from Phase 2)\n  [Insert codemap here]\n\n  ## Test Coverage (from Phase 3)\n  [Insert verification plan here]\n\n  ## Constraints\n  - MUST follow existing patterns: [list]\n  - MUST NOT break: [critical paths]\n  - MUST run tests after each step\n\n  ## Requirements\n  1. Break down into atomic refactoring steps\n  2. Each step must be independently verifiable\n  3. Order steps by dependency (what must happen first)\n  4. Specify exact files and line ranges for each step\n  5. Include rollback strategy for each step\n  6. Define commit checkpoints\"\n)\n```\n\n## 4.2: Review and Validate Plan\n\nAfter receiving plan from Plan agent:\n\n1. **Verify completeness**: All identified files addressed?\n2. **Verify safety**: Each step reversible?\n3. **Verify order**: Dependencies respected?\n4. **Verify verification**: Test commands specified?\n\n## 4.3: Register Detailed Todos\n\nConvert Plan agent output into granular todos:\n\n```\nTodoWrite([\n  // Each step from the plan becomes a todo\n  {\"id\": \"refactor-1\", \"content\": \"Step 1: [description]\", \"status\": \"pending\", \"priority\": \"high\"},\n  {\"id\": \"verify-1\", \"content\": \"Verify Step 1: run tests\", \"status\": \"pending\", \"priority\": \"high\"},\n  {\"id\": \"refactor-2\", \"content\": \"Step 2: [description]\", \"status\": \"pending\", \"priority\": \"medium\"},\n  {\"id\": \"verify-2\", \"content\": \"Verify Step 2: run tests\", \"status\": \"pending\", \"priority\": \"medium\"},\n  // ... continue for all steps\n])\n```\n\n**Mark phase-4 as completed.**\n\n---\n\n# PHASE 5: EXECUTE REFACTORING (DETERMINISTIC EXECUTION)\n\n**Mark phase-5 as in_progress.**\n\n## 5.1: Execution Protocol\n\nFor EACH refactoring step:\n\n### Pre-Step\n1. Mark step todo as `in_progress`\n2. Read current file state\n3. Verify lsp_diagnostics is baseline\n\n### Execute Step\nUse appropriate tool:\n\n**For Symbol Renames:**\n```typescript\nlsp_prepare_rename(filePath, line, character)  // Validate rename is possible\nlsp_rename(filePath, line, character, newName)  // Execute rename\n```\n\n**For Pattern Transformations:**\n```typescript\n// Preview first\nast_grep_replace(pattern, rewrite, lang, dryRun=true)\n\n// If preview looks good, execute\nast_grep_replace(pattern, rewrite, lang, dryRun=false)\n```\n\n**For Structural Changes:**\n```typescript\n// Use Edit tool for precise changes\nedit(filePath, oldString, newString)\n```\n\n### Post-Step Verification (MANDATORY)\n\n```typescript\n// 1. Check diagnostics\nlsp_diagnostics(filePath)  // Must be clean or same as baseline\n\n// 2. Run tests\nbash(\"bun test\")  // Or appropriate test command\n\n// 3. Type check\nbash(\"tsc --noEmit\")  // Or appropriate type check\n```\n\n### Step Completion\n1. If verification passes \u2192 Mark step todo as `completed`\n2. If verification fails \u2192 **STOP AND FIX**\n\n## 5.2: Failure Recovery Protocol\n\nIf ANY verification fails:\n\n1. **STOP** immediately\n2. **REVERT** the failed change\n3. **DIAGNOSE** what went wrong\n4. **OPTIONS**:\n   - Fix the issue and retry\n   - Skip this step (if optional)\n   - Consult oracle agent for help\n   - Ask user for guidance\n\n**NEVER proceed to next step with broken tests.**\n\n## 5.3: Commit Checkpoints\n\nAfter each logical group of changes:\n\n```bash\ngit add [changed-files]\ngit commit -m \"refactor(scope): description\n\n[details of what was changed and why]\"\n```\n\n**Mark phase-5 as completed when all refactoring steps done.**\n\n---\n\n# PHASE 6: FINAL VERIFICATION (REGRESSION CHECK)\n\n**Mark phase-6 as in_progress.**\n\n## 6.1: Full Test Suite\n\n```bash\n# Run complete test suite\nbun test  # or npm test, pytest, go test, etc.\n```\n\n## 6.2: Type Check\n\n```bash\n# Full type check\ntsc --noEmit  # or equivalent\n```\n\n## 6.3: Lint Check\n\n```bash\n# Run linter\neslint .  # or equivalent\n```\n\n## 6.4: Build Verification (if applicable)\n\n```bash\n# Ensure build still works\nbun run build  # or npm run build, etc.\n```\n\n## 6.5: Final Diagnostics\n\n```typescript\n// Check all changed files\nfor (file of changedFiles) {\n  lsp_diagnostics(file)  // Must all be clean\n}\n```\n\n## 6.6: Generate Summary\n\n```markdown\n## Refactoring Complete\n\n### What Changed\n- [List of changes made]\n\n### Files Modified\n- `path/to/file.ts` - [what changed]\n- `path/to/file2.ts` - [what changed]\n\n### Verification Results\n- Tests: PASSED (X/Y passing)\n- Type Check: CLEAN\n- Lint: CLEAN\n- Build: SUCCESS\n\n### No Regressions Detected\nAll existing tests pass. No new errors introduced.\n```\n\n**Mark phase-6 as completed.**\n\n---\n\n# CRITICAL RULES\n\n## NEVER DO\n- Skip lsp_diagnostics check after changes\n- Proceed with failing tests\n- Make changes without understanding impact\n- Use `as any`, `@ts-ignore`, `@ts-expect-error`\n- Delete tests to make them pass\n- Commit broken code\n- Refactor without understanding existing patterns\n\n## ALWAYS DO\n- Understand before changing\n- Preview before applying (ast_grep dryRun=true)\n- Verify after every change\n- Follow existing codebase patterns\n- Keep todos updated in real-time\n- Commit at logical checkpoints\n- Report issues immediately\n\n## ABORT CONDITIONS\nIf any of these occur, **STOP and consult user**:\n- Test coverage is zero for target code\n- Changes would break public API\n- Refactoring scope is unclear\n- 3 consecutive verification failures\n- User-defined constraints violated\n\n---\n\n# Tool Usage Philosophy\n\nYou already know these tools. Use them intelligently:\n\n## LSP Tools\nLeverage LSP tools for precision analysis. Key patterns:\n- **Understand before changing**: `LspGotoDefinition` to grasp context\n- **Impact analysis**: `LspFindReferences` to map all usages before modification\n- **Safe refactoring**: `lsp_prepare_rename` \u2192 `lsp_rename` for symbol renames\n- **Continuous verification**: `lsp_diagnostics` after every change\n\n## AST-Grep\nUse `ast_grep_search` and `ast_grep_replace` for structural transformations.\n**Critical**: Always `dryRun=true` first, review, then execute.\n\n## Agents\n- `explore`: Parallel codebase pattern discovery\n- `plan`: Detailed refactoring plan generation\n- `oracle`: Read-only consultation for complex architectural decisions and debugging\n- `librarian`: **Use proactively** when encountering deprecated methods or library migration tasks. Query official docs and OSS examples for modern replacements.\n\n## Deprecated Code & Library Migration\nWhen you encounter deprecated methods/APIs during refactoring:\n1. Fire `librarian` to find the recommended modern alternative\n2. **DO NOT auto-upgrade to latest version** unless user explicitly requests migration\n3. If user requests library migration, use `librarian` to fetch latest API docs before making changes\n\n---\n\n**Remember: Refactoring without tests is reckless. Refactoring without understanding is destructive. This command ensures you do neither.**\n\n<user-request>\n$ARGUMENTS\n</user-request>\n";
+export declare const REFACTOR_TEMPLATE = "# Intelligent Refactor Command\n\n## Usage\n```\n/refactor <refactoring-target> [--scope=<file|module|project>] [--strategy=<safe|aggressive>]\n\nArguments:\n  refactoring-target: What to refactor. Can be:\n    - File path: src/auth/handler.ts\n    - Symbol name: \"AuthService class\"\n    - Pattern: \"all functions using deprecated API\"\n    - Description: \"extract validation logic into separate module\"\n\nOptions:\n  --scope: Refactoring scope (default: module)\n    - file: Single file only\n    - module: Module/directory scope\n    - project: Entire codebase\n\n  --strategy: Risk tolerance (default: safe)\n    - safe: Conservative, maximum test coverage required\n    - aggressive: Allow broader changes with adequate coverage\n```\n\n## What This Command Does\n\nPerforms intelligent, deterministic refactoring with full codebase awareness. Unlike blind search-and-replace, this command:\n\n1. **Understands your intent** - Analyzes what you actually want to achieve\n2. **Maps the codebase** - Builds a definitive codemap before touching anything\n3. **Assesses risk** - Evaluates test coverage and determines verification strategy\n4. **Plans meticulously** - Creates a detailed plan with Plan agent\n5. **Executes precisely** - Step-by-step refactoring with LSP and AST-grep\n6. **Verifies constantly** - Runs tests after each change to ensure zero regression\n\n---\n\n# PHASE 0: INTENT GATE (MANDATORY FIRST STEP)\n\n**BEFORE ANY ACTION, classify and validate the request.**\n\n## Step 0.1: Parse Request Type\n\n| Signal | Classification | Action |\n|--------|----------------|--------|\n| Specific file/symbol | Explicit | Proceed to codebase analysis |\n| \"Refactor X to Y\" | Clear transformation | Proceed to codebase analysis |\n| \"Improve\", \"Clean up\" | Open-ended | **MUST ask**: \"What specific improvement?\" |\n| Ambiguous scope | Uncertain | **MUST ask**: \"Which modules/files?\" |\n| Missing context | Incomplete | **MUST ask**: \"What's the desired outcome?\" |\n\n## Step 0.2: Validate Understanding\n\nBefore proceeding, confirm:\n- [ ] Target is clearly identified\n- [ ] Desired outcome is understood\n- [ ] Scope is defined (file/module/project)\n- [ ] Success criteria can be articulated\n\n**If ANY of above is unclear, ASK CLARIFYING QUESTION:**\n\n```\nI want to make sure I understand the refactoring goal correctly.\n\n**What I understood**: [interpretation]\n**What I'm unsure about**: [specific ambiguity]\n\nOptions I see:\n1. [Option A] - [implications]\n2. [Option B] - [implications]\n\n**My recommendation**: [suggestion with reasoning]\n\nShould I proceed with [recommendation], or would you prefer differently?\n```\n\n## Step 0.3: Create Initial Todos\n\n**IMMEDIATELY after understanding the request, create todos:**\n\n```\nTodoWrite([\n  {\"id\": \"phase-1\", \"content\": \"PHASE 1: Codebase Analysis - launch parallel explore agents\", \"status\": \"pending\", \"priority\": \"high\"},\n  {\"id\": \"phase-2\", \"content\": \"PHASE 2: Build Codemap - map dependencies and impact zones\", \"status\": \"pending\", \"priority\": \"high\"},\n  {\"id\": \"phase-3\", \"content\": \"PHASE 3: Test Assessment - analyze test coverage and verification strategy\", \"status\": \"pending\", \"priority\": \"high\"},\n  {\"id\": \"phase-4\", \"content\": \"PHASE 4: Plan Generation - invoke Plan agent for detailed refactoring plan\", \"status\": \"pending\", \"priority\": \"high\"},\n  {\"id\": \"phase-5\", \"content\": \"PHASE 5: Execute Refactoring - step-by-step with continuous verification\", \"status\": \"pending\", \"priority\": \"high\"},\n  {\"id\": \"phase-6\", \"content\": \"PHASE 6: Final Verification - full test suite and regression check\", \"status\": \"pending\", \"priority\": \"high\"}\n])\n```\n\n---\n\n# PHASE 1: CODEBASE ANALYSIS (PARALLEL EXPLORATION)\n\n**Mark phase-1 as in_progress.**\n\n## 1.1: Launch Parallel Explore Agents (BACKGROUND)\n\nFire ALL of these simultaneously using `task`:\n\n```\n// Agent 1: Find the refactoring target\ntask(\n  subagent_type=\"trinity\",\n  run_in_background=true,\n  prompt=\"Find all occurrences and definitions of [TARGET]. \n  Report: file paths, line numbers, usage patterns.\"\n)\n\n// Agent 2: Find related code\ntask(\n  subagent_type=\"trinity\", \n  run_in_background=true,\n  prompt=\"Find all code that imports, uses, or depends on [TARGET].\n  Report: dependency chains, import graphs.\"\n)\n\n// Agent 3: Find similar patterns\ntask(\n  subagent_type=\"trinity\",\n  run_in_background=true,\n  prompt=\"Find similar code patterns to [TARGET] in the codebase.\n  Report: analogous implementations, established conventions.\"\n)\n\n// Agent 4: Find tests\ntask(\n  subagent_type=\"trinity\",\n  run_in_background=true,\n  prompt=\"Find all test files related to [TARGET].\n  Report: test file paths, test case names, coverage indicators.\"\n)\n\n// Agent 5: Architecture context\ntask(\n  subagent_type=\"trinity\",\n  run_in_background=true,\n  prompt=\"Find architectural patterns and module organization around [TARGET].\n  Report: module boundaries, layer structure, design patterns in use.\"\n)\n```\n\n## 1.2: Direct Tool Exploration (WHILE AGENTS RUN)\n\nWhile background agents are running, use direct tools:\n\n### LSP Tools for Precise Analysis:\n\n```typescript\n// Find definition(s)\nLspGotoDefinition(filePath, line, character)  // Where is it defined?\n\n// Find ALL usages across workspace\nLspFindReferences(filePath, line, character, includeDeclaration=true)\n\n// Get file structure\nLspDocumentSymbols(filePath)  // Hierarchical outline\nLspWorkspaceSymbols(filePath, query=\"[target_symbol]\")  // Search by name\n\n// Get current diagnostics\nlsp_diagnostics(filePath)  // Errors, warnings before we start\n```\n\n### AST-Grep for Pattern Analysis:\n\n```typescript\n// Find structural patterns\nast_grep_search(\n  pattern=\"function $NAME($$$) { $$$ }\",  // or relevant pattern\n  lang=\"typescript\",  // or relevant language\n  paths=[\"src/\"]\n)\n\n// Preview refactoring (DRY RUN)\nast_grep_replace(\n  pattern=\"[old_pattern]\",\n  rewrite=\"[new_pattern]\",\n  lang=\"[language]\",\n  dryRun=true  // ALWAYS preview first\n)\n```\n\n### Grep for Text Patterns:\n\n```\ngrep(pattern=\"[search_term]\", path=\"src/\", include=\"*.ts\")\n```\n\n## 1.3: Collect Background Results\n\n```\nbackground_output(task_id=\"[agent_1_id]\")\nbackground_output(task_id=\"[agent_2_id]\")\n...\n```\n\n**Mark phase-1 as completed after all results collected.**\n\n---\n\n# PHASE 2: BUILD CODEMAP (DEPENDENCY MAPPING)\n\n**Mark phase-2 as in_progress.**\n\n## 2.1: Construct Definitive Codemap\n\nBased on Phase 1 results, build:\n\n```\n## CODEMAP: [TARGET]\n\n### Core Files (Direct Impact)\n- `path/to/file.ts:L10-L50` - Primary definition\n- `path/to/file2.ts:L25` - Key usage\n\n### Dependency Graph\n```\n[TARGET] \n\u251C\u2500\u2500 imports from: \n\u2502   \u251C\u2500\u2500 module-a (types)\n\u2502   \u2514\u2500\u2500 module-b (utils)\n\u251C\u2500\u2500 imported by:\n\u2502   \u251C\u2500\u2500 consumer-1.ts\n\u2502   \u251C\u2500\u2500 consumer-2.ts\n\u2502   \u2514\u2500\u2500 consumer-3.ts\n\u2514\u2500\u2500 used by:\n    \u251C\u2500\u2500 handler.ts (direct call)\n    \u2514\u2500\u2500 service.ts (dependency injection)\n```\n\n### Impact Zones\n| Zone | Risk Level | Files Affected | Test Coverage |\n|------|------------|----------------|---------------|\n| Core | HIGH | 3 files | 85% covered |\n| Consumers | MEDIUM | 8 files | 70% covered |\n| Edge | LOW | 2 files | 50% covered |\n\n### Established Patterns\n- Pattern A: [description] - used in N places\n- Pattern B: [description] - established convention\n```\n\n## 2.2: Identify Refactoring Constraints\n\nBased on codemap:\n- **MUST follow**: [existing patterns identified]\n- **MUST NOT break**: [critical dependencies]\n- **Safe to change**: [isolated code zones]\n- **Requires migration**: [breaking changes impact]\n\n**Mark phase-2 as completed.**\n\n---\n\n# PHASE 3: TEST ASSESSMENT (VERIFICATION STRATEGY)\n\n**Mark phase-3 as in_progress.**\n\n## 3.1: Detect Test Infrastructure\n\n```bash\n# Check for test commands\ncat package.json | jq '.scripts | keys[] | select(test(\"test\"))'\n\n# Or for Python\nls -la pytest.ini pyproject.toml setup.cfg\n\n# Or for Go\nls -la *_test.go\n```\n\n## 3.2: Analyze Test Coverage\n\n```\n// Find all tests related to target\ntask(\n  subagent_type=\"trinity\",\n  run_in_background=false,  // Need this synchronously\n  prompt=\"Analyze test coverage for [TARGET]:\n  1. Which test files cover this code?\n  2. What test cases exist?\n  3. Are there integration tests?\n  4. What edge cases are tested?\n  5. Estimated coverage percentage?\"\n)\n```\n\n## 3.3: Determine Verification Strategy\n\nBased on test analysis:\n\n| Coverage Level | Strategy |\n|----------------|----------|\n| HIGH (>80%) | Run existing tests after each step |\n| MEDIUM (50-80%) | Run tests + add safety assertions |\n| LOW (<50%) | **PAUSE**: Propose adding tests first |\n| NONE | **BLOCK**: Refuse aggressive refactoring |\n\n**If coverage is LOW or NONE, ask user:**\n\n```\nTest coverage for [TARGET] is [LEVEL].\n\n**Risk Assessment**: Refactoring without adequate tests is dangerous.\n\nOptions:\n1. Add tests first, then refactor (RECOMMENDED)\n2. Proceed with extra caution, manual verification required\n3. Abort refactoring\n\nWhich approach do you prefer?\n```\n\n## 3.4: Document Verification Plan\n\n```\n## VERIFICATION PLAN\n\n### Test Commands\n- Unit: `bun test` / `npm test` / `pytest` / etc.\n- Integration: [command if exists]\n- Type check: `tsc --noEmit` / `pyright` / etc.\n\n### Verification Checkpoints\nAfter each refactoring step:\n1. lsp_diagnostics \u2192 zero new errors\n2. Run test command \u2192 all pass\n3. Type check \u2192 clean\n\n### Regression Indicators\n- [Specific test that must pass]\n- [Behavior that must be preserved]\n- [API contract that must not change]\n```\n\n**Mark phase-3 as completed.**\n\n---\n\n# PHASE 4: PLAN GENERATION (PLAN AGENT)\n\n**Mark phase-4 as in_progress.**\n\n## 4.1: Invoke Plan Agent\n\n```\nTask(\n  subagent_type=\"plan\",\n  prompt=\"Create a detailed refactoring plan:\n\n  ## Refactoring Goal\n  [User's original request]\n\n  ## Codemap (from Phase 2)\n  [Insert codemap here]\n\n  ## Test Coverage (from Phase 3)\n  [Insert verification plan here]\n\n  ## Constraints\n  - MUST follow existing patterns: [list]\n  - MUST NOT break: [critical paths]\n  - MUST run tests after each step\n\n  ## Requirements\n  1. Break down into atomic refactoring steps\n  2. Each step must be independently verifiable\n  3. Order steps by dependency (what must happen first)\n  4. Specify exact files and line ranges for each step\n  5. Include rollback strategy for each step\n  6. Define commit checkpoints\"\n)\n```\n\n## 4.2: Review and Validate Plan\n\nAfter receiving plan from Plan agent:\n\n1. **Verify completeness**: All identified files addressed?\n2. **Verify safety**: Each step reversible?\n3. **Verify order**: Dependencies respected?\n4. **Verify verification**: Test commands specified?\n\n## 4.3: Register Detailed Todos\n\nConvert Plan agent output into granular todos:\n\n```\nTodoWrite([\n  // Each step from the plan becomes a todo\n  {\"id\": \"refactor-1\", \"content\": \"Step 1: [description]\", \"status\": \"pending\", \"priority\": \"high\"},\n  {\"id\": \"verify-1\", \"content\": \"Verify Step 1: run tests\", \"status\": \"pending\", \"priority\": \"high\"},\n  {\"id\": \"refactor-2\", \"content\": \"Step 2: [description]\", \"status\": \"pending\", \"priority\": \"medium\"},\n  {\"id\": \"verify-2\", \"content\": \"Verify Step 2: run tests\", \"status\": \"pending\", \"priority\": \"medium\"},\n  // ... continue for all steps\n])\n```\n\n**Mark phase-4 as completed.**\n\n---\n\n# PHASE 5: EXECUTE REFACTORING (DETERMINISTIC EXECUTION)\n\n**Mark phase-5 as in_progress.**\n\n## 5.1: Execution Protocol\n\nFor EACH refactoring step:\n\n### Pre-Step\n1. Mark step todo as `in_progress`\n2. Read current file state\n3. Verify lsp_diagnostics is baseline\n\n### Execute Step\nUse appropriate tool:\n\n**For Symbol Renames:**\n```typescript\nlsp_prepare_rename(filePath, line, character)  // Validate rename is possible\nlsp_rename(filePath, line, character, newName)  // Execute rename\n```\n\n**For Pattern Transformations:**\n```typescript\n// Preview first\nast_grep_replace(pattern, rewrite, lang, dryRun=true)\n\n// If preview looks good, execute\nast_grep_replace(pattern, rewrite, lang, dryRun=false)\n```\n\n**For Structural Changes:**\n```typescript\n// Use Edit tool for precise changes\nedit(filePath, oldString, newString)\n```\n\n### Post-Step Verification (MANDATORY)\n\n```typescript\n// 1. Check diagnostics\nlsp_diagnostics(filePath)  // Must be clean or same as baseline\n\n// 2. Run tests\nbash(\"bun test\")  // Or appropriate test command\n\n// 3. Type check\nbash(\"tsc --noEmit\")  // Or appropriate type check\n```\n\n### Step Completion\n1. If verification passes \u2192 Mark step todo as `completed`\n2. If verification fails \u2192 **STOP AND FIX**\n\n## 5.2: Failure Recovery Protocol\n\nIf ANY verification fails:\n\n1. **STOP** immediately\n2. **REVERT** the failed change\n3. **DIAGNOSE** what went wrong\n4. **OPTIONS**:\n   - Fix the issue and retry\n   - Skip this step (if optional)\n   - Consult oracle agent for help\n   - Ask user for guidance\n\n**NEVER proceed to next step with broken tests.**\n\n## 5.3: Commit Checkpoints\n\nAfter each logical group of changes:\n\n```bash\ngit add [changed-files]\ngit commit -m \"refactor(scope): description\n\n[details of what was changed and why]\"\n```\n\n**Mark phase-5 as completed when all refactoring steps done.**\n\n---\n\n# PHASE 6: FINAL VERIFICATION (REGRESSION CHECK)\n\n**Mark phase-6 as in_progress.**\n\n## 6.1: Full Test Suite\n\n```bash\n# Run complete test suite\nbun test  # or npm test, pytest, go test, etc.\n```\n\n## 6.2: Type Check\n\n```bash\n# Full type check\ntsc --noEmit  # or equivalent\n```\n\n## 6.3: Lint Check\n\n```bash\n# Run linter\neslint .  # or equivalent\n```\n\n## 6.4: Build Verification (if applicable)\n\n```bash\n# Ensure build still works\nbun run build  # or npm run build, etc.\n```\n\n## 6.5: Final Diagnostics\n\n```typescript\n// Check all changed files\nfor (file of changedFiles) {\n  lsp_diagnostics(file)  // Must all be clean\n}\n```\n\n## 6.6: Generate Summary\n\n```markdown\n## Refactoring Complete\n\n### What Changed\n- [List of changes made]\n\n### Files Modified\n- `path/to/file.ts` - [what changed]\n- `path/to/file2.ts` - [what changed]\n\n### Verification Results\n- Tests: PASSED (X/Y passing)\n- Type Check: CLEAN\n- Lint: CLEAN\n- Build: SUCCESS\n\n### No Regressions Detected\nAll existing tests pass. No new errors introduced.\n```\n\n**Mark phase-6 as completed.**\n\n---\n\n# CRITICAL RULES\n\n## NEVER DO\n- Skip lsp_diagnostics check after changes\n- Proceed with failing tests\n- Make changes without understanding impact\n- Use `as any`, `@ts-ignore`, `@ts-expect-error`\n- Delete tests to make them pass\n- Commit broken code\n- Refactor without understanding existing patterns\n\n## ALWAYS DO\n- Understand before changing\n- Preview before applying (ast_grep dryRun=true)\n- Verify after every change\n- Follow existing codebase patterns\n- Keep todos updated in real-time\n- Commit at logical checkpoints\n- Report issues immediately\n\n## ABORT CONDITIONS\nIf any of these occur, **STOP and consult user**:\n- Test coverage is zero for target code\n- Changes would break public API\n- Refactoring scope is unclear\n- 3 consecutive verification failures\n- User-defined constraints violated\n\n---\n\n# Tool Usage Philosophy\n\nYou already know these tools. Use them intelligently:\n\n## LSP Tools\nLeverage LSP tools for precision analysis. Key patterns:\n- **Understand before changing**: `LspGotoDefinition` to grasp context\n- **Impact analysis**: `LspFindReferences` to map all usages before modification\n- **Safe refactoring**: `lsp_prepare_rename` \u2192 `lsp_rename` for symbol renames\n- **Continuous verification**: `lsp_diagnostics` after every change\n\n## AST-Grep\nUse `ast_grep_search` and `ast_grep_replace` for structural transformations.\n**Critical**: Always `dryRun=true` first, review, then execute.\n\n## Agents\n- `explore`: Parallel codebase pattern discovery\n- `plan`: Detailed refactoring plan generation\n- `oracle`: Read-only consultation for complex architectural decisions and debugging\n- `librarian`: **Use proactively** when encountering deprecated methods or library migration tasks. Query official docs and OSS examples for modern replacements.\n\n## Deprecated Code & Library Migration\nWhen you encounter deprecated methods/APIs during refactoring:\n1. Fire `librarian` to find the recommended modern alternative\n2. **DO NOT auto-upgrade to latest version** unless user explicitly requests migration\n3. If user requests library migration, use `librarian` to fetch latest API docs before making changes\n\n---\n\n**Remember: Refactoring without tests is reckless. Refactoring without understanding is destructive. This command ensures you do neither.**\n\n<user-request>\n$ARGUMENTS\n</user-request>\n";

package/dist/features/context-injector/collector.d.ts

@@ -1,4 +1,6 @@
 import type { PendingContext, RegisterContextOptions } from "./types";
+export declare const MAX_MERGED_CHARS = 6000;
+export declare const MAX_PER_SOURCE_CHARS = 2000;
 export declare class ContextCollector {
     private sessions;
     register(sessionID: string, options: RegisterContextOptions): void;

package/dist/features/context-injector/index.d.ts

@@ -1,3 +1,3 @@
-export { ContextCollector, contextCollector } from "./collector";
+export { ContextCollector, contextCollector, MAX_MERGED_CHARS, MAX_PER_SOURCE_CHARS } from "./collector";
 export { createContextInjectorMessagesTransformHook, } from "./injector";
 export type { ContextEntry, ContextPriority, ContextSourceType, InjectionStrategy, MessageContext, OutputParts, PendingContext, RegisterContextOptions, } from "./types";

package/dist/hooks/agent-usage-reminder/constants.d.ts

@@ -1,4 +1,5 @@
 export declare const AGENT_USAGE_REMINDER_STORAGE: string;
 export declare const TARGET_TOOLS: Set<string>;
 export declare const AGENT_TOOLS: Set<string>;
+export declare const MAX_AGENT_USAGE_REMINDERS = 3;
 export declare const REMINDER_MESSAGE = "\n[Agent Usage Reminder]\n\nYou called a search/fetch tool directly without leveraging specialized agents.\n\nRECOMMENDED: Use task with explore/librarian agents for better results:\n\n```\n// Parallel exploration - fire multiple agents simultaneously\ntask(agent=\"trinity\", prompt=\"Find all files matching pattern X\")\ntask(agent=\"trinity\", prompt=\"Search for implementation of Y\") \ntask(agent=\"operator\", prompt=\"Lookup documentation for Z\")\n\n// Then continue your work while they run in background\n// System will notify you when each completes\n```\n\nWHY:\n- Agents can perform deeper, more thorough searches\n- Background tasks run in parallel, saving time\n- Specialized agents have domain expertise\n- Reduces context window usage in main session\n\nALWAYS prefer: Multiple parallel task calls > Direct tool calls\n";

package/dist/hooks/compaction-context-injector/hook.d.ts

@@ -1,2 +1,3 @@
 import type { BackgroundManager } from "../../features/background-agent";
+export declare const MAX_TASK_HISTORY_CHARS = 1500;
 export declare function createCompactionContextInjector(backgroundManager?: BackgroundManager): (sessionID?: string) => string;

package/dist/hooks/task-continuation-enforcer/constants.d.ts

@@ -1,5 +1,9 @@
 export declare const HOOK_NAME = "task-continuation-enforcer";
 export declare const DEFAULT_SKIP_AGENTS: string[];
+export declare const EXPLORER_AGENTS: string[];
+export declare function hasNonExplorerBgTasks(tasks: Array<{
+    agent?: string;
+}>): boolean;
 export declare const CONTINUATION_PROMPT: string;
 export declare const BOOTSTRAP_PROMPT: string;
 export declare const COUNTDOWN_SECONDS = 2;