opencode-multiagent 0.2.1 → 0.4.0

package/skills/handoff-protocols/manifest.json

@@ -2,18 +2,8 @@
   "name": "handoff-protocols",
   "version": "1.0.0",
   "description": "Guidance for safe multi-agent or multi-step handoffs",
-  "triggers": [
-    "handoff",
-    "transfer",
-    "transition",
-    "pass to",
-    "onboard"
-  ],
-  "applicable_agents": [
-    "executor",
-    "planner",
-    "worker"
-  ],
+  "triggers": ["handoff", "transfer", "transition", "pass to", "onboard"],
+  "applicable_agents": ["executor", "planner"],
   "max_context_tokens": 1500,
   "entry_file": "SKILL.md"
 }

package/skills/parallel-investigation/SKILL.md

@@ -16,8 +16,8 @@ tags:
 difficulty: advanced
 estimatedTime: 15
 relatedSkills:
-  - debugging/root-cause-analysis
-  - collaboration/handoff-protocols
+  - root-cause-analysis
+  - handoff-protocols
 ---
 
 # Parallel Investigation
@@ -58,13 +58,15 @@ Assign threads with clear ownership:
 
 ```markdown
 ## Thread A: Database Performance
+
 **Investigator:** [Name/Agent A]
 **Duration:** 30 minutes
 **Scope:**
+
 - Query execution times
 - Index utilization
 - Connection pool metrics
-**Report Format:** Summary + evidence
+  **Report Format:** Summary + evidence
 ```
 
 ### Phase 3: Parallel Execution
@@ -77,17 +79,22 @@ Each thread follows this pattern:
 4. Prepare summary for sync point
 
 **Thread Log Template:**
+
 ```markdown
 ## Thread: [Name]
+
 **Start:** [Time]
 
 ### Findings
+
 - [Timestamp] [Finding]
 
 ### Evidence
+
 - [Log/Metric/Screenshot]
 
 ### Preliminary Conclusion
+
 [What this thread suggests about the problem]
 ```
 
@@ -103,6 +110,7 @@ Sync Point Agenda:
 ```
 
 **Sync Point Decisions:**
+
 - **Continue**: Threads are progressing, maintain parallel execution
 - **Pivot**: Redirect threads based on new evidence
 - **Converge**: One thread found the answer, others join to validate
@@ -146,13 +154,13 @@ When a thread identifies the likely cause:
 
 ## Decision Framework
 
-| Thread Status | Action |
-|---------------|--------|
-| All exploring | Continue parallel |
-| One hot lead | Validate lead, others support |
-| Multiple leads | Prioritize by evidence strength |
-| All dead ends | Reframe problem, new threads |
-| Confirmed cause | Converge, begin fix |
+| Thread Status   | Action                          |
+| --------------- | ------------------------------- |
+| All exploring   | Continue parallel               |
+| One hot lead    | Validate lead, others support   |
+| Multiple leads  | Prioritize by evidence strength |
+| All dead ends   | Reframe problem, new threads    |
+| Confirmed cause | Converge, begin fix             |
 
 ## Time Management
 
@@ -176,31 +184,36 @@ Adjust sync point cadence based on incident severity — every 20 minutes for cr
 # Investigation: [Problem]
 
 ## Summary
+
 [Brief description and resolution]
 
 ## Threads Explored
 
 ### Thread A: [Area]
+
 - Investigator: [Name]
 - Findings: [Summary]
 - Outcome: [Lead / Dead End / Root Cause]
 
 ## Root Cause
+
 [Detailed explanation of what was found]
 
 ## Evidence
+
 - [Evidence 1]
 - [Evidence 2]
 
 ## Resolution
+
 [What was done to fix]
 
 ## Lessons Learned
+
 - [Learning 1]
 ```
 
 ## Integration with Other Skills
 
-- **debugging/root-cause-analysis**: Each thread follows RCA principles
-- **debugging/hypothesis-testing**: Threads test specific hypotheses
+- **root-cause-analysis**: Each thread follows RCA principles
 - **handoff-protocols**: When passing a thread to another person

package/skills/parallel-investigation/manifest.json

@@ -9,10 +9,7 @@
     "incident",
     "simultaneous debug"
   ],
-  "applicable_agents": [
-    "critic",
-    "strategist"
-  ],
+  "applicable_agents": ["planner"],
   "max_context_tokens": 2200,
   "entry_file": "SKILL.md"
 }

package/skills/reflexion-critique/SKILL.md

@@ -187,7 +187,7 @@ Be objective and consider the context of the project (size, team, constraints).
 
 **Prompt for Agent:**
 
-```
+````
 You are a Code Quality Reviewer assessing implementation quality and suggesting refactorings.
 
 ## Your Task
@@ -262,9 +262,9 @@ Project Conventions: {any known conventions from codebase}
    ...
 
 Provide specific, actionable feedback with code examples.
-```
+````
 
-**Implementation Note**: Use the Task tool with subagent_type="general-purpose" to spawn these three agents in parallel, each with their respective prompt and context.
+**Implementation Note**: Use the Task tool with subagent_type="general" to spawn these three agents in parallel, each with their respective prompt and context.
 
 ### Phase 3: Cross-Review & Debate
 
@@ -294,6 +294,7 @@ Compile all findings into a comprehensive, actionable report:
 # 🔍 Work Critique Report
 
 ## Executive Summary
+
 [2-3 sentences summarizing overall assessment]
 
 **Overall Quality Score**: X/10 (average of three judge scores)
@@ -302,11 +303,11 @@ Compile all findings into a comprehensive, actionable report:
 
 ## 📊 Judge Scores
 
-| Judge | Score | Key Finding |
-|-------|-------|-------------|
-| Requirements Validator | X/10 | [one-line summary] |
-| Solution Architect | X/10 | [one-line summary] |
-| Code Quality Reviewer | X/10 | [one-line summary] |
+| Judge                  | Score | Key Finding        |
+| ---------------------- | ----- | ------------------ |
+| Requirements Validator | X/10  | [one-line summary] |
+| Solution Architect     | X/10  | [one-line summary] |
+| Code Quality Reviewer  | X/10  | [one-line summary] |
 
 ---
 
@@ -323,6 +324,7 @@ Compile all findings into a comprehensive, actionable report:
 ## ⚠️ Issues & Gaps
 
 ### Critical Issues
+
 [Issues that need immediate attention]
 
 - **[Issue 1]**
@@ -332,12 +334,15 @@ Compile all findings into a comprehensive, actionable report:
   - Recommendation: [what to do]
 
 ### High Priority
+
 [Important but not blocking]
 
 ### Medium Priority
+
 [Nice to have improvements]
 
 ### Low Priority
+
 [Minor polish items]
 
 ---
@@ -360,6 +365,7 @@ Compile all findings into a comprehensive, actionable report:
 **Chosen Approach**: [brief description]
 
 **Alternative Approaches Considered**:
+
 1. [Alternative 1] - [Why chosen approach is better/worse]
 2. [Alternative 2] - [Why chosen approach is better/worse]
 
@@ -379,6 +385,7 @@ Compile all findings into a comprehensive, actionable report:
    - Before/After: [code examples]
 
 ### Medium Priority Refactorings
+
 [similar structure]
 
 ---
@@ -397,6 +404,7 @@ Compile all findings into a comprehensive, actionable report:
 [If applicable - where judges disagreed]
 
 **Debate 1: [Topic]**
+
 - Requirements Validator position: [summary]
 - Solution Architect position: [summary]
 - Resolution: [consensus reached or "reasonable disagreement"]
@@ -408,14 +416,17 @@ Compile all findings into a comprehensive, actionable report:
 Based on the critique, here are recommended next steps:
 
 **Must Do**:
+
 - [ ] [Critical action 1]
 - [ ] [Critical action 2]
 
 **Should Do**:
+
 - [ ] [High priority action 1]
 - [ ] [High priority action 2]
 
 **Could Do**:
+
 - [ ] [Medium priority action 1]
 - [ ] [Nice to have action 2]
 
@@ -438,8 +449,8 @@ Based on the critique, here are recommended next steps:
 
 ---
 
-*Generated using Multi-Agent Debate + LLM-as-a-Judge pattern*
-*Review Date: [timestamp]*
+_Generated using Multi-Agent Debate + LLM-as-a-Judge pattern_
+_Review Date: [timestamp]_
 ```
 
 ## Important Guidelines

package/skills/reflexion-critique/manifest.json

@@ -9,9 +9,7 @@
     "judge with debate",
     "consensus"
   ],
-  "applicable_agents": [
-    "critic"
-  ],
+  "applicable_agents": ["planner"],
   "max_context_tokens": 2400,
   "entry_file": "SKILL.md"
 }

package/skills/reflexion-reflect/SKILL.md

@@ -1,12 +1,12 @@
 ---
 name: reflexion-reflect
-description: Reflect on previus response and output, based on Self-refinement framework for iterative improvement with complexity triage and verification
+description: Reflect on previous response and output, based on Self-refinement framework for iterative improvement with complexity triage and verification
 argument-hint: Optional focus area or confidence threshold to use, for example "security" or "deep reflect if less than 90% confidence"
 ---
 
 # Self-Refinement and Iterative Improvement Framework
 
-Reflect on previus response and output.
+Reflect on previous response and output.
 
 ## Your Identity (NON-NEGOTIABLE)
 
@@ -82,15 +82,13 @@ Before proceeding, evaluate your most recent output against these criteria:
    - [ ] Are there edge cases that haven't been considered?
    - [ ] Could there be unintended side effects?
 
-4. **Dependency & Impact Verification** 
+4. **Dependency & Impact Verification**
    - [ ] For ANY proposed addition/deletion/modification, have you checked for dependencies?
    - [ ] Have you searched for related decisions that may be superseded or supersede this?
    - [ ] Have you checked the configuration or docs (for example AUTHORITATIVE.yaml) for active evaluations or status?
    - [ ] Have you searched the ecosystem for files/processes that depend on items being changed?
    - [ ] If recommending removal of anything, have you verified nothing depends on it?
 
-
-
    **HARD RULE:** If ANY check reveals active dependencies, evaluations, or pending decisions, FLAG THIS IN THE EVALUATION. Do not approve work that recommends changes without dependency verification.
 
 5. **Fact-Checking Required**
@@ -202,7 +200,7 @@ When the output involves code, additionally evaluate:
 // utils/dateFormatter.js
 function formatDate(date) {
   const d = new Date(date);
-  return `${d.getMonth()+1}/${d.getDate()}/${d.getFullYear()}`;
+  return `${d.getMonth() + 1}/${d.getDate()}/${d.getFullYear()}`;
 }
 ```
 
@@ -366,7 +364,7 @@ const formatted = format(new Date(), 'MM/dd/yyyy');
 
 1. Search for benchmark or documentation comparing both approaches
 2. Provide algorithmic analysis
-**Corrected Statement**: "Map performs better for large collections (10K+ items), while Object is more efficient for small sets (<100 items)"
+   **Corrected Statement**: "Map performs better for large collections (10K+ items), while Object is more efficient for small sets (<100 items)"
 
 ## NON-CODE OUTPUT REFLECTION
 
@@ -405,31 +403,35 @@ For documentation, explanations, and analysis outputs:
 ## Detailed Analysis
 
 ### [Criterion 1 Name] (Weight: 0.XX)
+
 **Practical Check**: [If applicable - what you verified with tools]
 **Analysis**: [Explain how evidence maps to rubric level]
 **Score**: X/5
 **Improvement**: [Specific suggestion if score < 5]
 
 #### Evidences
+
 [Specific quotes/references]
 
 ### [Criterion 2 Name] (Weight: 0.XX)
+
 [Repeat pattern...]
 
 ## Score Summary
 
-| Criterion | Score | Weight | Weighted |
-|-----------|-------|--------|----------|
-| Instruction Following | X/5 | 0.30 | X.XX |
-| Output Completeness | X/5 | 0.25 | X.XX |
-| Solution Quality | X/5 | 0.25 | X.XX |
-| Reasoning Quality | X/5 | 0.10 | X.XX |
-| Response Coherence | X/5 | 0.10 | X.XX |
-| **Weighted Total** | | | **X.XX/5.0** |
+| Criterion             | Score | Weight | Weighted     |
+| --------------------- | ----- | ------ | ------------ |
+| Instruction Following | X/5   | 0.30   | X.XX         |
+| Output Completeness   | X/5   | 0.25   | X.XX         |
+| Solution Quality      | X/5   | 0.25   | X.XX         |
+| Reasoning Quality     | X/5   | 0.10   | X.XX         |
+| Response Coherence    | X/5   | 0.10   | X.XX         |
+| **Weighted Total**    |       |        | **X.XX/5.0** |
 
 ## Self-Verification
 
 **Questions Asked**:
+
 1. [Question 1]
 2. [Question 2]
 3. [Question 3]
@@ -437,6 +439,7 @@ For documentation, explanations, and analysis outputs:
 5. [Question 5]
 
 **Answers**:
+
 1. [Answer 1]
 2. [Answer 2]
 3. [Answer 3]
@@ -448,28 +451,27 @@ For documentation, explanations, and analysis outputs:
 ## Confidence Assessment
 
 **Confidence Factors**:
+
 - Evidence strength: [Strong / Moderate / Weak]
 - Criterion clarity: [Clear / Ambiguous]
 - Edge cases: [Handled / Some uncertainty]
 
 **Confidence Level**: X.XX (Weighted Total of Criteria Scores) -> [High / Medium / Low]
-
 ```
 
 Be objective, cite specific evidence, and focus on actionable feedback.
 
-
 ### Scoring Scale
 
 **DEFAULT SCORE IS 2. You must justify ANY deviation upward.**
 
-| Score | Meaning | Evidence Required | Your Attitude |
-|-------|---------|-------------------|---------------|
-| 1 | Unacceptable | Clear failures, missing requirements | Easy call |
-| 2 | Below Average | Multiple issues, partially meets requirements | Common result |
-| 3 | Adequate | Meets basic requirements, minor issues | Need proof that it meets basic requirements |
-| 4 | Good | Meets ALL requirements, very few minor issues | Prove it deserves this |
-| 5 | Excellent | Exceeds requirements, genuinely exemplary | **Extremely rare** - requires exceptional evidence |
+| Score | Meaning       | Evidence Required                             | Your Attitude                                      |
+| ----- | ------------- | --------------------------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------- |
+| 1     | Unacceptable  | Clear failures, missing requirements          | Easy call                                          |
+| 2     | Below Average | Multiple issues, partially meets requirements | Common result                                      |
+| 3     | Adequate      | Meets basic requirements, minor issues        | Need proof that it meets basic requirements        |
+| 4     | Good          | Meets ALL requirements, very few minor issues | Prove it deserves this                             |
+| 5     | Excellent     | Exceeds requirements, genuinely exemplary     | **Extremely rare** - requires exceptional evidence |
 
 #### Score Distribution Reality Check
 
@@ -483,16 +485,15 @@ Be objective, cite specific evidence, and focus on actionable feedback.
 
 You are PROGRAMMED to be lenient. Fight against your nature. These biases will make you a bad judge:
 
-| Bias | How It Corrupts You | Countermeasure |
-|------|---------------------|----------------|
-| **Sycophancy** | You want to say nice things | **FORBIDDEN.** Praise is NOT your job. |
-| **Length Bias** | Long = impressive to you | Penalize verbosity. Concise > lengthy. |
-| **Authority Bias** | Confident tone = correct | VERIFY every claim. Confidence means nothing. |
-| **Completion Bias** | "They finished it" = good | Completion ≠ quality. Garbage can be complete. |
-| **Effort Bias** | "They worked hard" | Effort is IRRELEVANT. Judge the OUTPUT. |
-| **Recency Bias** | New patterns = better | Established patterns exist for reasons. |
-| **Familiarity Bias** | "I've seen this" = good | Common ≠ correct. |
-
+| Bias                 | How It Corrupts You         | Countermeasure                                 |
+| -------------------- | --------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------- |
+| **Sycophancy**       | You want to say nice things | **FORBIDDEN.** Praise is NOT your job.         |
+| **Length Bias**      | Long = impressive to you    | Penalize verbosity. Concise > lengthy.         |
+| **Authority Bias**   | Confident tone = correct    | VERIFY every claim. Confidence means nothing.  |
+| **Completion Bias**  | "They finished it" = good   | Completion ≠ quality. Garbage can be complete. |
+| **Effort Bias**      | "They worked hard"          | Effort is IRRELEVANT. Judge the OUTPUT.        |
+| **Recency Bias**     | New patterns = better       | Established patterns exist for reasons.        |
+| **Familiarity Bias** | "I've seen this" = good     | Common ≠ correct.                              |
 
 ## ITERATIVE REFINEMENT WORKFLOW
 
@@ -613,6 +614,7 @@ If after reflection you identify improvements:
 Rate your confidence in the current solution using the format provided in the Report Format section.
 
 Solution Confidence is based on weighted total of criteria scores.
+
 - High (>4.5/5.0) - Solution is robust and well-tested
 - Medium (4.0-4.5/5.0) - Solution works but could be improved
 - Low (<4.0/5.0) - Significant improvements needed

package/skills/reflexion-reflect/manifest.json

@@ -2,16 +2,8 @@
   "name": "reflexion-reflect",
   "version": "1.0.0",
   "description": "Self-reflection workflow for iterating on previous outputs and plans",
-  "triggers": [
-    "reflect",
-    "self refine",
-    "iterate",
-    "improve previous answer",
-    "reflection"
-  ],
-  "applicable_agents": [
-    "critic"
-  ],
+  "triggers": ["reflect", "self refine", "iterate", "improve previous answer", "reflection"],
+  "applicable_agents": ["planner"],
   "max_context_tokens": 2400,
   "entry_file": "SKILL.md"
 }

package/skills/root-cause-analysis/manifest.json

@@ -2,19 +2,8 @@
   "name": "root-cause-analysis",
   "version": "1.0.0",
   "description": "Trace failures to the real cause before changing code",
-  "triggers": [
-    "debug",
-    "error",
-    "fix",
-    "issue",
-    "root cause",
-    "investigate"
-  ],
-  "applicable_agents": [
-    "worker",
-    "heavy-worker",
-    "deep-worker"
-  ],
+  "triggers": ["debug", "error", "fix", "issue", "root cause", "investigate"],
+  "applicable_agents": ["sec-coder", "planner", "scout"],
   "max_context_tokens": 1500,
   "entry_file": "SKILL.md"
 }