opencodekit 0.23.3 → 0.23.4

package/dist/template/.opencode/command/pr.md

@@ -1,148 +0,0 @@
----
-description: Create and submit a pull request
-argument-hint: "[--draft]"
-agent: build
----
-
-# Pull Request
-
-## Load Skills
-
-```typescript
-skill({ name: "verification-before-completion" });
-```
-
-## Parse Arguments
-
-| Argument  | Default | Description        |
-| --------- | ------- | ------------------ |
-| `--draft` | false   | Create as draft PR |
-
-## Phase 1: Pre-PR Verification
-
-```bash
-git status --porcelain
-```
-
-If uncommitted changes exist, ask whether to commit first.
-
-All gates must pass before creating the PR.
-
-Check `package.json` scripts, `Makefile`, or `justfile` for project-specific commands first — prefer those over generic defaults.
-
-If any gate fails, stop. Fix errors first, then run `/pr` again.
-
-## Phase 2: Gather Context
-
-### Memory Grounding
-
-Search memory for relevant findings to include in the PR description.
-
-### Git Context
-
-```bash
-git branch --show-current
-git log main...HEAD --oneline
-git diff main...HEAD --stat
-```
-
-Read `.opencode/artifacts/$(cat .opencode/artifacts/.active)/spec.md` to extract goal and success criteria for the PR description.
-
-## Phase 2B: Pre-PR Review
-
-This is the last gate before code hits GitHub. Run it every time.
-
-Run **5 parallel agents** for review: security/correctness, performance/architecture, type-safety/tests, conventions/patterns, simplicity/completeness.
-
-```bash
-BASE_SHA=$(git rev-parse origin/main 2>/dev/null || git merge-base HEAD origin/main)
-HEAD_SHA=$(git rev-parse HEAD)
-```
-
-Fill placeholders:
-
-- `{WHAT_WAS_IMPLEMENTED}`: what this PR delivers (from git log summary)
-- `{PLAN_OR_REQUIREMENTS}`: PRD path or brief requirements
-- `{BASE_SHA}` / `{HEAD_SHA}`: from above
-
-**Gate rule:** All Critical issues must be resolved before pushing. No exceptions.
-Important issues: fix or document as known limitation in PR body.
-
-After fixing issues, re-run verification gates from Phase 1 if code was changed.
-
-## Phase 3: Push and Confirm
-
-Show what will be pushed and ask the user:
-
-```typescript
-question({
-  questions: [
-    {
-      header: "Push",
-      question: "Ready to push and create PR. Proceed?",
-      options: [
-        { label: "Push & create PR (Recommended)", description: "Push branch and create PR" },
-        { label: "Push & draft PR", description: "Create as draft for review" },
-        { label: "Show diff first", description: "Review changes before pushing" },
-      ],
-    },
-  ],
-});
-```
-
-If confirmed:
-
-```bash
-git push -u origin $(git branch --show-current)
-```
-
-## Phase 4: Create PR
-
-```bash
-# Verify gh CLI is installed
-command -v gh >/dev/null 2>&1 || { echo "Error: gh CLI not found. Install: https://cli.github.com"; exit 1; }
-
-gh pr create --title "<title>" --body "$(cat <<'EOF'
-## Summary
-
-[1-2 sentences: what this PR does and why]
-
-## Changes
-
-- `file.ts`: [what changed]
-- `other.ts`: [what changed]
-
-## Testing
-
-- All tests pass
-- Lint and typecheck pass
-- Manual verification: [how to test]
-
-## Checklist
-
-- [x] Tests added/updated
-- [x] All gates pass
-- [ ] Docs updated (if applicable)
-EOF
-)"
-```
-
-If `--draft`, add `--draft` flag.
-
-Add a link to `.opencode/artifacts/$(cat .opencode/artifacts/.active)/spec.md` for requirements context.
-
-## Output
-
-Report:
-
-1. PR URL
-2. Status (Ready for Review / Draft)
-3. Branch → main
-4. Gate results
-
-## Related Commands
-
-| Need         | Command        |
-| ------------ | -------------- |
-| Ship first   | `/ship <id>`   |
-| Verify first | `/verify <id>` |

package/dist/template/.opencode/command/refactor.md

@@ -1,65 +0,0 @@
----
-description: Refactor code for clarity, performance, or maintainability
-argument-hint: "<file or path> [--scope minimal|moderate|aggressive]"
-agent: build
----
-
-# Refactor: $ARGUMENTS
-
-Improve code quality without changing external behavior.
-
-## Load Skills
-
-```typescript
-skill({ name: "verification-before-completion" });
-```
-
-## Parse Arguments
-
-| Argument | Default | Description |
-|---|---|---|
-| `<file or path>` | required | File or directory to refactor |
-| `--scope` | minimal | `minimal` (rename/restructure), `moderate` (extract modules), `aggressive` (redesign) |
-
-## When to Refactor
-
-- Module has grown beyond its original purpose
-- Tests are hard to write because of tight coupling
-- Similar logic appears in multiple places
-- Files have crossed 300+ lines with unclear boundaries
-
-## Process
-
-### Phase 1: Assess
-
-1. Read all files in scope
-2. Identify: duplication, shallow interfaces, unclear naming, mixed concerns
-3. Plan the refactor — show plan if >3 files would change
-
-### Phase 2: Lock Behavior
-
-- If the module has tests, they must still pass after refactor
-- If no tests exist, run existing verification (typecheck, lint)
-- No behavior changes in a refactor — external API must be preserved
-
-### Phase 3: Execute
-
-- One change at a time, verify after each
-- Prefer small commits with clear messages
-- `refactor(scope): what changed`
-
-### Phase 4: Verify
-
-```bash
-npm run typecheck
-npm run lint
-npm test
-```
-
-## Output
-
-Report:
-1. What changed and why
-2. Files modified
-3. Verification results
-4. What was left for future refactors

package/dist/template/.opencode/command/review-codebase.md

@@ -1,128 +0,0 @@
----
-description: Review code for quality, security, and compliance
-argument-hint: "[path|pr-number|'all'] [--quick|--thorough]"
-agent: review
----
-
-# Review: $ARGUMENTS
-
-## Determine Input Type
-
-| Input Type            | Detection                    | Action                     |
-| --------------------- | ---------------------------- | -------------------------- |
-| No arguments          | Default                      | Review uncommitted changes |
-| Commit hash (40-char) | SHA pattern                  | `git show <hash>`          |
-| Branch name           | String, not matching above   | `git diff main...HEAD`     |
-| PR URL/number         | Contains "github.com" or "#" | `gh pr diff`               |
-| Current plan          | `.opencode/artifacts/$(cat .opencode/artifacts/.active)/spec.md`    | Review against spec        |
-
-## Before You Review
-
-- **Be certain**: Only flag issues you can verify with tools
-- **Don't invent problems**: If an edge case isn't specified, don't flag it
-- **Don't be a zealot about style**: Unless it violates project conventions, don't flag
-- **Review the changes**: Don't review pre-existing code that wasn't modified
-- **Investigate first**: If unsure, use explore/scout agents before flagging
-
-## Available Tools
-
-| Tool                 | Use When                                |
-| -------------------- | --------------------------------------- |
-| `explore`            | Finding patterns in codebase, prior art |
-| `scout`              | External research, best practices       |
-| `lsp`                | Finding symbol definitions, references  |
-| `srcwalk find`       | Finding code patterns                   |
-| `codesearch`         | Real-world usage examples               |
-
-## Phase 1: Gather Context
-
-```bash
-git status --short
-git diff --cached  # staged
-git diff           # unstaged
-```
-
-For each changed file:
-
-- Read the full file to understand context
-- Don't rely on diff alone — code that looks wrong in isolation may be correct
-
-If plan exists, read `.opencode/artifacts/$(cat .opencode/artifacts/.active)/spec.md` to review against spec.
-
-## Phase 2: Determine Scope
-
-| Input                    | Scope                 | How to Get Code           |
-| ------------------------ | --------------------- | ------------------------- |
-| File/directory path      | That path only        | `read` or `glob` + `read` |
-| Current plan             | Implementation vs spec | Read `.opencode/artifacts/$(cat .opencode/artifacts/.active)/spec.md` then `git diff` |
-| PR number (e.g., `#45`)  | PR changes            | `gh pr diff 45`           |
-| `all` or empty           | Recent changes        | `git diff main...HEAD`    |
-
-If plan exists, read `.opencode/artifacts/$(cat .opencode/artifacts/.active)/spec.md` to review against spec.
-
-## Phase 3: Automated Checks
-
-Use the `verification-before-completion` skill to run gates.
-
-Check `package.json` scripts, `Makefile`, or `justfile` for project-specific commands first — prefer those over generic defaults.
-
-Also scan for common issues appropriate to the detected language:
-
-- Debug statements (`console.log`, `print()`, `println!`, `fmt.Println`)
-- Loose typing (`any` in TypeScript, `type: ignore` in Python)
-- `TODO|FIXME|HACK` markers
-- Hardcoded secrets patterns
-
-## Phase 4: Manual Review
-
-Review each category:
-
-| Category            | Focus                                                                   |
-| ------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------- |
-| **Security**        | Auth checks, input validation, no secrets in code, injection prevention |
-| **Performance**     | N+1 queries, unbounded loops, missing pagination, hot path ops          |
-| **Maintainability** | Complexity, DRY violations, dead code, naming clarity                   |
-| **Error Handling**  | Async error handling, error context, sanitized user errors              |
-| **Testing**         | Coverage on changed code, behavior tests, edge cases                    |
-| **Type Safety**     | No unjustified `any`, null handling, explicit return types              |
-
-**Depth levels:**
-
-- `--quick`: Automated checks + skim, critical issues only
-- Default: Full automated + manual review
-- `--thorough`: Deep analysis of all categories
-
-## Phase 5: Report
-
-Group findings by severity:
-
-- **Critical** (must fix before merge): with file:line, issue, fix
-- **Important** (should fix): with file:line, issue, fix
-- **Minor** (nice to have): with file:line, suggestion
-
-Include:
-
-1. Summary metrics (files reviewed, issues by severity)
-2. Strengths (what's done well, with file:line)
-3. Verdict: Ready to merge / With fixes / No
-4. Reasoning (1-2 sentences)
-
-Record significant findings with `observation()`:
-
-```typescript
-observation({
-  type: "discovery", // or "warning", "pattern", "bugfix"
-  title: "Review: [scope] [key finding]",
-  narrative: "[What was found, severity, file:line, recommended fix]",
-  concepts: "code-review, [category]",
-  confidence: "high",
-});
-```
-
-## Related Commands
-
-| Need                | Command        |
-| ------------------- | -------------- |
-| Ship after review   | `/ship <id>`   |
-| Verify completeness | `/verify <id>` |
-| Check status        | `/status`      |

package/dist/template/.opencode/command/test.md

@@ -1,66 +0,0 @@
----
-description: Write or generate tests for code
-argument-hint: "<file or function> [--unit|--integration|--e2e]"
-agent: build
----
-
-# Test: $ARGUMENTS
-
-Write or generate tests for the specified code.
-
-## Load Skills
-
-```typescript
-skill({ name: "test-driven-development" });
-skill({ name: "testing-anti-patterns" });
-skill({ name: "verification-before-completion" });
-```
-
-## Parse Arguments
-
-| Argument | Default | Description |
-|---|---|---|
-| `<file or function>` | required | File path or function name to test |
-| `--unit` | auto | Unit test (default for utils, helpers) |
-| `--integration` | false | Integration test (default for API, DB) |
-| `--e2e` | false | End-to-end test (requires full setup) |
-
-## Process
-
-### Phase 1: Understand
-
-1. Read the file and understand the function/module contract
-2. Identify: inputs, outputs, side effects, error states, edge cases
-3. Check existing tests for patterns and structure
-
-### Phase 2: Write Tests
-
-Cover:
-- Happy path (expected input → expected output)
-- Edge cases (empty, null, boundary values)
-- Error states (invalid input, missing dependencies)
-- Contract invariants (what must always be true)
-
-Follow the existing test patterns in the project. If none exist, check `vitest.config.ts`.
-
-### Phase 3: Run and Verify
-
-```bash
-vitest <path>  # or npm test
-```
-
-TDD if writing implementation simultaneously: RED → GREEN → REFACTOR.
-
-## Anti-Patterns
-
-- Testing implementation details instead of behavior
-- Mocking without understanding the real dependency
-- Test-only code in production files (exporting internals just for tests)
-- Brittle assertions (matching full objects when partial match suffices)
-
-## Output
-
-Report:
-1. Tests written
-2. Coverage summary
-3. Verification results

package/dist/template/.opencode/command/ui-review.md

@@ -1,109 +0,0 @@
----
-description: Review UI/UX design for quality, aesthetics, and best practices
-argument-hint: "<image-or-component-path> [--responsive] [--dark-mode]"
-agent: vision
-model: proxypal/gemini-3-pro-preview
----
-
-# UI Review: $ARGUMENTS
-
-## Load Skills
-
-```typescript
-skill({ name: "accessibility-audit" }); // WCAG checklists
-skill({ name: "frontend-design" }); // Anti-patterns, design quality
-```
-
-## Input
-
-Parse `$ARGUMENTS`:
-
-- **Path** (required): Image, screenshot, or component file
-- **`--responsive`**: Include responsive breakpoint review
-- **`--dark-mode`**: Include dark mode review
-
-## Review Workflow
-
-### 1. Analyze the Input
-
-Analyze the input:
-
-- Content inventory (elements, text, icons)
-- Visual properties (colors, typography, spacing, layout)
-- Design patterns and potential issues
-
-### 2. Usability Heuristic Pass
-
-Before visual scoring, check:
-
-- System status is visible for async or multi-step work
-- Labels and navigation use user vocabulary, not implementation terms
-- Users can cancel, undo, go back, retry, or recover from failure
-- Controls, names, and layouts are consistent across the surface
-- Dangerous or invalid actions are prevented before they happen
-- Options and relationships are visible without relying on memory
-- High-volume workflows expose efficient paths where appropriate
-- Empty/loading/error/success states are present and useful
-
-Any failure that blocks task completion or recovery is **Critical**, even if the screen looks polished.
-
-### 3. Score Categories
-
-Rate each 1-10 with brief justification:
-
-| Category                          | What to Evaluate                                               |
-| --------------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------- |
-| **Information Architecture**      | User vocabulary, scope clarity, relationships, navigation      |
-| **Task Flow & Recovery**          | Primary action, cancellation, undo/retry, error recovery       |
-| **Forms & Data Interaction**      | Labels, helper text, validation, selection, bulk actions       |
-| **Typography**                    | Hierarchy, readability, weight contrast, intentional choices   |
-| **Color**                         | Palette cohesion, contrast, semantic usage, no AI slop         |
-| **Layout & Spacing**              | Visual hierarchy, consistency, alignment, white space          |
-| **Interactive States**            | Hover, focus, active, disabled, loading/error/success coverage |
-| **Accessibility & Semantic HTML** | WCAG AA compliance, native semantics, keyboard/focus behavior  |
-| **Component Consistency**         | Shared token DNA: radius, height, border, shadow, states       |
-| **Visual Polish**                 | Consistency, attention to detail, motion, shadows, icons       |
-
-### 4. Conditional Reviews
-
-**If `--responsive`**: Check at 375px, 768px, 1280px, 1536px+. Flag touch targets, horizontal scroll, text sizing.
-
-**If `--dark-mode`**: Check contrast on dark backgrounds, adapted colors (not just inverted), shadow adjustments, focus visibility.
-
-### 5. Report Findings
-
-Group by severity:
-
-- **Critical (Must Fix)**: Accessibility failures, broken interactions, dead-end errors, unsafe destructive actions
-- **Warning (Should Fix)**: AI slop patterns, inconsistent spacing, missing states, confusing IA/naming
-- **Info (Nice to Have)**: Polish opportunities
-
-For each finding: location, impact, and recommended fix.
-
-## Output
-
-Deliver:
-
-1. Category scores (1-10 each) with justification
-2. Overall assessment (1-2 sentences)
-3. Findings grouped by severity with actionable fixes
-4. Code fixes for critical issues (if reviewing component code)
-
-## Record Findings
-
-```typescript
-observation({
-  type: "warning",
-  title: "UI: [Component] [issue type]",
-  narrative: "Found [issue] in [location]. Impact: [description]...",
-  concepts: "ui, accessibility, [category]",
-  confidence: "high",
-});
-```
-
-## Related Commands
-
-| Need                | Command   |
-| ------------------- | --------- |
-| Design from scratch | `/design` |
-| Ship implementation | `/ship`   |

package/dist/template/.opencode/opencodex-fast.jsonc

@@ -1,3 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "enabled": false
-}

package/dist/template/.opencode/plugin/rtk.ts

@@ -1,43 +0,0 @@
-import type { Plugin } from "@opencode-ai/plugin";
-
-// RTK OpenCode plugin — rewrites commands to use rtk for token savings.
-// Requires: rtk >= 0.23.0 in PATH.
-//
-// This is a thin delegating plugin: all rewrite logic lives in `rtk rewrite`,
-// which is the single source of truth (src/discover/registry.rs).
-// To add or change rewrite rules, edit the Rust registry — not this file.
-
-export const RtkOpenCodePlugin: Plugin = async ({ $ }) => {
-	try {
-		await $`which rtk`.quiet();
-	} catch {
-		console.warn("[rtk] rtk binary not found in PATH — plugin disabled");
-		return {};
-	}
-
-	return {
-		"tool.execute.before": async (input, output) => {
-			const tool = String(input?.tool ?? "").toLowerCase();
-			if (tool !== "bash" && tool !== "shell") return;
-			const args = output?.args;
-			if (!args || typeof args !== "object") return;
-
-			const command = (args as Record<string, unknown>).command;
-			if (typeof command !== "string" || !command) return;
-			// This config is symlinked as both global and project OpenCode config.
-			// OpenCode may load this plugin twice in that layout, so avoid rewriting
-			// commands that have already been routed through rtk.
-			if (/^\s*(?:RTK_[A-Z_]+=\S+\s+)*rtk\b/.test(command)) return;
-
-			try {
-				const result = await $`rtk rewrite ${command}`.quiet().nothrow();
-				const rewritten = String(result.stdout).trim();
-				if (rewritten && rewritten !== command) {
-					(args as Record<string, unknown>).command = rewritten;
-				}
-			} catch {
-				// rtk rewrite failed — pass through unchanged
-			}
-		},
-	};
-};