pi-soly 2.4.1 → 2.5.0

package/index.ts

@@ -551,7 +551,7 @@ export default function solyExtension(pi: ExtensionAPI) {
 		// ChromeData each tick, resolves the registered adapter, writes
 		// quotaPercent/quotaResetsLabel back for the footer to render).
 		if (quotaPoller) quotaPoller.stop();
-		quotaPoller = startQuotaPoller(chrome.data, () => getActiveConfig().chrome.enabled);
+		quotaPoller = startQuotaPoller(chrome.data, () => getActiveConfig().chrome.enabled, () => chrome.poke());
 		// Editors save in bursts (write to .tmp, rename, touch). Coalesce
 		// those rapid reload events into a single sub-line event under the
 		// Working indicator (└─ reloaded 47 rules). Errors here are real

package/package.json

@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 {
   "name": "pi-soly",
-  "version": "2.4.1",
+  "version": "2.5.0",
   "description": "Workflow + project management for pi-coding-agent. Plans, state, MANDATORY rules, self-review, multi-question picker. One npm install, zero config. LLM drives the workflow inline via the soly_workflow tool — no external subagent plugin.",
   "type": "module",
   "main": "index.ts",

package/quota/poller.ts

@@ -39,10 +39,14 @@ export type QuotaPoller = {
  *
  *  @param data - the shared ChromeData (mutated in place with quota fields)
  *  @param isEnabled - gate; return false to skip polling (e.g. chrome disabled)
+ *  @param onUpdate - called after each successful write to ChromeData, so the
+ *    caller can trigger a footer re-render (pi doesn't auto-render when a
+ *    background timer mutates data — only on token ticks / user input).
  *  @param intervalMs - override poll interval (default 60_000); for tests */
 export function startQuotaPoller(
 	data: ChromeData,
 	isEnabled: () => boolean,
+	onUpdate: () => void,
 	intervalMs: number = POLL_INTERVAL_MS,
 ): QuotaPoller {
 	let stopped = false;
@@ -79,6 +83,7 @@ export function startQuotaPoller(
 		if (snapshot) {
 			data.quotaPercent = snapshot.remainingPercent;
 			data.quotaResetsLabel = snapshot.resetsInMs !== null ? formatReset(snapshot.resetsInMs) : null;
+			onUpdate();
 		}
 		// On null (fetch failed), keep the previous snapshot — don't clear.
 		scheduleNext();

package/skills/agent-coach/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,250 @@
+---
+name: agent-coach
+description: Use when the user complains about how the agent wrote code or behaves — phrases like "переделай X по-другому", "мне не нравится что agent делает Y", "почему опять Z", "не делай так", "agent keeps doing X", "I don't like the agent doing X", "заставь agent-а не делать X", "опять этот god switch". Analyzes the complaint, identifies the missing rule that would have prevented it, and proposes a soly rule draft (.agents/rules/*.md) for the user to confirm via ask_pro. Language-agnostic — works for any codebase. NOT for C#/.NET analyzer rules (use analyzer-coach for that).
+priority: high
+---
+
+# agent-coach
+
+Convert a user complaint about agent behavior into a **soly rule** — a
+markdown instruction file in `.agents/rules/` that goes into the system
+prompt and prevents the agent from repeating the mistake.
+
+The feedback loop: user corrects → rule persists → agent doesn't repeat.
+Each complaint is a signal that a rule is **missing** (or exists but the
+agent ignored it — investigate which).
+
+## When to use me
+
+| Symptom in user's message | Use this skill? |
+|---|---|
+| "переделай X по-другому" / "redo X differently" | **Yes** |
+| "мне не нравится что agent делает Y" / "I don't like the agent doing Y" | **Yes** |
+| "почему опять Z" / "why does it keep doing Z" | **Yes** |
+| "не делай так" / "don't do that" | **Yes** |
+| "agent keeps doing X" / "заставь agent-а не делать X" | **Yes** |
+| Complaint about code style, naming, structure, approach | **Yes** |
+| C#/.NET style complaint (Roslynator/Meziantou/CA-*) | **No** — use `analyzer-coach` |
+| Formatting (indent, EOL, trailing whitespace) | **No** — `.editorconfig` |
+| Code style a linter can check (eslint/biome/prettier) | **No** — linter config |
+| Logic bug in the code | **No** — tests |
+| "this rule fires too much" | **Yes, but inverted** — the rule should go, not be added |
+
+## Mental model
+
+A complaint means the agent did X, and the user wanted Y. The rule's job is
+to make the agent do Y next time **without the user having to say it**.
+
+**Good rule:** "Use `cancellationToken` not `ct` for C# cancellation tokens.
+The short form is ambiguous in logs and stack traces." → Prevents the mistake.
+
+**Bad rule:** "Don't write bad code." → Too vague, not actionable, ignored.
+
+The rule must be **specific enough to act on** and **general enough to
+recurring**. One complaint → one rule about the pattern, not about the
+specific instance.
+
+## Workflow (always follow these steps in order)
+
+### Step 1 — Read the complaint + the code
+
+Before analyzing, **read**:
+- The user's complaint (what specifically bothers them — extract the
+  concrete behavior, not the emotion)
+- The code the agent wrote (the file(s) that triggered the complaint) —
+  use `read` / `soly_snippet`
+- The conversation context (what was the agent trying to do?)
+
+**Extract the pattern.** "переделай god switch по-другому" is about a
+specific instance, but the underlying pattern might be:
+- "Don't create God classes/switches" (architecture)
+- "Prefer polymorphism over giant switch statements" (design pattern)
+- "Split switches with >5 cases into a dispatch table" (specific threshold)
+
+Ask yourself: **what general principle, if the agent had known it, would
+have prevented this?**
+
+### Step 2 — Check existing rules (dedup)
+
+Before proposing, **read existing rules** to avoid duplication:
+- Use `soly_doc_search` with keywords from the complaint
+- Or `/rules list` to see all rule files
+- Or `soly_snippet` on `.agents/rules/*.md` files
+
+If a rule already covers this but the agent ignored it:
+- The rule may be too vague → propose **strengthening** it (edit, not new)
+- The rule may not apply to the file's glob → propose adding globs
+- The agent may have genuinely missed it → don't create a duplicate
+
+If no rule covers it → proceed to Step 3.
+
+### Step 3 — Categorize
+
+Pick **one** category (auto-detect from the complaint content):
+
+| Category | Path | Complaint is about |
+|---|---|---|
+| `coding` | `.agents/rules/coding/` | Code style, patterns, idioms, language conventions |
+| `architecture` | `.agents/rules/architecture/` | Structure, layering, coupling, dependencies |
+| `process` | `.agents/rules/process/` | Workflow, git hygiene, commit format, review process |
+| `testing` | `.agents/rules/testing/` | Test structure, coverage, naming, fixtures |
+| `naming` | `.agents/rules/naming/` | Identifier names, file names, conventions |
+
+If unsure, default to `coding/` — it's the catch-all for code-level rules.
+
+If the category directory doesn't exist, the `write` tool creates it
+automatically (it creates parent directories).
+
+### Step 4 — Draft the rule
+
+Write the rule in **soly rule format**. Structure:
+
+```markdown
+---
+description: "[one-line summary — what this rule enforces]"
+globs: ["**/*.ts", "**/*.tsx"]  # optional: file patterns this applies to
+priority: high  # high | medium | low (default medium)
+---
+
+# [Rule Name]
+
+> **[One-line imperative.]** [Why it matters — the cost of violating.]
+
+## The rule
+
+[Concrete, actionable instruction. "Do X" not "consider X".
+Reference the specific pattern. Include a threshold if applicable.]
+
+[✓ Good example — code block showing the right way]
+[✗ Bad example — code block showing what to avoid]
+
+## Why
+
+[The reasoning. Why does the user care? What goes wrong without this rule?
+This section is what convinces the LLM to follow it, not just obey it.]
+
+## Self-audit grep  # optional — only for grep-checkable rules
+
+[If the violation is detectable by grep/rg, include a command the agent
+can run to self-check. Skip for behavioral/process rules.]
+```
+
+**Writing principles:**
+- **Imperative mood:** "Use X" not "You should use X" or "X is preferred"
+- **Concrete threshold:** "Functions under 50 lines" not "Keep functions short"
+- **Show both sides:** ✓ good + ✗ bad code blocks make it unambiguous
+- **Explain why:** the "## Why" section is what makes the LLM internalize it
+- **No filler:** every line earns its place; rules eat system prompt budget
+
+### Step 5 — Propose via ask_pro
+
+**Do not write the file yet.** Show the draft to the user via `ask_pro`:
+
+```
+ask_pro({
+  questions: [{
+    header: "New rule",
+    question: "Create this rule to prevent the agent from repeating the issue?",
+    options: [
+      {
+        label: "Create rule",
+        description: "Write to .agents/rules/[category]/[name].md",
+        recommended: true,
+        preview: "<the full draft markdown in a fenced code block>"
+      },
+      {
+        label: "Edit existing",
+        description: "A similar rule exists — strengthen it instead",
+        preview: "<diff showing what to add>"
+      },
+      {
+        label: "Skip",
+        description: "Don't create a rule — just fix the code this time"
+      }
+    ]
+  }]
+})
+```
+
+The `preview` field is key — it shows the user exactly what they're approving
+in a side panel, formatted as code.
+
+### Step 6 — Write (if confirmed)
+
+If the user confirms "Create rule":
+1. Use `write` to create the file at the chosen path
+2. The hot-reload watcher picks it up automatically — no `/rules reload` needed
+3. Emit a confirmation via `emit()` (if in soly context) or just tell the user
+
+**File naming:** `kebab-case.md`, descriptive. `no-god-switches.md` not
+`rule1.md` or `architecture-rule.md`.
+
+## Anti-patterns (don't do these)
+
+- ❌ **Don't create a rule for a one-off.** If the issue is specific to one
+  file and unlikely to recur, just fix the code. Rules are for patterns.
+- ❌ **Don't create vague rules.** "Write clean code" is useless. "Functions
+  under 50 lines, extract helpers" is useful.
+- ❌ **Don't duplicate linters.** If eslint/biome/prettier can enforce it,
+  point the user there instead. Use `/rulewizard` to decide.
+- ❌ **Don't skip the "## Why" section.** Without reasoning, the LLM treats
+  the rule as arbitrary and may argue with it.
+- ❌ **Don't auto-write without confirmation.** The user may want to rephrase,
+  recategorize, or decide it's not rule-worthy. Always ask_pro first.
+- ❌ **Don't create multiple rules from one complaint.** One complaint → one
+  rule about the underlying pattern. Not five rules about symptoms.
+
+## Integration with soly
+
+- Rules created here are loaded by `loadAllRules()` on next session_start
+  (or immediately via hot-reload if soly's watcher is active)
+- They appear in `/rules list` and the system prompt's `## ⚠️ MANDATORY` block
+- Priority: project rules (`.agents/rules/`) = 3, local overrides
+  (`.agents/rules.local/`) = 5. Suggest `.agents/rules/` for team-shared
+  conventions, `.agents/rules.local/` for personal preferences
+- Frontmatter `globs` makes the rule apply only to matching files (saves
+  prompt budget — a C# rule doesn't need to load for .ts files)
+
+## Example session
+
+**User:** "переделай god switch в customer-service.ts, мне не нравится"
+
+**Agent (using this skill):**
+
+1. Reads `customer-service.ts` — finds a 200-line switch on customer type
+2. Searches existing rules — `/rules list` shows no switch-related rule
+3. Categorizes → `architecture/` (structural issue, not just style)
+4. Drafts:
+
+```markdown
+---
+description: "Avoid giant switch statements — use dispatch maps or polymorphism"
+globs: ["**/*.ts"]
+priority: medium
+---
+
+# No God Switches
+
+> **Switches with >5 cases must be refactored to a dispatch table.** Giant
+> switches are unmaintainable and violate the open-closed principle.
+
+## The rule
+
+When a `switch` statement exceeds 5 cases (or a single case exceeds 20
+lines), refactor to:
+- A `Record<Case, Handler>` dispatch map (for simple dispatch)
+- Polymorphism (when cases share behavior — subclasses + virtual method)
+
+[✓ good: dispatch map example]
+[✗ bad: 50-case switch example]
+
+## Why
+
+Giant switches grow linearly with new cases, are hard to test in isolation,
+and make the agent tend to add "just one more case" instead of refactoring.
+The user has to review the entire switch to verify one case is safe.
+```
+
+5. Shows via ask_pro with the full draft in `preview`
+6. User confirms → writes to `.agents/rules/architecture/no-god-switches.md`
+7. Hot-reload picks it up → rule is active for the next turn