replen 1.0.17 → 1.0.19
This diff represents the content of publicly available package versions that have been released to one of the supported registries. The information contained in this diff is provided for informational purposes only and reflects changes between package versions as they appear in their respective public registries.
|
@@ -5,11 +5,12 @@ description: Review Replen's suggestions for the current repo against your code.
|
|
|
5
5
|
|
|
6
6
|
# Replen Match — in-session candidate triage
|
|
7
7
|
|
|
8
|
-
You are running the matching loop locally. Replen
|
|
9
|
-
|
|
10
|
-
|
|
11
|
-
|
|
12
|
-
|
|
8
|
+
You are running the matching loop locally. Replen's **Watchtower** — its
|
|
9
|
+
maintained network of ~1,250 sources (vendor changelogs, advisories, pricing
|
|
10
|
+
pages, release feeds, standards trackers, EOL calendars) — has fetched a list
|
|
11
|
+
of plausible OSS candidates and events; you've got the user's codebase open.
|
|
12
|
+
Your job is to decide which (if any) are worth their attention, write up the
|
|
13
|
+
strong ones, and capture what they want to do about them.
|
|
13
14
|
|
|
14
15
|
**This runs entirely on the user's subscription tokens.** No API keys
|
|
15
16
|
get used. Replen's hosted side did the cheap structural filtering; you
|
|
@@ -308,6 +309,12 @@ any write back to Replen. Don't hand-roll `curl` to the API for these; the MCP
|
|
|
308
309
|
path is the intended mechanism and avoids tripping host permission classifiers
|
|
309
310
|
on the candidate repo name in a curl payload.
|
|
310
311
|
|
|
312
|
+
**Never record a bare verdict.** Every `replen_record_triage` call — including
|
|
313
|
+
quick skips made outside this full protocol (e.g. from the session-start
|
|
314
|
+
footnote) — must carry at least `oneLine` and `cosine`. A verdict with no
|
|
315
|
+
reasoning shows up in the user's Atlas dossier and vault as "bare verdict —
|
|
316
|
+
the agent recorded no reasoning", which is a bug report with your name on it.
|
|
317
|
+
|
|
311
318
|
When you call `replen_record_triage`, **pass the contextual fields** so Replen
|
|
312
319
|
learns: `matchedFacet` (copy the `matchedFacet` from the candidate's
|
|
313
320
|
replen_match data), `facetModality` (the data modality of that capability —
|
|
@@ -71,13 +71,37 @@ Replen — a re-run backfills versions across every repo in minutes.
|
|
|
71
71
|
|
|
72
72
|
For each in-scope repo, do this contract:
|
|
73
73
|
|
|
74
|
+
### 2a-pre. Check for an existing knowledge graph FIRST (the adapter step)
|
|
75
|
+
|
|
76
|
+
Replen doesn't map code internals — it ingests whatever already does. Before
|
|
77
|
+
reading raw source, look for pre-digested knowledge and use it as your primary
|
|
78
|
+
grounding source (faster AND richer than a cold code-read):
|
|
79
|
+
|
|
80
|
+
- **Graphify vault** — an Obsidian-compatible markdown vault with frontmatter
|
|
81
|
+
+ `[[wikilinks]]` + EXTRACTED/INFERRED/AMBIGUOUS-style provenance tags
|
|
82
|
+
(commonly in-repo as `graph/`, `vault/`, `.graphify/`, or alongside the
|
|
83
|
+
repo). Its entity/concept notes ARE the capability map: distill capabilities
|
|
84
|
+
from them, take descriptors from the note bodies, and use the files each
|
|
85
|
+
note links as the capability's `paths` evidence anchors.
|
|
86
|
+
- **Plain Obsidian vault / docs vault** — same treatment, lower confidence.
|
|
87
|
+
- **ADRs** (`docs/adr/*.md`, `doc/decisions/`) — architecture decisions are
|
|
88
|
+
high-grade descriptor material and often name the load-bearing files.
|
|
89
|
+
|
|
90
|
+
If you ground from one of these, START the report (2c) with one line:
|
|
91
|
+
`Grounding source: Graphify vault at <path>` (or `Obsidian vault…` / `ADRs…`)
|
|
92
|
+
— it renders into the user's Atlas vault, linking the two tools. Then skim the
|
|
93
|
+
code only to VERIFY (the vault may be stale); don't re-derive what it already
|
|
94
|
+
holds. Privacy is unchanged: only capabilities/descriptors/paths/tags leave
|
|
95
|
+
the machine, exactly as with a code-read — never vault content or code.
|
|
96
|
+
|
|
74
97
|
### 2a. Read the code (not just the README)
|
|
75
98
|
|
|
76
99
|
Read enough source to actually understand the project: entry points, the core
|
|
77
100
|
modules, manifests (`package.json`/`pyproject.toml`/`Cargo.toml`/`go.mod`),
|
|
78
101
|
configs, schemas, and the files that implement its real work (the model/algo/
|
|
79
102
|
pipeline files, not the glue). This is what makes the grounding accurate — a
|
|
80
|
-
doc paraphrase is not enough.
|
|
103
|
+
doc paraphrase is not enough. (Skip the deep read when 2a-pre found a fresh
|
|
104
|
+
knowledge graph — verify instead.)
|
|
81
105
|
|
|
82
106
|
### 2b. Assess doc quality → `good` | `thin` | `none`
|
|
83
107
|
|
package/package.json
CHANGED
|
@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
|
|
|
1
1
|
{
|
|
2
2
|
"name": "replen",
|
|
3
|
-
"version": "1.0.
|
|
3
|
+
"version": "1.0.19",
|
|
4
4
|
"description": "Make your AI coding tools smarter. One command, no API keys, free. Replen watches what your projects actually do and surfaces a few things worth bringing in each month. Use one as is, port a piece of another, cherry pick an idea, or build it clean room. The match happens inside your AI tool's session. A few actionable matches a month, by design.",
|
|
5
5
|
"type": "module",
|
|
6
6
|
"bin": {
|