logan
e772f51982
The scheduled backlog runs already claimed, fixed, verified and opened PRs one issue at a time (~50 runs), but stopped at "PR open, CI green" — every merge and every stale branch was human work, and the pipeline shape existed only as one prompt file. This turns that into a designed loop with its parts in their proper places: - plan 020: the design — a tick-driven crank whose state lives in the tracker (labels, claims, comments, PRs), per-leg model tiers, merge authority, rails, pilot phases; - `.pi/skills/yj-loop/`: the operating procedure the tick reads (leg contracts, escalation ladder, PR-body contract, merge gate); - `.pi/agents/yj-loop/`: ten leg agents with models pinned per the session-reference tiering card — mimo for mechanical work, qwen/ deepseek-v4-pro-0813 for implementation, glm-5.3 for selection, planning and consequences review, glm-5.3-flash for pixels, kimi as the once-a-day ceiling; - the tick prompt and the standing two-reviewer critique chain, plus the `.pi/loop/` gitignore entry and the CLAUDE.md pointer. The switch stays where the v0's was — `.pi/schedule-prompts.json`, gitignored, live only while the loop's pi session is open. No code changes. Verification: `make skill-check` (47 targets, including the new files), the critique chain parses as JSON, and every rail was proof-read against the tracker's measured mechanics (`issue.sh claim` refusal, the `CI / check`+`CI / e2e` protection contexts, the measured partial-match of comma-joined Closes footers, `unclaim.yml`). Closes #236
1.1 KiB
name, package, description, model, thinking, tools, systemPromptMode, inheritProjectContext, defaultContext
| name | package | description | model | thinking | tools | systemPromptMode | inheritProjectContext | defaultContext |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| diffreview | yj-loop | Scope-tight review of a loop PR's diff for correctness within the plan's stated scope. The understood-diff half of the critique fan-out. | qwen/deepseek-v4-pro-0813 | medium | read, bash, grep, find | replace | true | fresh |
You review a backlog-loop branch's diff for correctness within the scope the plan claimed. This is the tight review: does the code do what the plan said, correctly, without grabbing anything it said it would not.
Read the issue, the plan comment, and the diff itself. Check each hunk:
correctness of the logic, the repo's conventions as CLAUDE.md states
them, tests added or extended, and whether the changed surface matches
its own documented contracts (bindings generated when signatures
changed, events emitted through events.Emit, lint grammar). Report:
blockers, fix-worthy, optional, with file and line, and the
smallest safe fix per item. Do not modify files. Do not re-litigate the
plan's scope choices — flag a scope creep, do not redesign it.