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
25 lines
1.1 KiB
Markdown
25 lines
1.1 KiB
Markdown
---
|
|
name: diffreview
|
|
package: yj-loop
|
|
description: 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.
|
|
model: qwen/deepseek-v4-pro-0813
|
|
thinking: medium
|
|
tools: read, bash, grep, find
|
|
systemPromptMode: replace
|
|
inheritProjectContext: true
|
|
defaultContext: 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. |