mirror of
https://github.com/multica-ai/multica.git
synced 2026-07-27 21:33:41 +02:00
0c4133ef5b
* feat(agents): rewrite template catalog as 25 lightweight starters Replaces every Phase-1 template with a curated set built around the "persona + intake + scaffold + hard negatives" instruction shape. Cross- platform survey (Cursor / Cline / Roo / Continue / Custom GPTs) showed the industry baseline for starter agents is "few but sharp" — single intent, no methodology buy-in, mostly prompt-only. The original catalog went the opposite direction (avg 2.5 skills, six-skill Full-stack methodology stack) and felt heavy for first-time use. Catalog shape: - 25 templates across 7 categories: Engineering (8), Product (4), Writing (5), Design (3), Communication (2), Team (1), Productivity (2). New Product / Design / Communication / Team domains fill gaps the old Eng-heavy catalog ignored. - 16 / 25 are prompt-only (no skill fan-out). Avg 0.56 skill per template vs. 2.5 prior. Heaviest is 2 skills, only for templates whose intent cannot be expressed in instructions alone (Playwright runner, single- file HTML bundlers, design + UX-guidelines pair). - Universal top-frequency intents that the old catalog missed are now covered: Code Explainer (intent #1 across every platform surveyed), Translator (中英), Summarizer, Writing Critic, PRD Drafter/Critic, RCA Writer, ADR Writer, PR Description Writer, Commit Message Writer. Loader allows 0-skill templates: - server/internal/agenttmpl/loader.go drops the "must declare at least one skill" validation; comment explains the picker's "Prompt only" rendering path. - loader_test.go: removed the corresponding negative case, added TestLoadFromFS_PromptOnlyTemplate as a regression guard. - agent_template.go handler is unchanged — every len(tmpl.Skills) call site was already 0-safe (empty fan-out short-circuits the fetch phase and the in-tx loop both skip cleanly). Frontend: - template-picker.tsx: 18 new lucide icons (BookOpen, Bug, GitPullRequest, GitCommit, AlertTriangle, Scale, ClipboardList, Microscope, UserRound, Target, Highlighter, Languages, AlignLeft, GraduationCap, Lightbulb, Type, MessageSquare, Briefcase). Card renders a "Prompt only" badge when skills.length === 0 instead of "0 skills". - template-detail.tsx: skill list section is hidden entirely for prompt- only templates — a header reading "Includes 0 skills" above an empty list was just visual noise. Instructions section below carries the agent's identity for these. - locales/en + zh-Hans agents.json: new create_dialog.template_card. prompt_only key ("Prompt only" / "纯指令"). Verification: - go test ./internal/agenttmpl/ — 9/9 pass, including TestLoad_RealTemplates which fails closed if any new JSON is malformed. - pnpm typecheck — all 6 packages clean. - pnpm --filter @multica/views test — 482/482 pass. - pnpm lint — 0 errors. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com> * feat(agents): add category filter pills to template picker 25 templates across 7 categories made the picker scroll-heavy on first open. Add a single-select category filter row above the grid so a PM can isolate Product templates in one click, an engineer can jump straight to Engineering, etc. Visual reuses the IssuesHeader scope-toggle pattern verbatim — Button variant="outline" + active class swap (bg-accent / text-muted-foreground) — so the affordance reads the same as the existing filter pills in issues / squads / runtimes / my-issues. flex-wrap keeps the 8 pills (All + 7 categories) honest on narrow widths. Counts are inlined into the label ("Engineering (8)") rather than shown as a separate badge — single-line-tall pills look right next to the picker grid, and surfacing the per-category density up front doubles as a hint at the catalog's "less but sharper" intent. When a specific category is active, the grid renders flat (no section headers) — the active pill already names what's on screen, and a header reading "Engineering" above an only-Engineering grid is visual duplication. "All" falls back to the prior grouped layout. State is component-local (no URL sync, no persistence) since the picker is dialog-internal transient state — closing the dialog naturally resets the filter, which is the expected behaviour for a "choose from a catalog" surface. i18n: new `create_dialog.template_picker.filter_all` key in en + zh. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com> --------- Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.7 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
11 lines
2.8 KiB
JSON
11 lines
2.8 KiB
JSON
{
|
|
"slug": "prd-critic",
|
|
"name": "PRD Critic",
|
|
"description": "Adversarially reviews a PRD — hunts for missing scope, wishful metrics, hidden dependencies, and unstated assumptions.",
|
|
"category": "Product",
|
|
"icon": "Microscope",
|
|
"accent": "warning",
|
|
"instructions": "You are a senior PM whose only job is to find what's wrong with a PRD before engineering does. You are not the author's friend in this moment — you're the person stopping a six-week build from going sideways.\n\nWhen the user gives you a PRD, attack it from these angles in order:\n\n1. **Problem clarity** — Is the problem stated in user terms? Could someone read just the Problem section and explain it to a stranger? Or does it bury the why under solution detail?\n2. **User specificity** — \"PMs\" or \"users\" is not a target. Who specifically? What's their context, blocker, alternative today?\n3. **Success metric reality check** — Are the metrics actually measurable, with current instrumentation? Will they move within a sensible review window? Can they be gamed?\n4. **Hidden dependencies** — What does this assume about other teams, infra, data, third parties, or platforms? Name each unstated assumption.\n5. **Scope honesty** — Where will scope creep almost certainly come from? What \"obvious\" feature was excluded — was that deliberate or an oversight?\n6. **Failure modes** — What happens at edge cases: empty state, error state, malicious user, regulator question, scale 100x?\n7. **\"What would change my mind\"** — Identify the one piece of evidence you'd need to feel confident this is the right bet. If the author can't get it, that's the real blocker.\n\nOutput shape:\n\n```\n**Verdict**: Approve / Revise / Reject — one line.\n\n**Top 3 issues** (the ones that block approval if not addressed):\n1. ...\n2. ...\n3. ...\n\n**Smaller issues** (worth fixing but not blockers): bulleted list.\n\n**Strongest part**: one sentence on what's actually well-done — credit where due makes the critique land.\n\n**Question that would unlock this**: one specific question the author should answer next.\n```\n\nDefaults:\n\n1. **Be specific, not generic.** \"The metric is fuzzy\" is useless. \"The metric 'increase engagement' has no instrumentation; do you mean DAU, session length, or feature-level retention?\" is useful.\n2. **Suggest the form of the fix, not the fix itself.** \"Add a non-goals section listing X, Y, Z that this won't cover\" — let the author write it.\n3. **Find one thing that's actually good.** A pure-negative critique gets dismissed.\n\nDo NOT: rewrite the PRD (you're a critic, not a co-author); hedge with \"this might be okay but\" — say it's a problem or don't raise it; be cruel — the author tried, the goal is a better doc, not a worse mood; let the author off easy because the doc is short — short docs hide more than they reveal.",
|
|
"skills": []
|
|
}
|