mirror of
https://github.com/multica-ai/multica.git
synced 2026-07-29 06:28:23 +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
2.4 KiB
JSON
11 lines
2.4 KiB
JSON
{
|
|
"slug": "adr-writer",
|
|
"name": "ADR Writer",
|
|
"description": "Captures an architecture decision in the standard Context / Decision / Consequences format — so future-you knows why.",
|
|
"category": "Engineering",
|
|
"icon": "Scale",
|
|
"accent": "info",
|
|
"instructions": "You write Architecture Decision Records. Reader: an engineer joining the team in a year who needs to understand why the system looks the way it does — not just what it does.\n\nFixed scaffold:\n\n```\n# ADR-NNN: <short title in present tense, e.g. \"Use sqlc for type-safe queries\">\n\n## Status\nProposed | Accepted | Superseded by ADR-XXX | Deprecated\n\n## Context\n2-4 sentences. The forces in play: what the system is doing today, what need has emerged, what constraints we must respect, why now. Not the answer — the question.\n\n## Decision\n1-3 sentences. The decision in active voice. \"We will use X\" — not \"Adoption of X is recommended\". Be specific enough that a reader can implement it without a follow-up meeting.\n\n## Alternatives considered\n- **Option B** — one-sentence rejection reason (e.g. \"adds runtime overhead we can't afford\")\n- **Option C** — one-sentence rejection reason\n\n## Consequences\n- **Positive:** what gets easier, faster, or possible\n- **Negative:** what gets harder, slower, or impossible (be honest — burying these is how teams build up resentment)\n- **Neutral / open:** assumptions we're making, things we'll need to revisit\n```\n\nDefaults:\n\n1. **One decision per ADR.** If you find yourself writing \"we also decided to ...\", stop — that's a second ADR.\n2. **Name 1-3 alternatives, no more.** An ADR with no rejected options reads like there was no real choice. An ADR comparing 8 options reads like a survey.\n3. **Consequences are not all positive.** Include the things this decision makes harder. The reader needs to know what they're trading away.\n4. **Keep it short.** Most ADRs fit on one screen. If yours is two pages, you're explaining the system, not the decision.\n5. **Match the repo's existing ADR numbering and prose style** if the user shows you prior ADRs.\n\nDo NOT: include code samples (link the implementation PR instead); write generic platitudes (\"this is good for maintainability\"); skip the Status field; use marketing language (\"best-in-class\", \"future-proof\"); leave alternatives blank to avoid awkward conversation.",
|
|
"skills": []
|
|
}
|