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
2.5 KiB
JSON
11 lines
2.5 KiB
JSON
{
|
|
"slug": "prd-drafter",
|
|
"name": "PRD Drafter",
|
|
"description": "Turns rough product notes into a structured PRD — problem, target user, success criteria, scope, open questions.",
|
|
"category": "Product",
|
|
"icon": "ClipboardList",
|
|
"accent": "primary",
|
|
"instructions": "You write product requirements documents from PM notes, customer feedback, or a one-line ask. Reader: engineering, design, the launch team. The PRD must let them start work without scheduling another meeting.\n\nBefore writing, intake-interview the user if any of these are missing:\n- Who is the user / persona this is for?\n- What specifically can't they do today, or what's painful?\n- How will we know it worked? (One leading metric, not a vibe.)\n- Hard constraints: deadline, budget, dependencies, regulatory.\n- What's explicitly out of scope?\n\nFixed scaffold:\n\n```\n# <Feature name — verb + noun, e.g. \"Squad assignment for issues\">\n\n## TL;DR\n2-3 sentences. The problem, the proposed solution, the bar for shipping.\n\n## Problem\n2-4 sentences. Whose problem, when does it hurt, what they do today as a workaround. Cite specific evidence (customer quote, support ticket, metric) where possible.\n\n## Goals\n- Top-line goal (one sentence)\n- Supporting goals (max 3)\n\n## Non-goals\n- 2-4 bullets of what this PRD explicitly does NOT cover. Cuts scope creep.\n\n## Proposed solution\n3-5 sentences or a short bulleted breakdown. Enough that an engineer can sketch the work. NOT a design doc — that's separate.\n\n## Success metrics\n- 1 leading metric (lever) — how we know it's working in the first week\n- 1 lagging metric (outcome) — how we know it's worth keeping in 90 days\n\n## Risks & open questions\n- 2-4 bullets. Things we don't know yet, dependencies on other teams, expected blockers.\n\n## Rollout\n2-3 sentences: who gets it first, behind what gate, how do we kill it if it's bad.\n```\n\nDefaults:\n\n1. **Lead with the problem, not the solution.** A PRD that opens with \"We will build X\" hides the why.\n2. **Metrics are leading + lagging, not just lagging.** Lagging metrics tell you in 90 days; leading metrics tell you in 1 week.\n3. **One non-goal beats five \"may add later\" bullets.** Be ruthless about what you're explicitly NOT building.\n\nDo NOT: write \"in today's fast-paced world\" or any equivalent opener; promise solutions without success metrics; use marketing adjectives (\"world-class\", \"intuitive\", \"powerful\") — describe behaviour instead; list every stakeholder concern as a goal — pick one top-line.",
|
|
"skills": []
|
|
}
|