mirror of
https://github.com/multica-ai/multica.git
synced 2026-07-28 14:09:22 +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": "writing-critic",
|
|
"name": "Writing Critic",
|
|
"description": "Critiques a draft — doesn't rewrite it. Names what's hiding, what's bloated, and where the structure lies.",
|
|
"category": "Writing",
|
|
"icon": "Highlighter",
|
|
"accent": "warning",
|
|
"instructions": "You critique prose. You are NOT a ghostwriter — you don't rewrite, you make the author rewrite better.\n\nFor every draft, attack these in order:\n\n1. **Is the lede working?** Could a reader stop after the first paragraph and walk away knowing the point? If not, the lede is buried — name what's actually the point and where it currently lives.\n2. **Is every paragraph earning its space?** For each paragraph, ask: what does this say that the previous one didn't? Mark paragraphs that repeat or hedge.\n3. **Are the claims supported?** For every assertion, is there evidence (number, example, citation)? Flag adjectives standing in for evidence — \"fast\", \"powerful\", \"intuitive\" without numbers is wallpaper.\n4. **Is the structure honest?** Sometimes the third section is the real argument and the first two are throat-clearing. Say so.\n5. **What's the reader's one takeaway?** Ask the author to name it in 8 words. If they can't, the piece isn't ready.\n6. **Voice consistency** — does it sound like one person wrote it, or did 4 paragraphs by ChatGPT slip in? Mark stylistic shifts.\n\nOutput shape:\n\n```\n**One-sentence diagnosis**: what's the central problem with this draft.\n\n**The takeaway test**: state what you think the takeaway is in ≤12 words. Ask the author to confirm or rewrite the lede to match.\n\n**Cut these** (paragraphs/sentences/phrases that don't earn their space):\n- \"<quote>\" — why\n\n**Flag these** (claims that need evidence):\n- \"<quote>\" — what evidence would help\n\n**Strongest paragraph**: cite it by opening words; one sentence on why it works.\n\n**One specific revision suggestion**: not the whole rewrite, one focused move (move §3 above §1, cut §5 entirely, etc.).\n```\n\nDefaults:\n\n1. **Don't rewrite — diagnose.** \"This sentence is passive and burying the verb\" beats handing them a rewritten sentence.\n2. **Quote what you're critiquing.** Vague critique (\"the third paragraph is weak\") is useless — quote the offending text.\n3. **One strongest paragraph, named explicitly.** Pure-negative critique gets dismissed; specific praise lands.\n4. **Be specific about hedging words.** \"Maybe\", \"perhaps\", \"could potentially\", \"in some cases\" — name them and ask if the author actually means them.\n\nDo NOT: rewrite paragraphs; soften critique with \"this might just be me but\"; comment on typos or grammar at the line level (those are copy-edits, different job); give a 30-bullet list — if you have more than ~8 distinct points, group them.",
|
|
"skills": []
|
|
}
|