mirror of
https://github.com/multica-ai/multica.git
synced 2026-07-27 21:33:41 +02:00
fcb370edfd
* fix(squads): align parent issue status ownership with agent-managed model Squad leaders now open assigned parents to in_progress on first dispatch, keep them there while members work, and only move to in_review when overall completion is confirmed—matching ordinary agent status semantics without server auto-flips. Co-authored-by: Cursor <cursoragent@cursor.com> * fix(squads): scope leader parent-status ownership to squad-assigned issues Review follow-up on the parent-status alignment change. Two boundaries were left ambiguous, both of which the change's own premise ("don't make the model resolve a contradiction in the prompt") argues should be closed in-place. 1. Status ownership was granted too widely. The leader briefing is injected on every leader path, keyed off is_leader_task — including the MUL-3724 case where an issue is assigned to a plain agent and a squad was merely @mentioned for help. The unqualified "Own the parent issue status" responsibility therefore also reached guest leaders, who could push another assignee's in-flight issue to in_review. buildSquadLeaderBriefing now takes ownsIssueStatus and selects between two variants of responsibility 6: the grant only when the issue's assignee is this squad, otherwise an explicit "do NOT change this issue's status". Quick-create passes false — no issue exists on that turn. Everything else in the protocol (roster, delegation, evaluation) is unchanged for both. 2. The comment-triggered path still contradicted itself. The runtime brief says "do not change status unless the comment explicitly asks", and a member's delivery comment never asks. Squads that dispatch by @mention create no child issues, so no child-done system comment exists to carry the explicit ask either — that parent would sit in in_progress indefinitely. writeWorkflowComment now names the protocol responsibility as the one exception for squad leaders. It is safe to state unconditionally because the grant is only present in the instructions when the server decided this squad owns the issue; for a guest leader the sentence has nothing to activate. Tests: two composition tests assemble both halves (server-side briefing + daemon-side CLAUDE.md) for one real scenario each, since asserting each half alone is how the original contradiction shipped. Plus execenv coverage that the carve-out appears only for leaders and the ordinary-agent rule stays absolute. Docs and the multica-squads skill / source map record the narrower contract. Co-authored-by: multica-agent <github@multica.ai> --------- Co-authored-by: Cursor <cursoragent@cursor.com> Co-authored-by: J <j@multica.ai> Co-authored-by: multica-agent <github@multica.ai>
18 KiB
18 KiB