mirror of
https://github.com/penpot/penpot.git
synced 2026-09-10 05:58:47 +00:00
♻️ Make commands thin dispatchers over canonical skills
Every command in .opencode/commands now only switches to the build agent, injects the user context, and delegates to a same-named skill that holds the full flow logic — skills are the primary mechanism for Claude Code and Codex compatibility. - make-a-plan, implement-plan, resolve-git-conflicts: flow logic moved to same-named skills. - review-plan / review-code: orchestration skills delegating to the renamed criteria skills plan-review-criteria and code-review-criteria, with redirecting descriptions so there is no trigger overlap between flow and criteria. - create-pr: absorbed the open-pr flow as Open mode (validated branch-to-PR pipeline using scripts/detect-target-branch) plus a new Update mode (gh pr edit); /open-pr removed. AI-assisted-by: omen-alpha
This commit is contained in:
Andrey Antukh
parent
99e6d4f1ad
commit
3d1393e8fc
10
.opencode/commands/create-pr.md
Normal file
10
.opencode/commands/create-pr.md
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,10 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
description: Create a PR for the current task branch or update an existing one — loads and follows the create-pr skill
|
||||
agent: build
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
Load the **`create-pr`** skill and follow it as your only instruction.
|
||||
|
||||
## User input, overrides and additional context
|
||||
|
||||
$ARGUMENTS
|
||||
@ -1,78 +1,9 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
description: Execute a ready plan — create issue + branch when on a base branch, or continue on the current branch; implement and commit
|
||||
description: Execute a ready plan — create issue + branch when on a base branch, or continue on the current branch; implement and commit — loads and follows the implement-plan skill
|
||||
agent: build
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
This command is run once a plan is ready (for example, from plan mode). Execute
|
||||
the plan already prepared in the current session context. This command ends
|
||||
with exactly one commit. It never pushes — the user pushes.
|
||||
|
||||
## 1. Detect the flow (no questions)
|
||||
|
||||
Inspect the current branch with `git rev-parse --abbrev-ref HEAD`, pick the
|
||||
mode, and announce it in one line before acting.
|
||||
|
||||
- **On a base branch** (`main`, `develop`, `staging`) → **standalone mode**:
|
||||
create the issue and the branch, then implement and commit.
|
||||
- **On any other branch** (a feature branch, typically `issue-NNNN`) →
|
||||
**continue mode**: implement on the current branch and commit. No issue or
|
||||
branch is created.
|
||||
|
||||
Arguments override detection: `standalone`, `continue`,
|
||||
`no issue` / `without issue`, or an explicit base such as
|
||||
`from origin/develop`.
|
||||
|
||||
### Standalone mode
|
||||
|
||||
1. Create the issue with the **`create-issue`** skill, following the
|
||||
*Creating Issues from Draft Body* flow in `mem:workflow/creating-issues`.
|
||||
Derive the issue title and body from the plan. Capture the new issue's
|
||||
number — call it **NNNN** (needed for the branch name and the commit
|
||||
reference).
|
||||
2. Create the branch from the current HEAD:
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
git checkout -b issue-NNNN
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
3. If the arguments say `no issue` / `without issue`, skip the issue and
|
||||
create a branch named `plan-<slug>` instead, where `<slug>` is the plan
|
||||
title, lowercase and hyphen-separated.
|
||||
|
||||
**Standalone while already on a feature branch:** stop and explain that this
|
||||
would stack branches. Ask the user to re-run with an explicit base, for
|
||||
example `from origin/develop` — then branch from that base instead of HEAD.
|
||||
|
||||
### Continue mode
|
||||
|
||||
No issue and no branch. Implement on the current branch. The branch name
|
||||
provides the issue reference when it follows the `issue-NNNN` pattern.
|
||||
|
||||
## 2. Execute the plan
|
||||
|
||||
Implement the prepared plan from the session context. Work methodically,
|
||||
keeping changes focused on what the issue requires. Respect the plan's
|
||||
proposed parallelization when it applies. Do not commit — the commit happens
|
||||
in the next step.
|
||||
|
||||
## 3. Commit with the create-commit skill
|
||||
|
||||
After the implementation is complete, load the **`create-commit`** skill and
|
||||
follow its workflow to commit the changes. Provide a brief summary of what was
|
||||
implemented and why, the issue reference (`issue-NNNN`) when there is one, and
|
||||
the model name you are running as so the `AI-assisted-by` trailer is set
|
||||
correctly.
|
||||
|
||||
Do not push. Pushing is handled separately by the user.
|
||||
|
||||
## When you are done
|
||||
|
||||
End by suggesting the next steps (suggestions, not a required pipeline — any
|
||||
instruction from me overrides them):
|
||||
|
||||
- `/review-code` — to review the changes just committed; it routes to
|
||||
`/make-a-plan` by itself if the findings need one.
|
||||
- `/open-pr` — when the task is done and the branch is ready to merge.
|
||||
Load the **`implement-plan`** skill and follow it as your only instruction.
|
||||
|
||||
## User input, overrides and additional context
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
@ -1,81 +1,9 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
description: Investigate the chosen task, produce an implementation plan, and save it
|
||||
description: Investigate the chosen task, produce an implementation plan, and save it — loads and follows the make-a-plan skill
|
||||
agent: build
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
Act as a senior software engineer: research the subject of this session in depth and
|
||||
produce a well-grounded, actionable implementation plan.
|
||||
|
||||
## Instructions
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Produce the plan** with the `planner` skill. By default, research the
|
||||
subject of this session and draft the plan yourself. If I ask for it (for
|
||||
example, `delegated` in the arguments), delegate to the `general` subagent
|
||||
instead — the delegate must also follow the `planner` skill and receive all
|
||||
the relevant session context (a review, user feedback, and so on).
|
||||
2. Before asking me to decide anything, explain the plan and every open question in
|
||||
plain language. Assume I know only the high-level project goal, not the codebase,
|
||||
architecture, implementation terms, or the problem this task solves.
|
||||
3. Once all decisions are answered and the plan is final, save it verbatim to the
|
||||
announced path under `.opencode/plans/` (create the directory if it does not
|
||||
exist). This step is this command's explicit authorization to write the plan
|
||||
file — the only write allowed here. If I later ask for changes, update the
|
||||
saved file directly.
|
||||
4. Present me with a clear, self-contained summary of the plan's most relevant points
|
||||
only after all required decisions have been answered. Write it for someone who knows
|
||||
only the project's high-level goal and may not know the plan's low-level context.
|
||||
Explain necessary technical language in plain terms, include the problem being
|
||||
solved and the proposed outcome, and do not assume that listing technical task names
|
||||
is enough.
|
||||
|
||||
### Hard rule — read-only while planning
|
||||
|
||||
While this command runs, act read-only: research with read-only tools only.
|
||||
Never edit source files, never run builds, tests, linters, or any command that
|
||||
modifies state, and never commit. The single allowed write is the plan file in
|
||||
step 3. This rule expires when I approve the plan or move on to another task;
|
||||
then you act as a normal build agent again.
|
||||
|
||||
When the plan contains open questions, do not show them as bare technical questions or
|
||||
assume that I understand the technical language or technical words used in the plan.
|
||||
For each question, first explain:
|
||||
|
||||
- What part of the user problem the decision affects.
|
||||
- The relevant concept from the beginning, with a small concrete example.
|
||||
- What each available option would make the system do.
|
||||
- The practical benefits, costs, risks, and user-visible consequences of each option.
|
||||
- Which option the planner recommends and why.
|
||||
|
||||
Only after that explanation, use the `question` tool to ask the decision with clear,
|
||||
non-technical option labels. Put the recommended option first and mark it as
|
||||
`(Recommended)`. Group related questions when their context is shared, but do not ask a
|
||||
question whose meaning has not already been explained.
|
||||
|
||||
If I say that I do not understand a question or its choices, do not treat my previous
|
||||
answer as valid. Explain the concepts again from the high-level project goal, use a more
|
||||
concrete example, explain the implications, and ask the question again with the
|
||||
`question` tool. Repeat this until I can make an informed choice. If one answer creates
|
||||
new design consequences or additional decisions, explain those consequences before
|
||||
asking any new question.
|
||||
|
||||
Distinguish clearly between requirements already fixed by the roadmap or existing
|
||||
architecture and choices that actually require my input. Do not ask me to choose an
|
||||
implementation detail when the plan can resolve it safely without changing the public
|
||||
behavior. If there are no decisions that require my input, say so and present the
|
||||
summary.
|
||||
|
||||
IMPORTANT: **Under no circumstances execute the plan. Wait for the user to review it
|
||||
after all possible questions have been answered.** The final summary must explain the
|
||||
problem being solved, the proposed behavior, the main user-visible workflow, important
|
||||
constraints and risks, what is deliberately out of scope, and the path where the plan
|
||||
is saved. Never assume that a short list of task names is enough context. End
|
||||
the final response by suggesting the next steps, in this order:
|
||||
|
||||
1. `/review-plan` — to get a second opinion on the plan before executing it.
|
||||
2. `/implement-plan` — to execute the plan from the current session context.
|
||||
|
||||
These are suggestions, not a required pipeline — any instruction from me
|
||||
overrides them (for example, asking you to implement the plan directly).
|
||||
Load the **`make-a-plan`** skill and follow it as your only instruction.
|
||||
|
||||
## User input, overrides and additional context
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
@ -1,60 +0,0 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
description: Open the PR for the current task branch — detects the base branch, requires a clear issue, never pushes
|
||||
agent: build
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
Open the pull request for the current task branch. Gather information,
|
||||
validate, and create the PR in one pass. If validation fails, STOP with a
|
||||
single coherent message that lists every problem and states exactly what
|
||||
information is missing — never fix or work around problems silently.
|
||||
|
||||
## 1. Gather context (read-only)
|
||||
|
||||
- Current branch: `git rev-parse --abbrev-ref HEAD`.
|
||||
- Target base branch: run `./scripts/detect-target-branch` from the repo root.
|
||||
It prints the nearest ancestor branch of HEAD (exit 0) or fails (exit 1).
|
||||
- Commits: `git log --oneline <base>..HEAD`.
|
||||
- Remote state: `git ls-remote origin <branch>`.
|
||||
- Issue: from the session context, or from the branch name — `issue-NNNN`
|
||||
maps to issue NNNN; recover its title and body with `gh issue view NNNN`.
|
||||
|
||||
## 2. Validate — stop with one message if anything fails
|
||||
|
||||
Run all checks before reporting, then report every failure together:
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Base branch not usable.** If the script fails (exit 1) or its output is
|
||||
not one of the canonical branches (`develop`, `staging`, `main`), stop and
|
||||
ask the user to re-run with more context — for example, passing the base
|
||||
branch explicitly in the arguments. An explicit base given in the
|
||||
arguments overrides the script's output.
|
||||
2. **On a base branch.** There is no task branch to merge — say so and stop.
|
||||
3. **No commits.** The branch has no commits ahead of the base — say so and
|
||||
stop.
|
||||
4. **No clear issue.** There is no issue in the session context, and the
|
||||
branch name has no `issue-NNNN` pattern (or `gh issue view` finds nothing)
|
||||
— say so and stop. Exception: the arguments say `no issue` /
|
||||
`without issue` — then continue without an issue reference.
|
||||
5. **Branch not pushed.** `git ls-remote origin <branch>` finds nothing —
|
||||
never push yourself; ask the user to push and to re-run `/open-pr`
|
||||
afterwards, then stop.
|
||||
|
||||
## 3. Already-open PR
|
||||
|
||||
Check whether a PR already exists for this branch (`gh pr list --head
|
||||
<branch>`). If one exists, report its URL and stop — do not create a second
|
||||
one.
|
||||
|
||||
## 4. Create the PR
|
||||
|
||||
Load the **`create-pr`** skill and follow its workflow
|
||||
(`mem:workflow/creating-prs` has the title format and body structure). Derive
|
||||
the title and body from the commits and, when there is one, from the issue
|
||||
body. Reference the issue with `Closes #NNNN`.
|
||||
|
||||
## 5. Report
|
||||
|
||||
Report the PR URL and stop.
|
||||
|
||||
## User input, overrides and additional context
|
||||
|
||||
$ARGUMENTS
|
||||
@ -1,40 +1,6 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
description: Resolve local git conflicts and stage the resolved files with git add — never continues the rebase
|
||||
description: Resolve local git conflicts and stage the resolved files; never continues the rebase — loads and follows the resolve-git-conflicts skill
|
||||
agent: build
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Fix Git Conflicts
|
||||
|
||||
Resolve conflicts in the local repository. The user handles finishing the
|
||||
rebase themselves — you must **never** run `git rebase --continue`,
|
||||
`git rebase --skip`, `git merge --continue`, or anything similar.
|
||||
|
||||
## Phase 1 — Understand the problem (read-only)
|
||||
|
||||
1. Run `git status` to detect the conflict state (rebase, merge, cherry-pick, etc.) and list conflicted files.
|
||||
2. For each conflicted (unmerged) file, understand the situation **without modifying anything**:
|
||||
- Read the file and identify the conflict markers (`<<<<<<<`, `=======`, `>>>>>>>`).
|
||||
- Inspect both sides — `git show <ours>:<file>` and `git show <theirs>:<file>` — plus `git log`/`git show` on the commits involved to understand intent.
|
||||
- Identify what each side changed and why, and how they should be combined.
|
||||
|
||||
## Phase 2 — Present the resolution plan
|
||||
|
||||
3. **Present a clear plan to the user before touching any file.** For each conflicted file, state:
|
||||
- What each side changed and why.
|
||||
- Your proposed resolution and the reasoning behind it.
|
||||
- How the two sides are combined (both additive → merge; both modify the same code → keep the semantically correct version, merging intent from both sides when clear from code and context).
|
||||
4. **Ask the user only when genuinely unclear.** Do not ask about anything you can determine yourself from the code, commit messages, or context. Only decisions that are not determinable and change the outcome (e.g. conflicting product decisions, which side to discard) warrant a question. **Collect all such questions together in an "Open Questions" section at the end of the plan**, so the user has full context to answer them properly.
|
||||
5. **Wait for the user to accept the plan** (and answer any open questions) before editing, staging, or otherwise modifying anything.
|
||||
|
||||
## Phase 3 — Execute
|
||||
|
||||
6. Resolve each conflicted file by editing the file to the agreed merged content and removing all conflict markers.
|
||||
|
||||
## Phase 4 — Stage and verify
|
||||
|
||||
7. **Stage every resolved file** with `git add <file>`. Do not stage unrelated untracked files unless clearly part of the resolution.
|
||||
8. Verify no conflict markers remain (search for `<<<<<<<` / `>>>>>>>` in resolved files) and that `git status` shows no unmerged paths.
|
||||
|
||||
## Phase 5 — Report
|
||||
|
||||
9. Briefly report the conflict state, how each conflicted file was resolved (and any answers received to open questions), and stop — do **not** run `git rebase --continue` or any other continuation command.
|
||||
Load the **`resolve-git-conflicts`** skill and follow it as your only instruction.
|
||||
|
||||
@ -1,59 +1,9 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
description: Code review — review a diff, PR, or code change with the code-review skill (read-only while reviewing)
|
||||
description: Code review — review a diff, PR, or code change — loads and follows the review-code skill
|
||||
agent: build
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
Act as a senior software engineer and perform a thorough code review.
|
||||
|
||||
## Instructions
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Determine what is being reviewed** from the user context or arguments: a
|
||||
working-tree diff, a commit range, a branch, a PR (number or URL), or
|
||||
specific files. If the target is ambiguous, ask before reviewing.
|
||||
2. Delegate the review to the `general` subagent (via the task tool), unless the
|
||||
user specifies another agent. Include in the prompt the **`code-review`**
|
||||
skill name and all user context.
|
||||
3. When the subagent returns, output the review to the user verbatim. Do not
|
||||
summarize it and do not act on its findings.
|
||||
4. Right after the review, suggest how to proceed based on the findings. These
|
||||
are suggestions — the user decides:
|
||||
- **Approve (no required changes):** say so — there is nothing to address.
|
||||
- **Minor findings (nits):** applying them directly as-is is fine once the
|
||||
review is done — no plan needed.
|
||||
- **Substantive findings:** suggest `/make-a-plan` to make a plan to address
|
||||
them.
|
||||
|
||||
### Hard rule — read-only while reviewing
|
||||
|
||||
This command is read-only **for the duration of the review**: from the moment it
|
||||
starts until the user considers the review finished (including any feedback,
|
||||
questions, or clarifications about it). During that period, never fix,
|
||||
implement, edit files or create commits — not even "obvious" fixes derived from
|
||||
the findings. Once the user explicitly states the review is done (or moves on to
|
||||
a different task), this rule no longer applies and you act as a normal build
|
||||
agent again.
|
||||
|
||||
## Instructions for the subagent
|
||||
|
||||
1. Load the **`code-review`** skill and follow its process and output format.
|
||||
2. Read `AGENTS.md` (if present) and follow its instructions for finding and
|
||||
reading all related testing documentation from memories before reviewing.
|
||||
3. Return in your final message the COMPLETE review, verbatim, exactly as the
|
||||
skill instructs it to be produced. Do not summarize it — include the full
|
||||
structured review.
|
||||
|
||||
### Strong rules for the subagent
|
||||
|
||||
1. Do not invent problems. Every finding must be real and actionable.
|
||||
2. Read-only: do not modify any file and do not create a commit — this command
|
||||
only reviews.
|
||||
3. Be specific and constructive. "This could be better" is not helpful — explain
|
||||
why and how.
|
||||
4. Prioritize by impact. One structural issue outweighs ten nits.
|
||||
5. Missing tests are an issue, not a suggestion. Report as a severity-tagged
|
||||
finding — never as a recommendation.
|
||||
6. Skip generated files, lockfile-only changes, and unrelated modifications
|
||||
unless they introduce security risks.
|
||||
Load the **`review-code`** skill and follow it as your only instruction.
|
||||
|
||||
## User input, overrides and additional context
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
@ -1,57 +1,9 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
description: Plan review — evaluate an implementation plan with the plan-review skill before executing it (read-only while reviewing)
|
||||
description: Plan review — evaluate an implementation plan before executing it — loads and follows the review-plan skill
|
||||
agent: build
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
Act as a senior software engineer and perform a thorough review of an
|
||||
implementation plan.
|
||||
|
||||
## Instructions
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Determine the plan under review** from the session context (for example, a
|
||||
plan just produced by `/make-a-plan`) or from a plan file path given by the
|
||||
user (typically under `.opencode/plans/`). If a file path is given, read the
|
||||
file first so the complete plan is in context.
|
||||
2. Delegate the review to the `general` subagent (via the task tool), unless the
|
||||
user specifies another agent. Include in the prompt the **`plan-review`**
|
||||
skill name and all user context.
|
||||
3. When the subagent returns, output the review to the user verbatim. Do not
|
||||
summarize it and do not act on its findings.
|
||||
4. Right after the review, suggest the next step based on the verdict. These
|
||||
are suggestions — the user decides, and any instruction overrides them:
|
||||
- **Approve** → suggest `/implement-plan` to execute it.
|
||||
- **Request changes** → suggest `/make-a-plan` to make a plan to address the
|
||||
findings.
|
||||
|
||||
### Hard rule — read-only while reviewing
|
||||
|
||||
This command is read-only **for the duration of the review**: from the moment it
|
||||
starts until the user considers the review finished (including any feedback,
|
||||
questions, or clarifications about it). During that period, never fix,
|
||||
implement, edit files or create commits — not even "obvious" fixes derived from
|
||||
the findings. Once the user explicitly states the review is done (or moves on to
|
||||
a different task), this rule no longer applies and you act as a normal build
|
||||
agent again.
|
||||
|
||||
## Instructions for the subagent
|
||||
|
||||
1. Load the **`plan-review`** skill and follow its process and output format.
|
||||
2. Read `AGENTS.md` (if present) and follow its instructions for finding and
|
||||
reading all related documentation and testing memories before reviewing.
|
||||
3. Return in your final message the COMPLETE review, verbatim, exactly as the
|
||||
skill instructs it to be produced. Do not summarize it — include the full
|
||||
structured review.
|
||||
|
||||
### Strong rules for the subagent
|
||||
|
||||
1. Do not invent problems. Every finding must be real and actionable.
|
||||
2. Read-only: do not modify any file and do not create a commit — this command
|
||||
only reviews.
|
||||
3. Be specific and constructive. "This could be better" is not helpful — explain
|
||||
why and how.
|
||||
4. Prioritize by impact. One structural issue outweighs ten nits.
|
||||
5. Judge the plan as the implementer would: every task executable without
|
||||
guessing, ordering follows the dependency graph, risks named.
|
||||
Load the **`review-plan`** skill and follow it as your only instruction.
|
||||
|
||||
## User input, overrides and additional context
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
@ -1,9 +1,9 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
name: code-review
|
||||
description: Conducts multi-axis code review. Use before merging any change. Use when reviewing code written by yourself, another agent, or a human. Use when you need to assess code quality across multiple dimensions before it enters the main branch.
|
||||
name: code-review-criteria
|
||||
description: Code review criteria — the five review axes, core principles, severity format, and verdict for reviewing code changes. Loaded by the reviewer subagent of the review-code flow. Not a user-facing flow — to review code, use the review-code flow.
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Code Review and Quality
|
||||
# Code Review Criteria and Quality
|
||||
|
||||
## Overview
|
||||
|
||||
@ -1,39 +1,105 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
name: create-pr
|
||||
description: Create or update a GitHub PR following Penpot conventions.
|
||||
description: PR flow — open a new PR for the current task branch (validates base branch, commits, issue and push state) or update an existing PR's title or description to match Penpot conventions. Use it when the user asks to open or create a PR, in any phrasing.
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Skill: create-pr
|
||||
# Create PR
|
||||
|
||||
Create or update a GitHub PR. Read and follow:
|
||||
- `mem:workflow/creating-prs` — title format, description structure, writing principles
|
||||
- `mem:workflow/creating-commits` — commit type emojis
|
||||
Two modes. **Open mode** takes the current task branch to a new, validated
|
||||
PR. **Update mode** rewrites an existing PR's title or description. Gather
|
||||
information, validate, and act in one pass. If validation fails, STOP with a
|
||||
single coherent message that lists every problem and states exactly what
|
||||
information is missing — never fix or work around problems silently.
|
||||
|
||||
## When to Use
|
||||
Both modes require an authenticated `gh` CLI (`gh auth status`) and never
|
||||
push — the user pushes from their own shell.
|
||||
|
||||
- Creating a new PR from a feature branch
|
||||
- Updating an existing PR's title or description to match conventions
|
||||
## When to use
|
||||
|
||||
## Prerequisites
|
||||
- The user asks to open or create a NEW PR for the current task branch, in
|
||||
any phrasing ("open a PR", "create the pull request", "put this up for
|
||||
review") — or runs `/create-pr`. → **Open mode**.
|
||||
- The user asks to fix or update an EXISTING PR's title or description to
|
||||
match conventions. → **Update mode**.
|
||||
|
||||
- `gh` CLI authenticated (`gh auth status`)
|
||||
If the running agent cannot write (for example, the plan agent), say so and
|
||||
stop — this skill needs the build agent.
|
||||
|
||||
## Commands
|
||||
## Open mode
|
||||
|
||||
**Create:**
|
||||
### 1. Gather context (read-only)
|
||||
|
||||
- Current branch: `git rev-parse --abbrev-ref HEAD`.
|
||||
- Target base branch: run `./scripts/detect-target-branch` from the repo root.
|
||||
It prints the nearest ancestor branch of HEAD (exit 0) or fails (exit 1).
|
||||
- Commits: `git log --oneline <base>..HEAD`.
|
||||
- Push state (local): `git rev-parse --verify origin/<branch>` and compare
|
||||
with HEAD. It reads the local remote-tracking ref — no network, no SSH. It
|
||||
reflects the last push or fetch this clone knows about.
|
||||
- Issue: from the session context, or from the branch name — `issue-NNNN`
|
||||
maps to issue NNNN; recover its title and body with `gh issue view NNNN`.
|
||||
|
||||
### 2. Validate — stop with one message if anything fails
|
||||
|
||||
Run all checks before reporting, then report every failure together:
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Base branch not usable.** If the script fails (exit 1), or its output —
|
||||
after stripping an optional `remotes/origin/` prefix — is not one of the
|
||||
canonical branches (`develop`, `staging`, `main`), stop and ask the user
|
||||
to re-run with more context — for example, passing the base branch
|
||||
explicitly in their invocation. An explicit base given by the user
|
||||
overrides the script's output.
|
||||
2. **On a base branch.** There is no task branch to merge — say so and stop.
|
||||
3. **No commits.** The branch has no commits ahead of the base — say so and
|
||||
stop.
|
||||
4. **No clear issue.** There is no issue in the session context, and the
|
||||
branch name has no `issue-NNNN` pattern (or `gh issue view` finds nothing)
|
||||
— say so and stop. Exception: the user's invocation says `no issue` /
|
||||
`without issue` — then continue without an issue reference.
|
||||
5. **Branch not pushed.** The remote-tracking ref `origin/<branch>` is
|
||||
missing, or `git rev-parse origin/<branch>` differs from HEAD — the
|
||||
branch was never pushed, or has commits the remote does not have. Never
|
||||
push yourself; ask the user to push and to run `/create-pr` again
|
||||
afterwards, then stop.
|
||||
|
||||
### 3. Already-open PR
|
||||
|
||||
Check whether a PR already exists for this branch (`gh pr list --head
|
||||
<branch>`). If one exists, report its URL and stop — do not create a second
|
||||
one. Title or description fixes belong to Update mode.
|
||||
|
||||
### 4. Write and create the PR
|
||||
|
||||
Write the title and body following `mem:workflow/creating-prs` (title format,
|
||||
description structure, writing principles) and `mem:workflow/creating-commits`
|
||||
(commit type emojis). Derive the title and body from the commits and, when
|
||||
there is one, from the issue body. Reference the issue with `Closes #NNNN`.
|
||||
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
gh pr create --repo penpot/penpot --title "<TITLE>" --body-file /tmp/pr-body.md
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
**Update:**
|
||||
### 5. Report
|
||||
|
||||
Report the PR URL and stop.
|
||||
|
||||
## Update mode
|
||||
|
||||
1. Identify the PR: the number given by the user, or `gh pr list --head
|
||||
<branch>`.
|
||||
2. Write the new title and/or body following `mem:workflow/creating-prs`.
|
||||
3. Apply and verify:
|
||||
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
gh pr edit <NUMBER> --repo penpot/penpot --title "<TITLE>" --body-file /tmp/pr-body.md
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
**Verify:**
|
||||
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
gh pr view <NUMBER> --repo penpot/penpot --json title,body
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
4. Report and stop.
|
||||
|
||||
## User context
|
||||
|
||||
Extra context in the user's invocation (the message that triggered this skill)
|
||||
plays the role command arguments play elsewhere: overrides such as `no issue` /
|
||||
`without issue`, an explicit base branch (`from origin/staging`), a PR number
|
||||
for Update mode, and so on.
|
||||
|
||||
84
.opencode/skills/implement-plan/SKILL.md
Normal file
84
.opencode/skills/implement-plan/SKILL.md
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,84 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
name: implement-plan
|
||||
description: Implementation flow — execute a ready plan from the session context: detect the flow (new issue + branch when on a base branch, or continue on the current branch), implement, and commit. Use it when the user asks to implement or execute a plan, in any phrasing.
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Implement Plan
|
||||
|
||||
This flow is run once a plan is ready (for example, from plan mode). Execute
|
||||
the plan already prepared in the current session context. This flow ends
|
||||
with exactly one commit. It never pushes — the user pushes.
|
||||
|
||||
## 1. Detect the flow (no questions)
|
||||
|
||||
Inspect the current branch with `git rev-parse --abbrev-ref HEAD`, pick the
|
||||
mode, and announce it in one line before acting.
|
||||
|
||||
- **On a base branch** (`main`, `develop`, `staging`) → **standalone mode**:
|
||||
create the issue and the branch, then implement and commit.
|
||||
- **On any other branch** (a feature branch, typically `issue-NNNN`) →
|
||||
**continue mode**: implement on the current branch and commit. No issue or
|
||||
branch is created.
|
||||
|
||||
Arguments override detection: `standalone`, `continue`,
|
||||
`no issue` / `without issue`, or an explicit base such as
|
||||
`from origin/develop`.
|
||||
|
||||
### Standalone mode
|
||||
|
||||
1. Create the issue with the **`create-issue`** skill, following the
|
||||
*Creating Issues from Draft Body* flow in `mem:workflow/creating-issues`.
|
||||
Derive the issue title and body from the plan. Capture the new issue's
|
||||
number — call it **NNNN** (needed for the branch name and the commit
|
||||
reference).
|
||||
2. Create the branch from the current HEAD:
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
git checkout -b issue-NNNN
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
3. If the arguments say `no issue` / `without issue`, skip the issue and
|
||||
create a branch named `plan-<slug>` instead, where `<slug>` is the plan
|
||||
title, lowercase and hyphen-separated.
|
||||
|
||||
**Standalone while already on a feature branch:** stop and explain that this
|
||||
would stack branches. Ask the user to re-run with an explicit base, for
|
||||
example `from origin/develop` — then branch from that base instead of HEAD.
|
||||
|
||||
### Continue mode
|
||||
|
||||
No issue and no branch. Implement on the current branch. The branch name
|
||||
provides the issue reference when it follows the `issue-NNNN` pattern.
|
||||
|
||||
## 2. Execute the plan
|
||||
|
||||
Implement the prepared plan from the session context. Work methodically,
|
||||
keeping changes focused on what the issue requires. Respect the plan's
|
||||
proposed parallelization when it applies. Do not commit — the commit happens
|
||||
in the next step.
|
||||
|
||||
## 3. Commit with the create-commit skill
|
||||
|
||||
After the implementation is complete, load the **`create-commit`** skill and
|
||||
follow its workflow to commit the changes. Provide a brief summary of what was
|
||||
implemented and why, the issue reference (`issue-NNNN`) when there is one, and
|
||||
the model name you are running as so the `AI-assisted-by` trailer is set
|
||||
correctly.
|
||||
|
||||
Do not push. Pushing is handled separately by the user.
|
||||
|
||||
## When you are done
|
||||
|
||||
End by suggesting the next steps (suggestions, not a required pipeline — any
|
||||
instruction from me overrides them):
|
||||
|
||||
- `/review-code` — to review the changes just committed; it routes to
|
||||
`/make-a-plan` by itself if the findings need one.
|
||||
- `/create-pr` — when the task is done and the branch is ready to merge.
|
||||
|
||||
## User context
|
||||
|
||||
Extra context in the user's invocation (the message that triggered this skill)
|
||||
plays the role command arguments play elsewhere: `standalone`, `continue`,
|
||||
`no issue` / `without issue`, or an explicit base such as
|
||||
`from origin/develop`.
|
||||
90
.opencode/skills/make-a-plan/SKILL.md
Normal file
90
.opencode/skills/make-a-plan/SKILL.md
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,90 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
name: make-a-plan
|
||||
description: Planning flow — research the subject of this session, produce an implementation plan with the planner skill, resolve open questions with the user in plain language, and save the final plan to .opencode/plans/. Use it when the user asks to plan, design, or break down a task, in any phrasing.
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Make a Plan
|
||||
|
||||
Act as a senior software engineer: research the subject of this session in depth and
|
||||
produce a well-grounded, actionable implementation plan.
|
||||
|
||||
If the running agent cannot write (for example, the plan agent), say so and
|
||||
stop — this skill needs the build agent to save the plan.
|
||||
|
||||
## Instructions
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Produce the plan** with the `planner` skill. By default, research the
|
||||
subject of this session and draft the plan yourself. If I ask for it (for
|
||||
example, `delegated` in the user context), delegate to the `general` subagent
|
||||
instead — the delegate must also follow the `planner` skill and receive all
|
||||
the relevant session context (a review, user feedback, and so on).
|
||||
2. Before asking me to decide anything, explain the plan and every open question in
|
||||
plain language. Assume I know only the high-level project goal, not the codebase,
|
||||
architecture, implementation terms, or the problem this task solves.
|
||||
3. Once all decisions are answered and the plan is final, save it verbatim to the
|
||||
announced path under `.opencode/plans/` (create the directory if it does not
|
||||
exist). This step is the flow's explicit authorization to write the plan
|
||||
file — the only write allowed here. If I later ask for changes, update the
|
||||
saved file directly.
|
||||
4. Present me with a clear, self-contained summary of the plan's most relevant points
|
||||
only after all required decisions have been answered. Write it for someone who knows
|
||||
only the project's high-level goal and may not know the plan's low-level context.
|
||||
Explain necessary technical language in plain terms, include the problem being
|
||||
solved and the proposed outcome, and do not assume that listing technical task names
|
||||
is enough.
|
||||
|
||||
### Hard rule — read-only while planning
|
||||
|
||||
While this flow runs, act read-only: research with read-only tools only.
|
||||
Never edit source files, never run builds, tests, linters, or any command that
|
||||
modifies state, and never commit. The single allowed write is the plan file in
|
||||
step 3. This rule expires when I approve the plan or move on to another task;
|
||||
then you act as a normal build agent again.
|
||||
|
||||
When the plan contains open questions, do not show them as bare technical questions or
|
||||
assume that I understand the technical language or technical words used in the plan.
|
||||
For each question, first explain:
|
||||
|
||||
- What part of the user problem the decision affects.
|
||||
- The relevant concept from the beginning, with a small concrete example.
|
||||
- What each available option would make the system do.
|
||||
- The practical benefits, costs, risks, and user-visible consequences of each option.
|
||||
- Which option the planner recommends and why.
|
||||
|
||||
Only after that explanation, use the `question` tool to ask the decision with clear,
|
||||
non-technical option labels. Put the recommended option first and mark it as
|
||||
`(Recommended)`. Group related questions when their context is shared, but do not ask a
|
||||
question whose meaning has not already been explained.
|
||||
|
||||
If I say that I do not understand a question or its choices, do not treat my previous
|
||||
answer as valid. Explain the concepts again from the high-level project goal, use a more
|
||||
concrete example, explain the implications, and ask the question again with the
|
||||
`question` tool. Repeat this until I can make an informed choice. If one answer creates
|
||||
new design consequences or additional decisions, explain those consequences before
|
||||
asking any new question.
|
||||
|
||||
Distinguish clearly between requirements already fixed by the roadmap or existing
|
||||
architecture and choices that actually require my input. Do not ask me to choose an
|
||||
implementation detail when the plan can resolve it safely without changing the public
|
||||
behavior. If there are no decisions that require my input, say so and present the
|
||||
summary.
|
||||
|
||||
IMPORTANT: **Under no circumstances execute the plan. Wait for the user to review it
|
||||
after all possible questions have been answered.** The final summary must explain the
|
||||
problem being solved, the proposed behavior, the main user-visible workflow, important
|
||||
constraints and risks, what is deliberately out of scope, and the path where the plan
|
||||
is saved. Never assume that a short list of task names is enough context. End
|
||||
the final response by suggesting the next steps, in this order:
|
||||
|
||||
1. `/review-plan` — to get a second opinion on the plan before executing it.
|
||||
2. `/implement-plan` — to execute the plan from the current session context.
|
||||
|
||||
These are suggestions, not a required pipeline — any instruction from me
|
||||
overrides them (for example, asking you to implement the plan directly).
|
||||
|
||||
## User context
|
||||
|
||||
Extra context in the user's invocation (the message that triggered this skill)
|
||||
plays the role command arguments play elsewhere: for example, `delegated` to
|
||||
hand the research and drafting to the `general` subagent, or corrections and
|
||||
feedback about a previous plan.
|
||||
@ -1,9 +1,9 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
name: plan-review
|
||||
description: Reviews implementation plans for quality, completeness, and actionability. Use after a plan is produced by the planner skill, before starting implementation. Use when evaluating a plan written by yourself, another agent, or a human.
|
||||
name: plan-review-criteria
|
||||
description: Plan review criteria — the six review axes, severity rubric, approval standard, and output format for reviewing implementation plans. Loaded by the reviewer subagent of the review-plan flow. Not a user-facing flow — to review a plan, use the review-plan flow.
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Plan Review
|
||||
# Plan Review Criteria
|
||||
|
||||
## Overview
|
||||
|
||||
@ -13,10 +13,10 @@ Multi-dimensional plan review with quality gates. Every plan gets reviewed befor
|
||||
|
||||
## When to Use
|
||||
|
||||
- After the planner skill produces a plan
|
||||
- Before starting implementation on any non-trivial task
|
||||
- When reviewing a plan written by another agent or a human
|
||||
- When a plan feels too large, vague, or risky to start
|
||||
- The reviewer subagent of the `review-plan` flow loads this skill to perform
|
||||
the review of a plan.
|
||||
- To review a plan, always go through the `review-plan` flow — never load this
|
||||
skill directly for that. This is the criteria reference, not the flow.
|
||||
|
||||
**Do NOT use for:** Single-file changes with obvious scope, or when the task is trivial enough to just do.
|
||||
|
||||
@ -87,7 +87,7 @@ Can an implementer actually execute this?
|
||||
|
||||
### 6. Proposed Code Quality *(when the plan includes implementation details)*
|
||||
|
||||
If the plan proposes code shapes, function signatures, data structures, or API designs, evaluate those proposals against `code-review` criteria:
|
||||
If the plan proposes code shapes, function signatures, data structures, or API designs, evaluate those proposals against `code-review-criteria`:
|
||||
|
||||
- **Correctness:** Do the proposed types/signatures handle edge cases (null, empty, boundaries)?
|
||||
- **Readability:** Are proposed names descriptive and consistent with project conventions?
|
||||
@ -215,7 +215,7 @@ Check that the plan can actually confirm it worked:
|
||||
If the plan includes code snippets, types, or API designs:
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
- Load code-review skill for criteria
|
||||
- Load code-review-criteria skill for criteria
|
||||
- Check proposed signatures for edge cases
|
||||
- Verify naming follows project conventions
|
||||
- Confirm abstractions follow existing patterns
|
||||
@ -310,6 +310,6 @@ If the plan includes code snippets, types, or API designs:
|
||||
## See Also
|
||||
|
||||
- For producing plans, use the `planner` skill
|
||||
- For reviewing implemented code, use `code-review` — also the criteria source for axis 6
|
||||
- For reviewing implemented code, use `code-review-criteria` — also the criteria source for axis 6
|
||||
- For security-specific concerns, see `security-and-hardening`
|
||||
- For testing strategy guidance, see `testing`
|
||||
40
.opencode/skills/resolve-git-conflicts/SKILL.md
Normal file
40
.opencode/skills/resolve-git-conflicts/SKILL.md
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,40 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
name: resolve-git-conflicts
|
||||
description: Conflict resolution flow — understand the local git conflicts, present a resolution plan, and resolve them after the user approves it. Never continues the rebase. Use it when the repo has unresolved conflicts (rebase, merge, cherry-pick) or the user asks to resolve them.
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Resolve Git Conflicts
|
||||
|
||||
Resolve conflicts in the local repository. The user handles finishing the
|
||||
rebase themselves — you must **never** run `git rebase --continue`,
|
||||
`git rebase --skip`, `git merge --continue`, or anything similar.
|
||||
|
||||
## Phase 1 — Understand the problem (read-only)
|
||||
|
||||
1. Run `git status` to detect the conflict state (rebase, merge, cherry-pick, etc.) and list conflicted files.
|
||||
2. For each conflicted (unmerged) file, understand the situation **without modifying anything**:
|
||||
- Read the file and identify the conflict markers (`<<<<<<<`, `=======`, `>>>>>>>`).
|
||||
- Inspect both sides — `git show <ours>:<file>` and `git show <theirs>:<file>` — plus `git log`/`git show` on the commits involved to understand intent.
|
||||
- Identify what each side changed and why, and how they should be combined.
|
||||
|
||||
## Phase 2 — Present the resolution plan
|
||||
|
||||
3. **Present a clear plan to the user before touching any file.** For each conflicted file, state:
|
||||
- What each side changed and why.
|
||||
- Your proposed resolution and the reasoning behind it.
|
||||
- How the two sides are combined (both additive → merge; both modify the same code → keep the semantically correct version, merging intent from both sides when clear from code and context).
|
||||
4. **Ask the user only when genuinely unclear.** Do not ask about anything you can determine yourself from the code, commit messages, or context. Only decisions that are not determinable and change the outcome (e.g. conflicting product decisions, which side to discard) warrant a question. **Collect all such questions together in an "Open Questions" section at the end of the plan**, so the user has full context to answer them properly.
|
||||
5. **Wait for the user to accept the plan** (and answer any open questions) before editing, staging, or otherwise modifying anything.
|
||||
|
||||
## Phase 3 — Execute
|
||||
|
||||
6. Resolve each conflicted file by editing the file to the agreed merged content and removing all conflict markers.
|
||||
|
||||
## Phase 4 — Stage and verify
|
||||
|
||||
7. **Stage every resolved file** with `git add <file>`. Do not stage unrelated untracked files unless clearly part of the resolution.
|
||||
8. Verify no conflict markers remain (search for `<<<<<<<` / `>>>>>>>` in resolved files) and that `git status` shows no unmerged paths.
|
||||
|
||||
## Phase 5 — Report
|
||||
|
||||
9. Briefly report the conflict state, how each conflicted file was resolved (and any answers received to open questions), and stop — do **not** run `git rebase --continue` or any other continuation command.
|
||||
65
.opencode/skills/review-code/SKILL.md
Normal file
65
.opencode/skills/review-code/SKILL.md
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,65 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
name: review-code
|
||||
description: Code review flow — review a diff, PR, or code change, delegating the review to a subagent that follows the code-review-criteria skill. Use it when the user asks to review code or a PR, in any phrasing.
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Review Code
|
||||
|
||||
Act as a senior software engineer and perform a thorough code review.
|
||||
|
||||
## Instructions
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Determine what is being reviewed** from the user context: a working-tree
|
||||
diff, a commit range, a branch, a PR (number or URL), or specific files. If
|
||||
the target is ambiguous, ask before reviewing.
|
||||
2. Delegate the review to the `general` subagent (via the task tool), unless the
|
||||
user specifies another agent. Include in the prompt the
|
||||
**`code-review-criteria`** skill name and all user context.
|
||||
3. When the subagent returns, output the review to the user verbatim. Do not
|
||||
summarize it and do not act on its findings.
|
||||
4. Right after the review, suggest how to proceed based on the findings. These
|
||||
are suggestions — the user decides:
|
||||
- **Approve (no required changes):** say so — there is nothing to address.
|
||||
- **Minor findings (nits):** applying them directly as-is is fine once the
|
||||
review is done — no plan needed.
|
||||
- **Substantive findings:** suggest `/make-a-plan` to make a plan to address
|
||||
them.
|
||||
|
||||
### Hard rule — read-only while reviewing
|
||||
|
||||
This flow is read-only **for the duration of the review**: from the moment it
|
||||
starts until the user considers the review finished (including any feedback,
|
||||
questions, or clarifications about it). During that period, never fix,
|
||||
implement, edit files or create commits — not even "obvious" fixes derived from
|
||||
the findings. Once the user explicitly states the review is done (or moves on to
|
||||
a different task), this rule no longer applies and you act as a normal build
|
||||
agent again.
|
||||
|
||||
## Instructions for the subagent
|
||||
|
||||
1. Load the **`code-review-criteria`** skill and follow its process and output
|
||||
format.
|
||||
2. Read `AGENTS.md` (if present) and follow its instructions for finding and
|
||||
reading all related testing documentation from memories before reviewing.
|
||||
3. Return in your final message the COMPLETE review, verbatim, exactly as the
|
||||
skill instructs it to be produced. Do not summarize it — include the full
|
||||
structured review.
|
||||
|
||||
### Strong rules for the subagent
|
||||
|
||||
1. Do not invent problems. Every finding must be real and actionable.
|
||||
2. Read-only: do not modify any file and do not create a commit — reviewing
|
||||
never writes.
|
||||
3. Be specific and constructive. "This could be better" is not helpful — explain
|
||||
why and how.
|
||||
4. Prioritize by impact. One structural issue outweighs ten nits.
|
||||
5. Missing tests are an issue, not a suggestion. Report as a severity-tagged
|
||||
finding — never as a recommendation.
|
||||
6. Skip generated files, lockfile-only changes, and unrelated modifications
|
||||
unless they introduce security risks.
|
||||
|
||||
## User context
|
||||
|
||||
Extra context in the user's invocation (the message that triggered this skill)
|
||||
plays the role command arguments play elsewhere: for example, a PR number or
|
||||
URL, a commit range, specific files, or a different agent to run the review.
|
||||
63
.opencode/skills/review-plan/SKILL.md
Normal file
63
.opencode/skills/review-plan/SKILL.md
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,63 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
name: review-plan
|
||||
description: Plan review flow — evaluate an implementation plan before it is executed, delegating the review to a subagent that follows the plan-review-criteria skill. Use it when the user asks to review a plan, in any phrasing.
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Review Plan
|
||||
|
||||
Act as a senior software engineer and perform a thorough review of an
|
||||
implementation plan.
|
||||
|
||||
## Instructions
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Determine the plan under review** from the session context (for example, a
|
||||
plan just produced by `/make-a-plan`) or from a plan file path given by the
|
||||
user (typically under `.opencode/plans/`). If a file path is given, read the
|
||||
file first so the complete plan is in context.
|
||||
2. Delegate the review to the `general` subagent (via the task tool), unless the
|
||||
user specifies another agent. Include in the prompt the
|
||||
**`plan-review-criteria`** skill name and all user context.
|
||||
3. When the subagent returns, output the review to the user verbatim. Do not
|
||||
summarize it and do not act on its findings.
|
||||
4. Right after the review, suggest the next step based on the verdict. These
|
||||
are suggestions — the user decides, and any instruction overrides them:
|
||||
- **Approve** → suggest `/implement-plan` to execute it.
|
||||
- **Request changes** → suggest `/make-a-plan` to make a plan to address the
|
||||
findings.
|
||||
|
||||
### Hard rule — read-only while reviewing
|
||||
|
||||
This flow is read-only **for the duration of the review**: from the moment it
|
||||
starts until the user considers the review finished (including any feedback,
|
||||
questions, or clarifications about it). During that period, never fix,
|
||||
implement, edit files or create commits — not even "obvious" fixes derived from
|
||||
the findings. Once the user explicitly states the review is done (or moves on to
|
||||
a different task), this rule no longer applies and you act as a normal build
|
||||
agent again.
|
||||
|
||||
## Instructions for the subagent
|
||||
|
||||
1. Load the **`plan-review-criteria`** skill and follow its process and output
|
||||
format.
|
||||
2. Read `AGENTS.md` (if present) and follow its instructions for finding and
|
||||
reading all related documentation and testing memories before reviewing.
|
||||
3. Return in your final message the COMPLETE review, verbatim, exactly as the
|
||||
skill instructs it to be produced. Do not summarize it — include the full
|
||||
structured review.
|
||||
|
||||
### Strong rules for the subagent
|
||||
|
||||
1. Do not invent problems. Every finding must be real and actionable.
|
||||
2. Read-only: do not modify any file and do not create a commit — reviewing
|
||||
never writes.
|
||||
3. Be specific and constructive. "This could be better" is not helpful — explain
|
||||
why and how.
|
||||
4. Prioritize by impact. One structural issue outweighs ten nits.
|
||||
5. Judge the plan as the implementer would: every task executable without
|
||||
guessing, ordering follows the dependency graph, risks named.
|
||||
|
||||
## User context
|
||||
|
||||
Extra context in the user's invocation (the message that triggered this skill)
|
||||
plays the role command arguments play elsewhere: for example, a plan file path
|
||||
to review, or a different agent to run the review.
|
||||
Loading…
x
Reference in New Issue
Block a user