v1.13.12: skills audit + token-tracking fix + codecontext + cap50 + UI cleanups
Multi-topic batch. The big-ticket item is the skills audit; the rest are smaller patches that compounded during the audit work. ## Skills audit (rules→recipes split) Vendored all 26 skills from /home/samkintop/opt/skills/ into data/skills/ (the boocode-repo-local skill library — see docker-compose change below). Audited via 5 parallel Claude Code agent-teams running the mgechev/skills-best-practices 4-step protocol (Discovery → Logic → Edge Case → self-Architecture-Refinement) per skill, ~2 min wall-clock vs the ~3.7-hour serial estimate. Result: 14 skills surviving (renamed to gerund form, frontmatter matched), 11 deleted (duplicates, BooCode-irrelevant patterns, Claude-already-does- natively), 1 migrated to BOOCHAT.md/BOOCODER.md as an always-true rule (verification-before-completion). Each surviving skill had its description refined to fix specific trigger gaps surfaced by the protocol — 4 real-bug findings landed (dead refs, stale tags, broken sub-file references in the original vendored content). Audit decisions documented in openspec/changes/v1.13.12-skills-audit/ audit-notes.md. Convention codified in BOOCHAT.md/BOOCODER.md "rules vs recipes" sections — future workflow rules go to those files (100% present), recipes stay in data/skills/ (~6% invoke rate in multi-turn per the Codeminer42 measurement). ## Token tracking + stale-stream banner fix (same root cause) ws-frames.ts IsoTimestamp was z.string().min(1) but postgres returns timestamp columns as JS Date objects. Every message_complete / session_updated / chat_updated frame was failing the v1.13.11 Zod gate and being silently dropped. Symptoms: token tracking blank in the UI (no usage frames landed); the 60s no-token-activity timer tripped the stale-stream banner because the frontend's local message state never saw status='streaming' flip to 'complete'. Fix: z.preprocess(v => v instanceof Date ? v.toISOString() : v, z.string().min(1)) applied to the IsoTimestamp primitive. Centralized, no publisher changes, works identically server + web (the parity test still passes). ## Codecontext .codecontextignore auto-install services/codecontext_client.ts now copies the codecontext/.codecontextignore.template into any project's root on the first call to that project if no .codecontextignore exists. One file written per project, idempotent (in-memory Set guard + access-check), silent fallback on read-only project. Stops the upstream empty-source- file parser crash on foreign projects' node_modules — previously required manually copying the template per project. ## Tool-call budget cap 30 → 50 services/inference/budget.ts: BUDGET_READ_ONLY and BUDGET_NO_AGENT bumped to 50 (from 30). BUDGET_NON_READ_ONLY stays at 10 (no write tools landed yet). Real recon sessions were hitting 30 with ~3 turns wasted on codecontext parse failures; legitimate need was ~27, and Architect-class system overviews want deeper recon. Headroom of 20 absorbs failure-retry turns without changing the safety floor — the doom-loop guard (3 identical calls → abort) catches the actual failure mode this cap was guarding against. v1.14 (Phase C outer agent loop) will supersede this via per-agent agent.steps. Throwaway-ish patch but unblocks deeper recon today. ## UI cleanups - ChatPane queued-message dropdown removed. Each queued message now has three buttons: edit (pop back into ChatInput via sendToChat event), force-send (was the dropdown's only useful action), and cancel. Default behavior (send when streaming completes) needs no UI — it's the implicit do-nothing path. - ChatThroughput removed from desktop tab strip (ChatTabBar.tsx). Mobile tab switcher still shows it. ## Plumbing - .gitignore: data/* + !data/AGENTS.md + !data/skills/ negation patterns so the vendored skill library + agent registry become git-tracked while session DB state stays out. - docker-compose.yml: removed /opt/skills:/data/skills override mount. Skills now live in the boocode repo at data/skills/, auditable per-batch. The host-level /opt/skills/ is preserved untouched for any other tools that read from it. - .codecontextignore at repo root: auto-installed when codecontext was first called against /opt/boocode itself; matches the template. - CLAUDE.md: updated to document the v1.13.11 publishFrame wrapper + message_parts table + tool_cost_stats view + DB-integration test pattern + host-side smoke endpoint quirk. (Pre-existing in working tree before this batch; shipped here for completeness.) Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
This commit is contained in:
@@ -0,0 +1,411 @@
|
||||
# System Prompt Design Patterns
|
||||
|
||||
Complete guide to writing effective agent system prompts that enable autonomous, high-quality operation.
|
||||
|
||||
## Core Structure
|
||||
|
||||
Every agent system prompt should follow this proven structure:
|
||||
|
||||
```markdown
|
||||
You are [specific role] specializing in [specific domain].
|
||||
|
||||
**Your Core Responsibilities:**
|
||||
1. [Primary responsibility - the main task]
|
||||
2. [Secondary responsibility - supporting task]
|
||||
3. [Additional responsibilities as needed]
|
||||
|
||||
**[Task Name] Process:**
|
||||
1. [First concrete step]
|
||||
2. [Second concrete step]
|
||||
3. [Continue with clear steps]
|
||||
[...]
|
||||
|
||||
**Quality Standards:**
|
||||
- [Standard 1 with specifics]
|
||||
- [Standard 2 with specifics]
|
||||
- [Standard 3 with specifics]
|
||||
|
||||
**Output Format:**
|
||||
Provide results structured as:
|
||||
- [Component 1]
|
||||
- [Component 2]
|
||||
- [Include specific formatting requirements]
|
||||
|
||||
**Edge Cases:**
|
||||
Handle these situations:
|
||||
- [Edge case 1]: [Specific handling approach]
|
||||
- [Edge case 2]: [Specific handling approach]
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
## Pattern 1: Analysis Agents
|
||||
|
||||
For agents that analyze code, PRs, or documentation:
|
||||
|
||||
```markdown
|
||||
You are an expert [domain] analyzer specializing in [specific analysis type].
|
||||
|
||||
**Your Core Responsibilities:**
|
||||
1. Thoroughly analyze [what] for [specific issues]
|
||||
2. Identify [patterns/problems/opportunities]
|
||||
3. Provide actionable recommendations
|
||||
|
||||
**Analysis Process:**
|
||||
1. **Gather Context**: Read [what] using available tools
|
||||
2. **Initial Scan**: Identify obvious [issues/patterns]
|
||||
3. **Deep Analysis**: Examine [specific aspects]:
|
||||
- [Aspect 1]: Check for [criteria]
|
||||
- [Aspect 2]: Verify [criteria]
|
||||
- [Aspect 3]: Assess [criteria]
|
||||
4. **Synthesize Findings**: Group related issues
|
||||
5. **Prioritize**: Rank by [severity/impact/urgency]
|
||||
6. **Generate Report**: Format according to output template
|
||||
|
||||
**Quality Standards:**
|
||||
- Every finding includes file:line reference
|
||||
- Issues categorized by severity (critical/major/minor)
|
||||
- Recommendations are specific and actionable
|
||||
- Positive observations included for balance
|
||||
|
||||
**Output Format:**
|
||||
## Summary
|
||||
[2-3 sentence overview]
|
||||
|
||||
## Critical Issues
|
||||
- [file:line] - [Issue description] - [Recommendation]
|
||||
|
||||
## Major Issues
|
||||
[...]
|
||||
|
||||
## Minor Issues
|
||||
[...]
|
||||
|
||||
## Recommendations
|
||||
[...]
|
||||
|
||||
**Edge Cases:**
|
||||
- No issues found: Provide positive feedback and validation
|
||||
- Too many issues: Group and prioritize top 10
|
||||
- Unclear code: Request clarification rather than guessing
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
## Pattern 2: Generation Agents
|
||||
|
||||
For agents that create code, tests, or documentation:
|
||||
|
||||
```markdown
|
||||
You are an expert [domain] engineer specializing in creating high-quality [output type].
|
||||
|
||||
**Your Core Responsibilities:**
|
||||
1. Generate [what] that meets [quality standards]
|
||||
2. Follow [specific conventions/patterns]
|
||||
3. Ensure [correctness/completeness/clarity]
|
||||
|
||||
**Generation Process:**
|
||||
1. **Understand Requirements**: Analyze what needs to be created
|
||||
2. **Gather Context**: Read existing [code/docs/tests] for patterns
|
||||
3. **Design Structure**: Plan [architecture/organization/flow]
|
||||
4. **Generate Content**: Create [output] following:
|
||||
- [Convention 1]
|
||||
- [Convention 2]
|
||||
- [Best practice 1]
|
||||
5. **Validate**: Verify [correctness/completeness]
|
||||
6. **Document**: Add comments/explanations as needed
|
||||
|
||||
**Quality Standards:**
|
||||
- Follows project conventions (check CLAUDE.md)
|
||||
- [Specific quality metric 1]
|
||||
- [Specific quality metric 2]
|
||||
- Includes error handling
|
||||
- Well-documented and clear
|
||||
|
||||
**Output Format:**
|
||||
Create [what] with:
|
||||
- [Structure requirement 1]
|
||||
- [Structure requirement 2]
|
||||
- Clear, descriptive naming
|
||||
- Comprehensive coverage
|
||||
|
||||
**Edge Cases:**
|
||||
- Insufficient context: Ask user for clarification
|
||||
- Conflicting patterns: Follow most recent/explicit pattern
|
||||
- Complex requirements: Break into smaller pieces
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
## Pattern 3: Validation Agents
|
||||
|
||||
For agents that validate, check, or verify:
|
||||
|
||||
```markdown
|
||||
You are an expert [domain] validator specializing in ensuring [quality aspect].
|
||||
|
||||
**Your Core Responsibilities:**
|
||||
1. Validate [what] against [criteria]
|
||||
2. Identify violations and issues
|
||||
3. Provide clear pass/fail determination
|
||||
|
||||
**Validation Process:**
|
||||
1. **Load Criteria**: Understand validation requirements
|
||||
2. **Scan Target**: Read [what] needs validation
|
||||
3. **Check Rules**: For each rule:
|
||||
- [Rule 1]: [Validation method]
|
||||
- [Rule 2]: [Validation method]
|
||||
4. **Collect Violations**: Document each failure with details
|
||||
5. **Assess Severity**: Categorize issues
|
||||
6. **Determine Result**: Pass only if [criteria met]
|
||||
|
||||
**Quality Standards:**
|
||||
- All violations include specific locations
|
||||
- Severity clearly indicated
|
||||
- Fix suggestions provided
|
||||
- No false positives
|
||||
|
||||
**Output Format:**
|
||||
## Validation Result: [PASS/FAIL]
|
||||
|
||||
## Summary
|
||||
[Overall assessment]
|
||||
|
||||
## Violations Found: [count]
|
||||
### Critical ([count])
|
||||
- [Location]: [Issue] - [Fix]
|
||||
|
||||
### Warnings ([count])
|
||||
- [Location]: [Issue] - [Fix]
|
||||
|
||||
## Recommendations
|
||||
[How to fix violations]
|
||||
|
||||
**Edge Cases:**
|
||||
- No violations: Confirm validation passed
|
||||
- Too many violations: Group by type, show top 20
|
||||
- Ambiguous rules: Document uncertainty, request clarification
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
## Pattern 4: Orchestration Agents
|
||||
|
||||
For agents that coordinate multiple tools or steps:
|
||||
|
||||
```markdown
|
||||
You are an expert [domain] orchestrator specializing in coordinating [complex workflow].
|
||||
|
||||
**Your Core Responsibilities:**
|
||||
1. Coordinate [multi-step process]
|
||||
2. Manage [resources/tools/dependencies]
|
||||
3. Ensure [successful completion/integration]
|
||||
|
||||
**Orchestration Process:**
|
||||
1. **Plan**: Understand full workflow and dependencies
|
||||
2. **Prepare**: Set up prerequisites
|
||||
3. **Execute Phases**:
|
||||
- Phase 1: [What] using [tools]
|
||||
- Phase 2: [What] using [tools]
|
||||
- Phase 3: [What] using [tools]
|
||||
4. **Monitor**: Track progress and handle failures
|
||||
5. **Verify**: Confirm successful completion
|
||||
6. **Report**: Provide comprehensive summary
|
||||
|
||||
**Quality Standards:**
|
||||
- Each phase completes successfully
|
||||
- Errors handled gracefully
|
||||
- Progress reported to user
|
||||
- Final state verified
|
||||
|
||||
**Output Format:**
|
||||
## Workflow Execution Report
|
||||
|
||||
### Completed Phases
|
||||
- [Phase]: [Result]
|
||||
|
||||
### Results
|
||||
- [Output 1]
|
||||
- [Output 2]
|
||||
|
||||
### Next Steps
|
||||
[If applicable]
|
||||
|
||||
**Edge Cases:**
|
||||
- Phase failure: Attempt retry, then report and stop
|
||||
- Missing dependencies: Request from user
|
||||
- Timeout: Report partial completion
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
## Writing Style Guidelines
|
||||
|
||||
### Tone and Voice
|
||||
|
||||
**Use second person (addressing the agent):**
|
||||
```
|
||||
✅ You are responsible for...
|
||||
✅ You will analyze...
|
||||
✅ Your process should...
|
||||
|
||||
❌ The agent is responsible for...
|
||||
❌ This agent will analyze...
|
||||
❌ I will analyze...
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
### Clarity and Specificity
|
||||
|
||||
**Be specific, not vague:**
|
||||
```
|
||||
✅ Check for SQL injection by examining all database queries for parameterization
|
||||
❌ Look for security issues
|
||||
|
||||
✅ Provide file:line references for each finding
|
||||
❌ Show where issues are
|
||||
|
||||
✅ Categorize as critical (security), major (bugs), or minor (style)
|
||||
❌ Rate the severity of issues
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
### Actionable Instructions
|
||||
|
||||
**Give concrete steps:**
|
||||
```
|
||||
✅ Read the file using the Read tool, then search for patterns using Grep
|
||||
❌ Analyze the code
|
||||
|
||||
✅ Generate test file at test/path/to/file.test.ts
|
||||
❌ Create tests
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
## Common Pitfalls
|
||||
|
||||
### ❌ Vague Responsibilities
|
||||
|
||||
```markdown
|
||||
**Your Core Responsibilities:**
|
||||
1. Help the user with their code
|
||||
2. Provide assistance
|
||||
3. Be helpful
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
**Why bad:** Not specific enough to guide behavior.
|
||||
|
||||
### ✅ Specific Responsibilities
|
||||
|
||||
```markdown
|
||||
**Your Core Responsibilities:**
|
||||
1. Analyze TypeScript code for type safety issues
|
||||
2. Identify missing type annotations and improper 'any' usage
|
||||
3. Recommend specific type improvements with examples
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
### ❌ Missing Process Steps
|
||||
|
||||
```markdown
|
||||
Analyze the code and provide feedback.
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
**Why bad:** Agent doesn't know HOW to analyze.
|
||||
|
||||
### ✅ Clear Process
|
||||
|
||||
```markdown
|
||||
**Analysis Process:**
|
||||
1. Read code files using Read tool
|
||||
2. Scan for type annotations on all functions
|
||||
3. Check for 'any' type usage
|
||||
4. Verify generic type parameters
|
||||
5. List findings with file:line references
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
### ❌ Undefined Output
|
||||
|
||||
```markdown
|
||||
Provide a report.
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
**Why bad:** Agent doesn't know what format to use.
|
||||
|
||||
### ✅ Defined Output Format
|
||||
|
||||
```markdown
|
||||
**Output Format:**
|
||||
## Type Safety Report
|
||||
|
||||
### Summary
|
||||
[Overview of findings]
|
||||
|
||||
### Issues Found
|
||||
- `file.ts:42` - Missing return type on `processData`
|
||||
- `utils.ts:15` - Unsafe 'any' usage in parameter
|
||||
|
||||
### Recommendations
|
||||
[Specific fixes with examples]
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
## Length Guidelines
|
||||
|
||||
### Minimum Viable Agent
|
||||
|
||||
**~500 words minimum:**
|
||||
- Role description
|
||||
- 3 core responsibilities
|
||||
- 5-step process
|
||||
- Output format
|
||||
|
||||
### Standard Agent
|
||||
|
||||
**~1,000-2,000 words:**
|
||||
- Detailed role and expertise
|
||||
- 5-8 responsibilities
|
||||
- 8-12 process steps
|
||||
- Quality standards
|
||||
- Output format
|
||||
- 3-5 edge cases
|
||||
|
||||
### Comprehensive Agent
|
||||
|
||||
**~2,000-5,000 words:**
|
||||
- Complete role with background
|
||||
- Comprehensive responsibilities
|
||||
- Detailed multi-phase process
|
||||
- Extensive quality standards
|
||||
- Multiple output formats
|
||||
- Many edge cases
|
||||
- Examples within system prompt
|
||||
|
||||
**Avoid > 10,000 words:** Too long, diminishing returns.
|
||||
|
||||
## Testing System Prompts
|
||||
|
||||
### Test Completeness
|
||||
|
||||
Can the agent handle these based on system prompt alone?
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] Typical task execution
|
||||
- [ ] Edge cases mentioned
|
||||
- [ ] Error scenarios
|
||||
- [ ] Unclear requirements
|
||||
- [ ] Large/complex inputs
|
||||
- [ ] Empty/missing inputs
|
||||
|
||||
### Test Clarity
|
||||
|
||||
Read the system prompt and ask:
|
||||
|
||||
- Can another developer understand what this agent does?
|
||||
- Are process steps clear and actionable?
|
||||
- Is output format unambiguous?
|
||||
- Are quality standards measurable?
|
||||
|
||||
### Iterate Based on Results
|
||||
|
||||
After testing agent:
|
||||
1. Identify where it struggled
|
||||
2. Add missing guidance to system prompt
|
||||
3. Clarify ambiguous instructions
|
||||
4. Add process steps for edge cases
|
||||
5. Re-test
|
||||
|
||||
## Conclusion
|
||||
|
||||
Effective system prompts are:
|
||||
- **Specific**: Clear about what and how
|
||||
- **Structured**: Organized with clear sections
|
||||
- **Complete**: Covers normal and edge cases
|
||||
- **Actionable**: Provides concrete steps
|
||||
- **Testable**: Defines measurable standards
|
||||
|
||||
Use the patterns above as templates, customize for your domain, and iterate based on agent performance.
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user