feat: codebuddy-mem v13.0.0 - 基于 claude-mem 12.6.0 AGPL-3.0 分叉
- 全局重命名 claude-mem → codebuddy-mem - AI 后端改为 DeepSeek V4 直连 - 适配 CodeBuddy Code 作为 MCP 客户端 - 修复 GS 函数 timeoutMs bug - 新增 README / CHANGELOG / UPSTREAM / install.sh - 协议：AGPL-3.0
This commit is contained in:
Mac
111
skills/pathfinder/SKILL.md
Normal file
111
skills/pathfinder/SKILL.md
Normal file
@@ -0,0 +1,111 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
name: pathfinder
|
||||
description: Map a codebase into feature-grouped flowcharts, identify duplicated concerns across features, and propose a unified architecture. Use when asked to "find the ideal path," unify duplicated systems, or audit architecture before a refactor. Emits a proposed unified flowchart plus per-system /make-plan prompts.
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Pathfinder
|
||||
|
||||
You are an ORCHESTRATOR. Map the codebase into feature-grouped flowcharts, identify duplicated concerns, propose the simplest unified architecture, and hand off per-system plans to `/make-plan`.
|
||||
|
||||
You do not write implementation code. You produce diagrams, a duplication report, a proposed unified flowchart, and handoff prompts.
|
||||
|
||||
## Delegation Model
|
||||
|
||||
Use subagents for *discovery and extraction* (file reading, flow tracing, grep, diagramming). Keep *synthesis* (deciding feature boundaries, picking unification strategies, final flowchart) with the orchestrator. Reject subagent reports that lack source citations and redeploy.
|
||||
|
||||
### Subagent Reporting Contract (MANDATORY)
|
||||
|
||||
Each subagent response must include:
|
||||
1. Sources consulted — exact file paths and line ranges read
|
||||
2. Concrete findings — exact function names, call sites, data flow
|
||||
3. Mermaid diagram(s) with nodes labeled by `file:line`
|
||||
4. Confidence note + known gaps
|
||||
|
||||
## Output Artifacts
|
||||
|
||||
All artifacts go in `PATHFINDER-<YYYY-MM-DD>/` at repo root:
|
||||
- `00-features.md` — feature inventory with boundaries
|
||||
- `01-flowcharts/<feature>.md` — one Mermaid flowchart per feature
|
||||
- `02-duplication-report.md` — cross-cutting duplicated concerns with evidence
|
||||
- `03-unified-proposal.md` — proposed unified architecture + Mermaid
|
||||
- `04-handoff-prompts.md` — copy-pasteable `/make-plan` prompts per unified system
|
||||
|
||||
## Phases
|
||||
|
||||
### Phase 0: Feature Discovery (ALWAYS FIRST)
|
||||
|
||||
Deploy ONE "Feature Discovery" subagent to:
|
||||
1. Walk the source tree (not built artifacts) and read top-level README / CLAUDE.md
|
||||
2. Propose feature boundaries based on directory structure, import graph, and naming
|
||||
3. Return a flat list of features with: name, entry points (file:line), core files, brief purpose
|
||||
|
||||
Orchestrator reviews the proposal, adjusts boundaries if needed, writes `00-features.md`. Do NOT fan out until feature boundaries are approved.
|
||||
|
||||
### Phase 1: Per-Feature Flowcharts (FAN OUT)
|
||||
|
||||
Deploy ONE "Flowchart" subagent per feature in parallel. Each receives only its feature's scope. Each must:
|
||||
1. Trace the feature's primary happy path from entry point to terminal state
|
||||
2. Identify side effects (DB writes, HTTP calls, file I/O, process spawns)
|
||||
3. Note error and fallback branches but do not let them dominate the diagram
|
||||
4. Produce a Mermaid `flowchart TD` with every node labeled `Name<br/>file:line`
|
||||
5. List external dependencies (other features it calls into) at the bottom
|
||||
|
||||
Orchestrator writes each flowchart to `01-flowcharts/<feature>.md`. Reject any diagram missing `file:line` labels.
|
||||
|
||||
### Phase 2: Duplication Hunt
|
||||
|
||||
Deploy TWO subagents in parallel:
|
||||
|
||||
**"Within-Feature Duplication"** subagent:
|
||||
- For each feature, find repeated code/logic patterns inside the feature only
|
||||
- Report only duplications worth consolidating (ignore trivial repetition)
|
||||
|
||||
**"Cross-Feature Duplication"** subagent:
|
||||
- Compare flowcharts across features for concerns that appear in multiple places
|
||||
- Examples of what to look for: multiple capture paths, parallel queue implementations, duplicated storage/migration code, repeated agent scaffolding, parallel parsing layers
|
||||
- For each duplication, report: (a) the concern, (b) every location with `file:line`, (c) why they diverged, (d) whether the divergence is legitimate specialization or accidental
|
||||
|
||||
Orchestrator synthesizes both into `02-duplication-report.md`. Every duplication claim must cite ≥2 `file:line` locations.
|
||||
|
||||
### Phase 3: Unified Proposal (ORCHESTRATOR)
|
||||
|
||||
The orchestrator writes `03-unified-proposal.md` itself — do not delegate synthesis.
|
||||
|
||||
For each duplicated concern from Phase 2 that is NOT legitimate specialization:
|
||||
1. Propose the simplest unified design (one path, one store, one handler — whatever applies)
|
||||
2. Name the consolidated component and its single entry point
|
||||
3. Show what each old call site becomes
|
||||
4. Call out any loss of capability and whether it's acceptable
|
||||
|
||||
End the document with ONE combined Mermaid flowchart showing the proposed unified system. Nodes still labeled with target `file:line` (new or existing) where knowable.
|
||||
|
||||
**Anti-patterns to reject in your own proposal:**
|
||||
- Adding a new abstraction layer "for flexibility"
|
||||
- Keeping both old paths behind a feature flag
|
||||
- Introducing a registry/factory when a switch statement suffices
|
||||
- Preserving divergent behavior "just in case"
|
||||
|
||||
### Phase 4: Per-System Handoff Prompts
|
||||
|
||||
For each unified system in the proposal, write a ready-to-run `/make-plan` prompt to `04-handoff-prompts.md`. Each prompt must:
|
||||
1. State the target unified component and its single entry point
|
||||
2. List the exact call sites to rewrite (from Phase 2 evidence)
|
||||
3. Cite the relevant flowchart file from `01-flowcharts/`
|
||||
4. Include anti-pattern guards specific to this system
|
||||
|
||||
Format each as a fenced code block the user can copy directly into `/make-plan`.
|
||||
|
||||
## Key Principles
|
||||
|
||||
- **Evidence over intuition** — every diagram node and duplication claim cites `file:line`
|
||||
- **Current state before ideal state** — Phases 0–2 describe what IS; Phase 3 describes what SHOULD BE
|
||||
- **Simplest unification wins** — prefer deletion over abstraction; prefer one path over configurable paths
|
||||
- **Specialization is not duplication** — two components serving different trust models or data sources are legitimate even if their code looks similar
|
||||
- **Handoff, don't implement** — Pathfinder ends at plan prompts; `/make-plan` and `/do` take it from there
|
||||
|
||||
## Failure Modes to Prevent
|
||||
|
||||
- Drawing flowcharts from memory instead of source — redeploy subagent with grep evidence requirement
|
||||
- Proposing unification of legitimately specialized components — re-examine trust/data-source divergence
|
||||
- Handoff prompts that lack concrete call sites — rewrite with Phase 2 evidence
|
||||
- Skipping Phase 0 boundary review — fanning out on bad feature boundaries wastes all of Phase 1
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user