feat: Refactored the sisyhpus agent system to utilize the new skills system to improve performance and reliability

This commit is contained in:
2026-06-02 13:14:25 -06:00
parent b1782b614f
commit c17db05f39
10 changed files with 790 additions and 261 deletions
+94 -1
View File
@@ -9,7 +9,15 @@ global_tools:
- fs_ls.sh
- fs_write.sh
- fs_patch.sh
- fs_mkdir.sh
- execute_command.sh
skills_enabled: true
enabled_skills:
- ai-slop-remover
- code-review
- git-master
- frontend-ui-ux
- verification-gates
variables:
- name: project_dir
@@ -38,6 +46,10 @@ initial_state:
files_to_create: []
risks: []
complexity_score: 0
review_attempts: 0
max_review_attempts: 1
review_clean: true
review_notes: ""
start: resolve_paths
@@ -143,10 +155,24 @@ nodes:
id: implement
type: llm
description: Write code via fs tools. Bounded tool-call loop.
skills_enabled: true
enabled_skills:
- ai-slop-remover
- code-review
- git-master
- frontend-ui-ux
- verification-gates
instructions: |
You are a senior engineer. Implement the plan by writing code via
tools. Follow existing patterns in the codebase.
## Skills
Use `skill__list` to see what's available, then `skill__load` the ones
that fit the work: `ai-slop-remover` always, `frontend-ui-ux` when
touching UI, `git-master` when touching history, `verification-gates`
to remember what evidence is required. Unload when a phase ends.
## Writing code
1. Use `fs_patch` for surgical edits to existing files.
@@ -239,6 +265,73 @@ nodes:
timeout: 5
fallback: end_failure
self_review:
id: self_review
type: llm
description: Skill-driven self-review of the diff. Catches AI slop, dishonest naming, suppressed errors. Bounded to max_review_attempts.
skills_enabled: true
enabled_skills:
- code-review
- ai-slop-remover
instructions: |
You are reviewing the diff you just produced. Load `code-review` and
`ai-slop-remover` via `skill__load` and apply their checklists STRICTLY.
Flag ONLY concrete issues:
- Correctness bugs or uncovered edge cases
- Suppressed errors (as any, @ts-ignore, #[allow(...)] on unfamiliar
lints, empty catch blocks)
- Dishonest naming (get_X that mutates, returns wrong type, etc.)
- Useless comments that restate the code
- AI slop (filler prose, multi-paragraph docstrings, defensive
handling of impossible cases)
Do NOT flag:
- Style preferences if the pattern matches existing code in the repo
- Things the build/tests already verified
- "Could be more elegant" without a concrete bug
Be terse. The orchestrator wants signal, not noise. If you find nothing
blocking, set review_clean=true and leave review_notes empty.
Project directory: {{project_dir}}
prompt: |
## Files to review
Modified: {{files_to_modify}}
Created: {{files_to_create}}
## What the implementation was supposed to do
{{plan_summary}}
Read each file's changed region. Apply the review skills. Output your verdict.
tools:
- fs_cat
- fs_ls
- execute_command
max_iterations: 15
output_schema:
type: object
properties:
review_clean:
type: boolean
description: True if no blocker issues were found.
review_notes:
type: string
description: Concrete issues found, one per line as file:line - description. Empty when review_clean is true.
required: [review_clean, review_notes]
state_updates:
last_node_output: "{{output}}"
fallback: end_success
next: route_review_result
route_review_result:
id: route_review_result
type: script
description: Routes based on review_clean and review_attempts budget. End on clean or budget exhausted; loop to implement otherwise.
script: scripts/route_review_result.sh
timeout: 5
fallback: end_success
end_success:
id: end_success
type: end