wangsli/hyb-oa
1
0
派生 0
代码 工单 合并请求 工作流 8 软件包 项目 发布 百科 活动

merge: 合入候选分支（09-17借款/ERP退役、09-18编号、09-19预算并发、完整10-05错误码迁移，均经确认）

浏览代码 
# Conflicts:
#	.agents/skills/trellis-before-dev/SKILL.md
#	.agents/skills/trellis-brainstorm/SKILL.md
#	.agents/skills/trellis-continue/SKILL.md
#	.agents/skills/trellis-start/SKILL.md
#	.trellis/tasks/08-23-isolated-backup-restore-drill/design.md
#	.trellis/tasks/08-23-isolated-backup-restore-drill/prd.md
#	.trellis/tasks/09-05-error-explainability-payment-readiness/prd.md
#	.trellis/tasks/09-05-error-explainability-payment-readiness/task.json
#	.trellis/tasks/09-09-existing-deploy-seed-separation/implement.md
#	.trellis/tasks/archive/2026-09/09-05-trellis-upgrade-rule-cleanup/task.json
#	.trellis/workflow.md
#	scripts/qa/error-reason-legacy-baseline.json
#	server/src/routes/apOperations.js
#	server/src/routes/portal.js
#	server/src/routes/todos.js
#	server/tests/unit/fixtures/error-reason-messages.json
#	server/tests/unit/routes/apOperations.permissions.test.js
这个提交包含在：
wangsli
2026-09-26 07:54:10 +08:00
父节点 f5165f3c0c eec26c7cfe
当前提交 46a70aa552
共修改 395 个文件，包含 23086 行新增和 13407 行删除
下载 Patch 文件 下载 Diff 文件 展开所有文件 折叠所有文件
.agents/skills/trellis-break-loop/SKILL.md
+8 -178
查看文件
@@ -1,188 +1,18 @@
---
name: trellis-break-loop
description: "Deep bug analysis to break the fix-forget-repeat cycle. Analyzes root cause category, why fixes failed, prevention mechanisms, and captures knowledge into specs. Use after fixing a bug to prevent the same class of bugs."
description: "Analyze recurring bugs or failed fixes to identify a supported cause and targeted prevention; use for a requested debugging retrospective."
---
# Break the Loop - Deep Bug Analysis
# Learn From A Debugging Loop
When debug is complete, use this for deep analysis to break the "fix bug -> forget -> repeat" cycle.
Use the current task's evidence and existing analysis. An ordinary fix with adequate regression coverage does not automatically need a separate retrospective or new spec section.
---
Distinguish the observed failure, supported cause and remaining hypotheses. Explain earlier failed fixes only when they change the diagnosis. Consider missing contracts, cross-layer mismatch, missed consumers, inadequate coverage or an implicit assumption; these are prompts, not mandatory categories.
## Analysis Framework
When causes compete, choose a small check whose outcome distinguishes them. Preserve counterevidence, input/environment differences and failed runs. Do not invent numerical priors or confidence thresholds, or call a plausible explanation proven. Stop expanding the investigation when the authorized problem and meaningful regression are covered; new risks become scoped follow-up work.
Analyze the bug you just fixed from these 5 dimensions:
Choose the smallest useful prevention: correct the shared contract, add a behavioral regression, enforce an invariant or improve a specific diagnostic. Reuse existing protections. Similar symptoms warrant a targeted consumer check, not automatic repository-wide cleanup or a new abstraction.
### 1. Root Cause Category
Keep run chronology and unresolved hypotheses in the current task. Use `trellis-update-spec` only for a new, reusable lesson, updating its existing owner rather than duplicating it across spec and guides. Summarize cause, evidence, prevention and remaining limitations at the depth the problem needs.
Which category does this bug belong to?
| Category | Characteristics | Example |
|----------|-----------------|---------|
| **A. Missing Spec** | No documentation on how to do it | New feature without checklist |
| **B. Cross-Layer Contract** | Interface between layers unclear | API returns different format than expected |
| **C. Change Propagation Failure** | Changed one place, missed others | Changed function signature, missed call sites |
| **D. Test Coverage Gap** | Unit test passes, integration fails | Works alone, breaks when combined |
| **E. Implicit Assumption** | Code relies on undocumented assumption | Timestamp seconds vs milliseconds |
### 2. Why Fixes Failed (if applicable)
If you tried multiple fixes before succeeding, analyze each failure:
- **Surface Fix**: Fixed symptom, not root cause
- **Incomplete Scope**: Found root cause, didn't cover all cases
- **Tool Limitation**: grep missed it, type check wasn't strict
- **Mental Model**: Kept looking in same layer, didn't think cross-layer
### 3. Prevention Mechanisms
What mechanisms would prevent this from happening again?
| Type | Description | Example |
|------|-------------|---------|
| **Documentation** | Write it down so people know | Update thinking guide |
| **Architecture** | Make the error impossible structurally | Type-safe wrappers |
| **Compile-time** | Strict type checking, no escape hatches | Signature change causes compile error |
| **Runtime** | Monitoring, alerts, scans | Detect orphan entities |
| **Test Coverage** | E2E tests, integration tests | Verify full flow |
| **Code Review** | Checklist, PR template | "Did you check X?" |
### 4. Systematic Expansion
What broader problems does this bug reveal?
- **Similar Issues**: Where else might this problem exist?
- **Design Flaw**: Is there a fundamental architecture issue?
- **Process Flaw**: Is there a development process improvement?
- **Knowledge Gap**: Is the team missing some understanding?
### 5. Knowledge Capture
Solidify insights into the system:
- [ ] Update `.trellis/spec/guides/` thinking guides
- [ ] Update relevant `.trellis/spec/` docs
- [ ] Create issue record (if applicable)
- [ ] Create feature ticket for root fix
- [ ] Update check guidelines if needed
---
## Output Format
Please output analysis in this format:
```markdown
## Bug Analysis: [Short Description]
### 1. Root Cause Category
- **Category**: [A/B/C/D/E] - [Category Name]
- **Specific Cause**: [Detailed description]
### 2. Why Fixes Failed (if applicable)
1. [First attempt]: [Why it failed]
2. [Second attempt]: [Why it failed]
...
### 3. Prevention Mechanisms
| Priority | Mechanism | Specific Action | Status |
|----------|-----------|-----------------|--------|
| P0 | ... | ... | TODO/DONE |
### 4. Systematic Expansion
- **Similar Issues**: [List places with similar problems]
- **Design Improvement**: [Architecture-level suggestions]
- **Process Improvement**: [Development process suggestions]
### 5. Knowledge Capture
- [ ] [Documents to update / tickets to create]
```
---
## Core Philosophy
> **The value of debugging is not in fixing the bug, but in making this class of bugs never happen again.**
Three levels of insight:
1. **Tactical**: How to fix THIS bug
2. **Strategic**: How to prevent THIS CLASS of bugs
3. **Philosophical**: How to expand thinking patterns
30 minutes of analysis saves 30 hours of future debugging.
## Thinking Framework: Bayesian Reasoning
When multiple root causes are plausible and evidence is incomplete, update your beliefs proportionally to new evidence rather than clinging to initial assumptions.
### Step 1: Establish Priors
Before investigating, state what you believe and why:
| Hypothesis | Prior | Reasoning |
|------------|-------|-----------|
| H1: [cause A] | 40% | Most common for this pattern |
| H2: [cause B] | 30% | Plausible given environment |
| H3: [other] | 30% | Catch-all |
Priors must sum to 100%. If you can't assign probabilities, investigate first.
### Step 2: Observe Evidence
Document what you found — be specific about reliability:
- What exactly did you observe?
- How reliable? (test output > log message > user report > hunch)
- Could multiple hypotheses explain this?
### Step 3: Update Beliefs
For each hypothesis, ask: **How likely is this evidence if this hypothesis were true?**
Direction of update matters more than calculation:
- Evidence strongly predicted by H1 → H1 probability increases
- Evidence contradicts H2 → H2 probability decreases
- Evidence equally likely under all → no update
### Step 4: Seek Discriminating Evidence
Don't gather more of the same. Find evidence that **differs strongly** between top hypotheses.
> If H1 and H3 are close: "What would I see if H1 is true but not if H3 is true?" Then check for that.
### Step 5: State Confidence
| Confidence | Action |
|------------|--------|
| 90%+ | Proceed with fix, monitor |
| 70-90% | Proceed, add fallback check |
| 50-70% | Test hypothesis before committing |
| <50% | Need more evidence, don't guess |
Never express binary certainty when evidence is incomplete. Use "most likely", "plausible but unlikely", "worth investigating".
### Common Fallacies
| Fallacy | Example | Correction |
|---------|---------|------------|
| **Base rate neglect** | "Test failed → code is broken" | How often do tests fail for other reasons? |
| **Confirmation bias** | "Must be a race condition, let me find race evidence" | Actively seek evidence AGAINST your top hypothesis |
| **Anchoring** | "Last time it was caching, probably caching again" | Establish priors from current context, not yesterday's bug |
---
## After Analysis: Immediate Actions
**IMPORTANT**: After completing the analysis above, you MUST immediately:
1. **Update spec/guides** - Don't just list TODOs, actually update the relevant files:
- If it's a cross-platform issue → update `cross-platform-thinking-guide.md`
- If it's a cross-layer issue → update `cross-layer-thinking-guide.md`
- If it's a code reuse issue → update `code-reuse-thinking-guide.md`
- If it's domain-specific → update `backend/*.md` or `frontend/*.md`
2. **Sync templates** - After updating `.trellis/spec/`, sync to `src/templates/markdown/spec/`
3. **Commit the spec updates** - This is the primary output, not just the analysis text
> **The analysis is worthless if it stays in chat. The value is in the updated specs.**
Retrospective work does not authorize commits, archival, deployment, real-data operations or edits to an upstream template repository. Preserve project approval and independent-review requirements.
.agents/skills/trellis-session-insight/SKILL.md
+1 -1
查看文件
@@ -11,7 +11,7 @@ It is intentionally a **capability skill, not a workflow**. There is no fixed ou
## What `trellis mem` is
A local CLI that indexes the user's past Claude Code, Codex, Pi Agent, and ZCode conversation logs and lets you list, search, slice by Trellis task boundaries, and dump cleaned dialogue from them. Claude and Codex use `~/.claude/projects/` and `~/.codex/sessions/`. Pi uses its default or environment-configured session root, global `~/.pi/agent/settings.json`, and the scoped project's `.pi/settings.json`; relative `sessionDir` values resolve from the settings file directory. Project-local Pi settings require project-scoped lookup through the current cwd or `--cwd`. ZCode uses `~/.zcode/cli/db/db.sqlite`. OpenCode logs are not yet indexable (provider adapter pending) — when an OpenCode session is the obvious target, surface that limitation rather than guessing.
A local CLI that indexes the user's past Claude Code, Codex, Devin CLI, Grok, OpenCode, Pi Agent, and ZCode conversation logs and lets you list, search, slice by Trellis task boundaries, and dump cleaned dialogue from them. Claude and Codex use `~/.claude/projects/` and `~/.codex/sessions/`. Devin CLI (Cognition terminal agent, not `trellis init --devin` Desktop) uses `~/.local/share/devin/cli/sessions.db`. Grok uses `~/.grok/sessions/`. OpenCode uses `~/.local/share/opencode/opencode.db` (zero-dependency SQLite reader). Pi uses its default or environment-configured session root, global `~/.pi/agent/settings.json`, and the scoped project's `.pi/settings.json`; relative `sessionDir` values resolve from the settings file directory. Project-local Pi settings require project-scoped lookup through the current cwd or `--cwd`. ZCode uses `~/.zcode/cli/db/db.sqlite`.
Nothing in `mem` is uploaded. All reads are local.
.agents/skills/trellis-session-insight/references/cli-quick-reference.md
+2 -1
查看文件
@@ -16,7 +16,7 @@ Full flag reference for the five subcommands. Pin this as the authoritative sour
| Flag | Subcommands | Meaning |
| --------------------------------------------- | ----------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| `--platform claude\|codex\|opencode\|pi\|all` | all | Default `all`. OpenCode adapter is currently a stub on `0.6.0-beta.*` — see "Caveats" below. |
| `--platform claude\|codex\|devin\|grok\|opencode\|pi\|zcode\|all` | all | Default `all`. `devin` is Cognition Devin CLI (`sessions.db`), not `trellis init --devin` (Desktop). |
| `--since YYYY-MM-DD` | list / search | Inclusive lower date bound. |
| `--until YYYY-MM-DD` | list / search | Inclusive upper date bound. |
| `--global` | list / search | Include sessions from every project on this machine. Default is the current project `cwd`. |
@@ -56,6 +56,7 @@ trellis mem projects
## Caveats
- **OpenCode adapter is a stub on `0.6.0-beta.*`.** When `--platform` resolves to OpenCode (or `all` and OpenCode would be included), `mem` prints a one-line "reader unavailable" notice and continues with the other platforms. Don't promise OpenCode coverage in your reply until the adapter ships.
- **`--platform devin` is Cognition Devin CLI** (`~/.local/share/devin/cli/sessions.db`). It is not `trellis init --devin` (Devin Desktop / Cascade) and not Factory Droid.
- **`--phase` slicing depends on `task.py create` / `task.py start` invocations appearing in the recorded bash calls of the session.** Sessions where the user ran `task.py` from a different terminal — outside the recorded AI loop — will not have phase boundaries. `--phase all` is the safe fallback.
- **`mem` indexes platform JSONL files directly.** If the user has cleared their Claude / Codex / Pi session storage, `mem` cannot recover what is no longer on disk.
- **`mem` is read-only.** No remote sync, no edits to platform JSONL. Any write you do based on `mem` findings is your own follow-up call into the editing tools available to you.
.agents/skills/trellis-update-spec/SKILL.md
+11 -346
查看文件
@@ -1,356 +1,21 @@
---
name: trellis-update-spec
description: "Captures executable contracts and coding conventions into .trellis/spec/ documents. Use when learning something valuable from debugging, implementing, or discussion that should be preserved for future sessions."
description: "Maintain an existing spec when a verified change reveals a reusable contract, convention or pitfall; exclude routine status and run logs."
---
# Update Code-Spec - Capture Executable Contracts
# Maintain Reusable Contracts
When you learn something valuable (from debugging, implementing, or discussion), use this to update the relevant code-spec documents.
First decide whether there is a new, supported lesson worth retaining. No spec edit is needed when the contract is already documented, evidence is inconclusive or the fact belongs only to this run. Model upgrades alone are not evidence that a business safeguard is obsolete.
**Timing**: After completing a task, fixing a bug, or discovering a new pattern
Use the package index and heading search to locate the owning section. Read its applicable contract and references before editing. Update or consolidate that section; create a new one only for a distinct concept. Keep business facts in the existing docs owner, executable development rules in spec, and thinking prompts in guides that point to those rules. Do not replicate the same contract in each layer.
---
Preserve concrete depth when commands/APIs, schemas, infrastructure or cross-layer behavior change:
- Applicable scope and the actual signature, fields/types, storage or configuration keys.
- Required invariants, validation/authorization boundaries, failure behavior and compatibility or migration constraints.
- The observable assertions and relevant test commands that distinguish correct behavior from the failure.
## Code-Spec First Rule (CRITICAL)
Use the shortest clear structure: a paragraph, table or focused example is often enough. A good/bad example helps when it explains a subtle distinction; it is not required for every lesson. Follow any explicitly required task/delivery format, but do not impose seven sections, a code sample or a new document on every change.
In this project, "spec" for implementation work means **code-spec**:
- Executable contracts (not principle-only text)
- Concrete signatures, payload fields, env keys, and boundary behavior
- Testable validation/error behavior
Before removing material, inspect its callers/references and preserve unique conditions, exceptions, evidence links and requirement IDs. Retire stale instructions only after confirming the current owner and scope. Historical findings, run counts, timestamps, candidate hashes, approvals and original receipts remain in task/evidence; a new result must not rewrite their past state.
If the change touches infra or cross-layer contracts, code-spec depth is mandatory.
### Mandatory Triggers
Apply code-spec depth when the change includes any of:
- New/changed command or API signature
- Cross-layer request/response contract change
- Database schema/migration change
- Infra integration (storage, queue, cache, secrets, env wiring)
### Mandatory Output (7 Sections)
For triggered tasks, include all sections below:
1. Scope / Trigger
2. Signatures (command/API/DB)
3. Contracts (request/response/env)
4. Validation & Error Matrix
5. Good/Base/Bad Cases
6. Tests Required (with assertion points)
7. Wrong vs Correct (at least one pair)
---
## When to Update Code-Specs
| Trigger | Example | Target Spec |
|---------|---------|-------------|
| **Implemented a feature** | Added a new integration or module | Relevant spec file |
| **Made a design decision** | Chose extensibility pattern over simplicity | Relevant spec + "Design Decisions" section |
| **Fixed a bug** | Found a subtle issue with error handling | Relevant spec (e.g., error-handling docs) |
| **Discovered a pattern** | Found a better way to structure code | Relevant spec file |
| **Hit a gotcha** | Learned that X must be done before Y | Relevant spec + "Common Mistakes" section |
| **Established a convention** | Team agreed on naming pattern | Quality guidelines |
| **New thinking trigger** | "Don't forget to check X before doing Y" | `guides/*.md` (as a checklist item) |
**Key Insight**: Code-spec updates are NOT just for problems. Every feature implementation contains design decisions and contracts that future AI/developers need to execute safely.
---
## Spec Structure Overview
```
.trellis/spec/
├── <layer>/ # Per-layer coding standards (e.g., backend/, frontend/, api/)
│ ├── index.md # Overview and links
│ └── *.md # Topic-specific guidelines
└── guides/ # Thinking checklists (NOT coding specs!)
├── index.md # Guide index
└── *.md # Topic-specific guides
```
### CRITICAL: Code-Spec vs Guide - Know the Difference
| Type | Location | Purpose | Content Style |
|------|----------|---------|---------------|
| **Code-Spec** | `<layer>/*.md` | Tell AI "how to implement safely" | Signatures, contracts, matrices, cases, test points |
| **Guide** | `guides/*.md` | Help AI "what to think about" | Checklists, questions, pointers to specs |
**Decision Rule**: Ask yourself:
- "This is **how to write** the code" → Put in a spec layer directory
- "This is **what to consider** before writing" → Put in `guides/`
**Example**:
| Learning | Wrong Location | Correct Location |
|----------|----------------|------------------|
| "Use API X not API Y for this task" | ❌ `guides/` (too specific for a thinking guide) | ✅ Relevant spec file (concrete convention) |
| "Remember to check X when doing Y" | ❌ Spec file (too abstract for a spec) | ✅ `guides/` (thinking checklist) |
**Guides should be short checklists that point to specs**, not duplicate the detailed rules.
---
## Update Process
### Step 1: Identify What You Learned
Answer these questions:
1. **What did you learn?** (Be specific)
2. **Why is it important?** (What problem does it prevent?)
3. **Where does it belong?** (Which spec file?)
### Step 2: Classify the Update Type
| Type | Description | Action |
|------|-------------|--------|
| **Design Decision** | Why we chose approach X over Y | Add to "Design Decisions" section |
| **Project Convention** | How we do X in this project | Add to relevant section with examples |
| **New Pattern** | A reusable approach discovered | Add to "Patterns" section |
| **Forbidden Pattern** | Something that causes problems | Add to "Anti-patterns" or "Don't" section |
| **Common Mistake** | Easy-to-make error | Add to "Common Mistakes" section |
| **Convention** | Agreed-upon standard | Add to relevant section |
| **Gotcha** | Non-obvious behavior | Add warning callout |
### Step 3: Read the Target Code-Spec
Before editing, read the current code-spec to:
- Understand existing structure
- Avoid duplicating content
- Find the right section for your update
```bash
cat .trellis/spec/<category>/<file>.md
```
### Step 4: Make the Update
Follow these principles:
1. **Be Specific**: Include concrete examples, not just abstract rules
2. **Explain Why**: State the problem this prevents
3. **Show Contracts**: Add signatures, payload fields, and error behavior
4. **Show Code**: Add code snippets for key patterns
5. **Keep it Short**: One concept per section
### Step 5: Update the Index (if needed)
If you added a new section or the code-spec status changed, update the category's `index.md`.
---
## Update Templates
### Mandatory Template for Infra/Cross-Layer Work
```markdown
## Scenario: <name>
### 1. Scope / Trigger
- Trigger: <why this requires code-spec depth>
### 2. Signatures
- Backend command/API/DB signature(s)
### 3. Contracts
- Request fields (name, type, constraints)
- Response fields (name, type, constraints)
- Environment keys (required/optional)
### 4. Validation & Error Matrix
- <condition> -> <error>
### 5. Good/Base/Bad Cases
- Good: ...
- Base: ...
- Bad: ...
### 6. Tests Required
- Unit/Integration/E2E with assertion points
### 7. Wrong vs Correct
#### Wrong
...
#### Correct
...
```
### Adding a Design Decision
```markdown
### Design Decision: [Decision Name]
**Context**: What problem were we solving?
**Options Considered**:
1. Option A - brief description
2. Option B - brief description
**Decision**: We chose Option X because...
**Example**:
\`\`\`typescript
// How it's implemented
code example
\`\`\`
**Extensibility**: How to extend this in the future...
```
### Adding a Project Convention
```markdown
### Convention: [Convention Name]
**What**: Brief description of the convention.
**Why**: Why we do it this way in this project.
**Example**:
\`\`\`typescript
// How to follow this convention
code example
\`\`\`
**Related**: Links to related conventions or specs.
```
### Adding a New Pattern
```markdown
### Pattern Name
**Problem**: What problem does this solve?
**Solution**: Brief description of the approach.
**Example**:
\`\`\`
// Good
code example
// Bad
code example
\`\`\`
**Why**: Explanation of why this works better.
```
### Adding a Forbidden Pattern
```markdown
### Don't: Pattern Name
**Problem**:
\`\`\`
// Don't do this
bad code example
\`\`\`
**Why it's bad**: Explanation of the issue.
**Instead**:
\`\`\`
// Do this instead
good code example
\`\`\`
```
### Adding a Common Mistake
```markdown
### Common Mistake: Description
**Symptom**: What goes wrong
**Cause**: Why this happens
**Fix**: How to correct it
**Prevention**: How to avoid it in the future
```
### Adding a Gotcha
```markdown
> **Warning**: Brief description of the non-obvious behavior.
>
> Details about when this happens and how to handle it.
```
---
## Interactive Mode
If you're unsure what to update, answer these prompts:
1. **What did you just finish?**
- [ ] Fixed a bug
- [ ] Implemented a feature
- [ ] Refactored code
- [ ] Had a discussion about approach
2. **What did you learn or decide?**
- Design decision (why X over Y)
- Project convention (how we do X)
- Non-obvious behavior (gotcha)
- Better approach (pattern)
3. **Would future AI/developers need to know this?**
- To understand how the code works → Yes, update spec
- To maintain or extend the feature → Yes, update spec
- To avoid repeating mistakes → Yes, update spec
- Purely one-off implementation detail → Maybe skip
4. **Which area does it relate to?**
- [ ] Backend code
- [ ] Frontend code
- [ ] Cross-layer data flow
- [ ] Code organization/reuse
- [ ] Quality/testing
---
## Quality Checklist
Before finishing your code-spec update:
- [ ] Is the content specific and actionable?
- [ ] Did you include a code example?
- [ ] Did you explain WHY, not just WHAT?
- [ ] Did you include executable signatures/contracts?
- [ ] Did you include validation and error matrix?
- [ ] Did you include Good/Base/Bad cases?
- [ ] Did you include required tests with assertion points?
- [ ] Is it in the right code-spec file?
- [ ] Does it duplicate existing content?
- [ ] Would a new team member understand it?
---
## Relationship to Other Commands
```
Development Flow:
Learn something → `update-spec` (Trellis command) → Knowledge captured
↑ ↓
`break-loop` (Trellis command) ←──────────────────── Future sessions benefit
(deep bug analysis)
```
- ``break-loop` (Trellis command)` - Analyzes bugs deeply, often reveals spec updates needed
- ``update-spec` (Trellis command)` - Actually makes the updates
- ``finish-work` (Trellis command)` - Reminds you to check if specs need updates
---
## Core Philosophy
> **Code-specs are living documents. Every debugging session, every "aha moment" is an opportunity to make the implementation contract clearer.**
The goal is **institutional memory**:
- What one person learns, everyone benefits from
- What AI learns in one session, persists to future sessions
- Mistakes become documented guardrails
Check links and affected process/doc contracts. Reuse unchanged test results; rerun relevant checks when behavior or inputs changed. Update an index only if discovery or ownership changed. Report the actual maintenance scope and limitations. Do not auto-commit, archive, alter runtime templates/hashes, or modify upstream/global files as a side effect.