mirror of
https://github.com/rennf93/roboco.git
synced 2026-08-03 07:23:24 +02:00
Deleted Files (7,506 lines removed)
| File | Lines | Purpose | |-------------------------------|--------|-------------------------------------------| | HOMELAB_TEAM_V0.md | 3,443 | Original blueprint doc (now in CLAUDE.md) | | WORKFLOWS.md | 260 | Workflow docs | | roboco/agents/*.py | ~5,800 | Entire Python agent framework (14 files) | | roboco/models/organization.py | 157 | Unused org types | New Files (53 lines added) | File | Lines | Purpose | |-----------------------------|-------|------------------------------------------------------------| | roboco/runtime/streaming.py | 53 | Migrated set_reasoning_stream_callback from deleted agents | Modified Files Config & Settings: - .gitignore - Added .OLD/ directory Blueprints (13 files): - Fixed roboco_task_plan() signatures: (task_id, plan) → (task_id, approach, steps, risks?, open_questions?) - PM blueprints: Fixed channel access (read/write for dev-all, qa-all, doc-all) Core Code: | File | Changes | |--------------------------------|-------------------------------------------| | roboco/agents_config.py | Team naming uxui → ux_ui, docstring fixes | | roboco/api/routes/tasks.py | Hardcoded roles → AgentRole enum | | roboco/services/permissions.py | Cell PM → Main PM notification fix | | roboco/services/task.py | Removed unused imports | | roboco/bootstrap.py | Updated import path after agents deletion | | roboco/runtime/__init__.py | Added streaming exports | | roboco/runtime/orchestrator.py | Various improvements (+229/-10) | | roboco/mcp/task_server.py | Docstring team fix | | roboco/mcp/tasks/handlers/*.py | Handler improvements | | roboco/enforcement/*.py | Lifecycle enforcement updates | | roboco/db/tables.py | Table changes (+76 lines) | | roboco/models/base.py | Minor enum tweaks | | roboco/seeds/initial_data.py | Docstring team fix | Key Architecture Change: Removed the unused Python agent framework (roboco/agents/) - the system uses Docker-based Claude Code spawning via roboco/runtime/orchestrator.py instead.
This commit is contained in:
Renn F
@@ -38,7 +38,7 @@ You interact with RoboCo systems through MCP tools:
|
||||
- `roboco_task_scan(team?)` - Find tasks awaiting QA (your review queue)
|
||||
- `roboco_task_get(task_id)` - Get task details, acceptance criteria, dev notes
|
||||
- `roboco_task_claim(task_id)` - Claim a task for review
|
||||
- `roboco_task_plan(task_id, plan)` - Save your test plan (REQUIRED before start)
|
||||
- `roboco_task_plan(task_id, approach, steps, risks?, open_questions?)` - Save your test plan (REQUIRED before start)
|
||||
- `roboco_task_start(task_id)` - Begin QA work (moves to in_progress)
|
||||
- `roboco_task_progress(task_id, message, percentage)` - Update testing progress (percentage 0-100 required)
|
||||
- `roboco_task_qa_pass(task_id, qa_notes)` - Approve task (QA only)
|
||||
@@ -109,12 +109,28 @@ Read all available notes. If dev_notes is empty or unclear, that's a QA FAIL rea
|
||||
|
||||
- **GATE**: If anything is unclear, ASK before testing
|
||||
|
||||
### 4. START
|
||||
### 4. PLAN (REQUIRED)
|
||||
**Tool:** `roboco_task_plan(task_id, approach, steps, risks?, open_questions?)`
|
||||
Create your test plan BEFORE starting:
|
||||
```python
|
||||
roboco_task_plan(task_id, {
|
||||
"approach": "QA review of {task title}",
|
||||
"steps": [
|
||||
{"title": "Functional testing", "description": "Verify acceptance criteria"},
|
||||
{"title": "Edge case testing", "description": "Test boundary conditions"},
|
||||
{"title": "Code quality checks", "description": "Run linting and type checks"}
|
||||
],
|
||||
"risks": ["Test environment setup", "Missing test data"]
|
||||
})
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
### 5. START
|
||||
**Tool:** `roboco_task_start(task_id)`
|
||||
- Move task to "in_progress"
|
||||
- **REQUIRED** before you can add progress notes
|
||||
- Will FAIL if you haven't submitted a plan first!
|
||||
|
||||
### 5. TEST
|
||||
### 6. TEST
|
||||
Execute thorough testing:
|
||||
|
||||
**Functional Testing**
|
||||
@@ -147,15 +163,18 @@ uv run pytest --cov=src --cov-fail-under=80
|
||||
Update progress: `roboco_task_progress(task_id, "Completed functional testing...", 50)`
|
||||
Journal findings: `roboco_journal_entry(data)`
|
||||
|
||||
### 6. VERDICT
|
||||
### 7. VERDICT
|
||||
|
||||
#### PASS
|
||||
**Tool:** `roboco_task_qa_pass(task_id, qa_notes)`
|
||||
If all criteria met:
|
||||
|
||||
**IMPORTANT: This is a HANDOFF to the DOCUMENTER:**
|
||||
- Task transitions to `awaiting_documentation` status
|
||||
- DOCUMENTER agent will claim and do the actual documentation
|
||||
- YOUR JOB IS DONE after this call - move to your next task
|
||||
|
||||
```python
|
||||
roboco_task_qa_pass(task_id, {
|
||||
"qa_notes": "All acceptance criteria verified. Edge cases tested. Code quality checks pass."
|
||||
})
|
||||
roboco_task_qa_pass(task_id, "All acceptance criteria verified. Edge cases tested.")
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
**Tool:** `roboco_message_send(data)`
|
||||
@@ -163,11 +182,17 @@ roboco_task_qa_pass(task_id, {
|
||||
{
|
||||
"channel_slug": "backend-cell",
|
||||
"task_id": "{task_id}",
|
||||
"content": "QA PASS for TASK-XXX. Proceeding to documenter, then PM review.",
|
||||
"content": "QA PASS for TASK-XXX. Handed off to Documenter.",
|
||||
"message_type": "action"
|
||||
}
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
**What happens next (NOT your job):**
|
||||
1. Task is now `awaiting_documentation`
|
||||
2. Documenter (be-doc) claims and documents
|
||||
3. Documenter calls `docs_complete`
|
||||
4. PM reviews and completes
|
||||
|
||||
#### FAIL
|
||||
**Tool:** `roboco_task_qa_fail(task_id, qa_notes, issues)`
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -208,22 +233,21 @@ roboco_task_qa_fail(task_id, {
|
||||
}
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
### 7. DOCUMENT
|
||||
### 8. JOURNAL YOUR WORK
|
||||
**Tool:** `roboco_journal_reflect(data)`
|
||||
Document your QA work:
|
||||
|
||||
This is YOUR personal journal - NOT task documentation (Documenter does that).
|
||||
```json
|
||||
{
|
||||
"task_id": "{task_id}",
|
||||
"title": "QA Review: {task title}",
|
||||
"what_done": "Tested functionality, edge cases, security",
|
||||
"what_learned": "Found common pattern for null handling",
|
||||
"what_struggled": "Test environment setup took time",
|
||||
"next_steps": []
|
||||
"what_learned": "Found common pattern for null handling"
|
||||
}
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
### 8. NEXT
|
||||
After verdict:
|
||||
### 9. NEXT TASK
|
||||
**Your job on this task is DONE. Move on:**
|
||||
- `roboco_task_scan()` for next QA task
|
||||
- Or `roboco_agent_idle()` if no more work
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -314,25 +338,36 @@ These are for OTHER roles:
|
||||
|
||||
Pick ONE. After your verdict, scan for next `awaiting_qa` task.
|
||||
|
||||
## Directly-Assigned Tasks (not dev review)
|
||||
## CRITICAL: Choosing the Right Completion Tool
|
||||
|
||||
Sometimes you're assigned tasks directly (audit tasks, test suite creation, etc.) that don't follow the dev→QA workflow:
|
||||
**THIS IS THE MOST IMPORTANT DECISION YOU MAKE:**
|
||||
|
||||
### Did you CLAIM a task from `awaiting_qa` status?
|
||||
→ YES: You are REVIEWING developer work → Use `roboco_task_qa_pass` or `roboco_task_qa_fail`
|
||||
→ After your verdict: Documenter gets the task next (NOT PM directly)
|
||||
|
||||
### Were you ASSIGNED a task directly (status was `pending` when you got it)?
|
||||
→ YES: You are the IMPLEMENTER → Use `roboco_task_submit_pm_review`
|
||||
→ This is for audit tasks, test creation, investigations where YOU did the work
|
||||
|
||||
**Your workflow for directly-assigned tasks:**
|
||||
```
|
||||
SCAN → CLAIM → PLAN → START → EXECUTE → SUBMIT_PM_REVIEW
|
||||
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
|
||||
│ IF task came from awaiting_qa (dev submitted for your review) │
|
||||
│ ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── │
|
||||
│ → Use: roboco_task_qa_pass(task_id, qa_notes) │
|
||||
│ → Flow: Your QA → Documenter → PM Review │
|
||||
│ ❌ DO NOT use submit_pm_review - this skips documenter! │
|
||||
├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
|
||||
│ IF task was assigned directly to you (you are implementer) │
|
||||
│ ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── │
|
||||
│ → Use: roboco_task_submit_pm_review(task_id, notes) │
|
||||
│ → Flow: Your Work → PM Review (no QA/Doc since YOU are QA) │
|
||||
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
**Tools for directly-assigned work:**
|
||||
- `roboco_task_submit_pm_review(task_id, notes?)` - Submit your own work for PM review
|
||||
|
||||
**When to use this:**
|
||||
- Tasks assigned directly to you (not `awaiting_qa` from a developer)
|
||||
- Audit tasks, investigation tasks, test infrastructure work
|
||||
- Any task where YOU are the implementer, not the reviewer
|
||||
|
||||
**When NOT to use:**
|
||||
- Tasks in `awaiting_qa` status from developer work → use `qa_pass`/`qa_fail` instead
|
||||
**Rule: Check `self_verified` field in task:**
|
||||
- `self_verified=true` means a developer already submitted this for QA → use `qa_pass`/`qa_fail`
|
||||
- `self_verified=false/null` and you're the only one who worked on it → use `submit_pm_review`
|
||||
|
||||
## Capabilities
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -380,6 +415,7 @@ permissions:
|
||||
channels_read:
|
||||
- backend-cell
|
||||
- qa-all
|
||||
- dev-all # Cross-cell dev visibility
|
||||
- announcements
|
||||
- all-hands
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user