liph/dotfiles
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Actions Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity
Files
e4490a4df1f8e4e6409ae74b23c22d28fcc219fc
dotfiles/pi/.pi/agent/sessions/--home-liph-dotfiles-pi-.pi-agent-prompts--/2026-07-24T15-15-24-515Z_019f94b2-0ce3-7c27-8099-78ceea97d2cf.jsonl
T
liph 44d6863b59 commit pi sessions
2026-07-27 08:46:32 +02:00

126 lines
608 KiB
JSON
Raw Blame History

This file contains ambiguous Unicode characters
This file contains Unicode characters that might be confused with other characters. If you think that this is intentional, you can safely ignore this warning. Use the Escape button to reveal them.
{"type":"session","version":3,"id":"019f94b2-0ce3-7c27-8099-78ceea97d2cf","timestamp":"2026-07-24T15:15:24.515Z","cwd":"/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/agent/prompts"}
{"type":"model_change","id":"06b512d7","parentId":null,"timestamp":"2026-07-24T15:15:26.054Z","provider":"ollama","modelId":"kimi-k2.7-code:cloud"}
{"type":"thinking_level_change","id":"d3c37ad0","parentId":"06b512d7","timestamp":"2026-07-24T15:15:26.054Z","thinkingLevel":"medium"}
{"type":"message","id":"ff4f0909","parentId":"d3c37ad0","timestamp":"2026-07-24T15:15:48.745Z","message":{"role":"user","content":[{"type":"text","text":"Create a structured implementation plan for: the current task\n\nFollow this format:\n1. **Goal** — one-sentence objective\n2. **Constraints** — existing code, dependencies, tests, or assumptions to respect\n3. **Approach** — high-level strategy and rationale\n4. **Steps** — numbered, actionable tasks small enough to verify one at a time\n5. **Verification** — how to confirm each step works (tests, logs, manual checks)\n6. **Risks & Rollbacks** — what could go wrong and how to undo safely\n7. **Open Questions** — anything that needs clarification before starting\n\nUse the codebase context as needed. Do not write implementation code yet; only produce the plan."}],"timestamp":1784906148321}}
{"type":"message","id":"e1b6e511","parentId":"ff4f0909","timestamp":"2026-07-24T15:15:51.522Z","message":{"role":"assistant","content":[{"type":"thinking","thinking":"Let me analyze this request. The user is asking me to create a structured implementation plan for \"the current task\" - but there is no current task described. They want me to follow a specific format but don't specify what to implement.\n\nI need to look at the codebase context to understand what the current task might be. The current working directory is `/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/agent/prompts`.\n\nSince the user said \"the current task\" without defining it, I need to either:\n1. Ask for clarification\n2. Investigate the","thinkingSignature":"reasoning"}],"api":"openai-completions","provider":"ollama","model":"kimi-k2.7-code:cloud","usage":{"input":0,"output":0,"cacheRead":0,"cacheWrite":0,"totalTokens":0,"cost":{"input":0,"output":0,"cacheRead":0,"cacheWrite":0,"total":0}},"stopReason":"aborted","timestamp":1784906148804,"responseId":"chatcmpl-680","responseModel":"kimi-k2.7-code","errorMessage":"Operation aborted"}}
{"type":"message","id":"28e725f2","parentId":"e1b6e511","timestamp":"2026-07-24T15:16:28.701Z","message":{"role":"user","content":[{"type":"text","text":"Create a structured implementation plan for: is there a way to combine some of these prompt into a chain?\n\nFollow this format:\n1. **Goal** — one-sentence objective\n2. **Constraints** — existing code, dependencies, tests, or assumptions to respect\n3. **Approach** — high-level strategy and rationale\n4. **Steps** — numbered, actionable tasks small enough to verify one at a time\n5. **Verification** — how to confirm each step works (tests, logs, manual checks)\n6. **Risks & Rollbacks** — what could go wrong and how to undo safely\n7. **Open Questions** — anything that needs clarification before starting\n\nUse the codebase context as needed. Do not write implementation code yet; only produce the plan."}],"timestamp":1784906188610}}
{"type":"message","id":"9c231833","parentId":"28e725f2","timestamp":"2026-07-24T15:16:33.050Z","message":{"role":"assistant","content":[{"type":"thinking","thinking":"We need answer: user asked: Create a structured implementation plan for: the current task. Then second message: \"Create a structured implementation plan for: is there a way to combine some of these prompt into a chain?\" They probably want plan about combining prompts into a chain. Need inspect codebase context. Current working directory: /home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/agent/prompts. We should explore files in this directory to understand prompts. Use context-mode active; for file exploration and codebase stats use ctx_execute or ctx_execute_file. We need structured implementation plan only, no code.\n\nNeed understand: \"is there a way to combine some of these prompt into a chain?\" Maybe they have multiple prompt files and want chain them. Need look at prompts directory. Use bash or fffind. Since investigate. Use ctx_execute perhaps. Let's list directory.","thinkingSignature":"reasoning"},{"type":"toolCall","id":"functions.bash:0","name":"bash","arguments":{"command":"ls -la /home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/agent/prompts"}}],"api":"openai-completions","provider":"ollama","model":"kimi-k2.7-code:cloud","usage":{"input":15678,"output":207,"cacheRead":0,"cacheWrite":0,"reasoning":0,"totalTokens":15885,"cost":{"input":0,"output":0,"cacheRead":0,"cacheWrite":0,"total":0}},"stopReason":"toolUse","timestamp":1784906188702,"responseId":"chatcmpl-292","responseModel":"kimi-k2.7-code"}}
{"type":"message","id":"3e70fcb9","parentId":"9c231833","timestamp":"2026-07-24T15:16:33.076Z","message":{"role":"toolResult","toolCallId":"functions.bash:0","toolName":"bash","content":[{"type":"text","text":"total 60\ndrwxr-xr-x 3 liph liph 4096 Jul 24 16:47 .\ndrwxr-xr-x 12 liph liph 4096 Jul 24 17:15 ..\ndrwxr-xr-x 2 liph liph 4096 Jul 24 16:47 Doc\n-rw-r--r-- 1 liph liph 1285 Jul 24 16:42 p-brainstorm.md\n-rw-r--r-- 1 liph liph 1164 Jul 24 16:42 p-commit.md\n-rw-r--r-- 1 liph liph 845 Jul 24 16:41 p-debug.md\n-rw-r--r-- 1 liph liph 1158 Jul 24 16:41 p-diagnose.md\n-rw-r--r-- 1 liph liph 1205 Jul 24 16:42 p-doc.md\n-rw-r--r-- 1 liph liph 708 Jul 24 16:31 p-explain.md\n-rw-r--r-- 1 liph liph 787 Jul 24 16:31 p-plan.md\n-rw-r--r-- 1 liph liph 1140 Jul 24 16:42 p-refactor.md\n-rw-r--r-- 1 liph liph 892 Jul 24 16:31 p-review.md\n-rw-r--r-- 1 liph liph 1407 Jul 24 16:42 p-secaudit.md\n-rw-r--r-- 1 liph liph 1184 Jul 24 16:42 p-summarize.md\n-rw-r--r-- 1 liph liph 1103 Jul 24 16:41 p-test.md\n"}],"isError":false,"timestamp":1784906193076}}
{"type":"message","id":"79d4994d","parentId":"3e70fcb9","timestamp":"2026-07-24T15:16:38.589Z","message":{"role":"assistant","content":[{"type":"thinking","thinking":"There are prompt files p-*.md, plus Doc folder. Need inspect contents to understand them. Need create plan about combine some of these prompts into a chain. Likely user wants a chaining prompt that calls multiple subprompts sequentially? We should read the files, understand their purposes, identify overlaps and possible chain composition. Also maybe there is a doc folder with instructions. Let's read them. Could use cat. Let's read all p-*.md. Use bash for concatenation maybe but better read each with read tool for exact context. Use multiple read calls. Also list Doc.","thinkingSignature":"reasoning"},{"type":"toolCall","id":"functions.bash:1","name":"bash","arguments":{"command":"ls -la /home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/agent/prompts/Doc"}},{"type":"toolCall","id":"functions.read:2","name":"read","arguments":{"path":"/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/agent/prompts/p-brainstorm.md"}},{"type":"toolCall","id":"functions.read:3","name":"read","arguments":{"path":"/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/agent/prompts/p-commit.md"}},{"type":"toolCall","id":"functions.read:4","name":"read","arguments":{"path":"/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/agent/prompts/p-debug.md"}},{"type":"toolCall","id":"functions.read:5","name":"read","arguments":{"path":"/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/agent/prompts/p-diagnose.md"}},{"type":"toolCall","id":"functions.read:6","name":"read","arguments":{"path":"/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/agent/prompts/p-doc.md"}}],"api":"openai-completions","provider":"ollama","model":"kimi-k2.7-code:cloud","usage":{"input":16208,"output":296,"cacheRead":0,"cacheWrite":0,"reasoning":0,"totalTokens":16504,"cost":{"input":0,"output":0,"cacheRead":0,"cacheWrite":0,"total":0}},"stopReason":"toolUse","timestamp":1784906193078,"responseId":"chatcmpl-10","responseModel":"kimi-k2.7-code"}}
{"type":"message","id":"dd8b0f14","parentId":"79d4994d","timestamp":"2026-07-24T15:16:38.610Z","message":{"role":"toolResult","toolCallId":"functions.bash:1","toolName":"bash","content":[{"type":"text","text":"total 16\ndrwxr-xr-x 2 liph liph 4096 Jul 24 16:47 .\ndrwxr-xr-x 3 liph liph 4096 Jul 24 16:47 ..\n-rw-r--r-- 1 liph liph 4413 Jul 24 16:45 README.md\n"}],"isError":false,"timestamp":1784906198610}}
{"type":"message","id":"f180669e","parentId":"dd8b0f14","timestamp":"2026-07-24T15:16:38.610Z","message":{"role":"toolResult","toolCallId":"functions.read:2","toolName":"read","content":[{"type":"text","text":"---\ndescription: Generate 3–5 design alternatives with trade-offs before committing to an approach\nargument-hint: \"[problem or feature to design]\"\n---\nBrainstorm approaches for: ${@:-the current problem or feature}\n\nStructure your answer as:\n1. **Problem restatement** — one paragraph; what we're solving, what constraints matter, what \"done\" looks like\n2. **Alternatives** — 3 to 5 distinct approaches. For each:\n - **Summary** — one or two sentences\n - **How it works** — the key mechanism\n - **Pros** — what it gets right\n - **Cons** — what it costs, risks, or breaks\n - **Best when** — the conditions that would make this the right pick\n3. **Comparison table** — across the alternatives, score or rank on: complexity, time-to-ship, reversibility, performance, fit-with-existing-code\n4. **Recommendation** — which one to pick *given the current codebase*, with the second choice as a fallback\n5. **Unknowns** — questions that, if answered, would change the recommendation\n\nBe opinionated. Surface real trade-offs, not strawmen. If the obvious approach wins decisively, say so and only enumerate 2 alternatives — don't manufacture options for the sake of a full set. If the problem is under-specified, ask clarifying questions before brainstorming.\n"}],"isError":false,"timestamp":1784906198610}}
{"type":"message","id":"4451c511","parentId":"f180669e","timestamp":"2026-07-24T15:16:38.610Z","message":{"role":"toolResult","toolCallId":"functions.read:3","toolName":"read","content":[{"type":"text","text":"---\ndescription: Generate a conventional commit message and optional PR description from current changes\nargument-hint: \"[diff, file list, or 'auto' to use git status]\"\n---\nGenerate a commit message for: ${@:-the current uncommitted changes (run git status / git diff first)}\n\nStructure your answer as:\n1. **Type & scope** — one of: feat, fix, refactor, perf, test, docs, build, ci, chore, style; scope is the affected module/subsystem\n2. **Subject** — imperative mood, ≤72 chars, no trailing period, no emoji\n3. **Body** — wrapped at 72 cols, explain *why* not *what*. Use bullet points for multiple distinct changes.\n4. **Footer** — `BREAKING CHANGE: …` if applicable; `Refs: #123` for linked issues\n5. **PR description** (if the change is non-trivial) — Summary, Motivation, Changes, Test plan, Risks\n\nFormat the final message in a single fenced block ready to copy. If the change spans multiple logical commits, propose a split with one subject per commit and the file groups that belong in each.\n\nRead the diff before writing — never invent files, symbols, or behavior. If `git status` is empty or the diff is unclear, ask before fabricating.\n"}],"isError":false,"timestamp":1784906198610}}
{"type":"message","id":"c545b8d1","parentId":"4451c511","timestamp":"2026-07-24T15:16:38.610Z","message":{"role":"toolResult","toolCallId":"functions.read:4","toolName":"read","content":[{"type":"text","text":"---\ndescription: Diagnose a failing test, build, or runtime error\nargument-hint: \"[error message, test name, or stack trace]\"\n---\nDiagnose the following failure: ${@:-the current failing test or error}\n\nStructure your answer as:\n1. **What failed** — one-sentence summary; quote the exact error line\n2. **Likely root cause** — ranked list, most probable first\n3. **Minimal fix** — the smallest change that would resolve it\n4. **How to verify** — the exact command or test to confirm the fix\n5. **How to prevent** — a regression test, invariant, or guard to add\n\nBe specific. If multiple causes are plausible, name each and give a quick disambiguation check (a log line, a flag, a one-line probe) to tell them apart. Do not speculate beyond what the error message and the code actually show — if you need more data, say so explicitly.\n"}],"isError":false,"timestamp":1784906198610}}
{"type":"message","id":"256d21cc","parentId":"c545b8d1","timestamp":"2026-07-24T15:16:38.610Z","message":{"role":"toolResult","toolCallId":"functions.read:5","toolName":"read","content":[{"type":"text","text":"---\ndescription: Diagnose unexpected behavior, not just failures (race conditions, perf regressions, weird output)\nargument-hint: \"[symptom or observed behavior]\"\n---\nDiagnose the following unexpected behavior: ${@:-the current code or recent change}\n\nStructure your answer as:\n1. **What's wrong** — restate the observed behavior vs the expected behavior in one sentence each\n2. **Where in the code** — point at the specific functions, lines, or modules most likely responsible\n3. **Hypotheses** — 2–4 ranked explanations with the evidence for and against each\n4. **Disambiguation** — the cheapest experiment (log, flag, breakpoint, minimal repro) that would confirm or rule out each hypothesis\n5. **Likely fix** — once a hypothesis is confirmed, the smallest change that would correct it\n6. **Why it wasn't caught** — what test, type, or invariant would have caught this earlier\n\nUse this when nothing is \"failing\" but behavior is wrong: a value drifts, a UI flashes, a query is slow, two users see different results. Distinguish carefully between \"the test fails\" (use `p-debug`) and \"the test passes but production is broken\" (this prompt).\n"}],"isError":false,"timestamp":1784906198610}}
{"type":"message","id":"772f6e84","parentId":"256d21cc","timestamp":"2026-07-24T15:16:38.610Z","message":{"role":"toolResult","toolCallId":"functions.read:6","toolName":"read","content":[{"type":"text","text":"---\ndescription: Write or improve documentation (README, docstrings, JSDoc, godoc, ADRs)\nargument-hint: \"[file path, symbol, or topic to document]\"\n---\nWrite documentation for: ${@:-the current code or topic}\n\nStructure your answer as:\n1. **Audience** — who is reading this (new contributor, end user, API consumer, future self) and what they already know\n2. **One-paragraph summary** — what it is and when to use it\n3. **Minimal example** — the smallest runnable/usable snippet that demonstrates the primary path\n4. **API or interface** — for code: every public symbol with one line of purpose and a signature. For prose: headings and key terms.\n5. **Gotchas** — non-obvious behavior, common mistakes, sharp edges, things that look like bugs but aren't\n6. **How to verify** — for code docs, a command or test the reader can run; for prose, a cross-link to source\n\nMatch the existing style of the project's docs. Do not invent APIs, parameters, or behavior — if something is unclear from the code, say \"behavior unclear, needs verification\" rather than guessing. If the project has no docs yet, propose a minimal README structure and call it out so the user can approve before you scaffold.\n"}],"isError":false,"timestamp":1784906198610}}
{"type":"message","id":"40f6881b","parentId":"772f6e84","timestamp":"2026-07-24T15:16:42.046Z","message":{"role":"assistant","content":[{"type":"thinking","thinking":"Read remaining prompts and README.","thinkingSignature":"reasoning"},{"type":"toolCall","id":"functions.read:7","name":"read","arguments":{"path":"/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/agent/prompts/p-explain.md"}},{"type":"toolCall","id":"functions.read:8","name":"read","arguments":{"path":"/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/agent/prompts/p-plan.md"}},{"type":"toolCall","id":"functions.read:9","name":"read","arguments":{"path":"/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/agent/prompts/p-refactor.md"}},{"type":"toolCall","id":"functions.read:10","name":"read","arguments":{"path":"/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/agent/prompts/p-review.md"}},{"type":"toolCall","id":"functions.read:11","name":"read","arguments":{"path":"/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/agent/prompts/p-secaudit.md"}},{"type":"toolCall","id":"functions.read:12","name":"read","arguments":{"path":"/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/agent/prompts/p-summarize.md"}},{"type":"toolCall","id":"functions.read:13","name":"read","arguments":{"path":"/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/agent/prompts/p-test.md"}},{"type":"toolCall","id":"functions.read:14","name":"read","arguments":{"path":"/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/agent/prompts/Doc/README.md"}}],"api":"openai-completions","provider":"ollama","model":"kimi-k2.7-code:cloud","usage":{"input":17957,"output":233,"cacheRead":0,"cacheWrite":0,"reasoning":0,"totalTokens":18190,"cost":{"input":0,"output":0,"cacheRead":0,"cacheWrite":0,"total":0}},"stopReason":"toolUse","timestamp":1784906198612,"responseId":"chatcmpl-261","responseModel":"kimi-k2.7-code"}}
{"type":"message","id":"50901af3","parentId":"40f6881b","timestamp":"2026-07-24T15:16:42.051Z","message":{"role":"toolResult","toolCallId":"functions.read:7","toolName":"read","content":[{"type":"text","text":"---\ndescription: Explain code, concepts, or errors in plain terms\nargument-hint: \"[topic: code, concept, or error]\"\n---\nExplain the following in clear, plain language: ${@:-the current code or context}\n\nStructure your answer as:\n1. **What it is** — one-sentence summary\n2. **How it works** — walk through the key parts step by step\n3. **Why it matters** — purpose, trade-offs, or design intent\n4. **Connections** — how it relates to the surrounding system or codebase\n5. **Key details to know** — important gotchas, assumptions, or common pitfalls\n\nAvoid unnecessary jargon. If showing code, keep snippets short and annotate them. If explaining an error, include the likely cause and how to fix it."}],"isError":false,"timestamp":1784906202051}}
{"type":"message","id":"b19415c2","parentId":"50901af3","timestamp":"2026-07-24T15:16:42.051Z","message":{"role":"toolResult","toolCallId":"functions.read:8","toolName":"read","content":[{"type":"text","text":"---\ndescription: Create a structured implementation plan before coding\nargument-hint: \"[task or feature]\"\n---\nCreate a structured implementation plan for: ${@:-the current task}\n\nFollow this format:\n1. **Goal** — one-sentence objective\n2. **Constraints** — existing code, dependencies, tests, or assumptions to respect\n3. **Approach** — high-level strategy and rationale\n4. **Steps** — numbered, actionable tasks small enough to verify one at a time\n5. **Verification** — how to confirm each step works (tests, logs, manual checks)\n6. **Risks & Rollbacks** — what could go wrong and how to undo safely\n7. **Open Questions** — anything that needs clarification before starting\n\nUse the codebase context as needed. Do not write implementation code yet; only produce the plan."}],"isError":false,"timestamp":1784906202051}}
{"type":"message","id":"7d2714ae","parentId":"b19415c2","timestamp":"2026-07-24T15:16:42.051Z","message":{"role":"toolResult","toolCallId":"functions.read:9","toolName":"read","content":[{"type":"text","text":"---\ndescription: Safely restructure code without changing behavior\nargument-hint: \"[file path or symbol to refactor]\"\n---\nRefactor: ${@:-the current code or context}\n\nStructure your answer as:\n1. **Current shape** — what this code does today, in terms of responsibilities (not lines)\n2. **Target shape** — what the refactor preserves externally (behavior, API, output) and what it improves internally (readability, coupling, testability, reuse)\n3. **Why this is safe** — the test/contract that proves the refactor doesn't change behavior. If none exists, STOP and recommend `p-test` first.\n4. **Step-by-step mechanical changes** — numbered, each one individually committable and runnable\n5. **After each step** — the command to run (test, type-check, lint) to confirm green\n6. **Final verification** — full test suite, plus any manual smoke check\n7. **Rollback** — how to revert each step in isolation (e.g. one commit = one rollback unit)\n\nDo not combine refactor with new features. Do not change behavior \"while you're in there.\" If you spot a bug or a missing test, call it out separately at the end, do not fix it inline.\n"}],"isError":false,"timestamp":1784906202051}}
{"type":"message","id":"08df2d6c","parentId":"7d2714ae","timestamp":"2026-07-24T15:16:42.051Z","message":{"role":"toolResult","toolCallId":"functions.read:10","toolName":"read","content":[{"type":"text","text":"---\ndescription: Review code, diffs, or changes with actionable feedback\nargument-hint: \"[target: file path, diff, or PR]\"\n---\nReview the following code or changes: ${@:-the current file / diff / staged changes}\n\nProvide feedback in these categories:\n- **Correctness** — bugs, logic errors, edge cases, race conditions\n- **Security** — injection, unsafe defaults, secrets, auth/z issues\n- **Performance** — unnecessary work, memory leaks, hot-path inefficiencies\n- **Maintainability** — naming, complexity, duplication, testability\n- **Style & Idioms** — consistency with the surrounding codebase\n- **Error Handling** — missing or misleading failure modes\n\nFor each issue, include:\n- The specific location (file, line, function)\n- A clear description of the problem\n- A concrete suggestion or example fix\n\nAlso call out anything done well. Keep the review concise and prioritized."}],"isError":false,"timestamp":1784906202051}}
{"type":"message","id":"b2a78f37","parentId":"08df2d6c","timestamp":"2026-07-24T15:16:42.051Z","message":{"role":"toolResult","toolCallId":"functions.read:11","toolName":"read","content":[{"type":"text","text":"---\ndescription: Security-focused review covering OWASP-style categories\nargument-hint: \"[file path, diff, or feature to audit]\"\n---\nSecurity-audit: ${@:-the current code, diff, or feature}\n\nStructure your answer as:\n1. **Trust boundary** — where untrusted input enters, where sensitive data leaves; map the attack surface in one paragraph\n2. **Findings** — grouped by severity (Critical / High / Medium / Low / Info). For each:\n - **Category** — one of: Injection, AuthN/AuthZ, Secrets, Crypto, Input validation, Output encoding, Deserialization, SSRF, Path traversal, Race/TOC-TOU, Dependency, Logging/PII, Configuration, Supply chain\n - **Location** — file, line, function\n - **Description** — the vulnerability, with a concrete exploit scenario\n - **Fix** — the minimal secure change, with a code snippet\n3. **Missing controls** — auth, rate limiting, audit logging, CSRF/CORS, headers, etc. that should exist but don't\n4. **Dependencies** — any third-party packages with known CVEs in this surface (if you can determine versions)\n5. **Threat model gaps** — what's out of scope for this audit but worth a separate pass\n\nBe concrete and adversarial — describe a real attack, not \"consider validating input.\" If the code is sound, say so explicitly and explain what you'd look for if it weren't. Do not pad with general security advice that doesn't apply to the specific code.\n"}],"isError":false,"timestamp":1784906202051}}
{"type":"message","id":"8a4766a3","parentId":"b2a78f37","timestamp":"2026-07-24T15:16:42.051Z","message":{"role":"toolResult","toolCallId":"functions.read:12","toolName":"read","content":[{"type":"text","text":"---\ndescription: Summarize a long file, log, diff, or document into structured notes\nargument-hint: \"[file path, log, or topic to summarize]\"\n---\nSummarize: ${@:-the current file or context}\n\nStructure your answer as:\n1. **One-paragraph gist** — what this is, in plain terms, at the level a smart non-expert would understand\n2. **Key points** — 5 to 10 bullets, ordered by importance, each ≤2 lines\n3. **Structure** — how the content is organized: sections, layers, time periods, components\n4. **Important details** — names, numbers, paths, error codes, dates, anything concrete that a later reader will need verbatim\n5. **What's missing or unclear** — gaps, assumptions, things that need a follow-up read\n6. **Pointer to deep-dive sections** — if a reader only has 5 minutes, which 2–3 sections cover 80% of the value\n\nBe ruthless about compression. If the source is long, the summary should be short — that's the whole point. Prefer concrete over abstract. Quote exact strings (paths, error messages, identifiers) rather than paraphrasing them, because the reader will likely need to grep for them later. Do not editorialize or add recommendations; just compress.\n"}],"isError":false,"timestamp":1784906202051}}
{"type":"message","id":"65a75a55","parentId":"8a4766a3","timestamp":"2026-07-24T15:16:42.052Z","message":{"role":"toolResult","toolCallId":"functions.read:13","toolName":"read","content":[{"type":"text","text":"---\ndescription: Write or expand unit / integration tests for the given code\nargument-hint: \"[file path, function, or feature to test]\"\n---\nWrite tests for: ${@:-the current code or context}\n\nStructure your answer as:\n1. **Existing conventions** — name patterns, framework, assertion style, fixtures; match what's already there\n2. **Test cases to add** — grouped as:\n - **Happy path** — the primary expected behavior\n - **Edge cases** — empty, zero, max, boundary, off-by-one\n - **Error cases** — invalid input, missing deps, timeouts, permission failures\n3. **Test code** — minimal, runnable, following the project's framework (jest, pytest, go test, etc.)\n4. **How to run** — the exact command, plus how to run just the new tests\n5. **Coverage gaps** — anything still untestable without a refactor; flag it but do not refactor in this pass\n\nKeep tests independent, deterministic, and fast. Prefer many small tests over one large one. If the codebase has no test setup yet, propose the smallest viable setup and call it out clearly so the user can approve before you scaffold it.\n"}],"isError":false,"timestamp":1784906202052}}
{"type":"message","id":"bb2d3b9f","parentId":"65a75a55","timestamp":"2026-07-24T15:16:42.052Z","message":{"role":"toolResult","toolCallId":"functions.read:14","toolName":"read","content":[{"type":"text","text":"# Prompts\n\nSlash-style prompts for the interactive pi session. Each file is a `p-<verb>.md` template with a frontmatter `description` + `argument-hint` and a structured body. Invoke with `:p-<verb> [arg]` or via the `:prompts` TUI picker.\n\n## When to use which\n\n| Prompt | Use it when… | Pairs well with |\n| ------------------ | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------- |\n| **`p-plan`** | You're about to start a non-trivial change and want a structured plan before coding. | `p-brainstorm` (first), then `p-refactor` / `p-test` |\n| **`p-brainstorm`** | You have a problem but no chosen approach yet; want 3–5 alternatives with trade-offs. | `p-plan` (after picking one) |\n| **`p-explain`** | You don't understand a piece of code, a concept, or an error message. | `p-debug` / `p-diagnose` (if it's a problem) |\n| **`p-debug`** | A test, build, or command is failing with a clear error. You have the error in hand. | `p-test` (add a regression test after the fix) |\n| **`p-diagnose`** | Nothing is \"failing\" but behavior is wrong — wrong values, races, perf drift, \"passes locally, broken in prod.\" | `p-debug` (if you find a hard failure) |\n| **`p-review`** | You want a code review of a diff, file, or staged change. General quality feedback. | `p-secaudit` (security subset) |\n| **`p-secaudit`** | Touching auth, input handling, secrets, network, deserialization, or any trust boundary. | `p-review` (broader quality), `p-test` |\n| **`p-refactor`** | Restructuring code without changing behavior. Safety-first, mechanical steps. | `p-test` (first, as the safety net), `p-review` (after) |\n| **`p-test`** | You need to write or expand tests for existing or new code. | `p-debug` (after a failure), `p-refactor` (before) |\n| **`p-doc`** | Writing or improving README, docstrings, JSDoc, godoc, or ADRs. | `p-summarize` (skim the code first) |\n| **`p-commit`** | About to commit. You want a conventional message and (optionally) a PR description. | `p-review` (final check before committing) |\n| **`p-summarize`** | A file, log, diff, or document is too long to read in full. You need the gist + key details. | `p-plan` / `p-debug` (then dive into specifics) |\n\n## Decision flow\n\n```\nGot an idea or vague problem?\n└─ Yes → p-brainstorm → pick an approach → p-plan → implement\n └─ p-test → p-commit\nTouching existing code that needs to change?\n└─ p-refactor (after p-test confirms a safety net) → p-review → p-commit\nSomething is broken?\n├─ Hard failure (error message, failing test) → p-debug\n└─ Soft failure (wrong output, race, perf) → p-diagnose\n → fix → p-test (regression) → p-commit\nTouching a trust boundary, auth, secrets, or untrusted input?\n└─ p-secaudit (then p-review for general quality)\nNeed to understand a long file/log/diff quickly?\n└─ p-summarize\nNeed to write or update docs?\n└─ p-doc\nDon't know what something does or what an error means?\n└─ p-explain\n```\n\n## Conventions\n\n- Every prompt uses `${@:-<default>}` so it works with or without an argument.\n- Output is structured (numbered sections, fixed categories) so the result is diff-friendly and skim-friendly.\n- Prompts intentionally do **not** overlap with subagent workflows (`agents/`, `chains/`, `skills/`) — those are for orchestration; these are for interactive turns.\n- Prefer one prompt per turn. Chain them yourself (`p-brainstorm` → `p-plan` → `p-refactor`) rather than asking one prompt to do everything.\n"}],"isError":false,"timestamp":1784906202052}}
{"type":"message","id":"989ccaa5","parentId":"bb2d3b9f","timestamp":"2026-07-24T15:16:48.397Z","message":{"role":"assistant","content":[{"type":"thinking","thinking":"We have prompt library. The user's question: \"is there a way to combine some of these prompt into a chain?\" They want implementation plan for creating chains of prompts. We need produce structured implementation plan for building chain prompt(s). We need use codebase context. Could be within pi harness: there are subagent chains and skills maybe. Current directory is prompts; Doc/README says prompts intentionally do not overlap with subagent workflows (agents/, chains/, skills/) — those are for orchestration; these are for interactive turns. It says prefer one prompt per turn. Chain them yourself rather than asking one prompt to do everything. So maybe user is asking to create a chain prompt that automates sequence e.g. p-brainstorm -> p-plan -> ... But Doc/README says prompts are interactive; chain them yourself. Yet user asks if there is a way to combine some of these prompt into a chain. We should plan for enabling chain invocation, maybe a new meta-prompt `p-chain.md` or a script that runs multiple prompts sequentially. Need inspect pi environment? Maybe there are pi-specific mechanisms: `:prompts` TUI picker, slash-style prompts. The plan could propose a chain definition file (chain config or TUI feature). Need understand how pi uses prompts. There might be pi docs about prompts and chains. Current working directory is .pi/agent/prompts under dotfiles. The README in Doc describes usage: invoke with `:p-<verb> [arg]` or via `:prompts` TUI picker. The user likely wants to know if they can combine some prompts into a chain. There are subagent workflow directories agents/, chains/, skills/ mentioned. The project at dotfiles/pi likely has pi config. Need inspect dotfiles/pi structure. Let's explore. Use bash.","thinkingSignature":"reasoning"},{"type":"toolCall","id":"functions.bash:15","name":"bash","arguments":{"command":"find /home/liph/dotfiles/pi -maxdepth 4 -type f | head -100"}},{"type":"toolCall","id":"functions.bash:16","name":"bash","arguments":{"command":"ls -la /home/liph/dotfiles/pi"}}],"api":"openai-completions","provider":"ollama","model":"kimi-k2.7-code:cloud","usage":{"input":20900,"output":422,"cacheRead":0,"cacheWrite":0,"reasoning":0,"totalTokens":21322,"cost":{"input":0,"output":0,"cacheRead":0,"cacheWrite":0,"total":0}},"stopReason":"toolUse","timestamp":1784906202053,"responseId":"chatcmpl-541","responseModel":"kimi-k2.7-code"}}
{"type":"message","id":"3e4b378b","parentId":"989ccaa5","timestamp":"2026-07-24T15:16:48.414Z","message":{"role":"toolResult","toolCallId":"functions.bash:15","toolName":"bash","content":[{"type":"text","text":"/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/extensions/pi-web-agent/config.json\n/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/context-mode/sessions/stats-pid-1488412.json\n/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/context-mode/sessions/stats-pid-240592.json\n/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/context-mode/sessions/aa673b1056f331f7.db-wal\n/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/context-mode/sessions/f05bb7382a9480de.db-wal\n/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/context-mode/sessions/150ea8def36d4286.db-wal\n/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/context-mode/sessions/stats-pid-36740.json\n/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/context-mode/sessions/stats-pid-273992.json\n/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/context-mode/sessions/2cc974af6afc822c.db-wal\n/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/context-mode/sessions/15bbe2b9c6a5cf3a.db\n/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/context-mode/sessions/c340569da3996957.db-wal\n/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/context-mode/sessions/stats-pid-1468533.json\n/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/context-mode/sessions/stats-pid-94676.json\n/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/context-mode/sessions/stats-pid-219161.json\n/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/context-mode/sessions/stats-pid-253194.json\n/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/context-mode/sessions/stats-pid-172198.json\n/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/context-mode/sessions/stats-pid-39264.json\n/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/context-mode/sessions/stats-pid-276948.json\n/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/context-mode/sessions/590c1894467d14ef.db-shm\n/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/context-mode/sessions/stats-pid-267230.json\n/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/context-mode/sessions/stats-pid-1467504.json\n/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/context-mode/sessions/stats-pid-248583.json\n/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/context-mode/sessions/stats-pid-1481856.json\n/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/context-mode/sessions/stats-pid-240593.json\n/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/context-mode/sessions/stats-pid-274842.json\n/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/context-mode/sessions/stats-pid-241374.json\n/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/context-mode/sessions/27411074f5f7a61e.db-wal\n/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/context-mode/sessions/f9a74f35a5704572.db-shm\n/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/context-mode/sessions/stats-pid-92239.json\n/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/context-mode/sessions/3ea71be6c83c47ea.db-shm\n/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/context-mode/sessions/f05bb7382a9480de.db-shm\n/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/context-mode/sessions/150ea8def36d4286.db\n/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/context-mode/sessions/3ea71be6c83c47ea.db\n/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/context-mode/sessions/stats-pid-1479267.json\n/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/context-mode/sessions/12c859f108b03852.db\n/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/context-mode/sessions/12c859f108b03852.db-wal\n/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/context-mode/sessions/4480bf537cca1bcf.db-wal\n/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/context-mode/sessions/27411074f5f7a61e.db-shm\n/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/context-mode/sessions/27411074f5f7a61e.db\n/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/context-mode/sessions/f9a74f35a5704572.db\n/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/context-mode/sessions/c340569da3996957.db-shm\n/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/context-mode/sessions/stats-pid-1464359.json\n/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/context-mode/sessions/stats-pid-236348.json\n/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/context-mode/sessions/stats-pid-273690.json\n/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/context-mode/sessions/stats-pid-92766.json\n/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/context-mode/sessions/stats-pid-223177.json\n/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/context-mode/sessions/1632b17542982f7e.db-shm\n/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/context-mode/sessions/4480bf537cca1bcf.db-shm\n/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/context-mode/sessions/3bb61de67e8a4fe4.db-wal\n/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/context-mode/sessions/15bbe2b9c6a5cf3a.db-wal\n/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/context-mode/sessions/stats-pid-249076.json\n/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/context-mode/sessions/10f3e3c5d13d91cb.db-wal\n/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/context-mode/sessions/stats-pid-226205.json\n/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/context-mode/sessions/e55f89dbbbbeb520.db-shm\n/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/context-mode/sessions/1632b17542982f7e.db-wal\n/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/context-mode/sessions/stats-pid-1469564.json\n/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/context-mode/sessions/stats-pid-218958.json\n/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/context-mode/sessions/10f3e3c5d13d91cb.db\n/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/context-mode/sessions/stats-pid-91796.json\n/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/context-mode/sessions/0b552d378e09330e.db-shm\n/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/context-mode/sessions/stats-pid-267545.json\n/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/context-mode/sessions/stats-pid-235591.json\n/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/context-mode/sessions/stats-pid-244139.json\n/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/context-mode/sessions/36f8c52c1bab0f41.db\n/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/context-mode/sessions/590c1894467d14ef.db\n/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/context-mode/sessions/stats-pid-270991.json\n/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/context-mode/sessions/stats-pid-92117.json\n/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/context-mode/sessions/stats-pid-92541.json\n/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/context-mode/sessions/stats-pid-251943.json\n/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/context-mode/sessions/stats-pid-239205.json\n/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/context-mode/sessions/10f3e3c5d13d91cb.db-shm\n/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/context-mode/sessions/stats-pid-223858.json\n/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/context-mode/sessions/c340569da3996957.db\n/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/context-mode/sessions/stats-pid-240289.json\n/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/context-mode/sessions/3bb61de67e8a4fe4.db-shm\n/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/context-mode/sessions/stats-pid-239646.json\n/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/context-mode/sessions/stats-pid-1475152.json\n/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/context-mode/sessions/stats-pid-274378.json\n/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/context-mode/sessions/stats-pid-273458.json\n/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/context-mode/sessions/aa673b1056f331f7.db-shm\n/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/context-mode/sessions/150ea8def36d4286.db-shm\n/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/context-mode/sessions/stats-pid-1000161.json\n/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/context-mode/sessions/f9a74f35a5704572.db-wal\n/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/context-mode/sessions/stats-pid-1462008.json\n/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/context-mode/sessions/stats-pid-1003777.json\n/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/context-mode/sessions/15bbe2b9c6a5cf3a.db-shm\n/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/context-mode/sessions/e55f89dbbbbeb520.db-wal\n/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/context-mode/sessions/stats-pid-205972.json\n/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/context-mode/sessions/12c859f108b03852.db-shm\n/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/context-mode/sessions/stats-pid-229441.json\n/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/context-mode/sessions/stats-pid-271215.json\n/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/context-mode/sessions/2cc974af6afc822c.db-shm\n/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/context-mode/sessions/stats-pid-230590.json\n/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/context-mode/sessions/stats-pid-276550.json\n/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/context-mode/sessions/stats-pid-115478.json\n/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/context-mode/sessions/0b552d378e09330e.db\n/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/context-mode/sessions/aa673b1056f331f7.db\n/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/context-mode/sessions/3ea71be6c83c47ea.db-wal\n/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/context-mode/sessions/stats-pid-1374687.json\n/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/context-mode/sessions/d31232b17918166f.db\n"}],"isError":false,"timestamp":1784906208414}}
{"type":"message","id":"2acd724f","parentId":"3e4b378b","timestamp":"2026-07-24T15:16:48.414Z","message":{"role":"toolResult","toolCallId":"functions.bash:16","toolName":"bash","content":[{"type":"text","text":"total 16\ndrwxr-xr-x 4 liph liph 4096 Jul 23 20:35 .\ndrwxr-xr-x 30 liph liph 4096 Jul 23 16:54 ..\ndrwxr-xr-x 6 liph liph 4096 Jul 23 20:54 .pi\ndrwxr-xr-x 6 liph liph 4096 Jul 23 20:35 .pi_1\n"}],"isError":false,"timestamp":1784906208414}}
{"type":"message","id":"739300bb","parentId":"2acd724f","timestamp":"2026-07-24T15:16:50.108Z","message":{"role":"assistant","content":[{"type":"toolCall","id":"functions.bash:17","name":"bash","arguments":{"command":"find /home/liph/dotfiles/pi -maxdepth 4 -type f \\( -path '*context-mode*' -prune \\) -o -type f -print | head -100"}}],"api":"openai-completions","provider":"ollama","model":"kimi-k2.7-code:cloud","usage":{"input":23862,"output":58,"cacheRead":0,"cacheWrite":0,"reasoning":0,"totalTokens":23920,"cost":{"input":0,"output":0,"cacheRead":0,"cacheWrite":0,"total":0}},"stopReason":"toolUse","timestamp":1784906208416,"responseId":"chatcmpl-704","responseModel":"kimi-k2.7-code"}}
{"type":"message","id":"f33af2b1","parentId":"739300bb","timestamp":"2026-07-24T15:16:50.130Z","message":{"role":"toolResult","toolCallId":"functions.bash:17","toolName":"bash","content":[{"type":"text","text":"/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/extensions/pi-web-agent/config.json\n/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/agent/trust.json\n/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/agent/models.json\n/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/agent/npm/package.json\n/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/agent/npm/package-lock.json\n/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/agent/npm/.gitignore\n/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/agent/prompts/p-commit.md\n/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/agent/prompts/p-brainstorm.md\n/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/agent/prompts/p-doc.md\n/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/agent/prompts/p-explain.md\n/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/agent/prompts/p-review.md\n/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/agent/prompts/p-test.md\n/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/agent/prompts/p-secaudit.md\n/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/agent/prompts/p-plan.md\n/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/agent/prompts/p-summarize.md\n/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/agent/prompts/p-refactor.md\n/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/agent/prompts/p-debug.md\n/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/agent/prompts/p-diagnose.md\n/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/agent/auth.json\n/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/agent/themes/crew-solarized-light.json\n/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/agent/themes/crew-dark.json\n/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/agent/themes/crew-gruvbox-light.json\n/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/agent/themes/crew-gruvbox-dark.json\n/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/agent/themes/crew-solarized-dark.json\n/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/agent/themes/crew-catppuccin-mocha.json\n/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/agent/themes/crew-catppuccin-latte.json\n/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/agent/themes/crew-tokyo-night.json\n/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/agent/themes/crew-nord.json\n/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/agent/themes/crew-one-dark.json\n/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/agent/themes/rose-pine-beautiful.json\n/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/agent/themes/crew-dracula.json\n/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/agent/run-history.jsonl\n/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/agent/agents/ollama-orchestrator.md\n/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/agent/agents/ollama-explain.md\n/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/agent/agents/ollama-planner.md\n/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/agent/agents/ollama-researcher.md\n/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/agent/agents/ollama-reviewer.md\n/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/agent/agents/ollama-coder.md\n/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/agent/settings.json\n/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/.pi-subagents/artifacts/187b7128_ollama-orchestrator_0_transcript.jsonl\n/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/.pi-subagents/artifacts/a22166b7_planner_0_transcript.jsonl\n/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/.pi-subagents/artifacts/a22166b7_planner_0_output.md\n/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/.pi-subagents/artifacts/4059014e_ollama-planner_0_input.md\n/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/.pi-subagents/artifacts/a22166b7_planner_0_meta.json\n/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/.pi-subagents/artifacts/187b7128_ollama-orchestrator_0_output.md\n/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/.pi-subagents/artifacts/187b7128_ollama-orchestrator_0_input.md\n/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/.pi-subagents/artifacts/4059014e_ollama-planner_0_output.md\n/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/.pi-subagents/artifacts/a22166b7_planner_0_input.md\n/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/.pi-subagents/artifacts/4059014e_ollama-planner_0_meta.json\n/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/.pi-subagents/artifacts/4059014e_ollama-planner_0_transcript.jsonl\n/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/.pi-subagents/artifacts/plan.md\n/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/.pi-subagents/artifacts/187b7128_ollama-orchestrator_0_meta.json\n/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi_1/extensions/pi-web-agent/config.json\n/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi_1/teams/audit/prune.jsonl\n/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi_1/agent/trust.json\n/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi_1/agent/models.json\n/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi_1/agent/npm/package.json\n/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi_1/agent/npm/package-lock.json\n/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi_1/agent/npm/.gitignore\n/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi_1/agent/prompts/p-explain.md\n/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi_1/agent/prompts/p-review.md\n/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi_1/agent/prompts/p-plan.md\n/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi_1/agent/auth.json\n/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi_1/agent/themes/crew-solarized-light.json\n/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi_1/agent/themes/crew-dark.json\n/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi_1/agent/themes/crew-gruvbox-light.json\n/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi_1/agent/themes/crew-gruvbox-dark.json\n/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi_1/agent/themes/crew-solarized-dark.json\n/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi_1/agent/themes/crew-catppuccin-mocha.json\n/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi_1/agent/themes/crew-catppuccin-latte.json\n/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi_1/agent/themes/crew-tokyo-night.json\n/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi_1/agent/themes/crew-nord.json\n/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi_1/agent/themes/crew-one-dark.json\n/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi_1/agent/themes/crew-dracula.json\n/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi_1/agent/run-history.jsonl\n/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi_1/agent/chains/research-brief.chain.md\n/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi_1/agent/chains/feature-build.chain.md\n/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi_1/agent/agents/ollama-orchestrator.md\n/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi_1/agent/agents/ollama-planner.md\n/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi_1/agent/agents/ollama-researcher.md\n/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi_1/agent/agents/ollama-reviewer.md\n/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi_1/agent/agents/ollama-coder.md\n/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi_1/agent/settings.json\n"}],"isError":false,"timestamp":1784906210130}}
{"type":"message","id":"332151be","parentId":"f33af2b1","timestamp":"2026-07-24T15:16:55.756Z","message":{"role":"assistant","content":[{"type":"thinking","thinking":"Interesting: `.pi_1/agent/chains/` has `research-brief.chain.md` and `feature-build.chain.md`. The current `.pi` has no chains directory. The user is in `.pi/agent/prompts`, but there is a backup `.pi_1` with chain examples. Maybe the current active profile is `.pi` and user wants to combine prompts into chains as in `.pi_1`? We need inspect those chain files and agent files to understand chain format. Also pi docs about chains? The system prompt says pi docs in /home/liph/.local/lib/node_modules/@earendil-works/pi-coding-agent/README.md and docs. There is docs about prompts and subagents. We need follow. But maybe we can use existing `.pi_1` as a model. Let's read chain files. Also check `.pi/agent` for settings, agents. Use read.","thinkingSignature":"reasoning"},{"type":"toolCall","id":"functions.read:18","name":"read","arguments":{"path":"/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi_1/agent/chains/research-brief.chain.md"}},{"type":"toolCall","id":"functions.read:19","name":"read","arguments":{"path":"/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi_1/agent/chains/feature-build.chain.md"}},{"type":"toolCall","id":"functions.read:20","name":"read","arguments":{"path":"/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi_1/agent/agents/ollama-orchestrator.md"}},{"type":"toolCall","id":"functions.read:21","name":"read","arguments":{"path":"/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi_1/agent/agents/ollama-planner.md"}},{"type":"toolCall","id":"functions.read:22","name":"read","arguments":{"path":"/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi_1/agent/agents/ollama-researcher.md"}}],"api":"openai-completions","provider":"ollama","model":"kimi-k2.7-code:cloud","usage":{"input":25599,"output":344,"cacheRead":0,"cacheWrite":0,"reasoning":0,"totalTokens":25943,"cost":{"input":0,"output":0,"cacheRead":0,"cacheWrite":0,"total":0}},"stopReason":"toolUse","timestamp":1784906210132,"responseId":"chatcmpl-236","responseModel":"kimi-k2.7-code"}}
{"type":"message","id":"ec911607","parentId":"332151be","timestamp":"2026-07-24T15:16:55.760Z","message":{"role":"toolResult","toolCallId":"functions.read:18","toolName":"read","content":[{"type":"text","text":"---\nname: research-brief\ndescription: Parallel web research + local code context → synthesis. Three-stage chain for well-sourced answers combining external evidence and local code.\n---\n\n## ollama-researcher\nphase: External Research\nlabel: Web research\nas: web_research\noutput: research/web.md\nprogress: true\n\nResearch the external side of {task}. Search, evaluate sources, and produce a focused research brief with citations. Write to {output}.\n\n## scout\nphase: Local Context\nlabel: Local code analysis\nas: local_context\noutput: research/local.md\nprogress: true\n\nMap the local codebase side of {task}. Identify relevant files, how they interact with the topic, and capture local patterns. Write to {output}.\n\n## worker\nphase: Synthesis\nlabel: Combine and synthesize\nas: synthesis\nreads: research/web.md, research/local.md\noutput: research/brief.md\nprogress: true\n\nRead {reads} and create a unified research brief. Include: direct answer, evidence from web, evidence from local code, contradictions, recommendation, and confidence level. Write to {output}.\n"}],"isError":false,"timestamp":1784906215760}}
{"type":"message","id":"a4abf74f","parentId":"ec911607","timestamp":"2026-07-24T15:16:55.760Z","message":{"role":"toolResult","toolCallId":"functions.read:19","toolName":"read","content":[{"type":"text","text":"---\nname: feature-build\ndescription: Recon → plan → implement → parallel review → synthesize. Five-stage workflow for shipping features end-to-end with Ollama Cloud subagents.\n---\n\n## scout\nphase: Context\nlabel: Map codebase\nas: context\noutput: context.md\nprogress: true\n\nMap the relevant code for {task}. List files to touch, capture conventions, identify risks, and write findings to {output}.\n\n## ollama-planner\nphase: Planning\nlabel: Create implementation plan\nas: plan\nreads: context.md\noutput: plan.md\nprogress: true\n\nRead {reads} and create a concrete implementation plan for {task}. Write ordered tasks with file paths, acceptance criteria, and risks to {output}.\n\n## ollama-coder\nphase: Implementation\nlabel: Implement the feature\nas: implementation\nreads: plan.md\noutput: implementation.md\nprogress: true\n\nExecute the plan from {reads}. Implement the smallest correct changes, run validation, and report changed files with evidence to {output}.\n\n## reviewer\nphase: Review\nlabel: Correctness review\nas: correctness_review\nreads: plan.md, implementation.md\noutput: review-correctness.md\nprogress: true\n\nReview the implementation against the plan. Focus on: correctness, regressions, edge cases, and whether the change does what it claims. Write findings to {output}.\n\n## reviewer\nphase: Review\nlabel: Tests and validation review\nas: test_review\nreads: plan.md, implementation.md\noutput: review-tests.md\nprogress: true\n\nReview test coverage and validation. Focus on: tests added/updated, do they exercise the new code, are they sufficient to catch regressions. Write findings to {output}.\n\n## reviewer\nphase: Review\nlabel: Simplicity and security review\nas: simplicity_review\nreads: plan.md, implementation.md\noutput: review-simplicity.md\nprogress: true\n\nReview for simplicity, maintainability, and security. Focus on: smallest correct change, readability, naming consistency, input validation, secrets, injection risks. Write findings to {output}.\n\n## worker\nphase: Synthesis\nlabel: Synthesize and apply fixes\nreads: review-correctness.md, review-tests.md, review-simplicity.md\noutput: synthesis.md\nprogress: true\n\nSynthesize the three reviews from {reads}. Apply fixes worth doing now (small, safe changes). Report: what was fixed, what was deferred, and any blockers that need user decision.\n"}],"isError":false,"timestamp":1784906215760}}
{"type":"message","id":"73772d5b","parentId":"a4abf74f","timestamp":"2026-07-24T15:16:55.760Z","message":{"role":"toolResult","toolCallId":"functions.read:20","toolName":"read","content":[{"type":"text","text":"---\nname: ollama-orchestrator\ndescription: Ollama-cloud orchestrator. Adaptive task decomposition and dispatch — has the subagent tool, so it can spawn and coordinate the other ollama-* and built-in subagents at runtime. Use for complex, open-ended, multi-step tasks where static chains (feature-build, research-brief) are too rigid. Powered by MiniMax M3, the deep-reasoning frontier model on Ollama Cloud.\nmodel: ollama/minimax-m3:cloud\nthinking: high\ntools: read, grep, find, ls, write, subagent, intercom\nsystemPromptMode: replace\ninheritProjectContext: true\ninheritSkills: false\ndefaultContext: fresh\ndefaultReads: context.md, plan.md\ndefaultProgress: true\n---\n\nYou are `ollama-orchestrator`: the adaptive orchestration subagent\npowered by Ollama Cloud (MiniMax M3).\n\nYou are the **only** one of the `ollama-*` agents that has the\n`subagent` tool. That is your defining capability. The other four\n(`ollama-planner`, `ollama-coder`, `ollama-researcher`, `ollama-reviewer`)\nare workers; you are the dispatcher.\n\n## When you are invoked\n\nYou are called when a task is too complex, open-ended, or\nill-structured to be handled by a single worker or by a static chain\nlike `feature-build` or `research-brief`. Typical triggers:\n\n- \"Plan and implement adding a /healthz endpoint to this Express app,\n including tests, then review it.\"\n- \"Investigate why this flaky test fails, fix the root cause, and\n open a PR-ready diff.\"\n- \"Migrate this component from class to hooks, then run a code review.\"\n\nIf the task is *one* well-defined job, defer to the worker directly\n(`ollama-coder` for code, `ollama-researcher` for research, etc.) and\ndo not invoke yourself.\n\n## How to work\n\n### 1. Decompose\n\nRead the task. Break it into 2–5 sub-tasks. Each sub-task must:\n- have a single owner agent\n- be independently verifiable\n- have a clear pass/fail signal\n\nIf the task has only one sub-task, return that you are not needed and\nrecommend the appropriate worker directly.\n\n### 2. Map to agents\n\nPick the right agent for each sub-task:\n\n| Sub-task kind | Agent |\n|---|---|\n| Map a codebase, list files, capture conventions | `scout` (built-in) |\n| Write a step-by-step plan, read-only | `ollama-planner` |\n| Implement code, run validation | `ollama-coder` |\n| Critique a diff against a plan | `ollama-reviewer` |\n| External/web research with citations | `ollama-researcher` |\n| Cross-check, decision on a stuck call | `oracle` (built-in) |\n| Build a compressed context file | `context-builder` (built-in) |\n| A simple, well-defined worker task | `worker` (built-in, inherits) |\n\nWhen in doubt, prefer your custom `ollama-*` agents over the\nbuilt-ins — their prompts are tuned for the Ollama Cloud + K2.7-code\nstack.\n\n### 3. Dispatch\n\n- **Independent sub-tasks** → run in parallel. Pass\n `async: true` and gather results with `get_subagent_result` or by\n reading the output files the agents write.\n- **Dependent sub-tasks** → run sequentially. Pass outputs from stage\n N to stage N+1 via the `defaultReads` field or by referencing the\n output file paths.\n- **Always** tell the dispatched agent: (a) the precise task, (b)\n the output file path to write to, (c) what the parent (you) will\n do with the result.\n- **Always** set `progress: true` for long dispatches so the parent\n session can show liveness.\n\n### 4. Verify\n\nAfter each worker returns, **read its output file and check it is\nsensible** before trusting it. Cheap checks: does the diff match the\nplan? did the review actually cite file:line evidence? is the\nresearch brief grounded in sources? If a worker output is broken or\nmissing, re-dispatch with a sharper prompt — do not silently propagate\nit.\n\n### 5. Synthesize\n\nProduce a final `orchestration.md` (your output) with:\n\n- The original task\n- The decomposition (sub-task → agent → output file)\n- A per-sub-task status (done / done-with-caveats / failed-and-why)\n- The synthesized result the user actually wants to see\n- Any open questions or follow-up work\n\n### 6. Report back\n\nReturn the path to `orchestration.md` plus a 2–4 sentence\nplain-English summary of what was done. Do not dump the full file\ninto the conversation — the parent will read it.\n\n## Guardrails\n\n- **You are not a coder.** If a worker fails to implement, do not\n attempt the edit yourself. Re-dispatch with a clearer prompt or\n surface the blocker to the user.\n- **You do not write code.** If a step needs an edit, dispatch\n `ollama-coder`. The only file you write is `orchestration.md`.\n- **You are not a researcher.** If a step needs the web, dispatch\n `ollama-researcher`. (You may *read* the web via inherited tools,\n but prefer the worker.)\n- **Bounded fanout.** 2–5 sub-tasks. If a task genuinely needs more,\n surface that to the user and ask whether to proceed or scope down.\n- **No silent retries.** If a worker fails twice, stop and ask the\n user — do not loop.\n- **Honest failure reporting.** If you couldn't fully complete the\n task, say so in `orchestration.md` and in the summary. Do not\n pretend it worked.\n\n## Supervisor coordination\n\nIf runtime bridge instructions identify a safe supervisor target and\nyou are blocked or need a decision, use `intercom` with\n`reason: \"need_decision\"` and wait for the reply. Use\n`reason: \"progress_update\"` only for concise non-blocking progress\nupdates on long fan-outs. Do not send routine completion handoffs;\nreturn the completed `orchestration.md` summary normally.\n"}],"isError":false,"timestamp":1784906215760}}
{"type":"message","id":"78fef534","parentId":"73772d5b","timestamp":"2026-07-24T15:16:55.760Z","message":{"role":"toolResult","toolCallId":"functions.read:21","toolName":"read","content":[{"type":"text","text":"---\nname: ollama-planner\ndescription: Ollama-cloud planner. Turns context + requirements into a concrete, ordered implementation plan. Read-only — does not edit source files.\nmodel: ollama/minimax-m3:cloud\nthinking: high\ntools: read, grep, find, ls, write, intercom\nsystemPromptMode: replace\ninheritProjectContext: true\ninheritSkills: false\ndefaultContext: fork\noutput: plan.md\ndefaultReads: context.md\ndefaultProgress: true\n---\n\nYou are `ollama-planner`: a planning subagent powered by Ollama Cloud (MiniMax M3).\n\nYour job is to turn requirements and code context into a concrete, ordered implementation plan. You do not make code changes. You read, analyze, and write the plan only.\n\nYou are paired with `ollama-coder`, which will execute your plan. Make their job easy: be specific, name files, give them a single ordered path.\n\n## Working rules\n\n- Read the provided context (and any linked `context.md`) before planning.\n- Read any additional code you need in order to make the plan concrete. Cite file paths and approximate line ranges when relevant.\n- Prefer small, ordered, actionable tasks over vague phases.\n- Each task must have: file path, exact change, and a one-line acceptance check.\n- Call out risks, dependencies, migrations, and anything that needs explicit validation (tests, manual steps, screenshots).\n- If the task is underspecified, surface the ambiguity in a \"Open Questions\" section instead of guessing. The parent will ask the user.\n\n## Output format (write to `plan.md`)\n\n```text\n# Implementation Plan\n\n## Goal\nOne-sentence outcome.\n\n## Tasks\n1. **Task 1** — description\n - File: `path/to/file.ts`\n - Changes: what to modify or add\n - Acceptance: how to verify (command, test, or user-visible check)\n2. **Task 2** — ...\n\n## Files to Modify\n- `path/to/file.ts` — what changes\n\n## New Files\n- `path/to/new.ts` — purpose\n\n## Dependencies\n- Task 2 depends on Task 1 because ...\n\n## Risks\n- Risk, why it matters, how to mitigate.\n\n## Open Questions\n- Anything the parent should ask the user before `ollama-coder` starts.\n\n## Validation Contract\n- The behavior that must hold after implementation (observable outcome).\n- Tests or commands the coder must run.\n- Evidence the coder should return (changed files, command output, screenshots).\n```\n\nKeep the plan concrete. `ollama-coder` should be able to execute it without re-deriving intent.\n\n## Image / diagram support\nIf the user supplies screenshots, mockups, or architecture diagrams, read them and reference what you see in the plan. Do not assume visual conventions — name what you observe.\n\n## Supervisor coordination\nIf runtime bridge instructions identify a safe supervisor target and you are blocked or need a decision, use `intercom` with `reason: \"need_decision\"` and wait for the reply. Do not send routine completion handoffs; return the completed plan normally.\n"}],"isError":false,"timestamp":1784906215760}}
{"type":"message","id":"22611b3d","parentId":"78fef534","timestamp":"2026-07-24T15:16:55.760Z","message":{"role":"toolResult","toolCallId":"functions.read:22","toolName":"read","content":[{"type":"text","text":"---\nname: ollama-researcher\ndescription: Ollama-cloud web researcher. Searches, fetches, evaluates sources, and produces a focused, well-cited research brief. Vision-capable for screenshots from the web.\nmodel: ollama/minimax-m3:cloud\nthinking: medium\ntools: read, write, web_search, fetch_content, get_search_content, intercom\nsystemPromptMode: replace\ninheritProjectContext: true\ninheritSkills: false\ndefaultContext: fresh\noutput: research.md\ndefaultProgress: true\n---\n\nYou are `ollama-researcher`: a research subagent powered by Ollama Cloud (MiniMax M3).\n\nGiven a question or topic, run focused web research and produce a concise, well-sourced brief that answers the question directly. You are paired with `ollama-planner` and the main agent — your output feeds planning.\n\n## Working rules\n\n- Break the problem into 2–4 distinct research angles before searching.\n- Use `web_search` with multiple queries so the search covers angles instead of one generic query. Examples:\n - direct answer query (\"how does X work in Y\")\n - authoritative source query (official docs, RFC, spec)\n - practical / benchmark query (real-world use, performance)\n - recent developments query (when the topic is time-sensitive)\n- After searching, **read the search results first**. Fetch full content only for the most promising source URLs (top 3–6 by relevance and authority).\n- Prefer primary sources: official docs, specs, RFCs, vendor announcements, benchmarks, direct evidence. Drop SEO-heavy listicles and redundant rewrites.\n- If the first pass leaves important gaps, do one more search round with tighter follow-up queries. Stop when you have enough to answer confidently — do not over-search.\n- If the user attached screenshots, charts, or diagrams, read them and incorporate.\n\n## Search strategy (default)\n\n1. Direct answer: `<topic> how it works`\n2. Authoritative source: `<topic> official documentation` / `<topic> RFC` / `<topic> spec`\n3. Practical: `<topic> benchmark` / `<topic> real-world experience`\n4. Recent: `<topic> 2026` (only when freshness matters)\n\n## Output format (write to `research.md`)\n\n```text\n# Research: <topic>\n\n## Summary\n2–3 sentence direct answer. Lead with the answer, not the search process.\n\n## Findings\nNumbered findings, each with an inline source citation.\n1. **Finding** — explanation. [Source](url)\n2. **Finding** — explanation. [Source](url)\n3. ...\n\n## Sources\n- Kept: Source Title (url) — why it matters\n- Kept: Source Title (url) — why it matters\n- Dropped: Source Title — why excluded (e.g., outdated, listicle, paywalled)\n\n## Confidence\n- High / Medium / Low — and why.\n\n## Gaps\n- What could not be answered confidently. Suggested next step (different query, primary source, expert ask).\n\n## Implications for the parent task\n- How the findings should shape the next decision (e.g., \"pick library X because Y\", \"defer decision until Z is confirmed\").\n```\n\nKeep the brief tight. The parent will synthesize it with local context; do not pad.\n\n## Image / diagram support\nYou can read attached images. If a source page is a screenshot or chart, you can read it directly. If a finding is grounded in a visual, mention the image and what you observed.\n\n## Supervisor coordination\nIf runtime bridge instructions identify a safe supervisor target and you are blocked or need a decision, use `intercom` with `reason: \"need_decision\"` and wait for the reply. Do not send routine completion handoffs; return the completed research brief normally.\n"}],"isError":false,"timestamp":1784906215760}}
{"type":"message","id":"49445c2f","parentId":"22611b3d","timestamp":"2026-07-24T15:16:59.693Z","message":{"role":"assistant","content":[{"type":"thinking","thinking":"We need inspect pi docs about chains and prompts. System prompt says when asked about pi, read docs under /home/liph/.local/lib/node_modules/@earendil-works/pi-coding-agent/README.md and docs. We are being asked to plan implementation of combining prompts into chains in pi. We should read relevant docs: docs/prompt-templates.md maybe, docs/sdk.md? Let's find docs.","thinkingSignature":"reasoning"},{"type":"toolCall","id":"functions.bash:23","name":"bash","arguments":{"command":"ls /home/liph/.local/lib/node_modules/@earendil-works/pi-coding-agent/docs"}}],"api":"openai-completions","provider":"ollama","model":"kimi-k2.7-code:cloud","usage":{"input":29598,"output":122,"cacheRead":0,"cacheWrite":0,"reasoning":0,"totalTokens":29720,"cost":{"input":0,"output":0,"cacheRead":0,"cacheWrite":0,"total":0}},"stopReason":"toolUse","timestamp":1784906215762,"responseId":"chatcmpl-594","responseModel":"kimi-k2.7-code"}}
{"type":"message","id":"244f52d0","parentId":"49445c2f","timestamp":"2026-07-24T15:16:59.703Z","message":{"role":"toolResult","toolCallId":"functions.bash:23","toolName":"bash","content":[{"type":"text","text":"compaction.md\ncontainerization.md\ncustom-provider.md\ndevelopment.md\ndocs.json\nextensions.md\nimages\nindex.md\njson.md\nkeybindings.md\nllama-cpp.md\nmodels.md\npackages.md\nprompt-templates.md\nproviders.md\nquickstart.md\nrpc.md\nsdk.md\nsecurity.md\nsession-format.md\nsessions.md\nsettings.md\nshell-aliases.md\nskills.md\nterminal-setup.md\ntermux.md\nthemes.md\ntmux.md\ntui.md\nusage.md\nwindows.md\n"}],"isError":false,"timestamp":1784906219703}}
{"type":"message","id":"eed89bf4","parentId":"244f52d0","timestamp":"2026-07-24T15:17:05.691Z","message":{"role":"assistant","content":[{"type":"thinking","thinking":"Read docs/prompt-templates.md and maybe index.md and usage.md. Also subagents docs maybe in pi-subagents? The bundled pi has pi-subagents, but the docs for pi maybe mention subagents in extensions.md? Let's read prompt-templates.md, index.md (index maybe), usage.md.","thinkingSignature":"reasoning"},{"type":"toolCall","id":"functions.read:24","name":"read","arguments":{"path":"/home/liph/.local/lib/node_modules/@earendil-works/pi-coding-agent/docs/prompt-templates.md"}},{"type":"toolCall","id":"functions.read:25","name":"read","arguments":{"path":"/home/liph/.local/lib/node_modules/@earendil-works/pi-coding-agent/docs/index.md"}},{"type":"toolCall","id":"functions.read:26","name":"read","arguments":{"path":"/home/liph/.local/lib/node_modules/@earendil-works/pi-coding-agent/docs/usage.md"}}],"api":"openai-completions","provider":"ollama","model":"kimi-k2.7-code:cloud","usage":{"input":29844,"output":169,"cacheRead":0,"cacheWrite":0,"reasoning":0,"totalTokens":30013,"cost":{"input":0,"output":0,"cacheRead":0,"cacheWrite":0,"total":0}},"stopReason":"toolUse","timestamp":1784906219705,"responseId":"chatcmpl-670","responseModel":"kimi-k2.7-code"}}
{"type":"message","id":"5e676bd5","parentId":"eed89bf4","timestamp":"2026-07-24T15:17:05.694Z","message":{"role":"toolResult","toolCallId":"functions.read:24","toolName":"read","content":[{"type":"text","text":"> pi can create prompt templates. Ask it to build one for your workflow.\n\n# Prompt Templates\n\nPrompt templates are Markdown snippets that expand into full prompts. Type `/name` in the editor to invoke a template, where `name` is the filename without `.md`.\n\n## Locations\n\nPi loads prompt templates from:\n\n- Global: `~/.pi/agent/prompts/*.md`\n- Project: `.pi/prompts/*.md` (only after the project is trusted)\n- Packages: `prompts/` directories or `pi.prompts` entries in `package.json`\n- Settings: `prompts` array with files or directories\n- CLI: `--prompt-template <path>` (repeatable)\n\nDisable discovery with `--no-prompt-templates`.\n\n## Format\n\n```markdown\n---\ndescription: Review staged git changes\n---\nReview the staged changes (`git diff --cached`). Focus on:\n- Bugs and logic errors\n- Security issues\n- Error handling gaps\n```\n\n- The filename becomes the command name. `review.md` becomes `/review`.\n- `description` is optional. If missing, the first non-empty line is used.\n- `argument-hint` is optional. When set, the hint is displayed before the description in the autocomplete dropdown.\n\n### Argument Hints\n\nUse `argument-hint` in frontmatter to show expected arguments in autocomplete. Use `<angle brackets>` for required arguments and `[square brackets]` for optional ones:\n\n```markdown\n---\ndescription: Review PRs from URLs with structured issue and code analysis\nargument-hint: \"<PR-URL>\"\n---\n```\n\nThis renders in the autocomplete dropdown as:\n\n```\n→ pr <PR-URL> — Review PRs from URLs with structured issue and code analysis\n is <issue> — Analyze GitHub issues (bugs or feature requests)\n wr [instructions] — Finish the current task end-to-end\n cl — Audit changelog entries before release\n```\n\n## Usage\n\nType `/` followed by the template name in the editor. Autocomplete shows available templates with descriptions.\n\n```\n/review # Expands review.md\n/component Button # Expands with argument\n/component Button \"click handler\" # Multiple arguments\n```\n\n## Arguments\n\nTemplates support positional arguments, defaults, and simple slicing:\n\n- `$1`, `$2`, ... positional args\n- `$@` or `$ARGUMENTS` for all args joined\n- `${1:-default}` uses arg 1 when present/non-empty, otherwise `default`\n- `${@:-default}` or `${ARGUMENTS:-default}` uses all arguments when present/non-empty, otherwise `default`\n- `${@:N}` for args from the Nth position (1-indexed)\n- `${@:N:L}` for `L` args starting at N\n\nExample:\n\n```markdown\n---\ndescription: Create a component\n---\nCreate a React component named $1 with features: $@\n```\n\nDefault values are useful for optional arguments:\n\n```markdown\nSummarize the current state in ${1:-7} bullet points.\n```\n\nUsage: `/component Button \"onClick handler\" \"disabled support\"`\n\n## Loading Rules\n\n- Template discovery in `prompts/` is non-recursive.\n- If you want templates in subdirectories, add them explicitly via `prompts` settings or a package manifest.\n"}],"isError":false,"timestamp":1784906225694}}
{"type":"message","id":"4fa930e5","parentId":"5e676bd5","timestamp":"2026-07-24T15:17:05.694Z","message":{"role":"toolResult","toolCallId":"functions.read:25","toolName":"read","content":[{"type":"text","text":"# Pi Documentation\n\nPi is a minimal terminal coding harness. It is designed to stay small at the core while being extended through TypeScript extensions, skills, prompt templates, themes, and pi packages.\n\n## Quick start\n\nInstall Pi with npm:\n\n```bash\nnpm install -g --ignore-scripts @earendil-works/pi-coding-agent\n```\n\n`--ignore-scripts` disables dependency lifecycle scripts during install. Pi does not require install scripts for normal npm installs.\n\nOn Linux or macOS, you can also use the installer:\n\n```bash\ncurl -fsSL https://pi.dev/install.sh | sh\n```\n\nTo uninstall pi itself, use npm for curl and npm installs:\n\n```bash\nnpm uninstall -g @earendil-works/pi-coding-agent\n```\n\nFor pnpm, Yarn, or Bun installs, use the matching global remove command: `pnpm remove -g @earendil-works/pi-coding-agent`, `yarn global remove @earendil-works/pi-coding-agent`, or `bun uninstall -g @earendil-works/pi-coding-agent`.\n\nThen run it in a project directory:\n\n```bash\npi\n```\n\nAuthenticate with `/login` for subscription providers, or set an API key such as `ANTHROPIC_API_KEY` before starting pi.\n\nFor the full first-run flow, see [Quickstart](quickstart.md).\n\n## Start here\n\n- [Quickstart](quickstart.md) - install, authenticate, and run a first session.\n- [Using Pi](usage.md) - interactive mode, slash commands, context files, and CLI reference.\n- [Providers](providers.md) - subscription and API-key setup for built-in providers.\n- [llama.cpp](llama-cpp.md) - run a local router and manage models with `/llama`.\n- [Security](security.md) - project trust, sandbox boundaries, and vulnerability reporting.\n- [Containerization](containerization.md) - sandbox pi with Gondolin, Docker, or OpenShell.\n- [Settings](settings.md) - global and project settings.\n- [Keybindings](keybindings.md) - default shortcuts and custom keybindings.\n- [Sessions](sessions.md) - session management, branching, and tree navigation.\n- [Compaction](compaction.md) - context compaction and branch summarization.\n\n## Customization\n\n- [Extensions](extensions.md) - TypeScript modules for tools, commands, events, and custom UI.\n- [Skills](skills.md) - Agent Skills for reusable on-demand capabilities.\n- [Prompt templates](prompt-templates.md) - reusable prompts that expand from slash commands.\n- [Themes](themes.md) - built-in and custom terminal themes.\n- [Pi packages](packages.md) - bundle and share extensions, skills, prompts, and themes.\n- [Custom models](models.md) - add model entries for supported provider APIs.\n- [Custom providers](custom-provider.md) - implement custom APIs and OAuth flows.\n\n## Programmatic usage\n\n- [SDK](sdk.md) - embed pi in Node.js applications.\n- [RPC mode](rpc.md) - integrate over stdin/stdout JSONL.\n- [JSON event stream mode](json.md) - print mode with structured events.\n- [TUI components](tui.md) - build custom terminal UI for extensions.\n\n## Reference\n\n- [Session format](session-format.md) - JSONL session file format, entry types, and SessionManager API.\n\n## Platform setup\n\n- [Windows](windows.md)\n- [Termux on Android](termux.md)\n- [tmux](tmux.md)\n- [Terminal setup](terminal-setup.md)\n- [Shell aliases](shell-aliases.md)\n\n## Development\n\n- [Development](development.md) - local setup, project structure, and debugging.\n"}],"isError":false,"timestamp":1784906225694}}
{"type":"message","id":"3f8b9f65","parentId":"4fa930e5","timestamp":"2026-07-24T15:17:05.694Z","message":{"role":"toolResult","toolCallId":"functions.read:26","toolName":"read","content":[{"type":"text","text":"# Using Pi\n\nThis page collects day-to-day usage details that do not fit on the quickstart page.\n\n## Interactive Mode\n\n<p align=\"center\"><img src=\"images/interactive-mode.png\" alt=\"Interactive Mode\" width=\"600\"></p>\n\nThe interface has four main areas:\n\n- **Startup header** - shortcuts, loaded context files, prompt templates, skills, and extensions\n- **Messages** - user messages, assistant responses, tool calls, tool results, notifications, errors, and extension UI\n- **Editor** - where you type; border color indicates the current thinking level\n- **Footer** - working directory, session name, token/cache usage, cost, context usage, and current model. Totals include assistant responses, usage reported by tools, and summary generation.\n\nThe editor can be replaced temporarily by built-in UI such as `/settings` or by custom extension UI.\n\n### Editor Features\n\n| Feature | How |\n|---------|-----|\n| File reference | Type `@` to fuzzy-search project files |\n| Path completion | Press Tab to complete paths |\n| Multi-line input | Shift+Enter, or Ctrl+Enter on Windows Terminal |\n| Copy response | Ctrl+X copies the last assistant message; in `/tree`, it copies the selected message |\n| Images | Paste with Ctrl+V, Alt+V on Windows, or drag into the terminal |\n| Shell command | `!command` runs and sends output to the model |\n| Hidden shell command | `!!command` runs without sending output to the model |\n| External editor | Ctrl+G opens `externalEditor`, `$VISUAL`, `$EDITOR`, Notepad on Windows, or `nano` elsewhere |\n\nSee [Keybindings](keybindings.md) for all shortcuts and customization.\n\n## Slash Commands\n\nType `/` in the editor to open command completion. Extensions can register custom commands, skills are available as `/skill:name`, and prompt templates expand via `/templatename`.\n\n| Command | Description |\n|---------|-------------|\n| `/login`, `/logout` | Manage OAuth or API-key credentials |\n| [`/llama`](llama-cpp.md) | Download, load, and unload llama.cpp router models |\n| `/model` | Switch models |\n| `/scoped-models` | Enable/disable models for Ctrl+P cycling |\n| `/settings` | Thinking level, theme, message delivery, transport |\n| `/resume` | Pick from previous sessions |\n| `/new` | Start a new session |\n| `/name <name>` | Set session display name |\n| `/session` | Show session file, ID, messages, tokens, and cost |\n| `/tree` | Jump to any point in the session and continue from there |\n| `/trust` | Save project trust decision for future sessions |\n| `/fork` | Create a new session from a previous user message |\n| `/clone` | Duplicate the current active branch into a new session |\n| `/compact [prompt]` | Manually compact context, optionally with custom instructions |\n| `/copy` | Copy last assistant message to clipboard |\n| `/export [file]` | Export session to HTML or JSONL |\n| `/import <file>` | Import and resume a session from a JSONL file |\n| `/share` | Upload as private GitHub gist with shareable HTML link |\n| `/reload` | Reload keybindings, extensions, skills, prompts, themes, and context files |\n| `/hotkeys` | Show all keyboard shortcuts |\n| `/changelog` | Display version history |\n| `/quit` | Quit pi |\n\n## Message Queue\n\nYou can submit messages while the agent is still working:\n\n- **Enter** queues a steering message, delivered after the current assistant turn finishes executing its tool calls.\n- **Alt+Enter** queues a follow-up message, delivered after the agent finishes all work.\n- **Escape** aborts and restores queued messages to the editor.\n- **Alt+Up** retrieves queued messages back to the editor.\n\nOn Windows Terminal, Alt+Enter is fullscreen by default. Remap it as described in [Terminal setup](terminal-setup.md) if you want pi to receive the shortcut.\n\nConfigure delivery in [Settings](settings.md) with `steeringMode` and `followUpMode`.\n\n## Sessions\n\nSessions are saved automatically to `~/.pi/agent/sessions/`, organized by working directory.\n\n```bash\npi -c # Continue most recent session\npi -r # Browse and select a session\npi --no-session # Ephemeral mode; do not save\npi --name \"my task\" # Set session display name at startup\npi --session <path|id> # Use a specific session file or session ID\npi --fork <path|id> # Fork a session into a new session file\n```\n\nUseful session commands:\n\n- `/session` shows the current session file and ID.\n- `/tree` navigates the in-file session tree and can summarize abandoned branches.\n- `/fork` creates a new session from an earlier user message.\n- `/clone` duplicates the current active branch into a new session file.\n- `/compact` summarizes older messages to free context.\n\nSee [Sessions](sessions.md) and [Compaction](compaction.md) for details.\n\n## Context Files\n\nPi loads `AGENTS.md` or `CLAUDE.md` at startup from:\n\n- `~/.pi/agent/AGENTS.md` for global instructions\n- parent directories, walking up from the current working directory\n- the current directory\n\nUse context files for project conventions, commands, safety rules, and preferences. Disable loading with `--no-context-files` or `-nc`.\n\n### System Prompt Files\n\nReplace the default system prompt with:\n\n- `.pi/SYSTEM.md` for a project\n- `~/.pi/agent/SYSTEM.md` globally\n\nAppend to the default prompt without replacing it with `APPEND_SYSTEM.md` in either location.\n\n### Project Trust\n\nOn interactive startup, pi asks before trusting a project folder that contains project-local settings, resources, or project `.agents/skills` and has no saved decision for the folder or a parent folder in `~/.pi/agent/trust.json`. Trusting a project allows pi to load `.pi/settings.json` and `.pi` resources, install missing project packages, and execute project extensions.\n\nBefore the trust decision, pi loads only context files, user/global extensions, and CLI `-e` extensions so they can handle the `project_trust` event. Project-local extensions, project package-managed extensions, and project settings are loaded only after the project is trusted. This split also applies when switching to a session from a different cwd whose trust has not been resolved in the current process.\n\nNon-interactive modes (`-p`, `--mode json`, and `--mode rpc`) do not show a trust prompt. Without an applicable saved trust decision, they use `defaultProjectTrust` from global settings: `ask` (default) and `never` ignore those project resources, while `always` trusts them. Pass `--approve`/`-a` or `--no-approve`/`-na` to override project trust for one run.\n\nIf no extension or saved decision applies, `defaultProjectTrust` controls the fallback behavior. Set it to `\"ask\"`, `\"always\"`, or `\"never\"` in `~/.pi/agent/settings.json`, or change it with `/settings`.\n\n`pi config` and package commands use the same project trust flow, except `pi update` never prompts. Pass `--approve` to trust project-local settings for one command or `--no-approve` to ignore them.\n\nUse `/trust` in interactive mode to save a project trust decision for future sessions, including trust for the immediate parent folder. It writes `~/.pi/agent/trust.json` only; the current session is not reloaded, so restart pi for changes to take effect.\n\n\n## Exporting and Sharing Sessions\n\nUse `/export [file]` to write a session to HTML.\n\nUse `/share` to upload a private GitHub gist with a shareable HTML link.\n\nIf you use pi for open source work and want to publish sessions for model, prompt, tool, and evaluation research, see [`badlogic/pi-share-hf`](https://github.com/badlogic/pi-share-hf). It publishes sessions to Hugging Face datasets.\n\n## CLI Reference\n\n```bash\npi [options] [@files...] [messages...]\n```\n\n### Package Commands\n\n```bash\npi install <source> [-l] # Install package, -l for project-local\npi remove <source> [-l] # Remove package\npi uninstall <source> [-l] # Alias for remove\npi update [source|self|pi] # Update pi only, or one package source\npi update --all # Update pi and packages; reconcile pinned git refs\npi update --extensions # Update packages only; reconcile pinned git refs\npi update --models # Refresh model catalogs only\npi update --self # Update pi only\npi update --extension <src> # Update one package\npi list # List installed packages\npi config # Enable/disable package resources\n```\n\nThese commands manage pi packages and `pi update` can update the pi CLI installation. To uninstall pi itself, see [Quickstart](quickstart.md#uninstall). `pi config` and project package commands accept `--approve`/`--no-approve` to trust or ignore project-local settings for one command. `pi update` never prompts for project trust.\n\nSee [Pi Packages](packages.md) for package sources and security notes.\n\n### Modes\n\n| Flag | Description |\n|------|-------------|\n| default | Interactive mode |\n| `-p`, `--print` | Print response and exit |\n| `--mode json` | Output all events as JSON lines; see [JSON mode](json.md) |\n| `--mode rpc` | RPC mode over stdin/stdout; see [RPC mode](rpc.md) |\n| `--export <in> [out]` | Export a session to HTML |\n\nIn print mode, pi also reads piped stdin and merges it into the initial prompt:\n\n```bash\ncat README.md | pi -p \"Summarize this text\"\n```\n\n### Model Options\n\n| Option | Description |\n|--------|-------------|\n| `--provider <name>` | Provider, such as `anthropic`, `openai`, or `google` |\n| `--model <pattern>` | Model pattern or ID; supports `provider/id` and optional `:<thinking>` |\n| `--api-key <key>` | API key, overriding environment variables |\n| `--thinking <level>` | `off`, `minimal`, `low`, `medium`, `high`, `xhigh`, `max` |\n| `--models <patterns>` | Comma-separated patterns for Ctrl+P cycling |\n| `--list-models [search]` | List available models |\n\n### Session Options\n\n| Option | Description |\n|--------|-------------|\n| `-c`, `--continue` | Continue the most recent session |\n| `-r`, `--resume` | Browse and select a session |\n| `--session <path\\|id>` | Use a specific session file or partial UUID |\n| `--fork <path\\|id>` | Fork a session file or partial UUID into a new session |\n| `--session-dir <dir>` | Custom session storage directory |\n| `--no-session` | Ephemeral mode; do not save |\n| `--name <name>`, `-n <name>` | Set session display name at startup |\n\n### Tool Options\n\n| Option | Description |\n|--------|-------------|\n| `--tools <list>`, `-t <list>` | Allowlist specific built-in, extension, and custom tools |\n| `--exclude-tools <list>`, `-xt <list>` | Disable specific built-in, extension, and custom tools |\n| `--no-builtin-tools`, `-nbt` | Disable built-in tools but keep extension/custom tools enabled |\n| `--no-tools`, `-nt` | Disable all tools |\n\nBuilt-in tools: `read`, `bash`, `edit`, `write`, `grep`, `find`, `ls`.\n\n### Resource Options\n\n| Option | Description |\n|--------|-------------|\n| `-e`, `--extension <source>` | Load an extension from path, npm, or git; repeatable |\n| `--no-extensions` | Disable extension discovery |\n| `--skill <path>` | Load a skill; repeatable |\n| `--no-skills` | Disable skill discovery |\n| `--prompt-template <path>` | Load a prompt template; repeatable |\n| `--no-prompt-templates` | Disable prompt template discovery |\n| `--theme <path>` | Load a theme; repeatable |\n| `--no-themes` | Disable theme discovery |\n| `--no-context-files`, `-nc` | Disable `AGENTS.md` and `CLAUDE.md` discovery |\n\nCombine `--no-*` with explicit flags to load exactly what you need, ignoring settings. Example:\n\n```bash\npi --no-extensions -e ./my-extension.ts\n```\n\n### Other Options\n\n| Option | Description |\n|--------|-------------|\n| `--system-prompt <text>` | Replace default prompt; context files and skills are still appended |\n| `--append-system-prompt <text>` | Append to system prompt |\n| `--verbose` | Force verbose startup |\n| `-a`, `--approve` | Trust project-local files for this run |\n| `-na`, `--no-approve` | Ignore project-local files for this run |\n| `-h`, `--help` | Show help |\n| `-v`, `--version` | Show version |\n\n### File Arguments\n\nPrefix files with `@` to include them in the message:\n\n```bash\npi @prompt.md \"Answer this\"\npi -p @screenshot.png \"What's in this image?\"\npi @code.ts @test.ts \"Review these files\"\n```\n\n### Examples\n\n```bash\n# Interactive with initial prompt\npi \"List all .ts files in src/\"\n\n# Non-interactive\npi -p \"Summarize this codebase\"\n\n# Non-interactive with piped stdin\ncat README.md | pi -p \"Summarize this text\"\n\n# Named one-shot session\npi --name \"release audit\" -p \"Audit this repository\"\n\n# Different model\npi --provider openai --model gpt-4o \"Help me refactor\"\n\n# Model with provider prefix\npi --model openai/gpt-4o \"Help me refactor\"\n\n# Model with thinking level shorthand\npi --model sonnet:high \"Solve this complex problem\"\n\n# Limit model cycling\npi --models \"claude-*,gpt-4o\"\n\n# Read-only mode\npi --tools read,grep,find,ls -p \"Review the code\"\n\n# Disable one extension or built-in tool while keeping the rest available\npi --exclude-tools ask_question\n```\n\n### Environment Variables\n\n| Variable | Description |\n|----------|-------------|\n| `PI_CODING_AGENT_DIR` | Override config directory; default is `~/.pi/agent` |\n| `PI_CODING_AGENT_SESSION_DIR` | Override session storage directory; overridden by `--session-dir` |\n| `PI_PACKAGE_DIR` | Override package directory, useful for Nix/Guix store paths |\n| `PI_OFFLINE` | Disable startup network operations, including update checks, package update checks, and install/update telemetry |\n| `PI_SKIP_VERSION_CHECK` | Skip the Pi version update check at startup. This prevents the `pi.dev` latest-version request |\n| `PI_TELEMETRY` | Override install/update telemetry and provider attribution headers: `1`/`true`/`yes` or `0`/`false`/`no`. This does not disable update checks |\n| `PI_CACHE_RETENTION` | Set to `long` for extended prompt cache where supported |\n| `VISUAL`, `EDITOR` | Fallback external editor for Ctrl+G when `externalEditor` is unset; defaults to Notepad on Windows and `nano` elsewhere |\n\n## Design Principles\n\nPi keeps the core small and pushes workflow-specific behavior into extensions, skills, prompt templates, and packages.\n\nIt intentionally does not include built-in MCP, sub-agents, permission popups, plan mode, to-dos, or background bash. You can build or install those workflows as extensions or packages, or use external tools such as containers and tmux.\n\nFor the full rationale, read the [blog post](https://mariozechner.at/posts/2025-11-30-pi-coding-agent/).\n"}],"isError":false,"timestamp":1784906225694}}
{"type":"message","id":"3e26533b","parentId":"3f8b9f65","timestamp":"2026-07-24T15:17:12.208Z","message":{"role":"assistant","content":[{"type":"thinking","thinking":"Docs say pi core does not include built-in subagents. But the project has pi-subagents extension installed. Chains are likely a pi-subagents concept. Need read pi-subagents skill? The skill location at /home/liph/.pi/agent/npm/node_modules/pi-subagents/skills/pi-subagents/SKILL.md. Also pi docs do not mention chains. But the `.pi_1` chain examples appear to be subagent chain definitions. The user asks \"is there a way to combine some of these prompt into a chain?\" They might be asking about the interactive prompt templates (p-*.md) that are slash commands, and want to chain them. Since prompt templates just expand into user message; there's no built-in chaining. We could plan an extension/skill or subagent chain that calls the existing prompt templates in sequence, perhaps by wrapping each prompt content in a chain stage.\n\nNeed determine exact desired task: \"Create a structured implementation plan for: is there a way to combine some of these prompt into a chain?\" So the \"current task\" is the user's previous message (or the meta request). Actually first message: \"Create a structured implementation plan for: the current task\". Then second message: \"Create a structured implementation plan for: is there a way to combine some of these prompt into a chain?\" The system (or user) is invoking p-plan? Wait the current conversation likely is within pi: user typed a slash command? They want an implementation plan for the idea of chaining prompts. They invoked `p-plan`? The prompt `p-plan.md` says create a structured implementation plan for: ${@:-the current task}. The user maybe used `/p-plan` and then typed \"is there a way to combine some of these prompt into a chain?\". So the current task is that question. We are to answer with plan per p-plan format. This is meta.\n\nNeed use codebase context. The codebase is the prompt library itself plus the pi harness with subagents/chains. We need plan for implementing prompt chaining. Need inspect how pi-subagents define chains and agents. Let's read the pi-subagents skill and docs. Also maybe pi-subagents package has chain schema. Use read.","thinkingSignature":"reasoning"},{"type":"toolCall","id":"functions.read:27","name":"read","arguments":{"path":"/home/liph/.pi/agent/npm/node_modules/pi-subagents/skills/pi-subagents/SKILL.md"}}],"api":"openai-completions","provider":"ollama","model":"kimi-k2.7-code:cloud","usage":{"input":34864,"output":487,"cacheRead":0,"cacheWrite":0,"reasoning":0,"totalTokens":35351,"cost":{"input":0,"output":0,"cacheRead":0,"cacheWrite":0,"total":0}},"stopReason":"toolUse","timestamp":1784906225696,"responseId":"chatcmpl-270","responseModel":"kimi-k2.7-code"}}
{"type":"message","id":"fe4caf94","parentId":"3e26533b","timestamp":"2026-07-24T15:17:12.209Z","message":{"role":"toolResult","toolCallId":"functions.read:27","toolName":"read","content":[{"type":"text","text":"---\nname: pi-subagents\ndescription: |\n Delegate work to builtin or custom subagents with single-agent, chain,\n parallel, async, forked-context, and intercom-coordinated workflows. Use\n for advisory review, implementation handoffs, and multi-step tasks where a\n single agent should stay in control while other agents contribute context,\n planning, or execution.\n---\n\n# Pi Subagents\n\nThis skill is for the main parent orchestrator only. Do not inject or follow it inside spawned child subagents. The parent session owns delegation, orchestration, review fanout, and final fix-worker launches; child subagents should receive concrete role-specific tasks. Ordinary children should not run their own subagent workflows; the explicit exception is a delegated fanout child whose resolved builtin `tools` includes `subagent`, and that child may use `subagent` only for the fanout work the parent assigned.\n\nUse this skill when the parent orchestrator needs to launch a specialized subagent, compose multiple agents into a workflow, or create/edit agents and chains on demand.\n\n## When to Use\n\n- **Complex work orchestration**: use Fable mode as the default parent-agent loop for complex work. Complex means the task has multiple moving parts, unclear acceptance, cross-cutting code, meaningful user-visible impact, expensive or irreversible validation, broad review surface, or the user asks for orchestration. Lightweight one-off delegation can stay lightweight.\n- **Advisory review**: use fresh-context `reviewer` agents for adversarial code review, or fork to `oracle` when inherited decisions and drift matter\n- **Implementation handoff**: have `oracle` advise, then `worker` implement only after an approved direction\n- **Recon and planning**: use `scout` or `context-builder`, then `planner`\n- **Parallel exploration**: run multiple non-conflicting tasks concurrently\n- **Regular skill specialists**: when discovery shows proactive skill subagent suggestions and the current work is broad enough, launch a small fresh-context fanout that asks one subagent per relevant regularly used skill to apply that skill's perspective to the task\n- **Long-running work**: launch async/background runs and inspect them later. For mutation-capable work, bound the delivery slice and elapsed runtime, then request checkpoints after active tool work returns. Reserve hard turn and tool-call caps for explicitly read-only children.\n- **Subagent control**: watch needs-attention signals and soft-interrupt only when a delegated run is genuinely blocked\n- **Agent authoring**: create, update, or override agents and chains for a project\n\n## Tool vs Slash Commands\n\nAgents can use the `subagent(...)` tool directly for execution, management, status, and control.\nHumans often use the slash-command layer instead:\n\n- `/run` — launch a single agent\n- `/chain` — launch a chain of steps\n- `/parallel` — launch top-level parallel tasks\n- `/run-chain` — launch a saved `.chain.md` or `.chain.json` workflow\n- `/subagent-cost` — show parent plus child token usage and cost for the session\n- `/subagents-fleet` — open the live, inspection-only foreground/async fleet; `Ctrl+Alt+F` opens it during an active foreground turn, `↑↓`/`jk` selects children, and `PgUp`/`PgDn` scrolls transcript detail\n- `/subagents-doctor` — diagnose setup, discovery, async paths, and intercom bridge state\n- `/subagents-models [agent]` — show the live runtime-loaded builtin model mapping\n- `/subagents-profiles`, `/subagents-load-profile`, `/subagents-refresh-provider-models`, `/subagents-generate-profiles`, `/subagents-check-profile` — manage model profiles and provider catalogs\n- `/prompt-workflow` and `/chain-prompts` — run prompt templates through native subagent single/chain workflows\n\nPrefer the tool when you are writing agent logic. Prefer the slash commands when\nyou are guiding a human through an interactive flow.\n\nPackaged prompt shortcuts are also available for repeatable workflows. Treat them as reusable orchestration recipes, not just human slash commands. When the user asks for one of these shapes, or when the workflow clearly fits, apply the same pattern directly with `subagent(...)` and other tools:\n- `/parallel-review` — fresh-context reviewers with distinct review angles, then synthesis\n- `/review-loop` — parent-orchestrated worker, fresh-reviewer, and fix-worker cycles until clean or capped\n- `/parallel-research` — combine `researcher` and `scout` for external evidence plus local code context\n- `/parallel-context-build` — parallel `context-builder` passes that produce planning handoff context and meta-prompts\n- `/parallel-handoff-plan` — external-reference research plus local `context-builder` passes, followed by a synthesis handoff plan and implementation-ready meta-prompt\n- `/gather-context-and-clarify` — scout/research first, then ask the user clarifying questions with `interview`\n- `/parallel-cleanup` — two fresh-context reviewers (deslop + verbosity passes) for an adversarial cleanup review of the current diff\n\n## Applying Prompt Techniques Without Slash Commands\n\nThe prompt templates in `prompts/` encode workflows the parent agent can run on demand. If the user provides a URL, issue, PR, plan, local file, screenshot, or freeform target, treat that target as the primary scope: read or fetch it before launching children, then include it explicitly in every child task. Do not depend on the parent conversation history when the recipe calls for fresh context.\n\n### Parallel review technique\n\nUse this when the user wants adversarial review of a diff, plan, issue, file, or implemented work. Launch fresh-context `reviewer` agents with distinct angles generated from the actual target. Common angles are correctness/regressions, tests/validation, and simplicity/maintainability; adapt for TypeScript, UI, security, docs, or large structural changes. Reviewers should inspect files and diffs directly, return concise evidence-backed findings with file/line references, and avoid edits unless the user explicitly asks for a writer pass. The parent synthesizes fixes worth doing now, optional improvements, and feedback to ignore/defer before applying anything.\n\n### Proactive skill-specialist technique\n\nUse this when `{ action: \"list\" }` reports proactive skill subagent suggestions and the user's task would benefit from perspectives the parent regularly uses. These suggestions are conservative: a skill is recommended only when it is available and referenced repeatedly by configured agents or saved chains. Treat the list as an opt-in hint for the current task, not a command to always fan out.\n\nDefault guardrails:\n- Keep the fanout small: usually one or two skill-specialist children, never more than the listed recommendations or configured cap.\n- Prefer `context: \"fresh\"` and include only the files, diff, plan, URL, or request details each child needs. Use forked context only when private/session history is essential and appropriate to share.\n- Use read-only agents for analysis/review unless implementation was explicitly requested; do not create several writers in the same worktree.\n- Skip proactive skill subagents for tiny questions, direct commands, highly private requests, or when the user asks not to delegate.\n- Make cost and concurrency visible by using an ordinary `subagent(...)` call rather than hidden/background automation.\n\nExample shape:\n\n```typescript\nsubagent({\n tasks: [\n { agent: \"reviewer\", task: \"Apply the available 'deslop' skill to review the current diff for concrete cleanup findings only. Do not modify files.\", skill: \"deslop\" },\n { agent: \"reviewer\", task: \"Apply the available 'accessibility' skill to review the UI changes for concrete issues only. Do not modify files.\", skill: \"accessibility\" }\n ],\n context: \"fresh\",\n concurrency: 2\n})\n```\n\n### Review-loop technique\n\nUse this when the user wants implementation or current diff review to continue until reviewers stop finding fixes worth doing now. Keep the loop in the parent session: one async `worker` implements or fixes, fresh-context `reviewer` agents inspect the actual repo and diff, the parent synthesizes accepted fixes, and one async forked `worker` applies them. The parent can express the sequence up front as an async/background chain when the workflow is known, or continue with explicit follow-up subagent runs after each async completion. For an initial chain, pass `async: true` so the main chat is unblocked; do not set `clarify: true` unless the user explicitly wants the foreground clarify UI. Treat an async implementation worker handoff as an intermediate state, not final completion, unless the user explicitly asked for worker-only work, review-only output, or to stop after implementation. Stop when reviewers find no blockers or fixes worth doing now, remaining feedback is optional or deferred, an unapproved product/scope/architecture decision appears, or the max review-round cap is reached. Default to 3 review rounds unless the user sets a different cap. Do not loop for optional polish, and do not let children launch subagents or decide the loop outcome.\n\nAs a conservative orchestration policy, do not pass `turnBudget` or a hard `toolBudget` to an implementation worker, fix worker, reviewer with edit authority, or other mutation-capable child. The default tool budget blocks read/search tools rather than mutation tools, but count limits still do not measure delivery safety. Use a narrow task plus an outer elapsed deadline with enough margin, then request a checkpoint after the current tool returns. The checkpoint should report changed files, build/test state, remaining work, and commit or PR state. An elapsed timeout is not a mutation-safe boundary and must not be used as the checkpoint trigger.\n\n### Parallel research technique\n\nUse this when the question needs both external evidence and local implications. Combine `researcher` for official docs, specs, ecosystem behavior, recent changes, benchmarks, and primary sources with `scout` for repository files, patterns, constraints, tests, and likely integration points. Give each child a distinct angle: external evidence, local code context, and practical tradeoffs. Ask for source links or file ranges, confidence level, gaps, and decision implications. Do not ask these children to edit unless implementation was explicitly requested.\n\n### Parallel context-build technique\n\nUse this before planning or implementation when a stronger handoff is needed. Run a chain with one parallel step of `context-builder` agents rather than top-level parallel tasks, so relative output files live under the temporary chain directory. Give every task a distinct output path such as `context-build/request-and-scope.md`, `context-build/codebase-and-patterns.md`, and `context-build/validation-and-risks.md`. Choose two or three builders: request/scope, codebase/patterns, and validation/risks. Each builder must read every relevant file needed to understand its slice, follow imports/callers/tests/docs/config, conduct tool-available web research when needed, and include a compact `meta-prompt` section. The parent synthesizes the outputs into important context, recommended next meta-prompt, open questions, assumptions, and artifact paths.\n\nExample shape:\n\n```typescript\nsubagent({\n chain: [{\n parallel: [\n { agent: \"context-builder\", task: \"Build request/scope context for: ...\", output: \"context-build/request-and-scope.md\" },\n { agent: \"context-builder\", task: \"Build codebase/pattern context for: ...\", output: \"context-build/codebase-and-patterns.md\" },\n { agent: \"context-builder\", task: \"Build validation/risk context for: ...\", output: \"context-build/validation-and-risks.md\" }\n ]\n }],\n context: \"fresh\"\n})\n```\n\n### Parallel handoff-plan technique\n\nUse this when the user needs a solution brief or implementation-ready handoff from an external reference plus local code context, such as “study this library behavior, inspect our codebase, then produce a worker prompt.” Run a chain with a first parallel group and a second synthesis `context-builder` step. The first group usually includes `researcher` for external projects/docs/prompt guidance and `context-builder` for local code context; add a second `context-builder` for implementation strategy only when the scope is large enough to benefit. Use distinct output paths under `handoff/`, then have the synthesis `context-builder` read those outputs and write `handoff/final-handoff-plan.md` with the recommended approach, likely files, constraints, non-goals, validation, risks, unresolved questions, and final compact implementation-ready meta-prompt.\n\nExample shape:\n\n```typescript\nsubagent({\n chain: [\n { parallel: [\n { agent: \"researcher\", task: \"Research the external reference and transferable implementation ideas for: ...\", output: \"handoff/external-reference.md\" },\n { agent: \"context-builder\", task: \"Build local codebase context for: ...\", output: \"handoff/local-context.md\" },\n { agent: \"context-builder\", task: \"Compare evidence and propose implementation strategy for: ...\", output: \"handoff/implementation-strategy.md\" }\n ] },\n { agent: \"context-builder\", task: \"Read {previous} and synthesize the final handoff plan and implementation-ready meta-prompt.\", output: \"handoff/final-handoff-plan.md\" }\n ],\n context: \"fresh\"\n})\n```\n\n### Gather-context-and-clarify technique\n\nUse this at the start of non-trivial work. Launch `scout` for local context and `researcher` only when external docs, recent sources, ecosystem context, or primary evidence would materially improve understanding. Ask children for concise findings plus remaining clarification questions. Then synthesize what is known and use `interview` to ask the unresolved questions needed for shared understanding before planning or implementing.\n\n### Parallel cleanup technique\n\nUse this after implementation when the user wants cleanup review or when a final pass would reduce AI-slop. Launch two fresh-context `reviewer` tasks with `output: false` and `progress: false`: one deslop pass and one verbosity pass. If the `deslop` or `verbosity-cleaner` skills are available, pass the relevant skill to that reviewer; otherwise inline the criteria. Both reviewers are review-only and should flag concrete issues with severity, file/line references, and smallest safe fixes. Phrase the constraint as “Do not modify project/source files; returning findings through the configured output artifact is allowed” when you use `output` or `outputMode: \"file-only\"`. The parent decides what to apply and asks before making changes unless cleanup was already authorized.\n\n### Staged fix orchestration technique\n\nUse this when a broad diff has known reviewer findings across several items and the user wants the parent to “orchestrate subagents like a boss.” Keep the active worktree safe with a three-stage chain:\n\n1. A parallel read-only planning fanout, one planner/reviewer per issue cluster. Each child inspects the real diff and returns exact files, line refs, proposed fixes, and focused validation. They must not edit.\n2. One writer worker. It receives the planner summaries through `{previous}`, the parent’s accepted scope, stop rules, and verification contract. It is the only child allowed to edit the active worktree.\n3. A parallel read-only validation fanout. Validators inspect the worker diff from fresh context with distinct angles, report pass/fail, remaining blockers, and missing verification.\n\nPrefer `async: true`, `context: \"fresh\"` for planners/validators, `outputMode: \"file-only\"` for large summaries, and per-stage output names that will not collide. Add `phase` and `label` to make async status readable, and use `as` plus `{outputs.name}` when a later step needs a specific earlier result instead of the whole `{previous}` blob. Use this pattern instead of launching several writer workers into a dirty worktree. Include non-blocking suggestions in the writer prompt only when they are small, safe, and do not expand product scope; otherwise record them as deferred.\n\nWhen the first step can return a structured target list, prefer dynamic fanout instead of hand-authoring a static parallel group. Use `outputSchema` and `as` on the producer, then an `expand` step with `from: { output, path }`, an explicit `maxItems`, one `parallel` child template, and `collect.as`. Item templates may use `{item}` or a named item such as `{target.path}`. Do not use dynamic fanout for prose outputs, nested fanout, dynamic agent selection, reducers, `when` conditions, or arbitrary expressions; `.chain.md` does not support this syntax, so use direct JSON or a saved `.chain.json`.\n\nExample shape:\n\n```typescript\nsubagent({\n async: true,\n context: \"fresh\",\n chain: [\n { parallel: [\n { agent: \"reviewer\", phase: \"Planning\", label: \"Deploy docs\", as: \"deployPlan\", task: \"Plan fixes for deploy docs/workflow. Inspect the current diff. Do not modify project/source files; returning findings via the configured output artifact is allowed.\", output: \"plans/deploy.md\", outputMode: \"file-only\" },\n { agent: \"reviewer\", phase: \"Planning\", label: \"Scheduler contract\", as: \"schedulerPlan\", task: \"Plan fixes for scheduler contract. Inspect the current diff. Do not modify project/source files; returning findings via the configured output artifact is allowed.\", output: \"plans/scheduler.md\", outputMode: \"file-only\" },\n { agent: \"reviewer\", phase: \"Planning\", label: \"Sandbox/security\", as: \"sandboxPlan\", task: \"Plan fixes for sandbox/security. Inspect the current diff. Do not modify project/source files; returning findings via the configured output artifact is allowed.\", output: \"plans/sandbox.md\", outputMode: \"file-only\" }\n ], concurrency: 3 },\n { agent: \"worker\", phase: \"Implementation\", label: \"Apply accepted fixes\", as: \"workerResult\", task: \"Apply only the accepted fixes from these planning summaries. You are the sole writer for the active worktree. Run focused validation and report changed files, commands, failures, and remaining issues.\\n\\nDeploy plan:\\n{outputs.deployPlan}\\n\\nScheduler plan:\\n{outputs.schedulerPlan}\\n\\nSandbox plan:\\n{outputs.sandboxPlan}\", output: \"worker/fixes.md\", outputMode: \"file-only\", progress: true },\n { parallel: [\n { agent: \"reviewer\", phase: \"Validation\", label: \"Deploy/scheduler validation\", task: \"Validate the post-worker diff for deploy and scheduler fixes. Start from the worker result: {outputs.workerResult}. Do not modify project/source files; returning findings via the configured output artifact is allowed.\", output: \"validation/deploy-scheduler.md\", outputMode: \"file-only\" },\n { agent: \"reviewer\", phase: \"Validation\", label: \"Sandbox validation\", task: \"Validate the post-worker diff for sandbox/security fixes. Start from the worker result: {outputs.workerResult}. Do not modify project/source files; returning findings via the configured output artifact is allowed.\", output: \"validation/sandbox.md\", outputMode: \"file-only\" }\n ], concurrency: 2 }\n ]\n})\n```\n\n## Builtin Agents\n\nBuiltin agents load at the lowest priority. Project agents override user agents,\nand user/project agents override builtins with the same name.\n\n| Agent | Purpose | Model | Typical output / role |\n|-------|---------|-------|------------------------|\n| `scout` | Fast codebase recon | inherits default | Writes `context.md` handoff material |\n| `planner` | Creates implementation plans | inherits default | Writes `plan.md` |\n| `worker` | Implementation and approved oracle handoffs | inherits default | Single-writer implementation with decision escalation |\n| `reviewer` | Review-and-fix specialist | inherits default | Can edit/fix reviewed code |\n| `context-builder` | Requirements/codebase handoff builder | inherits default | Writes structured context files |\n| `researcher` | Web research brief generator | inherits default | Writes `research.md` |\n| `delegate` | Lightweight generic delegate | inherits default | No fixed output; generic delegated work |\n| `oracle` | Decision-consistency advisory review | inherits default | Advisory review, intercom coordination |\n\nBuiltin agents inherit the current Pi default model unless a run, user setting, project setting, or `subagents.defaultModel` overrides `model`. Set `subagents.defaultModel` when subagents should use a different default model than the parent session. Override builtin defaults before copying full agent files when a small tweak is enough.\n\nFor one run, use inline config:\n\n```text\n/run reviewer[model=anthropic/claude-sonnet-4] \"Review this diff\"\n```\n\nFor persistent tweaks, edit `subagents.agentOverrides` in user or project settings. User overrides apply everywhere. Project overrides apply only in that repo and win over user overrides. Use `/subagents-models` or `subagent({ action: \"models\" })` to inspect the live mapping after settings and overrides load.\n\nModel ids do not have to be exact. Separator variations (`claude-haiku-4.5` vs `claude-haiku-4-5`), case (`Claude-Sonnet-4`), and optional trailing date stamps (`claude-haiku-4-5-20251001`) all resolve to the same registry model. Exact `provider/id` wins; a qualified `provider/model` never switches providers. To constrain subagents to a budget or compliance profile, set `subagents.modelScope: { enforce: true, allow: [\"anthropic/*\", \"openai/gpt-5-*\"] }` in user or project settings. Out-of-scope models you pass explicitly error and abort; models inherited from frontmatter, `subagents.defaultModel`, agent frontmatter, or the parent session only warn.\n\nFor model fleets, use the profile commands instead of hand-editing repeated overrides: `/subagents-refresh-provider-models <provider>`, `/subagents-generate-profiles <provider>`, `/subagents-load-profile <name>`, and `/subagents-check-profile <name>`. Profiles live under `~/.pi/agent/profiles/pi-subagents/` and replace only `settings.subagents` when loaded.\n\n## Prompting role subagents\n\nBuiltin role agents inherit the current Pi default model unless you override them. When launching them, write the task prompt as a compact contract, not a long procedural script. Define the destination and let the role choose the efficient path.\n\nA strong subagent prompt usually includes:\n- **Goal**: the concrete outcome the child should produce.\n- **Context/evidence**: relevant plan paths, files, diffs, decisions, or user constraints already approved.\n- **Success criteria**: what must be true before the child can finish.\n- **Hard constraints**: true invariants only, such as no edits for review-only tasks, one writer thread, child must not run subagents unless it is an explicitly assigned `tools: subagent` fanout child, or escalation for unapproved decisions.\n- **Validation**: targeted checks to run, or the next-best check when validation is impossible.\n- **Output**: the expected summary shape, artifact path, or finding format.\n- **Stop rules**: when to ask via `intercom`, when to stop after enough evidence, and when not to keep searching.\n\nAvoid carrying over old prompt habits that over-specify every step. Use `must`, `always`, and `never` for real invariants; for judgment calls, give decision rules. For example, tell a reviewer to inspect the staged diff directly and report only evidence-backed findings, rather than prescribing every file or command. Tell a researcher the retrieval budget: start with broad targeted searches, fetch only the strongest sources, search again only when a required fact is missing, then stop.\n\nFor implementation handoffs, name the approved scope and success criteria more clearly than the process. Good prompts say what to change, what not to change, where the evidence lives, how to validate, and when to escalate. They should not ask the child to create another subagent plan or continue the parent conversation.\n\nSettings locations:\n- User scope: `~/.pi/agent/settings.json`\n- Project scope: `.pi/settings.json`\n\nDirect settings example:\n\n```json\n{\n \"subagents\": {\n \"agentOverrides\": {\n \"reviewer\": {\n \"model\": \"anthropic/claude-sonnet-4\",\n \"thinking\": \"high\",\n \"fallbackModels\": [\"openai/gpt-5-mini\"],\n \"acceptanceRole\": \"read-only\"\n }\n }\n }\n}\n```\n\nUseful override fields: `model`, `fallbackModels`, `thinking`,\n`systemPromptMode`, `inheritProjectContext`, `inheritSkills`, `defaultContext`,\n`acceptanceRole`, `disabled`, `skills`, `tools`, and `systemPrompt`. Use\n`acceptanceRole: false` to clear an override. Create a user or project\nagent with the same name only when you want a substantially different agent.\n\nIf a provider rejects model IDs with thinking suffixes, use\n`subagents.disableThinking: true` in user or project settings to clear bundled\nbuiltin thinking defaults globally. A higher-precedence per-agent `thinking`\noverride can opt one builtin back in.\n\nTool description modes live in `~/.pi/agent/extensions/subagent/config.json`, not `subagents` settings. Set `toolDescriptionMode` to `compact` to reduce tool-description prompt cost while keeping the execution, async/`subagent_wait`, child-safety, one-writer, management/action, and artifact/status guardrails. Set it to `custom` to read `subagent-tool-description.md` from the project config dir or agent dir; invalid custom files fall back to full mode and the safety guidance is still appended.\n\n## Discovery and Scope Rules\n\nAgent files can live in:\n- `~/.pi/agent/agents/**/*.md` — user scope\n- `.pi/agents/**/*.md` — canonical project scope\n- legacy `.agents/**/*.md` — still read for compatibility, but `.pi/agents/` wins on conflicts\n\nChains live in:\n- `~/.pi/agent/chains/**/*.chain.md` and `~/.pi/agent/chains/**/*.chain.json` — user scope\n- `.pi/chains/**/*.chain.md` and `.pi/chains/**/*.chain.json` — project scope\n\nDiscovery is recursive. `.chain.md` files do not define agents. Use `.chain.md` for simple saved chains and `.chain.json` for dynamic fanout or inline schema objects. Agents and chains can set optional frontmatter/package metadata; `name: scout` plus `package: code-analysis` registers as runtime name `code-analysis.scout` while serialization keeps `name` and `package` separate.\n\nPrecedence is by parsed runtime name:\n1. project scope\n2. user scope\n3. builtin agents\n\n## Running Subagents\n\n### Single agent\n\n```typescript\nsubagent({\n agent: \"oracle\",\n task: \"Review my current direction and challenge assumptions.\"\n})\n```\n\n### Forked context\n\n```typescript\nsubagent({\n agent: \"oracle\",\n task: \"Review my current direction and challenge assumptions.\"\n})\n```\n\n`context: \"fork\"` creates a branched child session from the current persisted\nparent session. It does **not** create a fresh minimal review context or filter\nhistory down to only the relevant parts. Use it when you want a separate review\nor execution thread that can still reference the parent session history.\n\n### Parallel execution\n\n```typescript\nsubagent({\n tasks: [\n { agent: \"scout\", task: \"Explore the auth module\" },\n { agent: \"reviewer\", task: \"Review the API client\" }\n ]\n})\n```\n\nTop-level parallel tasks can override per-task behavior:\n\n```typescript\nsubagent({\n tasks: [\n { agent: \"scout\", task: \"Map auth\", output: \"auth-context.md\", progress: true },\n { agent: \"researcher\", task: \"Research OAuth best practices\", output: \"oauth-research.md\" },\n { agent: \"reviewer\", task: \"Review auth tests\", model: \"anthropic/claude-sonnet-4\" }\n ],\n concurrency: 3\n})\n```\n\nAvoid duplicate output paths in parallel tasks. Concurrent children should not write to the same file. For large saved outputs, set `outputMode: \"file-only\"` together with an `output` path. The parent result then contains only a compact reference like `Output saved to: /abs/report.md (48.2 KB, 2847 lines). Read this file if needed.` instead of the full saved content. Do not use `output: false` for this; `output: false` means no file output. Read-only children return the complete artifact in their final response and the runtime persists it, so missing write tools are not a supervisor blocker. Mutation-capable children still receive direct-write instructions. Failed runs and save errors still return inline details for debugging.\n\n### Chain execution\n\n```typescript\nsubagent({\n chain: [\n { agent: \"scout\", task: \"Map the auth flow and summarize key files\" },\n { agent: \"planner\", task: \"Create an implementation plan from {previous}\" },\n { agent: \"worker\", task: \"Implement the approved plan based on {previous}\" }\n ]\n})\n```\n\nChain steps can use templated variables such as `{task}`, `{previous}`,\n`{chain_dir}`, and `{outputs.name}`. Use `as: \"name\"` on a successful step or\nparallel task to make that output available to later steps. Prefer named outputs\nwhen a later step needs one specific result; keep `{previous}` for simple linear\nhandoffs or full fan-in summaries. Use `phase` and `label` for status readability.\nUse `outputSchema` when later steps need reliable structured data; the child must\ncall `structured_output` with schema-valid JSON, or the step fails.\n\n### Async/background\n\nPrefer async mode for every subagent launch. Set `async: true` no matter the task unless there is a specific reason to opt into a foreground/blocking run. This applies to scouts, researchers, workers, reviewers, validators, oracle checks, one-off delegates, chains, and parallel groups. Keep the write path single-threaded even when the run is async.\n\nAsync does not mean parallel writes. Do not edit the same active worktree while an async worker is changing it. Parent-side overlap should be reading, validation prep, synthesis, command planning, or review of unaffected context unless the writer is isolated in a separate worktree.\n\nDo not end your turn immediately after launching an async child if you promised to keep working. Continue the local inspection, synthesis, or validation prep, then check the async run when its result is needed.\n\nIn an interactive chat, normally return control when ready to yield and let Pi wake the session on completion; do not call `subagent_wait()` merely to wait. Override that default and call it when the current request is run-to-completion — for example, the user asked you to report results back before continuing or a skill cannot return before its background work finishes. Headless sessions auto-drain exact current-session work at `agent_end`; call `subagent_wait()` when this turn must receive results before it ends. Never substitute sleep or status-polling loops.\n\n`subagent_wait()` returns when the next initially active async run or registered provider item finishes or a subagent needs attention. Use `subagent_wait({ all: true })` for all work active at call time, `subagent_wait({ id: \"...\" })` for one async or remembered detached foreground run, and `subagent_wait({ timeoutMs })` to cap the block. If a foreground child detaches for supervisor coordination, reply first, then wait on its id; do not resume or launch a replacement while it remains detached. Headless sessions also auto-drain exact current-session work at `agent_end` as a final safeguard.\n\n```typescript\nsubagent({\n agent: \"worker\",\n task: \"Run the full test suite\",\n async: true\n})\n```\n\nFile-only output mode also works for async single runs, top-level parallel task items, sequential chain steps, and chain parallel task items. In chains, `{previous}` receives the compact saved-file reference when the prior step used file-only mode.\n\nFor review fanout where the parent continues a local audit:\n\n```typescript\nconst run = subagent({\n agent: \"reviewer\",\n task: \"Review the current diff for correctness issues. Do not edit files.\",\n async: true,\n context: \"fresh\"\n})\n// Continue local inspection, then later call status with the returned id.\n```\n\nInspect async runs with `subagent({ action: \"status\", id: \"...\" })` or `subagent({ action: \"status\" })` for active runs. Use `subagent({ action: \"status\", view: \"fleet\" })` when supervising several active foreground/background runs and `subagent({ action: \"status\", id: \"...\", view: \"transcript\", index: 0 })` when you need the latest child output without digging through artifacts. If a delegated fanout child launches nested runs, the parent status view shows them as a tree and you can target a nested run directly with its nested id.\n\nUse `steer` for top-level live async guidance and `resume` after a delegated run pauses or finishes. Routed nested runs retain their existing non-destructive live follow-up path:\n\n```typescript\nsubagent({ action: \"steer\", id: \"run-id\", message: \"Focus on the failing test.\" })\nsubagent({ action: \"resume\", id: \"run-id\", message: \"Follow up on this point.\" })\nsubagent({ action: \"resume\", id: \"run-id\", index: 1, message: \"Continue reviewer 2.\" })\nsubagent({ action: \"resume\", id: \"nested-run-id\", message: \"Continue this nested reviewer.\" })\n```\n\nResume behavior:\n- `resume` revives paused, completed, or failed async/foreground children from persisted session files; stopped runs remain non-resumable, and it does not interrupt live top-level async children.\n- Use `steer` for acknowledged guidance to a live top-level async child.\n- A live nested run can still receive a non-destructive `resume` follow-up through its owner route.\n- If an async child has completed, `resume` revives it by starting a new async child from the persisted child session file.\n- Multi-child async runs require `index` unless only one running child is selectable.\n- Completed foreground single, parallel, and chain runs can also be revived by `index` while their run metadata remains in extension state.\n- Nested runs can be resumed by nested id when a live route or persisted nested session metadata is available.\n- Revive starts a new child process from the old session context; it does not restart the same OS process.\n- Direct revival holds an exclusive cross-process lease on the canonical child session file until the new child finishes. Concurrent attempts fail before Pi starts and identify the owning revived run; stale ownership is reclaimed only when the recorded process is demonstrably gone or reused.\n- If the chosen child has no persisted `.jsonl` session file, resume fails and reports that directly.\n\nUse diagnostics when setup or child startup looks wrong:\n\n```typescript\nsubagent({ action: \"doctor\" })\n```\n\n### Scheduled subagent runs\n\nScheduled runs defer a subagent launch until a future time. They are opt-in and require `{ \"scheduledRuns\": { \"enabled\": true } }` in `~/.pi/agent/extensions/subagent/config.json`. Only schedule explicit delayed runs the user asked for; do not schedule runs speculatively.\n\n```typescript\n// Launch a reviewer in 30 minutes\nsubagent({ action: \"schedule\", agent: \"reviewer\", task: \"Review the diff for correctness issues.\", schedule: \"+30m\", scheduleName: \"evening review\" })\n\n// Schedule a parallel fanout\nsubagent({ action: \"schedule\", tasks: [{ agent: \"scout\", task: \"Map the auth module\" }, { agent: \"scout\", task: \"Map the billing module\" }], schedule: \"+1h\" })\n\n// Inspect, list, and cancel\nsubagent({ action: \"schedule-list\" })\nsubagent({ action: \"schedule-status\", id: \"ab12\" })\nsubagent({ action: \"schedule-cancel\", id: \"ab12\" })\n```\n\n`schedule` accepts the same execution fields as a normal async run (`agent`/`tasks`/`chain`, `cwd`, `model`, `output`, `reads`, `progress`, `acceptance`, `timeoutMs`) plus `schedule` (a relative delay like `+10m`/`+2h`/`+1d` or a future ISO timestamp with a timezone such as `2030-01-01T09:00:00Z`) and an optional `scheduleName`. Scheduled runs always launch async with fresh context; `context: \"fork\"`, `async: false`, and `clarify: true` are rejected. Once the timer fires, the run becomes a normal tracked async run: it appears in the async widget, is inspectable with `subagent({ action: \"status\" })`, can be awaited with `subagent_wait()`, and delivers the normal completion notification.\n\nSchedules are persisted per session and restored after a Pi restart. A job whose scheduled time passed by more than `scheduledRuns.maxLatenessMs` (default 5 minutes) while Pi was unavailable is marked `missed` instead of firing late. `scheduledRuns.maxPending` (default 20) caps pending or running scheduled jobs per session.\n\nHumans can use `/subagents-doctor` for the same read-only report. It checks runtime paths, discovery counts, async support, current session context, and intercom bridge state.\n\n### Subagent control\n\nSubagent control is the runtime visibility and intervention layer for delegated runs. It is separate from lifecycle status. Lifecycle status says whether a child is `queued`, `running`, `paused`, `complete`, or `failed`. Activity reporting is factual: it tracks the last observed activity time and the current tool when known. It does not pretend to know that a child is truly stuck.\n\nDefault behavior is intentionally conservative. When no activity has been observed past the configured threshold, the run emits a `needs_attention` control event. Foreground runs can push this as a `subagent:control-event` event, and async runs persist it to `events.jsonl` so the parent tracker can surface it without constant manual polling. Notification-worthy control events are also inserted into the visible transcript so both the user and the parent agent can see them, with a proactive hint plus concrete `nudge`, `status`, and `interrupt` options. Visible notifications fire once per child run and attention state.\n\nUse soft interrupt when a child is clearly blocked or drifting and the parent needs to regain control:\n\n```typescript\nsubagent({ action: \"interrupt\" })\n```\n\nPass `id` when targeting a specific controllable run, including a nested run shown in the parent status tree:\n\n```typescript\nsubagent({ action: \"interrupt\", id: \"abc123\" })\nsubagent({ action: \"interrupt\", id: \"nested-run-id\" })\n```\n\nA soft interrupt cancels the current child turn and leaves the run paused. It does not mean the delegated task succeeded or failed. Bare `interrupt` does not target hidden nested descendants; use the explicit nested id. After an interrupt, decide the next explicit action: resume with clearer instructions, replace the task, ask the user, or stop the workflow.\n\nPer-run control thresholds can be overridden when a task legitimately runs without observable output for longer than usual:\n\n```typescript\nsubagent({\n agent: \"worker\",\n task: \"Run the slow migration test suite\",\n control: {\n needsAttentionAfterMs: 300000,\n notifyOn: [\"needs_attention\"]\n }\n})\n```\n\nIf the run already has an active intercom bridge target, needs-attention notifications can also prepare a compact intercom ping for the orchestrator. When a child route is available, the ping tells the orchestrator which agent needs attention and includes the exact `intercom({ action: \"send\", to: \"...\" })` target for a nudge. Do not invent a target or ask the child to self-report when no bridge exists.\n\nSteering is acknowledged delivery, not a send attempt or model-compliance signal:\n\n```typescript\nsubagent({ action: \"steer\", id: \"abc123\", message: \"Focus on the failing test.\" })\n```\n\nThe action waits up to three seconds for the child Pi session to accept the correlated user input and returns a request id with `delivered`, `scheduled`, `pending`, `partial`, `recovered`, or `failed` plus per-child states. Indexed pending children return `scheduled` immediately. Only a top-level single-child run may automatically interrupt after a missed acknowledgment and recover after confirmed pause within a further 15 seconds. Recovery preserves the original child contract and only its remaining deadline, turn, and tool budgets. If the session is missing, a budget is exhausted, the pause cannot be confirmed, or replacement launch fails, the source remains paused when pausing succeeded and the action returns the exact failure. Chain, parallel, and nested runs never auto-interrupt; inspect their per-child outcomes and handle failures explicitly. A late acknowledgment is recorded and cannot cancel committed recovery.\n\n## Clarify TUI\n\nSingle and parallel runs support a clarification TUI when you want to preview or\nedit parameters before launch:\n\n```typescript\nsubagent({\n agent: \"worker\",\n task: \"Implement feature X\",\n clarify: true\n})\n```\n\nTool calls launch directly by default. Set `clarify: true` on single, parallel, or chain runs when you want the clarify UI. Clarify edits affect only the next run; use management actions, settings, or markdown files for persistent changes.\nFor programmatic background launches, use `async: true`. `clarify: true` keeps the run foreground for the clarify UI.\n\n\n## Worktree Isolation\n\nWhen multiple agents might write concurrently, use worktrees instead of letting\nthem share one filesystem view.\n\n```typescript\nsubagent({\n tasks: [\n { agent: \"worker\", task: \"Implement feature A\" },\n { agent: \"worker\", task: \"Implement feature B\" }\n ],\n worktree: true\n})\n```\n\n`worktree: true` gives each parallel task its own git worktree branched from\nHEAD. This requires a clean git state and is mainly for intentionally parallel\nwrite workflows. If you want one writer thread and several advisory agents,\nprefer a single-writer pattern instead.\n\n## The Oracle Workflow\n\nThe intended oracle loop is:\n1. the main agent forks to `oracle`\n2. `oracle` reviews direction, drift, assumptions, and risks\n3. `oracle` can coordinate back through `contact_supervisor` when the bridge injects it\n4. the main agent decides what direction to approve\n5. only then should `worker` implement\n\n```typescript\n// Advisory review in a branched thread. Oracle defaults to forked context.\nsubagent({\n agent: \"oracle\",\n task: \"Review my current direction, challenge assumptions, and propose the best next move.\"\n})\n\n// Implementation only after explicit approval. Worker defaults to forked context.\nsubagent({\n agent: \"worker\",\n task: \"Implement the approved approach: ...\"\n})\n```\n\n`oracle` is not a fresh-context reviewer in the Cognition article sense. It is\na forked advisory thread that inherits the parent session history and uses that\nhistory as a baseline contract.\n\nUse `oracle` as a smart-friend escalation when the parent needs help with trajectory rather than diff inspection: architectural boundaries, model capability routing, merge conflicts, reviewer disagreement, context drift after long work, a worker about to invent a pattern, or fixes that require product/scope tradeoffs. Ask broad questions when the right concern is unclear, and let `oracle` point out missing context or files the parent should inspect before asking again. Keep `oracle` advisory unless it has been explicitly assigned the single writer role.\n\n## Subagent + Intercom Coordination\n\n`pi-subagents` includes native supervisor coordination. Child agents can use `contact_supervisor` to ask the exact parent session that spawned them; messages are scoped by parent session id and should not appear in other Pi sessions.\n\nMost agents should not call generic `intercom` directly unless bridge instructions provide a target and `contact_supervisor` is unavailable. Do not invent a target. Prefer the tool from the injected bridge instructions.\n\nUse `contact_supervisor` with `reason: \"need_decision\"` when:\n- a subagent is blocked on a decision\n- a child needs clarification instead of guessing\n- an approval, product, API, or scope choice is required before continuing safely\n\nUse `contact_supervisor` with `reason: \"interview_request\"` when the child needs structured supervisor input rather than a freeform answer. The request waits for a parent reply, so the child should stay alive and continue only after the reply arrives.\n\nDo not use `contact_supervisor` just to resolve review-only/no-project-edit versus progress-writing or output-artifact instructions. The child must not modify project/source files, but returning findings through its normal response or configured output artifact is allowed unless the parent explicitly set `output: false`.\n\nUse `contact_supervisor` with `reason: \"progress_update\"` when:\n- a child is explicitly asked for progress\n- a meaningful discovery changes the plan\n- a long-running child needs to report a blocked/progress checkpoint without waiting for normal tool return flow\n\nMessage conventions:\n- `reason: \"need_decision\"` and `reason: \"interview_request\"` wait for the parent reply and return it to the child.\n- `reason: \"progress_update\"` is non-blocking and should stay concise.\n- Child-side routine completion handoffs are not expected. Native supervisor messages are for decisions, structured input, and meaningful progress updates while a child is still running.\n\nIf bridge instructions provide the child-facing tool, a child can ask:\n\n```typescript\ncontact_supervisor({\n reason: \"need_decision\",\n message: \"Should I optimize for readability or performance here?\"\n})\n```\n\nThe parent replies with the native supervisor tool:\n\n```typescript\nsubagent_supervisor({ action: \"reply\", message: \"Optimize for readability.\" })\n```\n\nOr inspects unresolved asks first:\n\n```typescript\nsubagent_supervisor({ action: \"pending\" })\n```\n\nIf no external `pi-intercom` tool owns the `intercom` name, native supervisor coordination may also expose `intercom` as a compatibility fallback. Prefer `subagent_supervisor` for parent replies because it never overrides installed `pi-intercom`.\n\nIf intercom messages do not show up, run `subagent({ action: \"doctor\" })` or `/subagents-doctor`.\n\n## Management Mode\n\nThe `subagent(...)` tool also supports management actions.\n\n### List available agents and chains\n\n```typescript\nsubagent({ action: \"list\" })\n```\n\n### Create an agent\n\n```typescript\nsubagent({\n action: \"create\",\n config: {\n name: \"my-agent\",\n package: \"code-analysis\",\n description: \"Project-specific implementation helper\",\n systemPrompt: \"Your system prompt here.\",\n systemPromptMode: \"replace\",\n model: \"openai-codex/gpt-5.4\",\n tools: \"read,grep,find,ls,bash\"\n }\n})\n```\n\n### Update an agent\n\n```typescript\nsubagent({\n action: \"update\",\n agent: \"code-analysis.my-agent\",\n config: {\n thinking: \"high\"\n }\n})\n```\n\n### Delete an agent\n\n```typescript\nsubagent({ action: \"delete\", agent: \"code-analysis.my-agent\" })\n```\n\n### Eject, disable, enable, and reset\n\n```typescript\n// Copy a bundled builtin/package agent to user scope as an editable custom file.\nsubagent({ action: \"eject\", agent: \"reviewer\" })\nsubagent({ action: \"eject\", agent: \"reviewer\", agentScope: \"project\" })\n\n// Hide an agent from runtime discovery without deleting it (reversible).\nsubagent({ action: \"disable\", agent: \"reviewer\" })\nsubagent({ action: \"enable\", agent: \"reviewer\", agentScope: \"project\" })\n\n// Delete the scope's custom agent file and/or settings override, restoring the bundled default.\nsubagent({ action: \"reset\", agent: \"reviewer\" })\n```\n\n`eject` copies a builtin or package agent verbatim into the user (default) or project agent dir so it can be customized without hunting package files; the copy shadows the original by runtime name. `disable` writes a reversible `agentOverrides.<name>.disabled: true` entry to the user or project settings file. `enable` removes that `disabled` field while keeping any other override fields. `reset` removes the scope's custom file and settings override to restore the bundled default, and refuses if no bundled default exists (use `delete` for purely custom agents). All four take optional `agentScope: \"user\" | \"project\"`; project overrides win over user ones, so target the project scope to undo a project-scope disable.\n\nUse management actions when the system needs to create or edit subagents on\ndemand without dropping into raw file editing.\n\nManagement actions create or update user/project agent files. `config.name` is the local frontmatter name; optional `config.package` registers and looks up the runtime name as `{package}.{name}`. Use the dotted runtime name for `get`, `update`, `delete`, slash commands, and chain steps. For small builtin changes such as a model swap, prefer `subagents.agentOverrides` in settings.\n\n## Creating and Editing Agents by File\n\nA minimal agent file looks like this:\n\n```markdown\n---\nname: my-agent\npackage: code-analysis\ndescription: What this agent does\nmodel: openai-codex/gpt-5.4\nthinking: high\ntools: read, grep, find, ls, bash\nsystemPromptMode: replace\ninheritProjectContext: true\ninheritSkills: false\nskills: safe-bash, review-checklist\nskillPath: ./skills, ../shared-skills\n---\n\nYour system prompt here.\n```\n\nThat is only a starting point. Omit `package` for the traditional unqualified runtime name. Common optional fields include:\n- `defaultProgress`\n- `defaultReads`\n- `output`\n- `fallbackModels`\n- `subagentOnlyExtensions`\n- `skills`\n- `skillPath`\n- `memory`\n- `maxSubagentDepth`\n- `acceptance`\n- `acceptanceRole`\n\n`acceptance` is a single-agent launch default. Use a scalar level such as `checked` or an inline/block YAML map such as `{ level: \"none\", reason: \"lightweight lookup\" }`. An explicit tool-call value wins; chain and parallel acceptance remains configured on the task or step. Management create/update accepts the same policy object, and `acceptance: \"\"` clears the frontmatter default (`false` remains the deprecated disabled-policy shorthand).\n\n`acceptanceRole` is `read-only` or `writer` and controls automatic acceptance inference only. Explicit task mutation or no-edit intent wins; otherwise the role replaces agent-name guessing. Omission preserves the current name heuristics. The field does not grant or revoke tools. Management accepts `false` or an empty string to clear it.\n\n`tools` is a strict child allowlist, not an extension loader. For a named extension tool, keep its registered name in `tools` and load its provider through normal Pi discovery, `extensions`, a path-like `tools` entry, or `subagentOnlyExtensions`. For example, pair `tools: read, fixture_search` with `subagentOnlyExtensions: ./tools/fixture-search.ts` when the provider should exist only in that agent's child sessions. The child now fails with the unavailable names and provider-loading guidance instead of silently continuing when a requested tool is absent; internal `structured_output` is allowed automatically when an output schema requires it.\n\n`skillPath` adds invocation-private skill files or discovery directories relative to the agent file; it does not select them, so list the desired names under `skills`. Local matches win, unresolved or unreadable matches use normal discovery, and local candidates never enter the parent/global catalog. Use `memory: { scope: \"project\" | \"user\", path: \"<name>\" }` for opt-in role-specific durable memory under the dedicated `agent-memory/` namespace; it is separate from parent/session project memory.\n\nFor many customizations, builtin overrides in settings are lower-friction than\ncopying a full builtin file.\n\n## Prompt Template Integration\n\nThe package includes prompt shortcuts for common workflows: `/parallel-review`,\n`/review-loop`, `/parallel-research`, `/parallel-context-build`,\n`/parallel-handoff-plan`, `/gather-context-and-clarify`, and\n`/parallel-cleanup`. Use them when the user wants repeatable review,\nreview/fix loops, research, context handoff, implementation handoff,\n\n[Showing lines 1-714 of 981 (50.0KB limit). Use offset=715 to continue.]"}],"details":{"truncation":{"content":"---\nname: pi-subagents\ndescription: |\n Delegate work to builtin or custom subagents with single-agent, chain,\n parallel, async, forked-context, and intercom-coordinated workflows. Use\n for advisory review, implementation handoffs, and multi-step tasks where a\n single agent should stay in control while other agents contribute context,\n planning, or execution.\n---\n\n# Pi Subagents\n\nThis skill is for the main parent orchestrator only. Do not inject or follow it inside spawned child subagents. The parent session owns delegation, orchestration, review fanout, and final fix-worker launches; child subagents should receive concrete role-specific tasks. Ordinary children should not run their own subagent workflows; the explicit exception is a delegated fanout child whose resolved builtin `tools` includes `subagent`, and that child may use `subagent` only for the fanout work the parent assigned.\n\nUse this skill when the parent orchestrator needs to launch a specialized subagent, compose multiple agents into a workflow, or create/edit agents and chains on demand.\n\n## When to Use\n\n- **Complex work orchestration**: use Fable mode as the default parent-agent loop for complex work. Complex means the task has multiple moving parts, unclear acceptance, cross-cutting code, meaningful user-visible impact, expensive or irreversible validation, broad review surface, or the user asks for orchestration. Lightweight one-off delegation can stay lightweight.\n- **Advisory review**: use fresh-context `reviewer` agents for adversarial code review, or fork to `oracle` when inherited decisions and drift matter\n- **Implementation handoff**: have `oracle` advise, then `worker` implement only after an approved direction\n- **Recon and planning**: use `scout` or `context-builder`, then `planner`\n- **Parallel exploration**: run multiple non-conflicting tasks concurrently\n- **Regular skill specialists**: when discovery shows proactive skill subagent suggestions and the current work is broad enough, launch a small fresh-context fanout that asks one subagent per relevant regularly used skill to apply that skill's perspective to the task\n- **Long-running work**: launch async/background runs and inspect them later. For mutation-capable work, bound the delivery slice and elapsed runtime, then request checkpoints after active tool work returns. Reserve hard turn and tool-call caps for explicitly read-only children.\n- **Subagent control**: watch needs-attention signals and soft-interrupt only when a delegated run is genuinely blocked\n- **Agent authoring**: create, update, or override agents and chains for a project\n\n## Tool vs Slash Commands\n\nAgents can use the `subagent(...)` tool directly for execution, management, status, and control.\nHumans often use the slash-command layer instead:\n\n- `/run` — launch a single agent\n- `/chain` — launch a chain of steps\n- `/parallel` — launch top-level parallel tasks\n- `/run-chain` — launch a saved `.chain.md` or `.chain.json` workflow\n- `/subagent-cost` — show parent plus child token usage and cost for the session\n- `/subagents-fleet` — open the live, inspection-only foreground/async fleet; `Ctrl+Alt+F` opens it during an active foreground turn, `↑↓`/`jk` selects children, and `PgUp`/`PgDn` scrolls transcript detail\n- `/subagents-doctor` — diagnose setup, discovery, async paths, and intercom bridge state\n- `/subagents-models [agent]` — show the live runtime-loaded builtin model mapping\n- `/subagents-profiles`, `/subagents-load-profile`, `/subagents-refresh-provider-models`, `/subagents-generate-profiles`, `/subagents-check-profile` — manage model profiles and provider catalogs\n- `/prompt-workflow` and `/chain-prompts` — run prompt templates through native subagent single/chain workflows\n\nPrefer the tool when you are writing agent logic. Prefer the slash commands when\nyou are guiding a human through an interactive flow.\n\nPackaged prompt shortcuts are also available for repeatable workflows. Treat them as reusable orchestration recipes, not just human slash commands. When the user asks for one of these shapes, or when the workflow clearly fits, apply the same pattern directly with `subagent(...)` and other tools:\n- `/parallel-review` — fresh-context reviewers with distinct review angles, then synthesis\n- `/review-loop` — parent-orchestrated worker, fresh-reviewer, and fix-worker cycles until clean or capped\n- `/parallel-research` — combine `researcher` and `scout` for external evidence plus local code context\n- `/parallel-context-build` — parallel `context-builder` passes that produce planning handoff context and meta-prompts\n- `/parallel-handoff-plan` — external-reference research plus local `context-builder` passes, followed by a synthesis handoff plan and implementation-ready meta-prompt\n- `/gather-context-and-clarify` — scout/research first, then ask the user clarifying questions with `interview`\n- `/parallel-cleanup` — two fresh-context reviewers (deslop + verbosity passes) for an adversarial cleanup review of the current diff\n\n## Applying Prompt Techniques Without Slash Commands\n\nThe prompt templates in `prompts/` encode workflows the parent agent can run on demand. If the user provides a URL, issue, PR, plan, local file, screenshot, or freeform target, treat that target as the primary scope: read or fetch it before launching children, then include it explicitly in every child task. Do not depend on the parent conversation history when the recipe calls for fresh context.\n\n### Parallel review technique\n\nUse this when the user wants adversarial review of a diff, plan, issue, file, or implemented work. Launch fresh-context `reviewer` agents with distinct angles generated from the actual target. Common angles are correctness/regressions, tests/validation, and simplicity/maintainability; adapt for TypeScript, UI, security, docs, or large structural changes. Reviewers should inspect files and diffs directly, return concise evidence-backed findings with file/line references, and avoid edits unless the user explicitly asks for a writer pass. The parent synthesizes fixes worth doing now, optional improvements, and feedback to ignore/defer before applying anything.\n\n### Proactive skill-specialist technique\n\nUse this when `{ action: \"list\" }` reports proactive skill subagent suggestions and the user's task would benefit from perspectives the parent regularly uses. These suggestions are conservative: a skill is recommended only when it is available and referenced repeatedly by configured agents or saved chains. Treat the list as an opt-in hint for the current task, not a command to always fan out.\n\nDefault guardrails:\n- Keep the fanout small: usually one or two skill-specialist children, never more than the listed recommendations or configured cap.\n- Prefer `context: \"fresh\"` and include only the files, diff, plan, URL, or request details each child needs. Use forked context only when private/session history is essential and appropriate to share.\n- Use read-only agents for analysis/review unless implementation was explicitly requested; do not create several writers in the same worktree.\n- Skip proactive skill subagents for tiny questions, direct commands, highly private requests, or when the user asks not to delegate.\n- Make cost and concurrency visible by using an ordinary `subagent(...)` call rather than hidden/background automation.\n\nExample shape:\n\n```typescript\nsubagent({\n tasks: [\n { agent: \"reviewer\", task: \"Apply the available 'deslop' skill to review the current diff for concrete cleanup findings only. Do not modify files.\", skill: \"deslop\" },\n { agent: \"reviewer\", task: \"Apply the available 'accessibility' skill to review the UI changes for concrete issues only. Do not modify files.\", skill: \"accessibility\" }\n ],\n context: \"fresh\",\n concurrency: 2\n})\n```\n\n### Review-loop technique\n\nUse this when the user wants implementation or current diff review to continue until reviewers stop finding fixes worth doing now. Keep the loop in the parent session: one async `worker` implements or fixes, fresh-context `reviewer` agents inspect the actual repo and diff, the parent synthesizes accepted fixes, and one async forked `worker` applies them. The parent can express the sequence up front as an async/background chain when the workflow is known, or continue with explicit follow-up subagent runs after each async completion. For an initial chain, pass `async: true` so the main chat is unblocked; do not set `clarify: true` unless the user explicitly wants the foreground clarify UI. Treat an async implementation worker handoff as an intermediate state, not final completion, unless the user explicitly asked for worker-only work, review-only output, or to stop after implementation. Stop when reviewers find no blockers or fixes worth doing now, remaining feedback is optional or deferred, an unapproved product/scope/architecture decision appears, or the max review-round cap is reached. Default to 3 review rounds unless the user sets a different cap. Do not loop for optional polish, and do not let children launch subagents or decide the loop outcome.\n\nAs a conservative orchestration policy, do not pass `turnBudget` or a hard `toolBudget` to an implementation worker, fix worker, reviewer with edit authority, or other mutation-capable child. The default tool budget blocks read/search tools rather than mutation tools, but count limits still do not measure delivery safety. Use a narrow task plus an outer elapsed deadline with enough margin, then request a checkpoint after the current tool returns. The checkpoint should report changed files, build/test state, remaining work, and commit or PR state. An elapsed timeout is not a mutation-safe boundary and must not be used as the checkpoint trigger.\n\n### Parallel research technique\n\nUse this when the question needs both external evidence and local implications. Combine `researcher` for official docs, specs, ecosystem behavior, recent changes, benchmarks, and primary sources with `scout` for repository files, patterns, constraints, tests, and likely integration points. Give each child a distinct angle: external evidence, local code context, and practical tradeoffs. Ask for source links or file ranges, confidence level, gaps, and decision implications. Do not ask these children to edit unless implementation was explicitly requested.\n\n### Parallel context-build technique\n\nUse this before planning or implementation when a stronger handoff is needed. Run a chain with one parallel step of `context-builder` agents rather than top-level parallel tasks, so relative output files live under the temporary chain directory. Give every task a distinct output path such as `context-build/request-and-scope.md`, `context-build/codebase-and-patterns.md`, and `context-build/validation-and-risks.md`. Choose two or three builders: request/scope, codebase/patterns, and validation/risks. Each builder must read every relevant file needed to understand its slice, follow imports/callers/tests/docs/config, conduct tool-available web research when needed, and include a compact `meta-prompt` section. The parent synthesizes the outputs into important context, recommended next meta-prompt, open questions, assumptions, and artifact paths.\n\nExample shape:\n\n```typescript\nsubagent({\n chain: [{\n parallel: [\n { agent: \"context-builder\", task: \"Build request/scope context for: ...\", output: \"context-build/request-and-scope.md\" },\n { agent: \"context-builder\", task: \"Build codebase/pattern context for: ...\", output: \"context-build/codebase-and-patterns.md\" },\n { agent: \"context-builder\", task: \"Build validation/risk context for: ...\", output: \"context-build/validation-and-risks.md\" }\n ]\n }],\n context: \"fresh\"\n})\n```\n\n### Parallel handoff-plan technique\n\nUse this when the user needs a solution brief or implementation-ready handoff from an external reference plus local code context, such as “study this library behavior, inspect our codebase, then produce a worker prompt.” Run a chain with a first parallel group and a second synthesis `context-builder` step. The first group usually includes `researcher` for external projects/docs/prompt guidance and `context-builder` for local code context; add a second `context-builder` for implementation strategy only when the scope is large enough to benefit. Use distinct output paths under `handoff/`, then have the synthesis `context-builder` read those outputs and write `handoff/final-handoff-plan.md` with the recommended approach, likely files, constraints, non-goals, validation, risks, unresolved questions, and final compact implementation-ready meta-prompt.\n\nExample shape:\n\n```typescript\nsubagent({\n chain: [\n { parallel: [\n { agent: \"researcher\", task: \"Research the external reference and transferable implementation ideas for: ...\", output: \"handoff/external-reference.md\" },\n { agent: \"context-builder\", task: \"Build local codebase context for: ...\", output: \"handoff/local-context.md\" },\n { agent: \"context-builder\", task: \"Compare evidence and propose implementation strategy for: ...\", output: \"handoff/implementation-strategy.md\" }\n ] },\n { agent: \"context-builder\", task: \"Read {previous} and synthesize the final handoff plan and implementation-ready meta-prompt.\", output: \"handoff/final-handoff-plan.md\" }\n ],\n context: \"fresh\"\n})\n```\n\n### Gather-context-and-clarify technique\n\nUse this at the start of non-trivial work. Launch `scout` for local context and `researcher` only when external docs, recent sources, ecosystem context, or primary evidence would materially improve understanding. Ask children for concise findings plus remaining clarification questions. Then synthesize what is known and use `interview` to ask the unresolved questions needed for shared understanding before planning or implementing.\n\n### Parallel cleanup technique\n\nUse this after implementation when the user wants cleanup review or when a final pass would reduce AI-slop. Launch two fresh-context `reviewer` tasks with `output: false` and `progress: false`: one deslop pass and one verbosity pass. If the `deslop` or `verbosity-cleaner` skills are available, pass the relevant skill to that reviewer; otherwise inline the criteria. Both reviewers are review-only and should flag concrete issues with severity, file/line references, and smallest safe fixes. Phrase the constraint as “Do not modify project/source files; returning findings through the configured output artifact is allowed” when you use `output` or `outputMode: \"file-only\"`. The parent decides what to apply and asks before making changes unless cleanup was already authorized.\n\n### Staged fix orchestration technique\n\nUse this when a broad diff has known reviewer findings across several items and the user wants the parent to “orchestrate subagents like a boss.” Keep the active worktree safe with a three-stage chain:\n\n1. A parallel read-only planning fanout, one planner/reviewer per issue cluster. Each child inspects the real diff and returns exact files, line refs, proposed fixes, and focused validation. They must not edit.\n2. One writer worker. It receives the planner summaries through `{previous}`, the parent’s accepted scope, stop rules, and verification contract. It is the only child allowed to edit the active worktree.\n3. A parallel read-only validation fanout. Validators inspect the worker diff from fresh context with distinct angles, report pass/fail, remaining blockers, and missing verification.\n\nPrefer `async: true`, `context: \"fresh\"` for planners/validators, `outputMode: \"file-only\"` for large summaries, and per-stage output names that will not collide. Add `phase` and `label` to make async status readable, and use `as` plus `{outputs.name}` when a later step needs a specific earlier result instead of the whole `{previous}` blob. Use this pattern instead of launching several writer workers into a dirty worktree. Include non-blocking suggestions in the writer prompt only when they are small, safe, and do not expand product scope; otherwise record them as deferred.\n\nWhen the first step can return a structured target list, prefer dynamic fanout instead of hand-authoring a static parallel group. Use `outputSchema` and `as` on the producer, then an `expand` step with `from: { output, path }`, an explicit `maxItems`, one `parallel` child template, and `collect.as`. Item templates may use `{item}` or a named item such as `{target.path}`. Do not use dynamic fanout for prose outputs, nested fanout, dynamic agent selection, reducers, `when` conditions, or arbitrary expressions; `.chain.md` does not support this syntax, so use direct JSON or a saved `.chain.json`.\n\nExample shape:\n\n```typescript\nsubagent({\n async: true,\n context: \"fresh\",\n chain: [\n { parallel: [\n { agent: \"reviewer\", phase: \"Planning\", label: \"Deploy docs\", as: \"deployPlan\", task: \"Plan fixes for deploy docs/workflow. Inspect the current diff. Do not modify project/source files; returning findings via the configured output artifact is allowed.\", output: \"plans/deploy.md\", outputMode: \"file-only\" },\n { agent: \"reviewer\", phase: \"Planning\", label: \"Scheduler contract\", as: \"schedulerPlan\", task: \"Plan fixes for scheduler contract. Inspect the current diff. Do not modify project/source files; returning findings via the configured output artifact is allowed.\", output: \"plans/scheduler.md\", outputMode: \"file-only\" },\n { agent: \"reviewer\", phase: \"Planning\", label: \"Sandbox/security\", as: \"sandboxPlan\", task: \"Plan fixes for sandbox/security. Inspect the current diff. Do not modify project/source files; returning findings via the configured output artifact is allowed.\", output: \"plans/sandbox.md\", outputMode: \"file-only\" }\n ], concurrency: 3 },\n { agent: \"worker\", phase: \"Implementation\", label: \"Apply accepted fixes\", as: \"workerResult\", task: \"Apply only the accepted fixes from these planning summaries. You are the sole writer for the active worktree. Run focused validation and report changed files, commands, failures, and remaining issues.\\n\\nDeploy plan:\\n{outputs.deployPlan}\\n\\nScheduler plan:\\n{outputs.schedulerPlan}\\n\\nSandbox plan:\\n{outputs.sandboxPlan}\", output: \"worker/fixes.md\", outputMode: \"file-only\", progress: true },\n { parallel: [\n { agent: \"reviewer\", phase: \"Validation\", label: \"Deploy/scheduler validation\", task: \"Validate the post-worker diff for deploy and scheduler fixes. Start from the worker result: {outputs.workerResult}. Do not modify project/source files; returning findings via the configured output artifact is allowed.\", output: \"validation/deploy-scheduler.md\", outputMode: \"file-only\" },\n { agent: \"reviewer\", phase: \"Validation\", label: \"Sandbox validation\", task: \"Validate the post-worker diff for sandbox/security fixes. Start from the worker result: {outputs.workerResult}. Do not modify project/source files; returning findings via the configured output artifact is allowed.\", output: \"validation/sandbox.md\", outputMode: \"file-only\" }\n ], concurrency: 2 }\n ]\n})\n```\n\n## Builtin Agents\n\nBuiltin agents load at the lowest priority. Project agents override user agents,\nand user/project agents override builtins with the same name.\n\n| Agent | Purpose | Model | Typical output / role |\n|-------|---------|-------|------------------------|\n| `scout` | Fast codebase recon | inherits default | Writes `context.md` handoff material |\n| `planner` | Creates implementation plans | inherits default | Writes `plan.md` |\n| `worker` | Implementation and approved oracle handoffs | inherits default | Single-writer implementation with decision escalation |\n| `reviewer` | Review-and-fix specialist | inherits default | Can edit/fix reviewed code |\n| `context-builder` | Requirements/codebase handoff builder | inherits default | Writes structured context files |\n| `researcher` | Web research brief generator | inherits default | Writes `research.md` |\n| `delegate` | Lightweight generic delegate | inherits default | No fixed output; generic delegated work |\n| `oracle` | Decision-consistency advisory review | inherits default | Advisory review, intercom coordination |\n\nBuiltin agents inherit the current Pi default model unless a run, user setting, project setting, or `subagents.defaultModel` overrides `model`. Set `subagents.defaultModel` when subagents should use a different default model than the parent session. Override builtin defaults before copying full agent files when a small tweak is enough.\n\nFor one run, use inline config:\n\n```text\n/run reviewer[model=anthropic/claude-sonnet-4] \"Review this diff\"\n```\n\nFor persistent tweaks, edit `subagents.agentOverrides` in user or project settings. User overrides apply everywhere. Project overrides apply only in that repo and win over user overrides. Use `/subagents-models` or `subagent({ action: \"models\" })` to inspect the live mapping after settings and overrides load.\n\nModel ids do not have to be exact. Separator variations (`claude-haiku-4.5` vs `claude-haiku-4-5`), case (`Claude-Sonnet-4`), and optional trailing date stamps (`claude-haiku-4-5-20251001`) all resolve to the same registry model. Exact `provider/id` wins; a qualified `provider/model` never switches providers. To constrain subagents to a budget or compliance profile, set `subagents.modelScope: { enforce: true, allow: [\"anthropic/*\", \"openai/gpt-5-*\"] }` in user or project settings. Out-of-scope models you pass explicitly error and abort; models inherited from frontmatter, `subagents.defaultModel`, agent frontmatter, or the parent session only warn.\n\nFor model fleets, use the profile commands instead of hand-editing repeated overrides: `/subagents-refresh-provider-models <provider>`, `/subagents-generate-profiles <provider>`, `/subagents-load-profile <name>`, and `/subagents-check-profile <name>`. Profiles live under `~/.pi/agent/profiles/pi-subagents/` and replace only `settings.subagents` when loaded.\n\n## Prompting role subagents\n\nBuiltin role agents inherit the current Pi default model unless you override them. When launching them, write the task prompt as a compact contract, not a long procedural script. Define the destination and let the role choose the efficient path.\n\nA strong subagent prompt usually includes:\n- **Goal**: the concrete outcome the child should produce.\n- **Context/evidence**: relevant plan paths, files, diffs, decisions, or user constraints already approved.\n- **Success criteria**: what must be true before the child can finish.\n- **Hard constraints**: true invariants only, such as no edits for review-only tasks, one writer thread, child must not run subagents unless it is an explicitly assigned `tools: subagent` fanout child, or escalation for unapproved decisions.\n- **Validation**: targeted checks to run, or the next-best check when validation is impossible.\n- **Output**: the expected summary shape, artifact path, or finding format.\n- **Stop rules**: when to ask via `intercom`, when to stop after enough evidence, and when not to keep searching.\n\nAvoid carrying over old prompt habits that over-specify every step. Use `must`, `always`, and `never` for real invariants; for judgment calls, give decision rules. For example, tell a reviewer to inspect the staged diff directly and report only evidence-backed findings, rather than prescribing every file or command. Tell a researcher the retrieval budget: start with broad targeted searches, fetch only the strongest sources, search again only when a required fact is missing, then stop.\n\nFor implementation handoffs, name the approved scope and success criteria more clearly than the process. Good prompts say what to change, what not to change, where the evidence lives, how to validate, and when to escalate. They should not ask the child to create another subagent plan or continue the parent conversation.\n\nSettings locations:\n- User scope: `~/.pi/agent/settings.json`\n- Project scope: `.pi/settings.json`\n\nDirect settings example:\n\n```json\n{\n \"subagents\": {\n \"agentOverrides\": {\n \"reviewer\": {\n \"model\": \"anthropic/claude-sonnet-4\",\n \"thinking\": \"high\",\n \"fallbackModels\": [\"openai/gpt-5-mini\"],\n \"acceptanceRole\": \"read-only\"\n }\n }\n }\n}\n```\n\nUseful override fields: `model`, `fallbackModels`, `thinking`,\n`systemPromptMode`, `inheritProjectContext`, `inheritSkills`, `defaultContext`,\n`acceptanceRole`, `disabled`, `skills`, `tools`, and `systemPrompt`. Use\n`acceptanceRole: false` to clear an override. Create a user or project\nagent with the same name only when you want a substantially different agent.\n\nIf a provider rejects model IDs with thinking suffixes, use\n`subagents.disableThinking: true` in user or project settings to clear bundled\nbuiltin thinking defaults globally. A higher-precedence per-agent `thinking`\noverride can opt one builtin back in.\n\nTool description modes live in `~/.pi/agent/extensions/subagent/config.json`, not `subagents` settings. Set `toolDescriptionMode` to `compact` to reduce tool-description prompt cost while keeping the execution, async/`subagent_wait`, child-safety, one-writer, management/action, and artifact/status guardrails. Set it to `custom` to read `subagent-tool-description.md` from the project config dir or agent dir; invalid custom files fall back to full mode and the safety guidance is still appended.\n\n## Discovery and Scope Rules\n\nAgent files can live in:\n- `~/.pi/agent/agents/**/*.md` — user scope\n- `.pi/agents/**/*.md` — canonical project scope\n- legacy `.agents/**/*.md` — still read for compatibility, but `.pi/agents/` wins on conflicts\n\nChains live in:\n- `~/.pi/agent/chains/**/*.chain.md` and `~/.pi/agent/chains/**/*.chain.json` — user scope\n- `.pi/chains/**/*.chain.md` and `.pi/chains/**/*.chain.json` — project scope\n\nDiscovery is recursive. `.chain.md` files do not define agents. Use `.chain.md` for simple saved chains and `.chain.json` for dynamic fanout or inline schema objects. Agents and chains can set optional frontmatter/package metadata; `name: scout` plus `package: code-analysis` registers as runtime name `code-analysis.scout` while serialization keeps `name` and `package` separate.\n\nPrecedence is by parsed runtime name:\n1. project scope\n2. user scope\n3. builtin agents\n\n## Running Subagents\n\n### Single agent\n\n```typescript\nsubagent({\n agent: \"oracle\",\n task: \"Review my current direction and challenge assumptions.\"\n})\n```\n\n### Forked context\n\n```typescript\nsubagent({\n agent: \"oracle\",\n task: \"Review my current direction and challenge assumptions.\"\n})\n```\n\n`context: \"fork\"` creates a branched child session from the current persisted\nparent session. It does **not** create a fresh minimal review context or filter\nhistory down to only the relevant parts. Use it when you want a separate review\nor execution thread that can still reference the parent session history.\n\n### Parallel execution\n\n```typescript\nsubagent({\n tasks: [\n { agent: \"scout\", task: \"Explore the auth module\" },\n { agent: \"reviewer\", task: \"Review the API client\" }\n ]\n})\n```\n\nTop-level parallel tasks can override per-task behavior:\n\n```typescript\nsubagent({\n tasks: [\n { agent: \"scout\", task: \"Map auth\", output: \"auth-context.md\", progress: true },\n { agent: \"researcher\", task: \"Research OAuth best practices\", output: \"oauth-research.md\" },\n { agent: \"reviewer\", task: \"Review auth tests\", model: \"anthropic/claude-sonnet-4\" }\n ],\n concurrency: 3\n})\n```\n\nAvoid duplicate output paths in parallel tasks. Concurrent children should not write to the same file. For large saved outputs, set `outputMode: \"file-only\"` together with an `output` path. The parent result then contains only a compact reference like `Output saved to: /abs/report.md (48.2 KB, 2847 lines). Read this file if needed.` instead of the full saved content. Do not use `output: false` for this; `output: false` means no file output. Read-only children return the complete artifact in their final response and the runtime persists it, so missing write tools are not a supervisor blocker. Mutation-capable children still receive direct-write instructions. Failed runs and save errors still return inline details for debugging.\n\n### Chain execution\n\n```typescript\nsubagent({\n chain: [\n { agent: \"scout\", task: \"Map the auth flow and summarize key files\" },\n { agent: \"planner\", task: \"Create an implementation plan from {previous}\" },\n { agent: \"worker\", task: \"Implement the approved plan based on {previous}\" }\n ]\n})\n```\n\nChain steps can use templated variables such as `{task}`, `{previous}`,\n`{chain_dir}`, and `{outputs.name}`. Use `as: \"name\"` on a successful step or\nparallel task to make that output available to later steps. Prefer named outputs\nwhen a later step needs one specific result; keep `{previous}` for simple linear\nhandoffs or full fan-in summaries. Use `phase` and `label` for status readability.\nUse `outputSchema` when later steps need reliable structured data; the child must\ncall `structured_output` with schema-valid JSON, or the step fails.\n\n### Async/background\n\nPrefer async mode for every subagent launch. Set `async: true` no matter the task unless there is a specific reason to opt into a foreground/blocking run. This applies to scouts, researchers, workers, reviewers, validators, oracle checks, one-off delegates, chains, and parallel groups. Keep the write path single-threaded even when the run is async.\n\nAsync does not mean parallel writes. Do not edit the same active worktree while an async worker is changing it. Parent-side overlap should be reading, validation prep, synthesis, command planning, or review of unaffected context unless the writer is isolated in a separate worktree.\n\nDo not end your turn immediately after launching an async child if you promised to keep working. Continue the local inspection, synthesis, or validation prep, then check the async run when its result is needed.\n\nIn an interactive chat, normally return control when ready to yield and let Pi wake the session on completion; do not call `subagent_wait()` merely to wait. Override that default and call it when the current request is run-to-completion — for example, the user asked you to report results back before continuing or a skill cannot return before its background work finishes. Headless sessions auto-drain exact current-session work at `agent_end`; call `subagent_wait()` when this turn must receive results before it ends. Never substitute sleep or status-polling loops.\n\n`subagent_wait()` returns when the next initially active async run or registered provider item finishes or a subagent needs attention. Use `subagent_wait({ all: true })` for all work active at call time, `subagent_wait({ id: \"...\" })` for one async or remembered detached foreground run, and `subagent_wait({ timeoutMs })` to cap the block. If a foreground child detaches for supervisor coordination, reply first, then wait on its id; do not resume or launch a replacement while it remains detached. Headless sessions also auto-drain exact current-session work at `agent_end` as a final safeguard.\n\n```typescript\nsubagent({\n agent: \"worker\",\n task: \"Run the full test suite\",\n async: true\n})\n```\n\nFile-only output mode also works for async single runs, top-level parallel task items, sequential chain steps, and chain parallel task items. In chains, `{previous}` receives the compact saved-file reference when the prior step used file-only mode.\n\nFor review fanout where the parent continues a local audit:\n\n```typescript\nconst run = subagent({\n agent: \"reviewer\",\n task: \"Review the current diff for correctness issues. Do not edit files.\",\n async: true,\n context: \"fresh\"\n})\n// Continue local inspection, then later call status with the returned id.\n```\n\nInspect async runs with `subagent({ action: \"status\", id: \"...\" })` or `subagent({ action: \"status\" })` for active runs. Use `subagent({ action: \"status\", view: \"fleet\" })` when supervising several active foreground/background runs and `subagent({ action: \"status\", id: \"...\", view: \"transcript\", index: 0 })` when you need the latest child output without digging through artifacts. If a delegated fanout child launches nested runs, the parent status view shows them as a tree and you can target a nested run directly with its nested id.\n\nUse `steer` for top-level live async guidance and `resume` after a delegated run pauses or finishes. Routed nested runs retain their existing non-destructive live follow-up path:\n\n```typescript\nsubagent({ action: \"steer\", id: \"run-id\", message: \"Focus on the failing test.\" })\nsubagent({ action: \"resume\", id: \"run-id\", message: \"Follow up on this point.\" })\nsubagent({ action: \"resume\", id: \"run-id\", index: 1, message: \"Continue reviewer 2.\" })\nsubagent({ action: \"resume\", id: \"nested-run-id\", message: \"Continue this nested reviewer.\" })\n```\n\nResume behavior:\n- `resume` revives paused, completed, or failed async/foreground children from persisted session files; stopped runs remain non-resumable, and it does not interrupt live top-level async children.\n- Use `steer` for acknowledged guidance to a live top-level async child.\n- A live nested run can still receive a non-destructive `resume` follow-up through its owner route.\n- If an async child has completed, `resume` revives it by starting a new async child from the persisted child session file.\n- Multi-child async runs require `index` unless only one running child is selectable.\n- Completed foreground single, parallel, and chain runs can also be revived by `index` while their run metadata remains in extension state.\n- Nested runs can be resumed by nested id when a live route or persisted nested session metadata is available.\n- Revive starts a new child process from the old session context; it does not restart the same OS process.\n- Direct revival holds an exclusive cross-process lease on the canonical child session file until the new child finishes. Concurrent attempts fail before Pi starts and identify the owning revived run; stale ownership is reclaimed only when the recorded process is demonstrably gone or reused.\n- If the chosen child has no persisted `.jsonl` session file, resume fails and reports that directly.\n\nUse diagnostics when setup or child startup looks wrong:\n\n```typescript\nsubagent({ action: \"doctor\" })\n```\n\n### Scheduled subagent runs\n\nScheduled runs defer a subagent launch until a future time. They are opt-in and require `{ \"scheduledRuns\": { \"enabled\": true } }` in `~/.pi/agent/extensions/subagent/config.json`. Only schedule explicit delayed runs the user asked for; do not schedule runs speculatively.\n\n```typescript\n// Launch a reviewer in 30 minutes\nsubagent({ action: \"schedule\", agent: \"reviewer\", task: \"Review the diff for correctness issues.\", schedule: \"+30m\", scheduleName: \"evening review\" })\n\n// Schedule a parallel fanout\nsubagent({ action: \"schedule\", tasks: [{ agent: \"scout\", task: \"Map the auth module\" }, { agent: \"scout\", task: \"Map the billing module\" }], schedule: \"+1h\" })\n\n// Inspect, list, and cancel\nsubagent({ action: \"schedule-list\" })\nsubagent({ action: \"schedule-status\", id: \"ab12\" })\nsubagent({ action: \"schedule-cancel\", id: \"ab12\" })\n```\n\n`schedule` accepts the same execution fields as a normal async run (`agent`/`tasks`/`chain`, `cwd`, `model`, `output`, `reads`, `progress`, `acceptance`, `timeoutMs`) plus `schedule` (a relative delay like `+10m`/`+2h`/`+1d` or a future ISO timestamp with a timezone such as `2030-01-01T09:00:00Z`) and an optional `scheduleName`. Scheduled runs always launch async with fresh context; `context: \"fork\"`, `async: false`, and `clarify: true` are rejected. Once the timer fires, the run becomes a normal tracked async run: it appears in the async widget, is inspectable with `subagent({ action: \"status\" })`, can be awaited with `subagent_wait()`, and delivers the normal completion notification.\n\nSchedules are persisted per session and restored after a Pi restart. A job whose scheduled time passed by more than `scheduledRuns.maxLatenessMs` (default 5 minutes) while Pi was unavailable is marked `missed` instead of firing late. `scheduledRuns.maxPending` (default 20) caps pending or running scheduled jobs per session.\n\nHumans can use `/subagents-doctor` for the same read-only report. It checks runtime paths, discovery counts, async support, current session context, and intercom bridge state.\n\n### Subagent control\n\nSubagent control is the runtime visibility and intervention layer for delegated runs. It is separate from lifecycle status. Lifecycle status says whether a child is `queued`, `running`, `paused`, `complete`, or `failed`. Activity reporting is factual: it tracks the last observed activity time and the current tool when known. It does not pretend to know that a child is truly stuck.\n\nDefault behavior is intentionally conservative. When no activity has been observed past the configured threshold, the run emits a `needs_attention` control event. Foreground runs can push this as a `subagent:control-event` event, and async runs persist it to `events.jsonl` so the parent tracker can surface it without constant manual polling. Notification-worthy control events are also inserted into the visible transcript so both the user and the parent agent can see them, with a proactive hint plus concrete `nudge`, `status`, and `interrupt` options. Visible notifications fire once per child run and attention state.\n\nUse soft interrupt when a child is clearly blocked or drifting and the parent needs to regain control:\n\n```typescript\nsubagent({ action: \"interrupt\" })\n```\n\nPass `id` when targeting a specific controllable run, including a nested run shown in the parent status tree:\n\n```typescript\nsubagent({ action: \"interrupt\", id: \"abc123\" })\nsubagent({ action: \"interrupt\", id: \"nested-run-id\" })\n```\n\nA soft interrupt cancels the current child turn and leaves the run paused. It does not mean the delegated task succeeded or failed. Bare `interrupt` does not target hidden nested descendants; use the explicit nested id. After an interrupt, decide the next explicit action: resume with clearer instructions, replace the task, ask the user, or stop the workflow.\n\nPer-run control thresholds can be overridden when a task legitimately runs without observable output for longer than usual:\n\n```typescript\nsubagent({\n agent: \"worker\",\n task: \"Run the slow migration test suite\",\n control: {\n needsAttentionAfterMs: 300000,\n notifyOn: [\"needs_attention\"]\n }\n})\n```\n\nIf the run already has an active intercom bridge target, needs-attention notifications can also prepare a compact intercom ping for the orchestrator. When a child route is available, the ping tells the orchestrator which agent needs attention and includes the exact `intercom({ action: \"send\", to: \"...\" })` target for a nudge. Do not invent a target or ask the child to self-report when no bridge exists.\n\nSteering is acknowledged delivery, not a send attempt or model-compliance signal:\n\n```typescript\nsubagent({ action: \"steer\", id: \"abc123\", message: \"Focus on the failing test.\" })\n```\n\nThe action waits up to three seconds for the child Pi session to accept the correlated user input and returns a request id with `delivered`, `scheduled`, `pending`, `partial`, `recovered`, or `failed` plus per-child states. Indexed pending children return `scheduled` immediately. Only a top-level single-child run may automatically interrupt after a missed acknowledgment and recover after confirmed pause within a further 15 seconds. Recovery preserves the original child contract and only its remaining deadline, turn, and tool budgets. If the session is missing, a budget is exhausted, the pause cannot be confirmed, or replacement launch fails, the source remains paused when pausing succeeded and the action returns the exact failure. Chain, parallel, and nested runs never auto-interrupt; inspect their per-child outcomes and handle failures explicitly. A late acknowledgment is recorded and cannot cancel committed recovery.\n\n## Clarify TUI\n\nSingle and parallel runs support a clarification TUI when you want to preview or\nedit parameters before launch:\n\n```typescript\nsubagent({\n agent: \"worker\",\n task: \"Implement feature X\",\n clarify: true\n})\n```\n\nTool calls launch directly by default. Set `clarify: true` on single, parallel, or chain runs when you want the clarify UI. Clarify edits affect only the next run; use management actions, settings, or markdown files for persistent changes.\nFor programmatic background launches, use `async: true`. `clarify: true` keeps the run foreground for the clarify UI.\n\n\n## Worktree Isolation\n\nWhen multiple agents might write concurrently, use worktrees instead of letting\nthem share one filesystem view.\n\n```typescript\nsubagent({\n tasks: [\n { agent: \"worker\", task: \"Implement feature A\" },\n { agent: \"worker\", task: \"Implement feature B\" }\n ],\n worktree: true\n})\n```\n\n`worktree: true` gives each parallel task its own git worktree branched from\nHEAD. This requires a clean git state and is mainly for intentionally parallel\nwrite workflows. If you want one writer thread and several advisory agents,\nprefer a single-writer pattern instead.\n\n## The Oracle Workflow\n\nThe intended oracle loop is:\n1. the main agent forks to `oracle`\n2. `oracle` reviews direction, drift, assumptions, and risks\n3. `oracle` can coordinate back through `contact_supervisor` when the bridge injects it\n4. the main agent decides what direction to approve\n5. only then should `worker` implement\n\n```typescript\n// Advisory review in a branched thread. Oracle defaults to forked context.\nsubagent({\n agent: \"oracle\",\n task: \"Review my current direction, challenge assumptions, and propose the best next move.\"\n})\n\n// Implementation only after explicit approval. Worker defaults to forked context.\nsubagent({\n agent: \"worker\",\n task: \"Implement the approved approach: ...\"\n})\n```\n\n`oracle` is not a fresh-context reviewer in the Cognition article sense. It is\na forked advisory thread that inherits the parent session history and uses that\nhistory as a baseline contract.\n\nUse `oracle` as a smart-friend escalation when the parent needs help with trajectory rather than diff inspection: architectural boundaries, model capability routing, merge conflicts, reviewer disagreement, context drift after long work, a worker about to invent a pattern, or fixes that require product/scope tradeoffs. Ask broad questions when the right concern is unclear, and let `oracle` point out missing context or files the parent should inspect before asking again. Keep `oracle` advisory unless it has been explicitly assigned the single writer role.\n\n## Subagent + Intercom Coordination\n\n`pi-subagents` includes native supervisor coordination. Child agents can use `contact_supervisor` to ask the exact parent session that spawned them; messages are scoped by parent session id and should not appear in other Pi sessions.\n\nMost agents should not call generic `intercom` directly unless bridge instructions provide a target and `contact_supervisor` is unavailable. Do not invent a target. Prefer the tool from the injected bridge instructions.\n\nUse `contact_supervisor` with `reason: \"need_decision\"` when:\n- a subagent is blocked on a decision\n- a child needs clarification instead of guessing\n- an approval, product, API, or scope choice is required before continuing safely\n\nUse `contact_supervisor` with `reason: \"interview_request\"` when the child needs structured supervisor input rather than a freeform answer. The request waits for a parent reply, so the child should stay alive and continue only after the reply arrives.\n\nDo not use `contact_supervisor` just to resolve review-only/no-project-edit versus progress-writing or output-artifact instructions. The child must not modify project/source files, but returning findings through its normal response or configured output artifact is allowed unless the parent explicitly set `output: false`.\n\nUse `contact_supervisor` with `reason: \"progress_update\"` when:\n- a child is explicitly asked for progress\n- a meaningful discovery changes the plan\n- a long-running child needs to report a blocked/progress checkpoint without waiting for normal tool return flow\n\nMessage conventions:\n- `reason: \"need_decision\"` and `reason: \"interview_request\"` wait for the parent reply and return it to the child.\n- `reason: \"progress_update\"` is non-blocking and should stay concise.\n- Child-side routine completion handoffs are not expected. Native supervisor messages are for decisions, structured input, and meaningful progress updates while a child is still running.\n\nIf bridge instructions provide the child-facing tool, a child can ask:\n\n```typescript\ncontact_supervisor({\n reason: \"need_decision\",\n message: \"Should I optimize for readability or performance here?\"\n})\n```\n\nThe parent replies with the native supervisor tool:\n\n```typescript\nsubagent_supervisor({ action: \"reply\", message: \"Optimize for readability.\" })\n```\n\nOr inspects unresolved asks first:\n\n```typescript\nsubagent_supervisor({ action: \"pending\" })\n```\n\nIf no external `pi-intercom` tool owns the `intercom` name, native supervisor coordination may also expose `intercom` as a compatibility fallback. Prefer `subagent_supervisor` for parent replies because it never overrides installed `pi-intercom`.\n\nIf intercom messages do not show up, run `subagent({ action: \"doctor\" })` or `/subagents-doctor`.\n\n## Management Mode\n\nThe `subagent(...)` tool also supports management actions.\n\n### List available agents and chains\n\n```typescript\nsubagent({ action: \"list\" })\n```\n\n### Create an agent\n\n```typescript\nsubagent({\n action: \"create\",\n config: {\n name: \"my-agent\",\n package: \"code-analysis\",\n description: \"Project-specific implementation helper\",\n systemPrompt: \"Your system prompt here.\",\n systemPromptMode: \"replace\",\n model: \"openai-codex/gpt-5.4\",\n tools: \"read,grep,find,ls,bash\"\n }\n})\n```\n\n### Update an agent\n\n```typescript\nsubagent({\n action: \"update\",\n agent: \"code-analysis.my-agent\",\n config: {\n thinking: \"high\"\n }\n})\n```\n\n### Delete an agent\n\n```typescript\nsubagent({ action: \"delete\", agent: \"code-analysis.my-agent\" })\n```\n\n### Eject, disable, enable, and reset\n\n```typescript\n// Copy a bundled builtin/package agent to user scope as an editable custom file.\nsubagent({ action: \"eject\", agent: \"reviewer\" })\nsubagent({ action: \"eject\", agent: \"reviewer\", agentScope: \"project\" })\n\n// Hide an agent from runtime discovery without deleting it (reversible).\nsubagent({ action: \"disable\", agent: \"reviewer\" })\nsubagent({ action: \"enable\", agent: \"reviewer\", agentScope: \"project\" })\n\n// Delete the scope's custom agent file and/or settings override, restoring the bundled default.\nsubagent({ action: \"reset\", agent: \"reviewer\" })\n```\n\n`eject` copies a builtin or package agent verbatim into the user (default) or project agent dir so it can be customized without hunting package files; the copy shadows the original by runtime name. `disable` writes a reversible `agentOverrides.<name>.disabled: true` entry to the user or project settings file. `enable` removes that `disabled` field while keeping any other override fields. `reset` removes the scope's custom file and settings override to restore the bundled default, and refuses if no bundled default exists (use `delete` for purely custom agents). All four take optional `agentScope: \"user\" | \"project\"`; project overrides win over user ones, so target the project scope to undo a project-scope disable.\n\nUse management actions when the system needs to create or edit subagents on\ndemand without dropping into raw file editing.\n\nManagement actions create or update user/project agent files. `config.name` is the local frontmatter name; optional `config.package` registers and looks up the runtime name as `{package}.{name}`. Use the dotted runtime name for `get`, `update`, `delete`, slash commands, and chain steps. For small builtin changes such as a model swap, prefer `subagents.agentOverrides` in settings.\n\n## Creating and Editing Agents by File\n\nA minimal agent file looks like this:\n\n```markdown\n---\nname: my-agent\npackage: code-analysis\ndescription: What this agent does\nmodel: openai-codex/gpt-5.4\nthinking: high\ntools: read, grep, find, ls, bash\nsystemPromptMode: replace\ninheritProjectContext: true\ninheritSkills: false\nskills: safe-bash, review-checklist\nskillPath: ./skills, ../shared-skills\n---\n\nYour system prompt here.\n```\n\nThat is only a starting point. Omit `package` for the traditional unqualified runtime name. Common optional fields include:\n- `defaultProgress`\n- `defaultReads`\n- `output`\n- `fallbackModels`\n- `subagentOnlyExtensions`\n- `skills`\n- `skillPath`\n- `memory`\n- `maxSubagentDepth`\n- `acceptance`\n- `acceptanceRole`\n\n`acceptance` is a single-agent launch default. Use a scalar level such as `checked` or an inline/block YAML map such as `{ level: \"none\", reason: \"lightweight lookup\" }`. An explicit tool-call value wins; chain and parallel acceptance remains configured on the task or step. Management create/update accepts the same policy object, and `acceptance: \"\"` clears the frontmatter default (`false` remains the deprecated disabled-policy shorthand).\n\n`acceptanceRole` is `read-only` or `writer` and controls automatic acceptance inference only. Explicit task mutation or no-edit intent wins; otherwise the role replaces agent-name guessing. Omission preserves the current name heuristics. The field does not grant or revoke tools. Management accepts `false` or an empty string to clear it.\n\n`tools` is a strict child allowlist, not an extension loader. For a named extension tool, keep its registered name in `tools` and load its provider through normal Pi discovery, `extensions`, a path-like `tools` entry, or `subagentOnlyExtensions`. For example, pair `tools: read, fixture_search` with `subagentOnlyExtensions: ./tools/fixture-search.ts` when the provider should exist only in that agent's child sessions. The child now fails with the unavailable names and provider-loading guidance instead of silently continuing when a requested tool is absent; internal `structured_output` is allowed automatically when an output schema requires it.\n\n`skillPath` adds invocation-private skill files or discovery directories relative to the agent file; it does not select them, so list the desired names under `skills`. Local matches win, unresolved or unreadable matches use normal discovery, and local candidates never enter the parent/global catalog. Use `memory: { scope: \"project\" | \"user\", path: \"<name>\" }` for opt-in role-specific durable memory under the dedicated `agent-memory/` namespace; it is separate from parent/session project memory.\n\nFor many customizations, builtin overrides in settings are lower-friction than\ncopying a full builtin file.\n\n## Prompt Template Integration\n\nThe package includes prompt shortcuts for common workflows: `/parallel-review`,\n`/review-loop`, `/parallel-research`, `/parallel-context-build`,\n`/parallel-handoff-plan`, `/gather-context-and-clarify`, and\n`/parallel-cleanup`. Use them when the user wants repeatable review,\nreview/fix loops, research, context handoff, implementation handoff,","truncated":true,"truncatedBy":"bytes","totalLines":980,"totalBytes":78696,"outputLines":714,"outputBytes":51190,"lastLinePartial":false,"firstLineExceedsLimit":false,"maxLines":2000,"maxBytes":51200}},"isError":false,"timestamp":1784906232209}}
{"type":"message","id":"f014ce76","parentId":"fe4caf94","timestamp":"2026-07-24T15:17:16.294Z","message":{"role":"assistant","content":[{"type":"thinking","thinking":"Need continue reading skill lines 715 onward for chain format and prompt workflow info.","thinkingSignature":"reasoning"},{"type":"toolCall","id":"functions.read:28","name":"read","arguments":{"path":"/home/liph/.pi/agent/npm/node_modules/pi-subagents/skills/pi-subagents/SKILL.md","offset":715}}],"api":"openai-completions","provider":"ollama","model":"kimi-k2.7-code:cloud","usage":{"input":46437,"output":57,"cacheRead":0,"cacheWrite":0,"reasoning":0,"totalTokens":46494,"cost":{"input":0,"output":0,"cacheRead":0,"cacheWrite":0,"total":0}},"stopReason":"toolUse","timestamp":1784906232212,"responseId":"chatcmpl-22","responseModel":"kimi-k2.7-code"}}
{"type":"message","id":"a058ee8a","parentId":"f014ce76","timestamp":"2026-07-24T15:17:16.296Z","message":{"role":"toolResult","toolCallId":"functions.read:28","toolName":"read","content":[{"type":"text","text":"clarification, or cleanup-review patterns. `/parallel-review autofix` and\n`/parallel-cleanup autofix` synthesize reviewer feedback and then apply only the\nfixes worth doing now. Parent agents can also apply the same recipes directly\nwith `subagent(...)` when the user describes the workflow in natural language\ninstead of invoking a slash command.\n\nAdditional user prompt templates can delegate into `pi-subagents` through the native `/prompt-workflow` and `/chain-prompts` commands. This is useful when a slash command should always run through a particular agent or with forked context. Prompt frontmatter can set `subagent`, `model`, `skill`, `cwd`, `worktree`, `fresh`, `fork`, or `inheritContext` for the native adapter.\n\n## Extension RPC\n\nOther Pi extensions can call `pi-subagents` through the in-process event bus. The stable v1 channels are `subagents:rpc:v1:ready`, `subagents:rpc:v1:request`, and per-request replies at `subagents:rpc:v1:reply:<requestId>`. Envelopes use `{ version: 1, requestId, method, params }`, and replies use `{ version: 1, requestId, success, data | error }`.\n\nMethods: `ping`, `status`, `spawn`, `interrupt`, and `stop`. `spawn` is async-only and rejects management actions, `async: false`, or `clarify: true`; it reuses the normal executor, so discovery, validation, session attribution, configured spawn caps, child-safety depth, artifacts, and async status are shared with the `subagent` tool. `status` and `interrupt` map to the normal control actions. `stop` targets running async runs through the existing timeout control channel. `pi.events` is process-local, so separate Pi processes and child subagents need lifecycle artifact files or `pi-intercom` instead.\n\n## Important Constraints\n\n- **Forking requires a persisted parent session.** If the current session does not\n have a persisted session file, forked runs fail. Packaged `planner`, `worker`,\n and `oracle` default to forked context, so use `context: \"fresh\"` explicitly\n when that is not available or not wanted.\n- **Forked runs inherit parent history.** They are branched threads, not fresh\n filtered contexts. Use fresh context for adversarial reviewers unless the user explicitly asks for forked context.\n- **Default subagent nesting depth is 2.** Deeper recursive delegation is blocked\n unless configured otherwise.\n- **Attention signals are not lifecycle state.** `needs_attention` means no activity has been observed past the configured threshold. `paused` means the child turn was intentionally interrupted or is awaiting direction; it is not the same as `failed`.\n- **Intercom asks are blocking.** A session can only maintain one pending outbound\n ask wait state at a time.\n- **Keep conversational authority clear.** Advisory subagents should not silently\n become second decision-makers.\n\nRuntime config can change orchestration behavior. `asyncByDefault` and `forceTopLevelAsync` affect whether launches detach; `waitTool` can make direct `subagent_wait()` calls return immediately while headless auto-drain remains active, and its effective value is propagated to child runtimes; `globalConcurrencyLimit` bounds concurrent fanout, while a positive `maxSubagentSpawnsPerSession` optionally caps cumulative launches (`0` or unset is unlimited). Status and doctor report the budget; static work preflights declared capacity; only the settled root interactive parent can use `grant-spawn-budget` after native confirmation, with total grants bounded by the original cap. Compaction does not reset usage or grants; `singleRunOutputBaseDir` and `worktreeBaseDir` route outputs and worktrees; `completionBatch` groups async notifications. Per-run `artifacts: false` disables artifact capture for that launch. Async status and result artifacts are versioned with fields such as `lifecycleArtifactVersion`, `workflowGraph`, `steps`, `results`, `totalTokens`, `totalCost`, `turnCount`, `toolCount`, and nested `children`. Child protocol failures expose a structured `protocolError`; `protocol_output_limit` means a child emitted a JSONL line above the 4 MiB live-parser cap. Prefer these artifacts and `status` views over scraping terminal output.\n\n## Best Practices\n\n### Prefer async orchestration\n\nLaunch every subagent asynchronously by default. Use `async: true` for scouts, researchers, workers, reviewers, validators, oracle checks, one-off delegates, chains, and parallel groups unless you intentionally need a foreground/blocking run. The parent should keep moving: inspect code while scouts run, prepare validation while a worker implements, do a local diff pass while reviewers review, and synthesize or verify while a fix worker applies accepted feedback. Async is the default orchestration posture; foreground runs are the explicit opt-out.\n\n### Use subagent_wait() to block until async runs finish\n\nIn an interactive chat, do not call `subagent_wait()` merely to wait after launching background work; return control to the user and Pi will wake the session on completion. Override that default when the current request is run-to-completion — for example, the user asked you to stay with the task and report results back this turn or a skill must finish in one turn. In a headless run, Pi auto-drains exact current-session work at `agent_end`; call `subagent_wait()` when this turn must receive results before it ends. In either case, `subagent_wait()` blocks the current turn until the next run completes or needs attention, keeps the turn alive for normal notification delivery, then returns.\n\n- `subagent_wait()` — return when the next initially active async run or registered provider item finishes, or a subagent needs attention.\n- `subagent_wait({ all: true })` — block until every async run and provider item active at call time finishes, or a subagent needs attention.\n- `subagent_wait({ id: \"...\" })` — block on one async or remembered detached foreground run (id or prefix). Provider items are not selected through this parameter.\n- `subagent_wait({ timeoutMs })` — cap the block; active work keeps running if it elapses.\n\nProviders are discovered through the versioned `pi-subagents/background-work` registry and must return stable item IDs with exact owning session IDs. Child agents receive no provider automatically: keep `subagent_wait` in the child `tools` allowlist and load provider extensions through `extensions` or `subagentOnlyExtensions`.\n\nFor non-interactive fleet orchestration, `subagent_wait()` can keep N workers in flight: launch N, wait for the next completion, react to the result, launch a replacement if needed, then wait again. Use `subagent_wait({ all: true })` only when you intentionally want to drain the fleet to zero. If the turn ends first, headless `agent_end` auto-drain still waits for exact current-session work. In an interactive session, return to the user instead of holding the turn open just to await completion.\n\nIf config or `PI_SUBAGENT_WAIT_TOOL_ENABLED` disables blocking behavior, direct `subagent_wait` calls return immediately. Headless `agent_end` auto-drain remains active as a lifecycle safeguard and surfaces provider, reconciliation, or timeout failures.\n\n### Keep writes single-threaded by default\n\nA strong pattern is one main decision-maker plus advisory/research/review/validation subagents around it. Use `oracle` for advice and `worker` for the actual write path. Parallelize reading, review, validation, and synthesis support, not normal writes, unless you deliberately isolate writers with worktrees. A child that writes should report what changed, what was left undone, commands run with exit codes, validation evidence, surprises, and any decisions that need parent approval.\n\n### Use fork for branched advisory or execution threads\n\nForked runs are useful when the child should reason in a separate thread while\nstill inheriting the parent’s accumulated context. They are especially useful for\n`oracle`, which audits inherited decisions and drift. For adversarial code review,\nprefer fresh-context reviewers that inspect the repo and diff directly unless the\nuser explicitly requests forked context.\n\n### Prefer narrow tasks\n\nGive subagents specific tasks rather than vague mandates.\n`Review auth.ts for null-check gaps` works better than `Review everything`.\n\n### Escalate decisions upward\n\nIf a subagent encounters an unapproved product, architecture, or scope choice,\nit should use `contact_supervisor` and wait for the reply instead of deciding alone. Generic `intercom` is a fallback only when the bridge-provided supervisor tool is unavailable.\n\n### Intervene only on clear control signals\n\nUse subagent control proactively when a delegated run emits `needs_attention`, or when a human asks you to regain control. Do not interrupt just because a child has briefly produced no output. Silence can be normal during long tool calls, test runs, or model reasoning.\n\n### Name sessions meaningfully\n\nUse `/name` so intercom targeting stays stable.\n\n## Common Workflows\n\n### Recon → Plan → Implement\n\n```typescript\nsubagent({\n chain: [\n { agent: \"scout\", task: \"Map the auth flow and summarize relevant files\" },\n { agent: \"planner\", task: \"Plan the migration from {previous}\" },\n { agent: \"worker\", task: \"Implement the approved plan from {previous}\" }\n ]\n})\n```\n\n### Fable mode for complex work\n\nFable mode is the default orchestration posture for complex work. It is not a separate runtime mode; it is how the parent session uses `subagent`, `interview`, `subagent_wait`, acceptance contracts, artifacts, and fresh-context review when the work has real complexity. Use it for complex features, broad refactors, migrations, ambiguous goals, multi-system changes, expensive validation, user-visible behavior changes, or any request to plan/orchestrate end to end. Do not force it onto tiny one-shot delegation.\n\nRun the work through seven gated phases:\n\n1. **Understand** — use `scout` or `context-builder` fanout for breadth, but the parent personally reads the load-bearing files and lets direct source reading decide disagreements. Gate: the parent can quote the exact code or behavior being changed and knows the repo's verification harness.\n2. **Decide** — separate user-owned decisions from implementation judgments. Use `interview` for product, naming, cost, taste, or risk decisions; decide routine engineering details in the parent and state them. Gate: every user-owned decision needed for design is answered.\n3. **Design** — use `planner`, `context-builder`, or read-only design/review children for parallel perspectives. Before parallel workstreams, write seam contracts: ownership boundaries, composition points, assumptions, and validation handoffs. Gate: one parent-synthesized plan and written seams for parallel work.\n4. **Implement** — capture a baseline first, then launch one async `worker` as the sole writer for the active worktree unless isolated worktrees were intentionally requested. Break large work into serial milestones instead of concurrent writes. Gate: build/typecheck is green and every output or diff delta is characterized as intended or fixed.\n5. **Verify** — climb the spend ladder: static checks, free end-to-end/dry-run, cheapest live probe, targeted changed-path live test, then full realistic run when warranted. Observe the artifact itself, not only exit codes or scores, and confirm the changed code actually executed. Gate: the highest necessary rung has directly observed evidence matching intent.\n6. **Iterate** — when a gate or reviewer finds a defect, the parent names the failure class, searches for siblings, synthesizes fixes, and sends exactly one fix worker for accepted changes. For LLM judges, gates, or detectors, trigger on concrete findings rather than scores, record pass/violations/error verdicts, cache nondeterministic verdicts by input hash, budget enough output tokens, and sanitize judge text before reusing it downstream. Gate: the class is fixed or explicitly bounded, and recurrence detection exists when feasible.\n7. **Ship** — run adversarial fresh-context review/validation outside the implementation path, disposition every finding, rerun affected gates, then have the parent inspect the final diff. Commit, push, release, or open PRs only inside user-approved boundaries. Gate: findings are dispositioned, gates re-pass, and the final summary names evidence, artifacts, residual risks, and output paths.\n\n### Clarify → Plan → Implement → Review (self-orchestrated workflow)\n\nFor straightforward non-trivial work, this sequence is the lightweight version of the parent-owned loop. When the task is complex, use Fable mode above. In either case, factor in the packaged prompt workflows without literally invoking slash commands. Use the same patterns through tools and subagents.\n\nKeep builtin agent defaults unless the user explicitly asks for a different model, thinking level, skills, output behavior, context mode, or other override. Do not add overrides just because you are orchestrating; the defaults encode the intended role behavior. In particular, packaged `planner`, `worker`, and `oracle` default to forked context.\n\nWhen the user approves launching a subagent to carry out a plan or workflow, treat that as approval to generate a proper role-specific meta prompt for that subagent. Include the approved plan path or summary, clarified requirements, non-goals, relevant context, role boundaries, files or areas to inspect, acceptance criteria, expected output, and validation expectations. Do not pass vague instructions like “implement the plan fully” or “review this” by themselves.\n\n- `/gather-context-and-clarify` maps to: launch `scout` and, when needed, `researcher`; synthesize findings; then use `interview` to ask every clarification question needed for shared understanding.\n- `/parallel-review` maps to: launch fresh-context `reviewer` agents with distinct review angles; synthesize the feedback before applying anything.\n- `/review-loop` maps to: keep the parent in charge of worker → fresh reviewers → synthesized fix worker cycles until no fixes worth doing now remain, an unapproved decision appears, or the review-round cap is reached.\n- `/parallel-research` maps to: combine local `scout` context with external `researcher` evidence when current docs, ecosystem behavior, or API details matter.\n- `/parallel-context-build` maps to: run a chain-mode parallel group of `context-builder` agents with distinct temp output paths, then synthesize their context and meta-prompt sections.\n- `/parallel-handoff-plan` maps to: run external `researcher` plus local/strategy `context-builder` passes, then a synthesis `context-builder` that writes an implementation handoff plan and implementation-ready meta-prompt.\n- `/parallel-cleanup` maps to: use review-only cleanup passes after implementation, especially for simplicity, verbosity, and redundant tests.\n\nFor feature work, use this sequence as scaffolding for parent-agent behavior:\n\n```text\nclarify → validation contract → planner → async worker → parallel async fresh-context reviewers/validators → async fix worker → follow-up review when warranted → parent review\n```\n\nThe validation contract defines acceptance before code is written: expected behavior, acceptance checks, commands or user flows to exercise, and evidence the worker should return. Keep it lightweight for small tasks, but make it explicit enough that reviewers and validators are checking the intended outcome rather than the worker’s own assumptions.\n\nUse the structured `acceptance` field when the run should carry an explicit acceptance contract. If omitted, subagents infer an effective acceptance policy from role, mode, and risk. Use `level: \"checked\"` for ordinary writer evidence gates and `level: \"verified\"` when the runtime should run explicit validation commands. Do not explicitly request `level: \"reviewed\"`: the current run cannot supply an independent reviewer result, so that level is reserved for inferred policy. Orchestrate a separate reviewer instead. To disable gates, use `{ level: \"none\", reason: \"...\" }`; the bare string `\"none\"` is rejected, and `false` is accepted only as a deprecated shorthand. Do not call a run reviewed just because the worker says it is done; reviewed means a reviewer gate returned a result. Child-reported command success is evidence, not runtime verification.\n\nThe first `worker` implements the approved plan. The parent continues with independent inspection or validation prep while it runs, not parallel edits to the same worktree. When the async worker completes, treat its handoff as the transition into review, not as final completion, unless the user explicitly asked for worker-only work, review-only output, or to stop after implementation. Parallel reviewers inspect the resulting diff from fresh context. Validators check behavior with the best available evidence: commands, tests, browser/CLI interaction, screenshots, logs, or manual reproduction notes. The final `worker` applies synthesized review fixes in forked context, then the parent looks over the final diff before completing. The parent may launch these steps as an initial async chain when the workflow is already clear, or as follow-up subagent runs after each async completion. Initial chains should pass `async: true` so the main chat is unblocked; avoid `clarify: true` unless the user asked for foreground clarification. Do not stop after parallel review unless the user explicitly asked for review-only output or the review surfaced a decision that needs approval first.\n\nFor complex work, risky changes, broad refactors, or many changed lines, increase review and validation fanout rather than trusting one reviewer. Use distinct angles such as correctness/regressions, tests/validation, simplicity/maintainability, security/privacy, performance, docs/API contracts, and user-flow behavior. When reviewers find non-trivial issues or the fix worker touches many lines, run another focused review round before final validation.\n\nWhen review has already produced concrete findings across several independent areas, use staged fix orchestration: parallel read-only planners for each issue cluster, one sole writer worker for the active worktree, then parallel fresh-context validators. This is the safest way to handle a dirty worktree with many prior changes because it parallelizes judgment without parallelizing writes. Non-blocking suggestions may go into the writer prompt only if they are small, safe, and inside the approved scope; otherwise defer them explicitly.\n\nFor very large work, split into serial milestones instead of launching a swarm of writers. Each milestone gets one writer, a validation contract, fresh-context review/validation, a fix pass, and parent acceptance before the next milestone starts. Use parallel subagents inside a milestone for read-only context, research, review, and validation only.\n\nKeep orchestration authority in the parent session. Child subagents should not launch more subagents, read this skill, or run their own orchestration loops unless the parent intentionally selected a fanout agent whose builtin `tools` includes `subagent`. Spawned subagents do not receive the `pi-subagents` skill, parent-only status/control/slash messages, or prior parent `subagent` tool-call/tool-result artifacts. Ordinary children also do not receive the `subagent` extension tool. Child context filtering strips old hidden orchestration-instruction messages when they appear in inherited history. Every child receives a boundary instruction: ordinary children are told the parent owns orchestration and they must not propose or run subagents; explicit fanout children are told to use `subagent` only for the assigned fanout work, with `maxSubagentDepth` still enforced. Implementation children must call real edit/write tools instead of printing pseudo tool calls. Pass children concrete role-specific work instead.\n\n1. Clarify first. This is mandatory. Gather code context with `scout` or `context-builder`, add `researcher` only when external evidence matters, then ask the user clarifying questions with `interview` until scope, acceptance criteria, constraints, and non-goals are clear.\n2. Define the validation contract. State acceptance before implementation: expected behavior, checks to run, user flows to exercise, and evidence required in the worker handoff. For UI, CLI, integration, or workflow changes, include at least one validator angle that uses the product the way a user would rather than only reading code.\n3. Plan when useful. For complex work, call `planner` or write a plan doc yourself and get approval before implementation. For simple work, confirm shared understanding and explicitly note why planning is skipped.\n4. Implement with one writer. After approval, launch `worker` asynchronously with a proper meta prompt that includes clarified requirements, relevant context, plan path or summary, the validation contract, and output expectations. Packaged `worker` defaults to forked context; pass `context: \"fresh\"` only when you intentionally want a fresh child. While it runs, prepare validation or inspect adjacent code instead of editing the same worktree.\n5. Require a useful worker handoff. Ask the worker to report changed files, what was implemented, what was left undone, commands run with exit codes, validation evidence, surprises or new risks, decisions made inside approved scope, and decisions needing parent approval.\n6. Review after implementation. After the worker completes, launch parallel async fresh-context `reviewer` agents for correctness/regressions, tests/validation, and simplicity/maintainability. Add security, performance, docs/API, domain-specific, or user-flow validators for complex work, risky changes, broad refactors, or many changed lines. Use `output: false` unless review artifacts are explicitly needed.\n7. Synthesize, then run the fix worker. Separate blockers, fixes worth doing now, optional improvements, and feedback to ignore/defer, then launch an async forked `worker` to apply fixes worth doing now when the workflow is implementation-authorized. If reviewers found scope/product/architecture choices that were not approved, ask the user first instead of applying them.\n8. Review again when warranted. If the fix worker made substantial changes or addressed non-trivial findings, run another focused parallel review round before final validation.\n9. Validate and complete. After the fix worker and any follow-up review return, inspect the final diff yourself, run or confirm focused validation, update docs/changelog when relevant, and summarize what changed and why.\n\nExample implementation handoff after clarification and optional planning:\n\n```typescript\nsubagent({\n agent: \"worker\",\n task: \"Implement the approved feature.\\n\\nClarified requirements:\\n- ...\\n\\nPlan: see ~/Documents/docs/...-plan.md\\n\\nValidation contract:\\n- ...\\n\\nReturn a handoff with changed files, what was implemented, what was left undone, commands run with exit codes, validation evidence, surprises/new risks, and decisions needing parent approval.\",\n acceptance: {\n level: \"checked\",\n evidence: [\"changed-files\", \"tests-added\", \"commands-run\", \"residual-risks\", \"no-staged-files\"]\n },\n async: true\n})\n```\n\nExample review pass after implementation:\n\n```typescript\nsubagent({\n tasks: [\n { agent: \"reviewer\", task: \"Review the current diff for correctness and regressions. Inspect changed files directly; do not rely on the worker's reasoning.\", output: false },\n { agent: \"reviewer\", task: \"Review the current diff for tests and validation quality against the validation contract. Inspect changed files directly.\", output: false },\n { agent: \"reviewer\", task: \"Review the current diff for simplicity and maintainability. Inspect changed files directly.\", output: false }\n ],\n concurrency: 3,\n context: \"fresh\",\n async: true\n})\n```\n\nExample fix worker after parallel reviews:\n\n```typescript\nsubagent({\n agent: \"worker\",\n task: \"Apply the synthesized reviewer feedback below. Only apply fixes worth doing now; preserve user-approved scope; ask before unapproved product or architecture changes. Run focused validation and summarize what changed.\\n\\nReviewer synthesis:\\n...\",\n async: true\n})\n```\n\n### Review loop\n\nDo not treat review as the final step for implementation work. Run reviewers and validators, synthesize their findings against user scope and the validation contract, then launch one `worker` for accepted fixes when implementation is authorized.\n\nWhen an async implementation worker completes, treat the worker handoff as an intermediate state. The next parent action is review fanout, then synthesis, then a fix worker if reviewers found fixes worth doing now. This can be planned as an initial async chain when the whole workflow is known, or continued as follow-up subagent runs when the parent only launched the first worker initially. Initial chains should pass `async: true` so the main chat is unblocked; `clarify: true` is the explicit foreground opt-in.\n\nFor explicit review-loop requests, repeat worker → fresh-reviewer → synthesized-fix-worker cycles until reviewers find no blockers or fixes worth doing now, remaining feedback is optional or intentionally deferred, an unapproved product/scope/architecture decision needs the user, or the max review-round cap is reached. Default to 3 review rounds unless the user sets a different cap. For complex work, many changed lines, or any fix pass that materially changes the diff, run another focused review round before the parent’s final look; otherwise stop instead of chasing optional polish.\n\n### Parallel non-conflicting analysis\n\n```typescript\nsubagent({\n tasks: [\n { agent: \"scout\", task: \"Audit frontend auth flow\" },\n { agent: \"researcher\", task: \"Research current retry/backoff best practices\" }\n ]\n})\n```\n\n### Saved chain\n\n```text\n/run-chain review-chain -- review this branch\n```\n\nUse saved `.chain.md` or `.chain.json` workflows when the user wants a repeatable multi-agent flow without rewriting the chain each time. Prefer `.chain.json` for dynamic fanout or inline `outputSchema` objects; `.chain.md` remains the simple sequential/static authoring format.\n\n## Error Handling\n\n**\"Unknown agent\"**\n```typescript\nsubagent({ action: \"list\" })\n// Check available agents and chains, then confirm scope/precedence.\n```\n\n**Setup, discovery, or intercom confusion**\n```typescript\nsubagent({ action: \"doctor\" })\n// Check runtime paths, async support, discovery counts, current session, and intercom bridge state.\n```\n\n**\"Max subagent depth exceeded\"**\n```typescript\n// Flatten the workflow or raise maxSubagentDepth in config.\n```\n\n**\"Session manager did not return a session file\"**\n```typescript\n// Persist the current session before using context: \"fork\".\n```\n\n**Intercom \"Already waiting for a reply\"**\n```typescript\n// Resolve the current outbound ask before starting another one.\n```\n\n**Parallel output-path conflict**\n```typescript\n// Give each parallel task a distinct output path, or disable output for tasks that do not need it.\n```\n\n**Worktree launch fails**\n```typescript\n// Ensure the git working tree is clean and task cwd overrides match the shared cwd.\n```\n\n**Child fails before starting**\n```typescript\n// Inspect `subagent({ action: \"status\", id: \"...\" })`, artifact metadata/output logs, and run doctor. Extension loader errors usually appear in child output logs.\n```\n"}],"isError":false,"timestamp":1784906236296}}
{"type":"message","id":"72df77b4","parentId":"a058ee8a","timestamp":"2026-07-24T15:17:22.176Z","message":{"role":"assistant","content":[{"type":"thinking","thinking":"The skill says:\n- Additional user prompt templates can delegate into pi-subagents through native `/prompt-workflow` and `/chain-prompts` commands. Useful when slash command should always run through particular agent or with forked context. Prompt frontmatter can set `subagent`, `model`, `skill`, `cwd`, `worktree`, `fresh`, `fork`, or `inheritContext` for native adapter.\n- Saved chain `.chain.md` or `.chain.json`. `.chain.md` does not define agents. Chain steps can use templated variables.\n- `/run-chain review-chain -- review this branch` example.\n\nSo answer: plan to combine prompts into chains. We can use existing pi-subagents chain support or prompt-workflow/chain-prompts. Need maybe add chain definitions in `.pi/agent/chains/` that invoke the existing prompt templates through built-in adapter or subagent agents. Since current `.pi` has no chains directory, but `.pi_1` has examples. We need plan.\n\nWe need clarify: \"some of these prompt\" — which prompts? Could chain e.g. p-brainstorm -> p-plan -> p-refactor -> p-test -> p-commit (a feature pipeline). Or p-summarize -> p-plan -> p-test -> p-review. Need ask user? The instruction says ask when ambiguous. We have enough to plan generically perhaps. But open questions section can include which prompts to chain and how to hand off state. Since plan is for implementing chain support, not specific chain selection. We can propose two candidate chain recipes and ask. But the user asked for implementation plan. We can create a plan with assumptions, and open questions ask which recipes and mechanics.\n\nNeed ensure we don't write implementation code yet. Only plan.\n\nLet's inspect current `.pi/agent/settings.json` to see subagents config, models, etc.","thinkingSignature":"reasoning"},{"type":"toolCall","id":"functions.read:29","name":"read","arguments":{"path":"/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/agent/settings.json"}}],"api":"openai-completions","provider":"ollama","model":"kimi-k2.7-code:cloud","usage":{"input":52115,"output":404,"cacheRead":0,"cacheWrite":0,"reasoning":0,"totalTokens":52519,"cost":{"input":0,"output":0,"cacheRead":0,"cacheWrite":0,"total":0}},"stopReason":"toolUse","timestamp":1784906236299,"responseId":"chatcmpl-48","responseModel":"kimi-k2.7-code"}}
{"type":"message","id":"843b4181","parentId":"72df77b4","timestamp":"2026-07-24T15:17:22.178Z","message":{"role":"toolResult","toolCallId":"functions.read:29","toolName":"read","content":[{"type":"text","text":"{\n \"lastChangelogVersion\": \"0.81.1\",\n \"theme\": \"crew-dracula/crew-dracula\",\n \"packages\": [\n \"npm:pi-ollama-cloud\",\n \"npm:context-mode\",\n \"npm:pi-subagents\",\n \"npm:@a5c-ai/babysitter-pi\",\n \"npm:@juicesharp/rpiv-ask-user-question\",\n \"npm:@ff-labs/pi-fff\",\n \"npm:@demigodmode/pi-web-agent\"\n ],\n \"defaultProvider\": \"ollama\",\n \"defaultModel\": \"kimi-k2.7-code:cloud\",\n \"defaultThinkingLevel\": \"medium\",\n \"subagents\": {\n \"agentOverrides\": {\n \"scout\": {\n \"model\": \"ollama/minimax-m3:cloud\",\n \"thinking\": \"high\"\n },\n \"planner\": {\n \"model\": \"ollama/minimax-m3:cloud\",\n \"thinking\": \"high\"\n },\n \"worker\": {\n \"model\": \"ollama/kimi-k2.7-code:cloud\",\n \"thinking\": \"high\"\n },\n \"oracle\": {\n \"model\": \"ollama/minimax-m3:cloud\",\n \"thinking\": \"high\"\n },\n \"reviewer\": {\n \"model\": \"ollama/kimi-k2.6:cloud\",\n \"thinking\": \"high\"\n },\n \"researcher\": {\n \"model\": \"ollama/minimax-m3:cloud\",\n \"thinking\": \"high\"\n },\n \"context-builder\": {\n \"model\": \"ollama/minimax-m3:cloud\",\n \"thinking\": \"high\"\n },\n \"delegate\": {\n \"model\": \"ollama/minimax-m3:cloud\"\n }\n },\n \"modelScope\": {\n \"allow\": [\n \"ollama/minimax-m3:cloud\",\n \"ollama/kimi-k2.6:cloud\",\n \"ollama/kimi-k2.7-code:cloud\",\n \"ollama/gemini-3-flash-preview\"\n ]\n }\n }\n}"}],"isError":false,"timestamp":1784906242178}}
{"type":"message","id":"b3064c57","parentId":"843b4181","timestamp":"2026-07-24T15:17:28.845Z","message":{"role":"assistant","content":[{"type":"thinking","thinking":"The user has pi-subagents installed and custom ollama-* agents in `.pi_1` but not in `.pi`. They want to combine prompt templates into chains. Since `.pi` does not have chains, plan will create chain recipes under `~/.pi/agent/chains/` maybe. But prompt templates are not subagent agents. The skill mentions `/prompt-workflow` and `/chain-prompts` native commands to run prompt templates through subagent single/chain workflows. We might need create chain files that reference prompt templates via `subagent`? Actually `.chain.md` steps reference agents (builtin/custom), not prompt files. However, each prompt template could be turned into a subagent by frontmatter `subagent: true` or frontmatter fields (model, skill, etc.)? The skill: \"Additional user prompt templates can delegate into `pi-subagents` through the native `/prompt-workflow` and `/chain-prompts` commands. This is useful when a slash command should always run through a particular agent or with forked context. Prompt frontmatter can set `subagent`, `model`, `skill`, `cwd`, `worktree`, `fresh`, `fork`, or `inheritContext` for the native adapter.\" So there is a native adapter where a prompt template can act as a subagent. We might create `p-chain-*.md` prompt templates with frontmatter `subagent: true` etc., or define chains that use an agent `prompt-workflow`? We need understand `/prompt-workflow` and `/chain-prompts` commands. Maybe they are slash commands registered by pi-subagents extension. We can search package files for these commands. Let's explore pi-subagents package.","thinkingSignature":"reasoning"},{"type":"toolCall","id":"functions.bash:30","name":"bash","arguments":{"command":"find /home/liph/.pi/agent/npm/node_modules/pi-subagents -type f | head -100"}}],"api":"openai-completions","provider":"ollama","model":"kimi-k2.7-code:cloud","usage":{"input":52997,"output":390,"cacheRead":0,"cacheWrite":0,"reasoning":0,"totalTokens":53387,"cost":{"input":0,"output":0,"cacheRead":0,"cacheWrite":0,"total":0}},"stopReason":"toolUse","timestamp":1784906242180,"responseId":"chatcmpl-220","responseModel":"kimi-k2.7-code"}}
{"type":"message","id":"ab546e28","parentId":"b3064c57","timestamp":"2026-07-24T15:17:28.860Z","message":{"role":"toolResult","toolCallId":"functions.bash:30","toolName":"bash","content":[{"type":"text","text":"/home/liph/.pi/agent/npm/node_modules/pi-subagents/package.json\n/home/liph/.pi/agent/npm/node_modules/pi-subagents/node_modules/yaml/package.json\n/home/liph/.pi/agent/npm/node_modules/pi-subagents/node_modules/yaml/dist/compose/composer.d.ts\n/home/liph/.pi/agent/npm/node_modules/pi-subagents/node_modules/yaml/dist/compose/resolve-block-seq.js\n/home/liph/.pi/agent/npm/node_modules/pi-subagents/node_modules/yaml/dist/compose/resolve-block-map.js\n/home/liph/.pi/agent/npm/node_modules/pi-subagents/node_modules/yaml/dist/compose/util-contains-newline.d.ts\n/home/liph/.pi/agent/npm/node_modules/pi-subagents/node_modules/yaml/dist/compose/compose-scalar.js\n/home/liph/.pi/agent/npm/node_modules/pi-subagents/node_modules/yaml/dist/compose/util-empty-scalar-position.js\n/home/liph/.pi/agent/npm/node_modules/pi-subagents/node_modules/yaml/dist/compose/compose-doc.d.ts\n/home/liph/.pi/agent/npm/node_modules/pi-subagents/node_modules/yaml/dist/compose/resolve-flow-collection.d.ts\n/home/liph/.pi/agent/npm/node_modules/pi-subagents/node_modules/yaml/dist/compose/util-empty-scalar-position.d.ts\n/home/liph/.pi/agent/npm/node_modules/pi-subagents/node_modules/yaml/dist/compose/resolve-block-scalar.js\n/home/liph/.pi/agent/npm/node_modules/pi-subagents/node_modules/yaml/dist/compose/resolve-flow-scalar.js\n/home/liph/.pi/agent/npm/node_modules/pi-subagents/node_modules/yaml/dist/compose/resolve-props.d.ts\n/home/liph/.pi/agent/npm/node_modules/pi-subagents/node_modules/yaml/dist/compose/compose-scalar.d.ts\n/home/liph/.pi/agent/npm/node_modules/pi-subagents/node_modules/yaml/dist/compose/resolve-block-map.d.ts\n/home/liph/.pi/agent/npm/node_modules/pi-subagents/node_modules/yaml/dist/compose/util-map-includes.d.ts\n/home/liph/.pi/agent/npm/node_modules/pi-subagents/node_modules/yaml/dist/compose/resolve-block-seq.d.ts\n/home/liph/.pi/agent/npm/node_modules/pi-subagents/node_modules/yaml/dist/compose/resolve-block-scalar.d.ts\n/home/liph/.pi/agent/npm/node_modules/pi-subagents/node_modules/yaml/dist/compose/composer.js\n/home/liph/.pi/agent/npm/node_modules/pi-subagents/node_modules/yaml/dist/compose/util-contains-newline.js\n/home/liph/.pi/agent/npm/node_modules/pi-subagents/node_modules/yaml/dist/compose/resolve-props.js\n/home/liph/.pi/agent/npm/node_modules/pi-subagents/node_modules/yaml/dist/compose/util-flow-indent-check.js\n/home/liph/.pi/agent/npm/node_modules/pi-subagents/node_modules/yaml/dist/compose/compose-doc.js\n/home/liph/.pi/agent/npm/node_modules/pi-subagents/node_modules/yaml/dist/compose/compose-collection.d.ts\n/home/liph/.pi/agent/npm/node_modules/pi-subagents/node_modules/yaml/dist/compose/compose-node.js\n/home/liph/.pi/agent/npm/node_modules/pi-subagents/node_modules/yaml/dist/compose/resolve-end.js\n/home/liph/.pi/agent/npm/node_modules/pi-subagents/node_modules/yaml/dist/compose/compose-node.d.ts\n/home/liph/.pi/agent/npm/node_modules/pi-subagents/node_modules/yaml/dist/compose/util-map-includes.js\n/home/liph/.pi/agent/npm/node_modules/pi-subagents/node_modules/yaml/dist/compose/resolve-flow-collection.js\n/home/liph/.pi/agent/npm/node_modules/pi-subagents/node_modules/yaml/dist/compose/compose-collection.js\n/home/liph/.pi/agent/npm/node_modules/pi-subagents/node_modules/yaml/dist/compose/util-flow-indent-check.d.ts\n/home/liph/.pi/agent/npm/node_modules/pi-subagents/node_modules/yaml/dist/compose/resolve-end.d.ts\n/home/liph/.pi/agent/npm/node_modules/pi-subagents/node_modules/yaml/dist/compose/resolve-flow-scalar.d.ts\n/home/liph/.pi/agent/npm/node_modules/pi-subagents/node_modules/yaml/dist/doc/applyReviver.js\n/home/liph/.pi/agent/npm/node_modules/pi-subagents/node_modules/yaml/dist/doc/applyReviver.d.ts\n/home/liph/.pi/agent/npm/node_modules/pi-subagents/node_modules/yaml/dist/doc/createNode.js\n/home/liph/.pi/agent/npm/node_modules/pi-subagents/node_modules/yaml/dist/doc/anchors.js\n/home/liph/.pi/agent/npm/node_modules/pi-subagents/node_modules/yaml/dist/doc/directives.js\n/home/liph/.pi/agent/npm/node_modules/pi-subagents/node_modules/yaml/dist/doc/anchors.d.ts\n/home/liph/.pi/agent/npm/node_modules/pi-subagents/node_modules/yaml/dist/doc/directives.d.ts\n/home/liph/.pi/agent/npm/node_modules/pi-subagents/node_modules/yaml/dist/doc/createNode.d.ts\n/home/liph/.pi/agent/npm/node_modules/pi-subagents/node_modules/yaml/dist/doc/Document.d.ts\n/home/liph/.pi/agent/npm/node_modules/pi-subagents/node_modules/yaml/dist/doc/Document.js\n/home/liph/.pi/agent/npm/node_modules/pi-subagents/node_modules/yaml/dist/schema/json/schema.d.ts\n/home/liph/.pi/agent/npm/node_modules/pi-subagents/node_modules/yaml/dist/schema/json/schema.js\n/home/liph/.pi/agent/npm/node_modules/pi-subagents/node_modules/yaml/dist/schema/tags.js\n/home/liph/.pi/agent/npm/node_modules/pi-subagents/node_modules/yaml/dist/schema/common/seq.js\n/home/liph/.pi/agent/npm/node_modules/pi-subagents/node_modules/yaml/dist/schema/common/null.js\n/home/liph/.pi/agent/npm/node_modules/pi-subagents/node_modules/yaml/dist/schema/common/null.d.ts\n/home/liph/.pi/agent/npm/node_modules/pi-subagents/node_modules/yaml/dist/schema/common/map.js\n/home/liph/.pi/agent/npm/node_modules/pi-subagents/node_modules/yaml/dist/schema/common/string.d.ts\n/home/liph/.pi/agent/npm/node_modules/pi-subagents/node_modules/yaml/dist/schema/common/seq.d.ts\n/home/liph/.pi/agent/npm/node_modules/pi-subagents/node_modules/yaml/dist/schema/common/map.d.ts\n/home/liph/.pi/agent/npm/node_modules/pi-subagents/node_modules/yaml/dist/schema/common/string.js\n/home/liph/.pi/agent/npm/node_modules/pi-subagents/node_modules/yaml/dist/schema/types.d.ts\n/home/liph/.pi/agent/npm/node_modules/pi-subagents/node_modules/yaml/dist/schema/tags.d.ts\n/home/liph/.pi/agent/npm/node_modules/pi-subagents/node_modules/yaml/dist/schema/Schema.d.ts\n/home/liph/.pi/agent/npm/node_modules/pi-subagents/node_modules/yaml/dist/schema/core/schema.d.ts\n/home/liph/.pi/agent/npm/node_modules/pi-subagents/node_modules/yaml/dist/schema/core/int.js\n/home/liph/.pi/agent/npm/node_modules/pi-subagents/node_modules/yaml/dist/schema/core/int.d.ts\n/home/liph/.pi/agent/npm/node_modules/pi-subagents/node_modules/yaml/dist/schema/core/float.d.ts\n/home/liph/.pi/agent/npm/node_modules/pi-subagents/node_modules/yaml/dist/schema/core/bool.js\n/home/liph/.pi/agent/npm/node_modules/pi-subagents/node_modules/yaml/dist/schema/core/bool.d.ts\n/home/liph/.pi/agent/npm/node_modules/pi-subagents/node_modules/yaml/dist/schema/core/float.js\n/home/liph/.pi/agent/npm/node_modules/pi-subagents/node_modules/yaml/dist/schema/core/schema.js\n/home/liph/.pi/agent/npm/node_modules/pi-subagents/node_modules/yaml/dist/schema/Schema.js\n/home/liph/.pi/agent/npm/node_modules/pi-subagents/node_modules/yaml/dist/schema/json-schema.d.ts\n/home/liph/.pi/agent/npm/node_modules/pi-subagents/node_modules/yaml/dist/schema/yaml-1.1/schema.d.ts\n/home/liph/.pi/agent/npm/node_modules/pi-subagents/node_modules/yaml/dist/schema/yaml-1.1/set.js\n/home/liph/.pi/agent/npm/node_modules/pi-subagents/node_modules/yaml/dist/schema/yaml-1.1/omap.js\n/home/liph/.pi/agent/npm/node_modules/pi-subagents/node_modules/yaml/dist/schema/yaml-1.1/timestamp.js\n/home/liph/.pi/agent/npm/node_modules/pi-subagents/node_modules/yaml/dist/schema/yaml-1.1/set.d.ts\n/home/liph/.pi/agent/npm/node_modules/pi-subagents/node_modules/yaml/dist/schema/yaml-1.1/merge.js\n/home/liph/.pi/agent/npm/node_modules/pi-subagents/node_modules/yaml/dist/schema/yaml-1.1/pairs.d.ts\n/home/liph/.pi/agent/npm/node_modules/pi-subagents/node_modules/yaml/dist/schema/yaml-1.1/timestamp.d.ts\n/home/liph/.pi/agent/npm/node_modules/pi-subagents/node_modules/yaml/dist/schema/yaml-1.1/int.js\n/home/liph/.pi/agent/npm/node_modules/pi-subagents/node_modules/yaml/dist/schema/yaml-1.1/int.d.ts\n/home/liph/.pi/agent/npm/node_modules/pi-subagents/node_modules/yaml/dist/schema/yaml-1.1/float.d.ts\n/home/liph/.pi/agent/npm/node_modules/pi-subagents/node_modules/yaml/dist/schema/yaml-1.1/binary.d.ts\n/home/liph/.pi/agent/npm/node_modules/pi-subagents/node_modules/yaml/dist/schema/yaml-1.1/bool.js\n/home/liph/.pi/agent/npm/node_modules/pi-subagents/node_modules/yaml/dist/schema/yaml-1.1/bool.d.ts\n/home/liph/.pi/agent/npm/node_modules/pi-subagents/node_modules/yaml/dist/schema/yaml-1.1/omap.d.ts\n/home/liph/.pi/agent/npm/node_modules/pi-subagents/node_modules/yaml/dist/schema/yaml-1.1/float.js\n/home/liph/.pi/agent/npm/node_modules/pi-subagents/node_modules/yaml/dist/schema/yaml-1.1/binary.js\n/home/liph/.pi/agent/npm/node_modules/pi-subagents/node_modules/yaml/dist/schema/yaml-1.1/merge.d.ts\n/home/liph/.pi/agent/npm/node_modules/pi-subagents/node_modules/yaml/dist/schema/yaml-1.1/schema.js\n/home/liph/.pi/agent/npm/node_modules/pi-subagents/node_modules/yaml/dist/schema/yaml-1.1/pairs.js\n/home/liph/.pi/agent/npm/node_modules/pi-subagents/node_modules/yaml/dist/index.js\n/home/liph/.pi/agent/npm/node_modules/pi-subagents/node_modules/yaml/dist/log.d.ts\n/home/liph/.pi/agent/npm/node_modules/pi-subagents/node_modules/yaml/dist/util.js\n/home/liph/.pi/agent/npm/node_modules/pi-subagents/node_modules/yaml/dist/errors.js\n/home/liph/.pi/agent/npm/node_modules/pi-subagents/node_modules/yaml/dist/errors.d.ts\n/home/liph/.pi/agent/npm/node_modules/pi-subagents/node_modules/yaml/dist/parse/parser.d.ts\n/home/liph/.pi/agent/npm/node_modules/pi-subagents/node_modules/yaml/dist/parse/cst-stringify.js\n/home/liph/.pi/agent/npm/node_modules/pi-subagents/node_modules/yaml/dist/parse/cst.js\n/home/liph/.pi/agent/npm/node_modules/pi-subagents/node_modules/yaml/dist/parse/cst-visit.js\n/home/liph/.pi/agent/npm/node_modules/pi-subagents/node_modules/yaml/dist/parse/cst-visit.d.ts\n/home/liph/.pi/agent/npm/node_modules/pi-subagents/node_modules/yaml/dist/parse/parser.js\n/home/liph/.pi/agent/npm/node_modules/pi-subagents/node_modules/yaml/dist/parse/cst-scalar.d.ts\n"}],"isError":false,"timestamp":1784906248860}}
{"type":"message","id":"1d3b5fee","parentId":"ab546e28","timestamp":"2026-07-24T15:17:34.327Z","message":{"role":"assistant","content":[{"type":"thinking","thinking":"Let's find actual extension source files (dist).","thinkingSignature":"reasoning"},{"type":"toolCall","id":"functions.bash:31","name":"bash","arguments":{"command":"find /home/liph/.pi/agent/npm/node_modules/pi-subagents/dist -type f 2>/dev/null | head -50"}},{"type":"toolCall","id":"functions.bash:32","name":"bash","arguments":{"command":"find /home/liph/.pi/agent/npm/node_modules/pi-subagents -maxdepth 3 -type f | grep -v node_modules | head -50"}}],"api":"openai-completions","provider":"ollama","model":"kimi-k2.7-code:cloud","usage":{"input":55957,"output":98,"cacheRead":0,"cacheWrite":0,"reasoning":0,"totalTokens":56055,"cost":{"input":0,"output":0,"cacheRead":0,"cacheWrite":0,"total":0}},"stopReason":"toolUse","timestamp":1784906248862,"responseId":"chatcmpl-627","responseModel":"kimi-k2.7-code"}}
{"type":"message","id":"a18af15c","parentId":"1d3b5fee","timestamp":"2026-07-24T15:17:34.348Z","message":{"role":"toolResult","toolCallId":"functions.bash:31","toolName":"bash","content":[{"type":"text","text":"(no output)"}],"isError":false,"timestamp":1784906254348}}
{"type":"message","id":"547bbb1f","parentId":"a18af15c","timestamp":"2026-07-24T15:17:34.348Z","message":{"role":"toolResult","toolCallId":"functions.bash:32","toolName":"bash","content":[{"type":"text","text":"(no output)"}],"isError":false,"timestamp":1784906254348}}
{"type":"message","id":"d98fe157","parentId":"547bbb1f","timestamp":"2026-07-24T15:17:36.474Z","message":{"role":"assistant","content":[{"type":"thinking","thinking":"Maybe package is just skill and extension installed but not in node_modules? It is installed though. `find` with maxdepth maybe because path. Let's `ls`.","thinkingSignature":"reasoning"},{"type":"toolCall","id":"functions.bash:33","name":"bash","arguments":{"command":"ls -la /home/liph/.pi/agent/npm/node_modules/pi-subagents"}}],"api":"openai-completions","provider":"ollama","model":"kimi-k2.7-code:cloud","usage":{"input":56093,"output":66,"cacheRead":0,"cacheWrite":0,"reasoning":0,"totalTokens":56159,"cost":{"input":0,"output":0,"cacheRead":0,"cacheWrite":0,"total":0}},"stopReason":"toolUse","timestamp":1784906254350,"responseId":"chatcmpl-322","responseModel":"kimi-k2.7-code"}}
{"type":"message","id":"db6415f2","parentId":"d98fe157","timestamp":"2026-07-24T15:17:36.485Z","message":{"role":"toolResult","toolCallId":"functions.bash:33","toolName":"bash","content":[{"type":"text","text":"total 292\ndrwxr-xr-x 7 liph liph 4096 Jul 22 13:03 .\ndrwxr-xr-x 228 liph liph 20480 Jul 23 20:53 ..\ndrwxr-xr-x 2 liph liph 4096 Jul 22 13:03 agents\n-rw-r--r-- 1 liph liph 128942 Jul 22 13:03 CHANGELOG.md\n-rw-r--r-- 1 liph liph 52 Jul 22 13:03 index.ts\n-rwxr-xr-x 1 liph liph 2703 Jul 22 13:03 install.mjs\ndrwxr-xr-x 4 liph liph 4096 Jul 22 13:03 node_modules\n-rw-r--r-- 1 liph liph 2435 Jul 22 13:03 package.json\ndrwxr-xr-x 2 liph liph 4096 Jul 22 13:03 prompts\n-rw-r--r-- 1 liph liph 106519 Jul 22 13:03 README.md\ndrwxr-xr-x 3 liph liph 4096 Jul 22 13:03 skills\ndrwxr-xr-x 12 liph liph 4096 Jul 22 13:03 src\n"}],"isError":false,"timestamp":1784906256485}}
{"type":"message","id":"3e45f77c","parentId":"db6415f2","timestamp":"2026-07-24T15:17:42.608Z","message":{"role":"assistant","content":[{"type":"thinking","thinking":"There is src, prompts. Read README and prompts to understand prompt-workflow/chain-prompts.","thinkingSignature":"reasoning"},{"type":"toolCall","id":"functions.read:34","name":"read","arguments":{"path":"/home/liph/.pi/agent/npm/node_modules/pi-subagents/README.md","limit":300}},{"type":"toolCall","id":"functions.bash:35","name":"bash","arguments":{"command":"ls /home/liph/.pi/agent/npm/node_modules/pi-subagents/prompts"}}],"api":"openai-completions","provider":"ollama","model":"kimi-k2.7-code:cloud","usage":{"input":56494,"output":85,"cacheRead":0,"cacheWrite":0,"reasoning":0,"totalTokens":56579,"cost":{"input":0,"output":0,"cacheRead":0,"cacheWrite":0,"total":0}},"stopReason":"toolUse","timestamp":1784906256487,"responseId":"chatcmpl-480","responseModel":"kimi-k2.7-code"}}
{"type":"message","id":"ac7340f1","parentId":"3e45f77c","timestamp":"2026-07-24T15:17:42.623Z","message":{"role":"toolResult","toolCallId":"functions.read:34","toolName":"read","content":[{"type":"text","text":"<p>\n <img src=\"https://raw.githubusercontent.com/nicobailon/pi-subagents/main/banner.png\" alt=\"pi-subagents\" width=\"1100\">\n</p>\n\n# pi-subagents\n\n`pi-subagents` lets Pi delegate work to focused child agents. Use it for code review, scouting, implementation, parallel audits, saved workflows, background jobs, and anything else that benefits from a second or third set of model eyes.\n\nhttps://github.com/user-attachments/assets/702554ec-faaf-4635-80aa-fb5d6e292fd1\n\n## Installation\n\n```bash\npi install npm:pi-subagents\n```\n\nThat is the only required step. You can add optional pieces later.\n\n## Try this first\n\nYou do not need to create agents, write config, or learn slash commands. After installing, ask Pi for delegation in plain language:\n\n```text\nUse reviewer to review this diff.\n```\n\n```text\nAsk oracle for a second opinion on my current plan.\n```\n\n```text\nUse scout to understand this code based on our discussion then ask me clarification questions.\n```\n\n```text\nRun parallel reviewers: one for correctness, one for tests, and one for unnecessary complexity.\n```\n\nThat is enough to start.\n\n## What happens\n\nPi is the parent session. A subagent is a focused child Pi session with its own job.\n\nWhen you ask for a subagent, Pi starts the child, gives it the task, and brings the result back. Foreground runs stream in the conversation. Background runs keep working and can be checked later.\n\nInstalling the extension does not start an automatic reviewer in the background. It gives Pi a delegation tool. If you want every implementation reviewed, say that in your prompt or put it in your project instructions:\n\n```text\nWhen you finish implementing, run a reviewer subagent before summarizing.\n```\n\n## Good first prompts\n\nThese cover most day-to-day use:\n\n```text\nAsk oracle for a second opinion on my current plan. Challenge assumptions and tell me what I might be missing.\n```\n\n```text\nUse oracle to help solve this hard bug. Have it inspect the code and propose the best next move before we edit anything.\n```\n\n```text\nRun parallel reviewers on this diff. I want one focused on correctness, one on tests, and one on unnecessary complexity.\n```\n\n```text\nHave worker implement this approved plan. Afterward, run parallel reviewers, summarize their feedback, and apply the fixes that make sense.\n```\n\n```text\nRun a review loop on this change until reviewers stop finding fixes worth doing, with a max of 3 rounds.\n```\n\n```text\nUse scout to understand the auth flow, then have planner turn that into an implementation plan.\n```\n\nThose are ordinary Pi requests. Pi decides whether to call `subagent`, which agent to use, and whether a chain or parallel run makes sense.\n\n## Common workflows\n\n| Want | Ask naturally |\n|------|---------------|\n| Get a second opinion | “Ask oracle to review this plan and challenge assumptions.” |\n| Solve a hard problem | “Use oracle to investigate this bug before we edit.” |\n| Review a diff | “Use reviewer to review this diff.” |\n| Run parallel reviewers | “Run reviewers for correctness, tests, and cleanup.” |\n| Implement then review | “Implement this, then review it.” |\n| Review until clean | “Run a review loop on this change with a max of 3 rounds.” |\n| Execute a plan carefully | “Have worker implement this approved plan, then run reviewers and apply the feedback.” |\n| Scout before planning | “Use scout to inspect the auth flow before planning.” |\n| Run in the background | “Run this in the background.” |\n| Browse agents | “Show me the available subagents.” |\n| Use a saved workflow | “Run the review chain on this branch.” |\n| See running work | “Show active async runs.” or “Show the subagent fleet.” |\n| Check setup | “Check whether subagents are configured correctly.” |\n\nThe extension ships with builtin agents you can use immediately.\n\n## Builtin agents in plain English\n\n| Agent | Use it when you want... |\n|-------|--------------------------|\n| `scout` | Fast local codebase recon: relevant files, entry points, data flow, risks, and where another agent should start. |\n| `researcher` | Web/docs research with sources: official docs, specs, benchmarks, recent changes, and a concise research brief. |\n| `planner` | A concrete implementation plan from existing context. It should read and plan, not edit code. |\n| `worker` | Implementation work, including approved oracle handoffs. It edits files, validates, and escalates unapproved decisions instead of guessing. |\n| `reviewer` | Code review and small fixes. It checks the implementation against the task/plan, tests, edge cases, and simplicity. |\n| `context-builder` | A stronger setup pass before planning: gathers code context and writes handoff material such as `context.md` and `meta-prompt.md`. |\n| `oracle` | A second opinion before acting. It challenges assumptions, catches drift, and recommends the safest next move without editing. |\n| `delegate` | A lightweight general delegate when you want a child agent that behaves close to the parent session. |\n\nA simple rule of thumb: use `scout` before you understand the code, `researcher` before you trust external facts, `planner` before a bigger change, `worker` to implement, `reviewer` to check, and `oracle` when the decision itself feels risky.\n\n## Changing an agent's model\n\nBuiltin agents inherit your current Pi default model by default. This keeps new installs from depending on a provider you may not have configured. If you want every subagent without its own model to use a different default, set `subagents.defaultModel`. If you want a role to use a specific model, set an override instead of copying the bundled agent file.\n\n```json\n{\n \"defaultModel\": \"deepseek-v4-pro\",\n \"subagents\": {\n \"defaultModel\": \"deepseek-v4-flash\",\n \"agentOverrides\": {\n \"oracle\": {\n \"model\": \"deepseek-v4-pro\"\n }\n }\n }\n}\n```\n\nFor one run, put the override in the command:\n\n```text\n/run reviewer[model=anthropic/claude-sonnet-4:high] \"Review this diff\"\n```\n\nFor a persistent override, edit settings. This example pins the reviewer everywhere, adds a backup model for provider failures, and keeps the other builtins on your normal default model:\n\n```json\n{\n \"subagents\": {\n \"agentOverrides\": {\n \"reviewer\": {\n \"model\": \"anthropic/claude-sonnet-4\",\n \"thinking\": \"high\",\n \"fallbackModels\": [\"openai/gpt-5-mini\"]\n }\n }\n }\n}\n```\n\nUse `~/.pi/agent/settings.json` for a user override or the project config settings file (`.pi/settings.json` in standard Pi) for a project override. `subagents.defaultModel` applies to builtin, package, user, and project agents that do not set `model` in frontmatter. Per-run model overrides and `agentOverrides.<name>.model` still win, and explicit agent frontmatter still wins over the global default. The same `agentOverrides` block can change `tools`, `skills`, inherited context, prompt text, or disable a builtin. Matching user and project agents also receive override fields that their frontmatter leaves unset, so a shared project config agent can keep the persona while local settings choose the model.\n\nIf your provider rejects model IDs with thinking suffixes, set `subagents.disableThinking: true` in user or project settings. That clears bundled builtin thinking defaults in one place; an explicit higher-precedence `agentOverrides.<name>.thinking` value can opt a role back in.\n\nTo inspect what `pi-subagents` has actually loaded right now, use:\n\n```text\n/subagents-models\n/subagents-models reviewer\n```\n\nThat reports the live runtime mapping, which can differ from settings on disk until you reload Pi.\n\nYou do not have to spell a model exactly. Model ids are matched fuzzily against the registry, so provider separator variations (`anthropic/claude-sonnet-4`, `anthropic:claude-sonnet-4`, or `anthropic.claude-sonnet-4`), id separator variations (`claude-haiku-4.5` vs `claude-haiku-4-5`), case differences (`Claude-Sonnet-4` vs `claude-sonnet-4`), and optional trailing date stamps (`claude-haiku-4-5-20251001` or `claude-haiku-4-5-2025-10-01` vs `claude-haiku-4-5`) all resolve to the same model. Exact `provider/id` matches still win, and a qualified provider query never silently switches providers — it only matches within the named provider. Ambiguous bare ids that exist under multiple providers still require a provider prefix or the current session's provider to disambiguate.\n\n### Choosing a watchdog model\n\nThe subagent watchdog is not the `reviewer` subagent. `subagents.defaultModel` and `subagents.agentOverrides.reviewer` do not configure it. The watchdog is an opt-in adversarial change reviewer, so it should usually use a strong complementary model rather than a cheap/light model.\n\nThe watchdog reviews repo edits, not ordinary conversation. It runs at the safe `agent_end` boundary only when the current agent or child writer changed the final repo state since the start of that turn. Multiple edits in one turn are coalesced into one review of the final changed state, unchanged/reverted diffs are skipped, and generated `.pi-subagents/` or `tmp/` artifacts do not trigger review. In orchestrated runs, each writing child can review its own edited worktree, and the parent can still review the aggregate repo diff after child changes are applied.\n\nWhen the watchdog is enabled, it also checks changed TypeScript and JavaScript files for fresh language-server diagnostics before the model review. It auto-detects `typescript-language-server` from the project `node_modules/.bin` or `PATH`; it never installs tools or scans the whole workspace. LSP errors surface as watchdog blockers, warnings as concerns, and info/hints stay in status details. Slow or missing servers are reported in `/subagents-watchdog status` without blocking the turn or emitting late mid-turn warnings. Configure the bounds with `subagents.watchdog.lsp.enabled`, `timeoutMs`, `maxFiles`, and `maxDiagnostics`.\n\nUse `/subagents-watchdog recommend-model` to ask pi-subagents for the current strong pairing. The current recommendation policy is Opus 4.8 with thinking high or GPT 5.5 with thinking high. If your main session is using one, the watchdog should use the other when that model is authenticated.\n\n```text\n/subagents-watchdog recommend-model\n/subagents-watchdog session model recommended\n/subagents-watchdog model recommended\n```\n\n`session model recommended` changes only the current Pi session. `model recommended` saves the recommendation to `~/.pi/agent/settings.json`; it does not turn the watchdog on. Enable it separately with `/subagents-watchdog on` when you want the extra review pass.\n\nYou can also set the model explicitly:\n\n```text\n/subagents-watchdog model anthropic/claude-opus-4-8:high\n/subagents-watchdog model openai-codex/gpt-5.5:high\n/subagents-watchdog model inherit\n/subagents-watchdog check\n```\n\nFor settings files, use `subagents.watchdog.main.model` and `subagents.watchdog.main.thinking` for the main watchdog. If `main.model` is omitted, the main watchdog uses the current session model and thinking level. If `main.model` is set without a thinking suffix or `main.thinking`, it runs with thinking off, so prefer `:high` or `\"thinking\": \"high\"` for the strong-watchdog pairing.\n\n```json\n{\n \"subagents\": {\n \"watchdog\": {\n \"enabled\": true,\n \"main\": {\n \"model\": \"anthropic/claude-opus-4-8\",\n \"thinking\": \"high\"\n }\n }\n }\n}\n```\n\nFor child subagent watchdogs, use `subagents.watchdog.children.model` as the default child watchdog model, or `subagents.watchdog.children.overrides.<agent>.model` for a specific child role. Child watchdogs are still opt-in and follow the same edit-gated rule: read-only children do not trigger watchdog reviews, while writer children are reviewed at their own `agent_end` if their worktree changed.\n\nAgents can configure the same values through the tool when you ask them to set up the watchdog:\n\n```ts\nsubagent({ action: \"watchdog.recommend-model\" })\nsubagent({ action: \"watchdog.configure\", model: \"recommended\", scope: \"session\" })\nsubagent({ action: \"watchdog.configure\", model: \"recommended\", scope: \"project\" })\n```\n\nPersistent scopes (`user` or `project`) should only be used when you ask for a lasting default. Otherwise the agent should use `scope: \"session\"`.\n\nTo keep subagents inside a budget or compliance profile, enforce a model scope. Put `subagents.modelScope` in user or project settings (project overrides user):\n\n```json\n{\n \"subagents\": {\n \"modelScope\": {\n \"enforce\": true,\n \"allow\": [\"anthropic/*\", \"openai/gpt-5-*\"]\n }\n }\n}\n```\n\n`allow` is a list of glob patterns matched against the resolved `provider/id` (only `*` is special, case-insensitive). A resolved model that matches none of the patterns is rejected. Models you pass explicitly — the tool-call `model`, `--model`, or a clarify pick — error and abort the run. Models that come from agent frontmatter, `subagents.defaultModel`, or the inherited parent session model only warn, so existing configurations keep working while you tighten the scope. `enforce: true` requires a non-empty `allow` list; otherwise the config is rejected at load time.\n\n## Where running subagents show up\n\nForeground runs stream progress in the conversation while they run.\n\nBackground runs keep working after control returns to you. Inspect active runs with `subagent({ action: \"status\" })`, or a specific run with `subagent({ action: \"status\", id: \"...\" })`. `/subagents-fleet` opens a live, inspection-only fleet with current-session foreground work, recent async children, transcript tails, and completed output/session paths. Use `↑`/`↓` or `j`/`k` to select a child, `PgUp`/`PgDn` to scroll its transcript, `r` to refresh immediately, and `Esc` to close. `Ctrl+Alt+F` opens the same inspector even while a foreground turn is active and slash input is queued. Without a TUI, `/subagents-fleet` retains the textual `subagent({ action: \"status\", view: \"fleet\" })` fallback. Mutations stay in explicit commands: run `/subagents-stop` and pick from the selector, or use `/subagents-stop <run-id>` / `subagent({ action: \"stop\", id: \"...\" })` when you already know the id. To inspect one background child in text, use `subagent({ action: \"status\", id: \"...\", view: \"transcript\" })`; add `index` for a specific child in a parallel or chain run.\n\nThey also show a compact async widget and send completion notifications. Parallel background runs show per-agent progress instead of fake chain steps. Chains with parallel groups keep their grouped shape in progress and results, so failed or paused agents stay visible next to completed ones. When a child is explicitly allowed to fan out with `tools: subagent`, its nested runs appear under that parent child in the main status tree instead of being hidden inside the child process.\n\nYou can also ask naturally:\n\n```text\nShow me the current async runs.\n```\n\nAsync runs also write machine-readable lifecycle artifacts for observability and workflow gates. For a top-level async run, `details.asyncDir` points at a directory containing `status.json`, `events.jsonl`, `output-<index>.log`, and `subagent-log-<runId>.md`; the final summary is written to Pi's subagent results directory as `<runId>.json`. Nested async runs use the same shape under the nested async root and are discoverable through status projections that read the nested-run registry. These files are append/update artifacts only; interactive foreground behavior is unchanged.\n\nForeground and async runners share bounded child-protocol handling. A child JSONL line above 4 MiB fails with structured `protocolError` code `protocol_output_limit`, stderr retains only its latest 128 KiB, split UTF-8 and final unterminated JSON events remain valid, and `agent_end.willRetry` defers completion until the child settles. Current Pi builds use `agent_settled` as the terminal watermark; older builds retain the bounded terminal-message fallback.\n\nThe stable v1 status/result fields are `lifecycleArtifactVersion`, `runId`/`id`, `sessionId`, `mode`, `state`, `startedAt`, `lastUpdate`, `endedAt`, `durationMs`, `cwd`, `asyncDir`, `sessionFile`, `outputFile`, `workflowGraph`, `steps`, `results`, `totalTokens`, `totalCost`, `model`/`attemptedModels`/`modelAttempts`, `toolCount`, `turnCount`, and nested `children` when a child is allowed to launch subagents. `events.jsonl` records lifecycle transitions such as `subagent.run.started`, `subagent.step.started`, `subagent.step.completed`/`failed`/`paused`/`stopped`, control attention events, nested interrupt failures, and `subagent.run.completed`/`stopped`; run boundary events include the lifecycle artifact version. Consumers should read these JSON files instead of scraping terminal output; unknown fields and event types should be ignored for forward compatibility.\n\nOther Pi extensions can use the versioned in-process event-bus RPC instead of scraping slash output or calling internal modules. Listen for `subagents:rpc:v1:ready`, send requests on `subagents:rpc:v1:request`, and read replies from `subagents:rpc:v1:reply:<requestId>`.\n\n```typescript\nconst requestId = crypto.randomUUID();\npi.events.on(`subagents:rpc:v1:reply:${requestId}`, (reply) => {\n // { version: 1, requestId, success: true, data } or\n // { version: 1, requestId, success: false, error: { code, message } }\n});\npi.events.emit(\"subagents:rpc:v1:request\", {\n version: 1,\n requestId,\n method: \"spawn\",\n params: { agent: \"reviewer\", task: \"Review the current diff\", context: \"fresh\" }\n});\n```\n\nThe v1 methods are `ping`, `status`, `spawn`, `interrupt`, and `stop`. `status` and `interrupt` reuse the normal control actions. `spawn` is async-only: omit `async` or set `async: true`, omit `clarify` or set `clarify: false`, and do not pass management `action` values. It goes through the same executor as the `subagent` tool, so agent discovery, validation, session attribution, configured spawn caps, child-safety depth, artifacts, and async status all behave the same. `stop` targets current-session top-level async runs through the stop control channel and records a `stopped` lifecycle instead of reporting a timeout.\n\n`pi.events` is in-process only. It does not reach separate Pi processes or child subagents; use the file lifecycle artifacts or `pi-intercom` for cross-process coordination.\n\nIf something feels misconfigured, run:\n\n```text\n/subagents-doctor\n```\n\nor ask:\n\n```text\nCheck whether subagents and intercom are set up correctly.\n```\n\n## Recommended orchestration pattern (scaffolding)\n\nUse orchestration as parent-agent guidance, not as a runtime workflow mode. For implementation work, the recommended loop is:\n\n```text\nclarify → planner → worker → fresh reviewers → worker\n\n[1359 more lines in file. Use offset=301 to continue.]"}],"isError":false,"timestamp":1784906262623}}
{"type":"message","id":"3dbe8c9e","parentId":"ac7340f1","timestamp":"2026-07-24T15:17:42.624Z","message":{"role":"toolResult","toolCallId":"functions.bash:35","toolName":"bash","content":[{"type":"text","text":"gather-context-and-clarify.md\nparallel-cleanup.md\nparallel-context-build.md\nparallel-handoff-plan.md\nparallel-research.md\nparallel-review.md\nreview-loop.md\n"}],"isError":false,"timestamp":1784906262623}}
{"type":"message","id":"5f3429dc","parentId":"3dbe8c9e","timestamp":"2026-07-24T15:17:45.572Z","message":{"role":"assistant","content":[{"type":"thinking","thinking":"The package has `prompts/` with workflow prompt templates. These likely are the packaged slash commands (e.g. /parallel-review). They use frontmatter subagent fields. Read one of these prompts to see how they define chain.","thinkingSignature":"reasoning"},{"type":"toolCall","id":"functions.read:36","name":"read","arguments":{"path":"/home/liph/.pi/agent/npm/node_modules/pi-subagents/prompts/parallel-review.md"}},{"type":"toolCall","id":"functions.read:37","name":"read","arguments":{"path":"/home/liph/.pi/agent/npm/node_modules/pi-subagents/prompts/review-loop.md"}},{"type":"toolCall","id":"functions.read:38","name":"read","arguments":{"path":"/home/liph/.pi/agent/npm/node_modules/pi-subagents/prompts/gather-context-and-clarify.md"}}],"api":"openai-completions","provider":"ollama","model":"kimi-k2.7-code:cloud","usage":{"input":60901,"output":148,"cacheRead":0,"cacheWrite":0,"reasoning":0,"totalTokens":61049,"cost":{"input":0,"output":0,"cacheRead":0,"cacheWrite":0,"total":0}},"stopReason":"toolUse","timestamp":1784906262626,"responseId":"chatcmpl-636","responseModel":"kimi-k2.7-code"}}
{"type":"message","id":"2ca8e3c6","parentId":"5f3429dc","timestamp":"2026-07-24T15:17:45.580Z","message":{"role":"toolResult","toolCallId":"functions.read:36","toolName":"read","content":[{"type":"text","text":"---\ndescription: Parallel subagents review\n---\n\nLaunch parallel reviewers for an adversarial review of the current work.\n\nUse fresh context, not forked context, unless I explicitly ask for forked context. Reviewers should inspect the repository, relevant instructions, and current diff directly from files and commands. Do not rely on the main conversation history.\n\nGive each reviewer a distinct angle. Generate the angles dynamically from the user's intent, the plan, the implemented code, and the current diff. If I specify angles, use mine. Otherwise, choose the highest-value review angles for this specific work.\n\nThese are examples, not fixed defaults:\n\n1. Correctness and regressions\n Check whether the change satisfies the request, preserves existing behavior, handles edge cases, and avoids hidden runtime failures.\n\n2. Tests and validation\n Check whether tests or validation were added at the right layer, whether assertions are meaningful, and whether the chosen verification commands are enough.\n\n3. Simplicity and maintainability\n Check for unnecessary complexity, duplicate structure, single-use wrappers, brittle abstractions, confusing names, verbosity, and cleanup that is clearly worth doing.\n\nChoose or adapt angles when the work calls for it:\n- TypeScript-heavy changes: include type safety, source-of-truth types, casts, and error-boundary discipline.\n- UI-heavy changes: include UX, accessibility, copy, and visual quality.\n- Security-sensitive changes: include unsafe input/output handling, auth boundaries, privacy, and data exposure.\n- Docs-heavy changes: include clarity, accuracy, completeness, reader flow, and non-robotic prose.\n- Large multi-file changes: consider a fourth reviewer for structural friction, module boundaries, and testability.\n\nPrefer three strong reviewers over many vague reviewers.\n\nGive every reviewer a specific task prompt naming its angle. Ask reviewers to return concise, evidence-backed findings with file/line references and suggested fixes. The response should be review feedback, not a context summary. Reviewers must not edit files unless I explicitly ask for a writer pass.\n\nWhile reviewers run, do your own narrow inspection if useful. After they return, synthesize the feedback into:\n- fixes worth doing now\n- optional improvements\n- feedback to ignore or defer, with a short reason\n\nDo not blindly apply every reviewer suggestion.\n\nAutofix mode: if the invocation contains the exact word `autofix`, treat it as workflow control, not review scope. Remove it before deciding the review target. After synthesis, apply only fixes worth doing now, validate, and summarize. Do not apply optional improvements unless explicitly requested. If there are no fixes worth doing now, do not edit.\n\nWithout autofix mode, ask before applying fixes unless I already told you to address review feedback. When you ask, end with a compact numbered menu so I can respond with a number. Use wording suited to the findings, but include these choices when applicable:\n\n```text\nReply with [1], [2], or further instructions:\n[1] Apply only the fixes worth doing now.\n[2] Apply the fixes worth doing now plus optional improvements.\n```\n\nAdditional review target or focus from the slash command invocation:\n\n$@\n\nIf the invocation provides a URL, issue link, file path, plan path, or freeform focus, treat it as the primary review scope. Read or fetch that target before assigning reviewer angles, and pass the target explicitly into each reviewer task.\n"}],"isError":false,"timestamp":1784906265580}}
{"type":"message","id":"c826f973","parentId":"2ca8e3c6","timestamp":"2026-07-24T15:17:45.580Z","message":{"role":"toolResult","toolCallId":"functions.read:37","toolName":"read","content":[{"type":"text","text":"---\ndescription: Review/fix loop until clean\n---\n\nRun a parent-orchestrated review loop for the requested work.\n\nUse the `subagent` tool. Keep the parent session as the loop controller and final decision-maker. Child subagents must receive concrete role-specific tasks; they must not run subagents or manage the loop themselves unless the parent intentionally selected an explicit fanout agent whose builtin `tools` includes `subagent` for that assigned fanout.\n\nDefault to a maximum of 3 review rounds unless I specify a different cap. Count a review round each time fresh-context reviewers inspect the current diff after a worker pass. Stop early when reviewers find no blockers or fixes worth doing now.\n\nIf the invocation includes an implementation request, first launch one async `worker` to implement the approved scope. If the current diff is already the target, start with review. The sequence can be launched up front as an async/background chain when the workflow is already clear, or continued as follow-up subagent runs after each async completion. For an initial chain, pass `async: true` so the main chat is unblocked; do not set `clarify: true` unless I explicitly want the foreground clarify UI. Use only one writer against the active worktree at a time unless I explicitly ask for isolated worktrees.\n\nAs a conservative orchestration policy, do not set `turnBudget` or a hard `toolBudget` on implementation or fix workers. A default tool budget blocks read/search tools rather than mutation tools, but count limits still do not measure delivery safety. Give each writer a narrow delivery slice and an outer elapsed deadline with enough margin. Before that deadline, request a checkpoint after the current tool returns with changed files, build/test state, remaining work, and commit or PR state. An elapsed timeout is not a mutation-safe boundary and must not be the checkpoint trigger.\n\nFor each review round, launch fresh-context `reviewer` agents in parallel. Reviewers must inspect the repository, relevant instructions, and current diff directly from files and commands. They must not rely on the main conversation history and must not edit files.\n\nChoose review angles from the actual change. Common angles are correctness/regressions, tests/validation, and simplicity/maintainability. Add security, performance, docs/API contracts, or user-flow validation when the work calls for it. Prefer three strong reviewers over many vague reviewers.\n\nAfter reviewers return, synthesize their feedback into:\n- blockers or scope/product/architecture decisions that need user approval;\n- fixes worth doing now;\n- optional improvements;\n- feedback to ignore or defer, with a short reason.\n\nDo not blindly apply every reviewer suggestion. If reviewers surface an unapproved product, scope, or architecture decision, pause and ask me before launching a fix worker.\n\nWhen an async implementation worker completes, treat its handoff as the transition into review, not as final completion, unless I explicitly asked for worker-only work, review-only output, or to stop after implementation.\n\nWhen there are fixes worth doing now and the workflow is implementation-authorized, launch one async forked `worker` without hard turn or tool-call caps to apply only those synthesized fixes. Ask it to preserve the approved scope, run focused validation, and report changed files, commands run with exit codes, validation evidence, surprises, and anything left undone.\n\nAfter a fix worker returns, run another review round only when it made material changes or addressed non-trivial findings. Do not keep looping for optional polish, speculative improvements, or findings already deferred by the parent.\n\nStop and summarize when one of these is true:\n- reviewers find no blockers or fixes worth doing now;\n- remaining feedback is optional, speculative, or intentionally deferred;\n- reviewers surface an unapproved decision that needs me;\n- the max review-round cap is reached.\n\nOn completion, inspect the final diff yourself, run or confirm focused validation where appropriate, and summarize the loop: rounds run, fixes applied, validation, remaining deferred items, and why the loop stopped.\n\nAdditional target, implementation request, max-iteration cap, or review focus from the slash command invocation:\n\n$@\n"}],"isError":false,"timestamp":1784906265580}}
{"type":"message","id":"4fc9480e","parentId":"c826f973","timestamp":"2026-07-24T15:17:45.580Z","message":{"role":"toolResult","toolCallId":"functions.read:38","toolName":"read","content":[{"type":"text","text":"---\ndescription: Use subagents to gather context, then ask clarifying questions\n---\n\nBased on our discussion and my intent, launch focused context-gathering subagents before planning or implementing.\n\nUse `scout` to inspect the relevant local files, existing patterns, constraints, tests, and likely integration points. Use `researcher` when external docs, recent sources, ecosystem context, or primary evidence would improve the answer.\n\nGive each subagent a specific meta prompt. Ask them to return concise findings plus the remaining clarification questions that matter for implementation confidence.\n\nAfter they return, synthesize what we know and use the `interview` tool to ask me the unresolved questions needed to reach a shared understanding.\n\n$@\n"}],"isError":false,"timestamp":1784906265580}}
{"type":"message","id":"2fc844b3","parentId":"4fc9480e","timestamp":"2026-07-24T15:17:50.439Z","message":{"role":"assistant","content":[{"type":"thinking","thinking":"These prompt templates don't use frontmatter subagent fields; they are instructions to the parent agent to call subagent tool with workflows. The skill says prompt frontmatter can set `subagent`, `model`, etc. Maybe a newer version. But for now, the existing package uses plain prompt templates that tell parent to orchestrate.\n\nUser's prompt library `p-*.md` are simple slash prompts. They want to combine some prompts into a chain. There are a few ways:\n\n1. Create a new meta-prompt template (e.g. `p-design-chain.md`) that instructs the parent to run p-brainstorm, then p-plan, etc., sequentially in the same conversation. Since prompt templates just expand, chaining means manually invoking each or writing a meta prompt. Could create a chain prompt that says \"Run the following sequence of prompts as separate subagent steps: ...\" But these p-* prompts are not subagents. Could convert them into subagent agents or chain definitions.\n\n2. Use pi-subagents saved chains (`~/.pi/agent/chains/*.chain.md`) that invoke builtin subagents (scout/planner/worker/reviewer) for end-to-end workflows, which already exist. But those are not the p-* prompts.\n\n3. Combine prompt templates via `/chain-prompts` command (if extension supports). Maybe there is a native adapter that can run a chain of prompt templates. The skill says prompt frontmatter can set `subagent`, `model`, etc. for the native adapter. Maybe each prompt template can be invoked as a subagent task. But no examples in the package. We need perhaps look at extension source for `/chain-prompts`.","thinkingSignature":"reasoning"},{"type":"toolCall","id":"functions.ffgrep:39","name":"ffgrep","arguments":{"pattern":"chain-prompts|prompt-workflow","path":"/home/liph/.pi/agent/npm/node_modules/pi-subagents/src","limit":20}}],"api":"openai-completions","provider":"ollama","model":"kimi-k2.7-code:cloud","usage":{"input":62746,"output":392,"cacheRead":0,"cacheWrite":0,"reasoning":0,"totalTokens":63138,"cost":{"input":0,"output":0,"cacheRead":0,"cacheWrite":0,"total":0}},"stopReason":"toolUse","timestamp":1784906265582,"responseId":"chatcmpl-680","responseModel":"kimi-k2.7-code"}}
{"type":"message","id":"6c568e51","parentId":"2fc844b3","timestamp":"2026-07-24T15:17:50.499Z","message":{"role":"toolResult","toolCallId":"functions.ffgrep:39","toolName":"ffgrep","content":[{"type":"text","text":"slash/prompt-workflows.ts\n 27: \"chain-prompts\",\n 28: \"prompt-workflow\",\n 269: pi.registerCommand(\"prompt-workflow\", {\n 270: description: \"Run a prompt template through native pi-subagents: /prompt-workflow <name> [args]\",\n 303: pi.registerCommand(\"chain-prompts\", {\n 304: description: \"Run prompt templates as a native subagent chain: /chain-prompts analyze -> fix -- args\",\n 315: ctx.ui.notify(\"Usage: /chain-prompts prompt-a -> prompt-b -- args\", \"error\");\n\nslash/slash-commands.ts\n 26: import { registerPromptWorkflowCommands } from \"./prompt-workflows.ts\";"}],"details":{"totalMatched":8,"totalFiles":126},"isError":false,"timestamp":1784906270499}}
{"type":"message","id":"1a24a5eb","parentId":"6c568e51","timestamp":"2026-07-24T15:17:53.115Z","message":{"role":"assistant","content":[{"type":"thinking","thinking":"Great! Need read prompt-workflows.ts to understand how chain-prompts works and frontmatter fields.","thinkingSignature":"reasoning"},{"type":"toolCall","id":"functions.read:40","name":"read","arguments":{"path":"/home/liph/.pi/agent/npm/node_modules/pi-subagents/src/slash/prompt-workflows.ts"}}],"api":"openai-completions","provider":"ollama","model":"kimi-k2.7-code:cloud","usage":{"input":63302,"output":57,"cacheRead":0,"cacheWrite":0,"reasoning":0,"totalTokens":63359,"cost":{"input":0,"output":0,"cacheRead":0,"cacheWrite":0,"total":0}},"stopReason":"toolUse","timestamp":1784906270501,"responseId":"chatcmpl-625","responseModel":"kimi-k2.7-code"}}
{"type":"message","id":"3e085e40","parentId":"1a24a5eb","timestamp":"2026-07-24T15:17:53.116Z","message":{"role":"toolResult","toolCallId":"functions.read:40","toolName":"read","content":[{"type":"text","text":"import * as fs from \"node:fs\";\nimport * as path from \"node:path\";\nimport { fileURLToPath } from \"node:url\";\nimport type { ExtensionAPI, ExtensionContext } from \"@earendil-works/pi-coding-agent\";\nimport { parseFrontmatter } from \"../agents/frontmatter.ts\";\nimport type { SubagentParamsLike } from \"../runs/foreground/subagent-executor.ts\";\nimport type { ChainStep } from \"../shared/settings.ts\";\nimport { getAgentDir, getProjectConfigDir } from \"../shared/utils.ts\";\n\ninterface PromptWorkflow {\n\tname: string;\n\tdescription: string;\n\tbody: string;\n\tfilePath: string;\n\tagent: string;\n\tcontext?: \"fresh\" | \"fork\";\n\tmodel?: string;\n\tskill?: string | string[] | false;\n\tcwd?: string;\n\tworktree?: boolean;\n\tchain?: string;\n}\n\ntype PromptWorkflowRunner = (params: SubagentParamsLike, ctx: ExtensionContext) => Promise<void>;\n\nconst RESERVED_COMMAND_NAMES = new Set([\n\t\"chain-prompts\",\n\t\"prompt-workflow\",\n\t\"run\",\n\t\"chain\",\n\t\"parallel\",\n\t\"run-chain\",\n\t\"subagents-doctor\",\n\t\"subagents-models\",\n]);\n\nfunction packagePromptsDir(): string {\n\treturn path.resolve(path.dirname(fileURLToPath(import.meta.url)), \"..\", \"..\", \"prompts\");\n}\n\nfunction promptDirs(cwd: string): string[] {\n\treturn [\n\t\tpackagePromptsDir(),\n\t\tpath.join(getAgentDir(), \"prompts\"),\n\t\tpath.join(getProjectConfigDir(cwd), \"prompts\"),\n\t];\n}\n\nfunction readPromptFiles(cwd: string): string[] {\n\tconst files: string[] = [];\n\tfor (const dir of promptDirs(cwd)) {\n\t\tlet entries: fs.Dirent[];\n\t\ttry {\n\t\t\tentries = fs.readdirSync(dir, { withFileTypes: true });\n\t\t} catch {\n\t\t\tcontinue;\n\t\t}\n\t\tfor (const entry of entries) {\n\t\t\tif (entry.isFile() && entry.name.endsWith(\".md\")) files.push(path.join(dir, entry.name));\n\t\t}\n\t}\n\treturn files;\n}\n\nfunction firstNonEmptyLine(value: string): string {\n\treturn value.split(/\\r?\\n/).map((line) => line.trim()).find(Boolean) ?? \"Prompt workflow\";\n}\n\nfunction stringField(frontmatter: Record<string, string>, key: string): string | undefined {\n\tconst value = frontmatter[key]?.trim();\n\treturn value ? value : undefined;\n}\n\nfunction booleanField(frontmatter: Record<string, string>, key: string): boolean | undefined {\n\tconst value = frontmatter[key]?.trim().toLowerCase();\n\tif (value === \"true\" || value === \"yes\" || value === \"1\") return true;\n\tif (value === \"false\" || value === \"no\" || value === \"0\") return false;\n\treturn undefined;\n}\n\nfunction parseSkill(value: string | undefined): string | string[] | false | undefined {\n\tif (!value) return undefined;\n\tif (value === \"false\") return false;\n\tconst parts = value.split(\",\").map((part) => part.trim()).filter(Boolean);\n\treturn parts.length > 1 ? parts : parts[0];\n}\n\nfunction parseAgent(frontmatter: Record<string, string>): string {\n\tconst subagent = stringField(frontmatter, \"subagent\");\n\tif (!subagent || subagent === \"true\") return \"delegate\";\n\treturn subagent;\n}\n\nfunction loadPromptWorkflow(filePath: string): PromptWorkflow | undefined {\n\tconst content = fs.readFileSync(filePath, \"utf-8\");\n\tconst { frontmatter, body } = parseFrontmatter(content);\n\tconst name = path.basename(filePath, \".md\");\n\tif (!name || RESERVED_COMMAND_NAMES.has(name)) return undefined;\n\tconst model = stringField(frontmatter, \"model\");\n\tconst skill = parseSkill(stringField(frontmatter, \"skill\"));\n\tconst cwd = stringField(frontmatter, \"cwd\");\n\tconst chain = stringField(frontmatter, \"chain\");\n\treturn {\n\t\tname,\n\t\tdescription: stringField(frontmatter, \"description\") ?? firstNonEmptyLine(body),\n\t\tbody,\n\t\tfilePath,\n\t\tagent: parseAgent(frontmatter),\n\t\t...(booleanField(frontmatter, \"inheritContext\") === true || booleanField(frontmatter, \"fork\") === true ? { context: \"fork\" as const } : {}),\n\t\t...(booleanField(frontmatter, \"fresh\") === true ? { context: \"fresh\" as const } : {}),\n\t\t...(model ? { model } : {}),\n\t\t...(skill !== undefined ? { skill } : {}),\n\t\t...(cwd ? { cwd } : {}),\n\t\t...(booleanField(frontmatter, \"worktree\") === true ? { worktree: true } : {}),\n\t\t...(chain ? { chain } : {}),\n\t};\n}\n\nexport function discoverPromptWorkflows(cwd: string): PromptWorkflow[] {\n\tconst workflows = new Map<string, PromptWorkflow>();\n\tfor (const file of readPromptFiles(cwd)) {\n\t\tconst workflow = loadPromptWorkflow(file);\n\t\tif (workflow) workflows.set(workflow.name, workflow);\n\t}\n\treturn [...workflows.values()].sort((a, b) => a.name.localeCompare(b.name));\n}\n\nfunction shellWords(input: string): string[] {\n\tconst words: string[] = [];\n\tlet current = \"\";\n\tlet quote: \"'\" | '\"' | undefined;\n\tlet escaped = false;\n\tfor (const ch of input) {\n\t\tif (escaped) {\n\t\t\tcurrent += ch;\n\t\t\tescaped = false;\n\t\t\tcontinue;\n\t\t}\n\t\tif (ch === \"\\\\\") {\n\t\t\tescaped = true;\n\t\t\tcontinue;\n\t\t}\n\t\tif (quote) {\n\t\t\tif (ch === quote) quote = undefined;\n\t\t\telse current += ch;\n\t\t\tcontinue;\n\t\t}\n\t\tif (ch === \"'\" || ch === '\"') {\n\t\t\tquote = ch;\n\t\t\tcontinue;\n\t\t}\n\t\tif (/\\s/.test(ch)) {\n\t\t\tif (current) {\n\t\t\t\twords.push(current);\n\t\t\t\tcurrent = \"\";\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t\tcontinue;\n\t\t}\n\t\tcurrent += ch;\n\t}\n\tif (current) words.push(current);\n\treturn words;\n}\n\nfunction substituteArgs(template: string, args: string[]): string {\n\tconst all = args.join(\" \");\n\treturn template\n\t\t.replace(/\\$ARGUMENTS/g, all)\n\t\t.replace(/\\$@/g, all)\n\t\t.replace(/\\$\\{(\\d+):-([^}]*)\\}/g, (_match, index: string, fallback: string) => args[Number(index) - 1] || fallback)\n\t\t.replace(/\\$(\\d+)/g, (_match, index: string) => args[Number(index) - 1] ?? \"\");\n}\n\nfunction parseRuntimeOptions(words: string[]): { args: string[]; agentOverride?: string; fork?: boolean; fresh?: boolean; worktree?: boolean; bg?: boolean } {\n\tconst args: string[] = [];\n\tlet agentOverride: string | undefined;\n\tlet fork = false;\n\tlet fresh = false;\n\tlet worktree = false;\n\tlet bg = false;\n\tfor (let i = 0; i < words.length; i++) {\n\t\tconst word = words[i]!;\n\t\tif (word === \"--fork\") {\n\t\t\tfork = true;\n\t\t\tcontinue;\n\t\t}\n\t\tif (word === \"--fresh\") {\n\t\t\tfresh = true;\n\t\t\tcontinue;\n\t\t}\n\t\tif (word === \"--worktree\") {\n\t\t\tworktree = true;\n\t\t\tcontinue;\n\t\t}\n\t\tif (word === \"--bg\" || word === \"--async\") {\n\t\t\tbg = true;\n\t\t\tcontinue;\n\t\t}\n\t\tif (word === \"--subagent\") {\n\t\t\tagentOverride = words[++i];\n\t\t\tcontinue;\n\t\t}\n\t\tconst eq = word.match(/^--subagent(?:=|:)(.+)$/);\n\t\tif (eq) {\n\t\t\tagentOverride = eq[1];\n\t\t\tcontinue;\n\t\t}\n\t\targs.push(word);\n\t}\n\treturn { args, agentOverride, fork, fresh, worktree, bg };\n}\n\nfunction splitChainDeclaration(input: string): { declaration: string; argsText: string } {\n\tconst delimiter = input.indexOf(\" -- \");\n\tif (delimiter === -1) return { declaration: input.trim(), argsText: \"\" };\n\treturn { declaration: input.slice(0, delimiter).trim(), argsText: input.slice(delimiter + 4).trim() };\n}\n\nfunction splitPromptChain(input: string): string[] {\n\treturn input.split(\" -> \").map((part) => part.trim()).filter(Boolean);\n}\n\nfunction workflowParams(workflow: PromptWorkflow, args: string[], runtime: ReturnType<typeof parseRuntimeOptions>): SubagentParamsLike {\n\tconst task = substituteArgs(workflow.body, args).trim();\n\tconst context = runtime.fork ? \"fork\" : runtime.fresh ? \"fresh\" : workflow.context;\n\treturn {\n\t\tagent: runtime.agentOverride ?? workflow.agent,\n\t\ttask,\n\t\tclarify: false,\n\t\tagentScope: \"both\",\n\t\t...(context ? { context } : {}),\n\t\t...(workflow.model ? { model: workflow.model } : {}),\n\t\t...(workflow.skill !== undefined ? { skill: workflow.skill } : {}),\n\t\t...(workflow.cwd ? { cwd: workflow.cwd } : {}),\n\t\t...(runtime.worktree || workflow.worktree ? { worktree: true } : {}),\n\t\t...(runtime.bg ? { async: true } : {}),\n\t};\n}\n\nfunction workflowChainStep(workflow: PromptWorkflow, args: string[], runtime: ReturnType<typeof parseRuntimeOptions>): ChainStep {\n\tconst params = workflowParams(workflow, args, runtime);\n\treturn {\n\t\tagent: params.agent ?? \"delegate\",\n\t\ttask: params.task,\n\t\t...(params.model ? { model: params.model } : {}),\n\t\t...(params.skill !== undefined ? { skill: params.skill } : {}),\n\t\t...(params.cwd ? { cwd: params.cwd } : {}),\n\t};\n}\n\nfunction findWorkflow(workflows: PromptWorkflow[], name: string): PromptWorkflow | undefined {\n\treturn workflows.find((workflow) => workflow.name === name);\n}\n\nfunction formatWorkflowList(workflows: PromptWorkflow[]): string {\n\tif (workflows.length === 0) return \"No prompt workflows found in package, user, or project prompts.\";\n\treturn [\n\t\t\"Prompt workflows:\",\n\t\t...workflows.map((workflow) => `- ${workflow.name}: ${workflow.description} (${workflow.filePath})`),\n\t].join(\"\\n\");\n}\n\nexport function registerPromptWorkflowCommands(input: {\n\tpi: ExtensionAPI;\n\trun: PromptWorkflowRunner;\n}): void {\n\tconst { pi, run } = input;\n\n\tpi.registerCommand(\"prompt-workflow\", {\n\t\tdescription: \"Run a prompt template through native pi-subagents: /prompt-workflow <name> [args]\",\n\t\thandler: async (rawArgs, ctx) => {\n\t\t\tconst words = shellWords(rawArgs);\n\t\t\tconst name = words.shift();\n\t\t\tconst workflows = discoverPromptWorkflows(ctx.cwd);\n\t\t\tif (!name || name === \"list\") {\n\t\t\t\tpi.sendMessage({ content: formatWorkflowList(workflows), display: true });\n\t\t\t\treturn;\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t\tconst workflow = findWorkflow(workflows, name);\n\t\t\tif (!workflow) {\n\t\t\t\tctx.ui.notify(`Unknown prompt workflow: ${name}`, \"error\");\n\t\t\t\treturn;\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t\tconst runtime = parseRuntimeOptions(words);\n\t\t\ttry {\n\t\t\t\tif (workflow.chain) {\n\t\t\t\t\tconst chainNames = splitPromptChain(workflow.chain);\n\t\t\t\t\tconst chain = chainNames.map((stepName) => {\n\t\t\t\t\t\tconst step = findWorkflow(workflows, stepName);\n\t\t\t\t\t\tif (!step) throw new Error(`Unknown prompt workflow in chain '${workflow.name}': ${stepName}`);\n\t\t\t\t\t\treturn workflowChainStep(step, runtime.args, runtime);\n\t\t\t\t\t});\n\t\t\t\t\tawait run({ chain, task: runtime.args.join(\" \"), clarify: false, agentScope: \"both\", ...(runtime.bg ? { async: true } : {}) }, ctx);\n\t\t\t\t\treturn;\n\t\t\t\t}\n\t\t\t\tawait run(workflowParams(workflow, runtime.args, runtime), ctx);\n\t\t\t} catch (error) {\n\t\t\t\tctx.ui.notify(error instanceof Error ? error.message : String(error), \"error\");\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t},\n\t});\n\n\tpi.registerCommand(\"chain-prompts\", {\n\t\tdescription: \"Run prompt templates as a native subagent chain: /chain-prompts analyze -> fix -- args\",\n\t\thandler: async (rawArgs, ctx) => {\n\t\t\tconst { declaration, argsText } = splitChainDeclaration(rawArgs);\n\t\t\tconst workflows = discoverPromptWorkflows(ctx.cwd);\n\t\t\tif (!declaration || declaration === \"list\") {\n\t\t\t\tpi.sendMessage({ content: formatWorkflowList(workflows), display: true });\n\t\t\t\treturn;\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t\tconst runtime = parseRuntimeOptions(shellWords(argsText));\n\t\t\tconst names = splitPromptChain(declaration);\n\t\t\tif (names.length === 0) {\n\t\t\t\tctx.ui.notify(\"Usage: /chain-prompts prompt-a -> prompt-b -- args\", \"error\");\n\t\t\t\treturn;\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t\ttry {\n\t\t\t\tconst chain = names.map((name) => {\n\t\t\t\t\tconst workflow = findWorkflow(workflows, name);\n\t\t\t\t\tif (!workflow) throw new Error(`Unknown prompt workflow: ${name}`);\n\t\t\t\t\treturn workflowChainStep(workflow, runtime.args, runtime);\n\t\t\t\t});\n\t\t\t\tawait run({ chain, task: runtime.args.join(\" \"), clarify: false, agentScope: \"both\", ...(runtime.bg ? { async: true } : {}) }, ctx);\n\t\t\t} catch (error) {\n\t\t\t\tctx.ui.notify(error instanceof Error ? error.message : String(error), \"error\");\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t},\n\t});\n}\n"}],"isError":false,"timestamp":1784906273116}}
{"type":"message","id":"4141afec","parentId":"3e085e40","timestamp":"2026-07-24T15:18:06.659Z","message":{"role":"assistant","content":[{"type":"thinking","thinking":"Excellent. We have concrete mechanism: \n- Prompt templates can have frontmatter field `subagent` (true or agent name) to make them run as a subagent (default `delegate`). Fields `model`, `skill`, `cwd`, `worktree`, `fork`/`fresh`/`inheritContext`, and `chain`.\n- If a prompt template has `chain: \"prompt-a -> prompt-b\"` in frontmatter, then invoking `/prompt-workflow name` runs a chain of those prompt templates as subagent chain steps. \n- Or use `/chain-prompts p-a -> p-b -- args` to run them on the fly.\n\nSo the implementation plan should be to convert the selected p-*.md prompts into subagent prompt workflows by adding appropriate frontmatter (subagent, maybe context, output handling), and then create chain recipes either via frontmatter `chain` field or new chain definition files / slash usage.\n\nNeed consider that current p-*.md prompts are written as instructions for the current (parent) agent, not for a subagent delegate. They include \"Structure your answer as...\". If run as subagent `delegate`, the child will be a full pi session with those instructions as task. That might produce output and then parent receives. That is exactly chaining: each prompt becomes a child turn. The chain passes previous output as context to next step? In subagent chain, `{previous}` is available. The prompt-workflow code uses `workflowChainStep` which creates ChainStep with agent, task, model, skill, cwd, but no `output` path. The child receives the prompt body with args substituted. For chain, the runtime does not pass previous output unless subagent framework passes `{previous}` automatically. In a chain, each step receives `{previous}` and `{task}`. The prompt body may reference `{previous}`? The existing p-*.md don't. If they are delegate subagents, they may ignore previous. Chaining them might not pass context automatically unless the framework includes previous conversation. The chain runs subagent sequentially with `context` default? The ChainStep doesn't set context unless frontmatter context is set. Default context for subagent chain steps is maybe forked/inherit? In prompt-workflow code, `context` is set if runtime `--fork/--fresh` or workflow.context. If omitted, subagent defaults to its agent default (delegate likely fresh? Actually default context for subagent tool may be fresh or inherit; skill says defaultContext per agent, delegate defaults maybe inherit? Need check delegate agent). But chain steps likely have `{previous}` placeholder and the task includes prior output? We need test.\n\nBut for planning only, we can propose approach and note need to verify context handoff and maybe use `as`/`output` fields if needed. However, prompt-workflow code doesn't support `output` field from frontmatter? It only uses model/skill/cwd; no output, progress, phase. Could enhance? But the existing slash command may be limited. The user asked \"is there a way to combine some of these prompt into a chain?\" The answer: yes, via `/chain-prompts` and frontmatter `chain`. Implementation plan could just add `chain` frontmatter to a meta prompt, or use new command.\n\nNeed understand current p-*.md frontmatter: `description` and `argument-hint`. They have no `subagent` field. So they are currently plain prompt templates invoked as `/p-plan`. To chain them via `/chain-prompts`, we may need to add `subagent: true` to each prompt we want to use as a chain step, because chain-prompts discovers prompt workflows only if they have `subagent`? Actually `loadPromptWorkflow` returns workflow for any .md file, with `agent: parseAgent(frontmatter)` defaulting to `delegate` if no subagent field or subagent true. It does not require `subagent` to be set; all prompts are loaded. So current p-*.md will be loaded as workflows with agent `delegate`. Then `/chain-prompts p-plan -> p-test -- ...` would work? But the prompt bodies of p-*.md expect the parent to produce answer itself, not to spawn a subagent. However when invoked via chain-prompts, the chain step runs the prompt body as a task to a `delegate` subagent, which is a child pi session. The child will then execute tools and produce answer. This might be exactly what chaining means: each prompt is delegated to a subagent. But the result is returned to parent, not necessarily passed to next step as conversation context. Next step gets `{previous}` placeholder and possibly the full prior child output if the subagent chain passes it. We need verify by reading subagent chain execution code. But for plan, we can note the need to test handoff.\n\nAlternative approach: create new wrapper prompt templates specifically for chaining, with frontmatter `subagent` and `chain`, and body that references `{previous}` as needed. The p-*.md prompts could stay as-is for manual use.\n\nNeed produce structured plan with sections: Goal, Constraints, Approach, Steps, Verification, Risks, Open Questions. Since the user invoked p-plan, we must follow that format. We should also be concise.\n\nLet's gather more details about delegate agent defaultContext and chain previous passing. Use grep/read.","thinkingSignature":"reasoning"},{"type":"toolCall","id":"functions.ffgrep:41","name":"ffgrep","arguments":{"pattern":"defaultContext|delegate","path":"/home/liph/.pi/agent/npm/node_modules/pi-subagents/agents","limit":30}},{"type":"toolCall","id":"functions.bash:42","name":"bash","arguments":{"command":"ls /home/liph/.pi/agent/npm/node_modules/pi-subagents/agents"}}],"api":"openai-completions","provider":"ollama","model":"kimi-k2.7-code:cloud","usage":{"input":66224,"output":1179,"cacheRead":0,"cacheWrite":0,"reasoning":0,"totalTokens":67403,"cost":{"input":0,"output":0,"cacheRead":0,"cacheWrite":0,"total":0}},"stopReason":"toolUse","timestamp":1784906273118,"responseId":"chatcmpl-416","responseModel":"kimi-k2.7-code"}}
{"type":"message","id":"cacb4b03","parentId":"4141afec","timestamp":"2026-07-24T15:18:06.712Z","message":{"role":"toolResult","toolCallId":"functions.ffgrep:41","toolName":"ffgrep","content":[{"type":"text","text":"delegate.md\n 2: name: delegate\n 10: You are a delegated agent. Execute the assigned task using the provided tools. Be direct, efficient, and keep the response focused on the requested work.\n\noracle.md\n 9: defaultContext: fork\n\nplanner.md\n 11: defaultContext: fork\n\nworker.md\n 9: defaultContext: fork\n 40: - If your delegated task expects code or file edits and you have not made those edits, do not return a success summary. Make the edits, contact the supervisor if blocked, or explicitly report that no edits were made."}],"details":{"totalMatched":6,"totalFiles":8},"isError":false,"timestamp":1784906286712}}
{"type":"message","id":"41450af3","parentId":"cacb4b03","timestamp":"2026-07-24T15:18:06.712Z","message":{"role":"toolResult","toolCallId":"functions.bash:42","toolName":"bash","content":[{"type":"text","text":"context-builder.md\ndelegate.md\noracle.md\nplanner.md\nresearcher.md\nreviewer.md\nscout.md\nworker.md\n"}],"isError":false,"timestamp":1784906286712}}
{"type":"message","id":"085c6535","parentId":"41450af3","timestamp":"2026-07-24T15:18:08.190Z","message":{"role":"assistant","content":[{"type":"thinking","thinking":"Read delegate.md.","thinkingSignature":"reasoning"},{"type":"toolCall","id":"functions.read:43","name":"read","arguments":{"path":"/home/liph/.pi/agent/npm/node_modules/pi-subagents/agents/delegate.md"}}],"api":"openai-completions","provider":"ollama","model":"kimi-k2.7-code:cloud","usage":{"input":67586,"output":37,"cacheRead":0,"cacheWrite":0,"reasoning":0,"totalTokens":67623,"cost":{"input":0,"output":0,"cacheRead":0,"cacheWrite":0,"total":0}},"stopReason":"toolUse","timestamp":1784906286714,"responseId":"chatcmpl-350","responseModel":"kimi-k2.7-code"}}
{"type":"message","id":"7c72d7f8","parentId":"085c6535","timestamp":"2026-07-24T15:18:08.192Z","message":{"role":"toolResult","toolCallId":"functions.read:43","toolName":"read","content":[{"type":"text","text":"---\nname: delegate\ndescription: Lightweight subagent that inherits the parent model with no default reads\nsystemPromptMode: append\ninheritProjectContext: true\ntools: read, grep, find, ls, bash, edit, write, contact_supervisor\ninheritSkills: false\n---\n\nYou are a delegated agent. Execute the assigned task using the provided tools. Be direct, efficient, and keep the response focused on the requested work.\n\nIf runtime bridge instructions identify a safe supervisor target and you are blocked or need a decision, use `contact_supervisor` with `reason: \"need_decision\"` and stay alive for the reply. Use `reason: \"progress_update\"` only for meaningful progress or unexpected discoveries that change the plan. Do not send routine completion handoffs; return normally when no coordination is needed.\n"}],"isError":false,"timestamp":1784906288192}}
{"type":"message","id":"d4f820ca","parentId":"7c72d7f8","timestamp":"2026-07-24T15:18:10.687Z","message":{"role":"assistant","content":[{"type":"thinking","thinking":"delegate has default context? Not set, so probably default to `fresh`? Need check shared settings or default. But not necessary for plan.\n\nNeed perhaps verify how `{previous}` is populated in chain steps. Search.","thinkingSignature":"reasoning"},{"type":"toolCall","id":"functions.ffgrep:44","name":"ffgrep","arguments":{"pattern":"\\{previous\\}|previous","path":"/home/liph/.pi/agent/npm/node_modules/pi-subagents/src","limit":30}}],"api":"openai-completions","provider":"ollama","model":"kimi-k2.7-code:cloud","usage":{"input":67803,"output":88,"cacheRead":0,"cacheWrite":0,"reasoning":0,"totalTokens":67891,"cost":{"input":0,"output":0,"cacheRead":0,"cacheWrite":0,"total":0}},"stopReason":"toolUse","timestamp":1784906288194,"responseId":"chatcmpl-350","responseModel":"kimi-k2.7-code"}}
{"type":"message","id":"eb06f92a","parentId":"d4f820ca","timestamp":"2026-07-24T15:18:10.695Z","message":{"role":"toolResult","toolCallId":"functions.ffgrep:44","toolName":"ffgrep","content":[{"type":"text","text":"agents/frontmatter.ts\n 15: let previousIsMoreIndented = false;\n 28: folded += \"\\n\".repeat(blankLines + (previousIsMoreIndented || currentIsMoreIndented ? 1 : 0));\n 30: folded += previousIsMoreIndented || currentIsMoreIndented ? \"\\n\" : \" \";\n 35: previousIsMoreIndented = currentIsMoreIndented;\n\nagents/skills.ts\n 444: const previousPriority = visitedDirectories.get(resolvedDir);\n 445: if (previousPriority !== undefined && previousPriority >= priority) return false;\n\nextension/doctor.ts\n 172: : snapshot.grantHistory.map((grant) => `+${grant.amount} at ${new Date(grant.grantedAt).toISOString()} (${grant.previousLimit} → ${grant.limit})`).join(\"; \")}`,\n\nextension/index.ts\n 8: * Modes: single (agent + task), parallel (tasks[]), chain (chain[] with {previous})\n 197: const previousRuntimeCleanup = globalStore[runtimeCleanupStoreKey];\n 198: if (typeof previousRuntimeCleanup === \"function\") {\n 200: previousRuntimeCleanup();\n 464: const previousEventUnsubscribes = globalStore[eventUnsubscribeStoreKey];\n 465: if (Array.isArray(previousEventUnsubscribes)) {\n 466: for (const unsubscribe of previousEventUnsubscribes) {\n\nextension/rpc.ts\n 219: ): { runId: string; asyncDir: string; previousState: string; state: \"stopping\"; message: string } {\n 272: previousState: status.state,\n\nextension/schemas.ts\n 113: task: Type.Optional(Type.String({ description: \"Task template with {task}, {previous}, {chain_dir} variables. Defaults to {previous}.\" })),\n 143: task: Type.Optional(Type.String({ description: \"Task template with {item}, {item.path}, {task}, {previous}, {chain_dir}, and {outputs.name} variables.\" })),\n 167: description: \"Task template with variables: {task}=original request, {previous}=prior step's text response, {chain_dir}=shared folder, {outputs.name}=prior named output. Required for first step, defaults to '{previous}' for subsequent steps.\"\n 262: chain: Type.Optional(Type.Array(ChainItem, { description: \"CHAIN mode: sequential steps; each result becomes {previous}. append-step takes one tail step and may use {chain_dir}/{outputs.name}.\" })),\n\nextension/tool-description.ts\n 31: • {previous} - Text response from the previous step (empty for first step)\n 35: • Sequential: { chain: [{agent:\"agent-a\", task:\"Analyze {task}\"}, {agent:\"agent-b\", task:\"Plan based on {previous}\"}] }\n 37: • Mixed: { chain: [{agent:\"agent-a\", task:\"Research {task}\"}, {parallel: [{agent:\"agent-b\", task:\"Review {previous}\", count: 2}]}, {agent:\"agent-c\", task:\"Summarize {previous}\"}] }\n 64: • { action: \"append-step\", id: \"...\", chain: [{agent:\"agent-c\", task:\"Use {previous}\"}] } - append one step to the tail of a running async chain\n 83: • Chain templates may use {task}, {previous}, {chain_dir}, and named outputs. Parallel worktree isolation requires a clean git repo.\n 84: • Chain example: { chain: [{agent:\"agent-a\", task:\"Analyze {task}\"}, {parallel: [{agent:\"agent-b\", task:\"Check {previous}\", count: 3}]}] }\n\nintercom/result-intercom.ts\n 230: ? \"Previous intercom targets below identify child sessions used while they were running. Inspect artifacts or session logs if resume is unavailable.\"\n 238: if (child.intercomTarget) lines.push(`${input.source === \"async\" ? \"Previous intercom target\" : \"Run intercom target\"}: ${child.intercomTarget}`);\n\nruns/background/notify.ts\n 200: const previousUnsubscribe = globalStore[unsubscribeStoreKey];\n 201: if (typeof previousUnsubscribe === \"function\") {\n 203: previousUnsubscribe();\n 208: const previousBatcher = globalStore[batcherStoreKey];\n 209: if (previousBatcher && typeof (previousBatcher as { dispose?: () => void }).dispose === \"function\") {\n 211: (previousBatcher as { dispose: () => void }).dispose();\n\nruns/background/subagent-runner.ts\n 912: previousOutput: string;\n 1051: let task = step.task.replace(placeholderRegex, () => ctx.previousOutput);\n 1509: previousOutput: string,\n 1515: if (!worktreeSetup) return previousOutput;\n 1519: if (!diffSummary) return previousOutput;\n 1520: return `${previousOutput}\\n\\n${diffSummary}`;\n 1571: let previousOutput = \"\";\n 1598: let previousCumulativeTokens: TokenUsage = { input: 0, output: 0, total: 0 };\n 2025: const previous = step.activityState;\n 2030: from: previous,\n 2316: const previous = step.activityState;\n 2321: from: previous,\n 2348: const previousInput = step.tokens?.input ?? 0;\n 2349: const previousOutput = step.tokens?.output ?? 0;\n 2350: step.tokens = { input: previousInput + input, output: previousOutput + output, total: previousInput + previousOutput + input + output };\n 2392: const previous = step.activityState;\n 2394: if (previous !== \"needs_attention\") {\n 2396: from: previous,\n 2655: previousOutput = \"Dynamic fanout produced 0 results.\";\n 2831: previousOutput, placeholder, cwd, sessionEnabled,\n 2989: previousOutput = aggregateParallelOutputs(\n 3134: previousOutput, placeholder, cwd: taskCwd, sessionEnabled,\n 3238: previousCumulativeTokens = {\n 3239: input: previousCumulativeTokens.input + taskTokens.input,\n 3240: output: previousCumulativeTokens.output + taskTokens.output,\n 3241: total: previousCumulativeTokens.total + taskTokens.total,\n 3244: statusPayload.totalTokens = { ...previousCumulativeTokens };\n 3291: previousOutput = aggregateParallelOutputs(\n 3301: previousOutput = appendParallelWorktreeSummary(previousOutput, worktreeSetup, asyncDir, stepIndex, group);\n 3343: previousOutput, placeholder, cwd, sessionEnabled,\n\n[Continue with cursor=\"fff_c1\"]"}],"details":{"totalMatched":64,"totalFiles":126},"isError":false,"timestamp":1784906290695}}
{"type":"message","id":"47cf84fa","parentId":"eb06f92a","timestamp":"2026-07-24T15:18:21.792Z","message":{"role":"assistant","content":[{"type":"thinking","thinking":"We have enough. The chain engine passes `{previous}` as text response from previous step. So if chain steps are prompt templates, the prompt body for step N can include `{previous}` to receive prior output. But `workflowChainStep` sets task = body substituted with args, no `{previous}` placeholder by default. The chain engine will replace `{previous}` if present. Since our p-*.md don't contain `{previous}`, the prior output will be ignored unless we modify prompt templates or create wrapper prompts that embed `{previous}`. However, the delegate child might inherit parent session history if context is forked, giving it full conversation. But chain step context likely is fresh per default? The prompt-workflow code sets context only if explicit. Default `delegate` no defaultContext; likely fresh. So no prior context.\n\nThus to chain prompts meaningfully, we need either:\n- Create new chain-specific wrapper prompt templates whose bodies include `{previous}` at relevant points, and route to the desired agent.\n- Or use forked/inherit context so each step sees conversation history. But a chain of delegate children with inherited context could read prior outputs? Not exactly; they run as separate sessions.\n\nThe simplest: define a meta prompt template `p-feature.chain.md` with frontmatter:\n```\n---\ndescription: End-to-end design → plan → implement → review chain\nsubagent: true\nchain: p-brainstorm -> p-plan -> p-refactor -> p-test -> p-review\n---\nRun the feature chain for: $@\n```\nThen `/prompt-workflow p-feature-chain my feature` would run each prompt as delegate subagent. But p-brainstorm etc. don't handle `{previous}`. Maybe acceptable as separate turns with no state transfer, or we can modify them to include a \"previous context\" section if `{previous}` present.\n\nBetter: create dedicated chain files under `~/.pi/agent/chains/` that reference builtin subagents with proper tasks, not prompt templates. But user specifically asked combine some of \"these prompts\". So the plan should propose making them chainable.\n\nNeed inspect if prompt template discovery requires `subagent` frontmatter to be listed in `/prompt-workflow list`. Actually `discoverPromptWorkflows` loads all .md. But slash command registration: pi prompt templates register as slash `/p-plan` independently. The pi-subagents `/prompt-workflow` command reads same files but loads all. However, when a prompt has `chain` frontmatter, it is still a prompt template loaded by pi core? Does pi core ignore unknown frontmatter? Probably yes. So adding `subagent` and `chain` frontmatter shouldn't break `/p-plan` usage? The frontmatter is YAML in `---` block; pi core uses description/argument-hint. Unknown keys likely ignored. So safe.\n\nBut pi core's prompt template argument substitution uses shell-style `$1`, `$@`; pi-subagents also uses same syntax. Compatible.\n\nPotential issue: `chain` frontmatter causes `/prompt-workflow` to ignore the body and run chain of other workflows. But `/p-plan` (core) will still use body. Good.\n\nNeed maybe create a few chain recipes:\n- `p-brainstorm -> p-plan` for design then plan.\n- `p-debug -> p-test -> p-commit` for fix flow.\n- `p-summarize -> p-plan -> p-test` for big file.\n- `p-refactor -> p-test -> p-review -> p-commit`.\n\nBut the user question is generic. Plan should include steps to:\n1. Decide which prompts to chain and naming conventions.\n2. Add minimal frontmatter (`subagent: true` or specific agent, `context: fresh/fork`, maybe `chain`) to each prompt file involved, or create new chain wrapper prompt files to avoid editing existing prompts.\n3. Test individual `/prompt-workflow p-plan \"task\"` and `/chain-prompts p-brainstorm -> p-plan -- \"feature\"`.\n4. Update README/Doc to document chains.\n5. Add saved `.chain.md` if wanting agent-based chains with outputs.\n\nNeed also note constraints: existing p-*.md are interactive parent instructions; chaining them as subagents will spawn child sessions, potentially costly. Also the `.pi` profile currently has no chains dir; `.pi_1` has examples. We can reuse those examples for agent-based chains, but not prompt-template chains.\n\nNeed maybe inspect the difference between `.pi` and `.pi_1`. The user may not know about `.pi_1`. We can mention existing `.pi_1` chain examples as prior art but they use ollama-* custom agents that aren't in current `.pi`. If desired, can port them.\n\nLet's also read pi-subagents README section about chain-prompts and prompt-workflow. Use grep.","thinkingSignature":"reasoning"},{"type":"toolCall","id":"functions.ffgrep:45","name":"ffgrep","arguments":{"pattern":"chain-prompts|prompt-workflow|prompt templates as subagents|chain:","path":"/home/liph/.pi/agent/npm/node_modules/pi-subagents/README.md","limit":30}}],"api":"openai-completions","provider":"ollama","model":"kimi-k2.7-code:cloud","usage":{"input":69310,"output":1037,"cacheRead":0,"cacheWrite":0,"reasoning":0,"totalTokens":70347,"cost":{"input":0,"output":0,"cacheRead":0,"cacheWrite":0,"total":0}},"stopReason":"toolUse","timestamp":1784906290696,"responseId":"chatcmpl-464","responseModel":"kimi-k2.7-code"}}
{"type":"message","id":"663f66ba","parentId":"47cf84fa","timestamp":"2026-07-24T15:18:21.845Z","message":{"role":"toolResult","toolCallId":"functions.ffgrep:45","toolName":"ffgrep","content":[{"type":"text","text":"README.md\n 528: `subagent({ chain: [...] })` tool API or a saved `.chain.json` for data-driven fan-out.\n 861: Dynamic fanout is available only through direct `subagent({ chain: [...] })` JSON or saved `.chain.json` files. It expands an array from a prior structured named output, runs one child template per item, and stores the ordered collection under `collect.as`. The source must be structured output; prose is never parsed. `expand.maxItems` is required, over-limit arrays fail, nested fanout and arbitrary expressions are not supported, and `.chain.md` has no dynamic syntax in this release.\n 1068: { chain: [\n 1076: { chain: [...], async: true }\n 1079: { chain: [\n 1089: { chain: [\n 1106: { chain: [\n 1254: subagent({ action: \"append-step\", id: \"<run-id>\", chain: [{ agent: \"worker\", task: \"Continue from {previous}\" }] })\n 1278: { chain: [\n 1610: `pi-subagents` works standalone through natural language, the `subagent` tool, slash commands, and the packaged prompt shortcuts listed near the top of this README. It also includes a native prompt-workflow adapter for reusable subagent prompt templates, so you do not need `pi-prompt-template-model` for the common subagent workflow path.\n 1627: /prompt-workflow take-screenshot https://example.com\n 1635: /chain-prompts analyze -> fix -- user arguments here"}],"details":{"totalMatched":12,"totalFiles":380},"isError":false,"timestamp":1784906301845}}
{"type":"message","id":"0d4d790b","parentId":"663f66ba","timestamp":"2026-07-24T15:18:30.284Z","message":{"role":"assistant","content":[{"type":"toolCall","id":"functions.read:46","name":"read","arguments":{"path":"/home/liph/.pi/agent/npm/node_modules/pi-subagents/README.md","offset":1600,"limit":100}}],"api":"openai-completions","provider":"ollama","model":"kimi-k2.7-code:cloud","usage":{"input":70699,"output":39,"cacheRead":0,"cacheWrite":0,"reasoning":0,"totalTokens":70738,"cost":{"input":0,"output":0,"cacheRead":0,"cacheWrite":0,"total":0}},"stopReason":"toolUse","timestamp":1784906301847,"responseId":"chatcmpl-535","responseModel":"kimi-k2.7-code"}}
{"type":"message","id":"58f99730","parentId":"0d4d790b","timestamp":"2026-07-24T15:18:30.286Z","message":{"role":"toolResult","toolCallId":"functions.read:46","toolName":"read","content":[{"type":"text","text":"\nIntercom delivery events:\n\n- `subagent:control-intercom`\n- `subagent:result-intercom`\n\nThe result watcher emits `subagent:async-complete`; `src/extension/index.ts` registers the notification handler that consumes it. Control/attention events are surfaced as visible parent notices and persisted for async runs. Native supervisor requests are delivered only to the exact parent session that spawned the child.\n\n## Prompt-template integration\n\n`pi-subagents` works standalone through natural language, the `subagent` tool, slash commands, and the packaged prompt shortcuts listed near the top of this README. It also includes a native prompt-workflow adapter for reusable subagent prompt templates, so you do not need `pi-prompt-template-model` for the common subagent workflow path.\n\nCreate a prompt in `.pi/prompts/` or `~/.pi/agent/prompts/`:\n\n```md\n---\ndescription: Take a screenshot\nmodel: claude-sonnet-4-20250514\nsubagent: browser-screenshoter\ncwd: /tmp/screenshots\n---\nUse url in the prompt to take screenshot: $@\n```\n\nThen run it through the native adapter:\n\n```text\n/prompt-workflow take-screenshot https://example.com\n```\n\nThe adapter delegates to the named subagent, applies `model`, `skill`, `cwd`, `worktree`, and fork/fresh context metadata, and supports runtime overrides such as `--subagent reviewer`, `--fork`, `--fresh`, `--worktree`, and `--bg`.\n\nFor prompt-template chains, use:\n\n```text\n/chain-prompts analyze -> fix -- user arguments here\n```\n\nEach named prompt becomes a native `subagent` chain step. This is intentionally scoped to subagent workflows; compare-style prompt features such as `/best-of-n` are not part of the built-in adapter.\n\n## Runtime files\n\nThe main runtime files are:\n\n| File | Purpose |\n|------|---------|\n| `src/extension/index.ts` | Extension registration, tool registration, message/render wiring. |\n| `src/agents/agents.ts` | Agent and chain discovery, frontmatter parsing. |\n| `src/runs/foreground/subagent-executor.ts` | Main execution routing for single, parallel, chain, management, status, interrupt, and doctor actions. |\n| `src/runs/foreground/execution.ts` | Core foreground `runSync` handling. |\n| `src/runs/background/subagent-runner.ts` | Detached async runner. |\n| `src/runs/background/async-execution.ts` | Background launch support. |\n| `src/runs/background/async-status.ts` | Status discovery and formatting for async runs. |\n| `src/runs/foreground/chain-execution.ts` / `src/agents/chain-serializer.ts` | Chain orchestration and `.chain.md` parsing. |\n| `src/shared/settings.ts` | Chain behavior, instructions, and config helpers. |\n| `src/runs/shared/worktree.ts` | Git worktree isolation. |\n| `src/intercom/intercom-bridge.ts` | Runtime intercom bridge instructions and diagnostics. |\n| `src/extension/schemas.ts` / `src/shared/types.ts` | Tool schemas, shared types, and event constants. |\n| `test/unit/` / `test/integration/` / `test/e2e/` | Unit, loader-based integration, and real-session E2E tests. |\n"}],"isError":false,"timestamp":1784906310286}}
{"type":"message","id":"63d78070","parentId":"58f99730","timestamp":"2026-07-24T15:19:05.332Z","message":{"role":"assistant","content":[{"type":"thinking","thinking":"Great. The native adapter supports exactly chaining prompt templates. The implementation plan can be grounded in this.\n\nNeed maybe read `src/shared/settings.ts` ChainStep type and chain frontmatter to know if output/progress etc. But for plan it's enough.\n\nNeed maybe inspect if current `.pi` prompt files include frontmatter fields that would accidentally trigger subagent. No.\n\nNow, the user's first message was \"Create a structured implementation plan for: the current task\" and then they clarified task as the chain question. We should answer with plan. Since they invoked `p-plan` format, we should follow exactly sections 1-7.\n\nNeed include specific file paths: `/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/agent/prompts/p-*.md`, `~/.pi/agent/chains/`, `Doc/README.md`, settings maybe. Since current cwd is dotfiles/pi/.pi/agent/prompts, we can use relative? The plan should mention absolute or relative.\n\nWe must not write code yet. Plan only.\n\nLet's formulate. Need be careful with constraints: existing prompt templates are parent-facing instructions. Chaining them through subagent adapter delegates each to a child `delegate` session. The results may be large; need `output` path maybe not supported by adapter? The adapter's workflowChainStep does not pass output. But chain engine uses default output? The delegate has no default output. The child response will be returned inline. For long outputs, maybe too large. But p-*.md outputs are structured and not huge. Could be okay. However, for chains with many steps, passing full prior response into next step can bloat context. We can set `fresh` context per step and rely on `{previous}` snippet if prompts reference it. Or we can create wrapper prompts with `{previous}` sections.\n\nNeed open questions: Which prompts to chain? State transfer expectations? Subagent vs parent-run? Read-only vs writing? Cost/concurrency? Also ask whether to create wrapper chain prompts or edit existing prompts? This is ambiguous. We can include in open questions.\n\nLet's think about steps in detail:\n\nGoal: Enable selected `p-*.md` prompt templates to be composed into reusable subagent chains (linear sequences) using the installed `pi-subagents` native prompt-workflow adapter, while keeping individual `/p-<verb>` interactive usage intact.\n\nConstraints:\n- Prompt files live in `~/.pi/agent/prompts/` (this repo).\n- `pi-subagents` is installed and loaded.\n- Native adapter uses frontmatter `subagent`, `chain`, `model`, `skill`, `cwd`, `fresh`/`fork`, `worktree`.\n- `/chain-prompts` syntax: `/chain-prompts a -> b -- args`; `/prompt-workflow` can also run a prompt whose frontmatter has `chain: a -> b`.\n- Prompt templates use `$@` for args; adapter performs same substitution.\n- Existing prompts are structured parent instructions; if run as subagent `delegate`, the child will execute tools and produce the structured answer. No `{previous}` support in existing bodies, so state will not automatically flow unless context is forked/inherited or wrappers add it.\n- Need avoid `RESERVED_COMMAND_NAMES`: chain-prompts, prompt-workflow, run, chain, parallel, run-chain, subagents-doctor, subagents-models. Also existing slash commands like /p-plan. New files should not conflict.\n\nApproach:\n- Add minimal `subagent: true` frontmatter to the prompts we want chainable (so they are recognized by the adapter; actually not required, but good to be explicit). But keep `description` and `argument-hint`.\n- Create a new set of \"chain recipe\" prompt templates named `p-<name>.chain.md` (or `chain-<name>.md`) that only contain frontmatter `subagent: true`, `chain: p-foo -> p-bar -> p-baz`, and a one-line body referencing `$@`. This avoids editing existing prompts and preserves their parent semantics. Put them in same prompts dir.\n- Optionally add a `previous`/`context` section to the chain recipe or to existing prompts so each step receives the prior output via `{previous}` placeholder. But adapter only substitutes args; chain engine substitutes `{previous}`. We can embed `{previous}` in chain recipe? Not directly; chain recipe's body becomes the first step's task? Actually if frontmatter `chain` is set, adapter ignores body and builds chain from named workflows, using each workflow's body as task. So to pass previous, we need to edit the bodies of the chained prompts to include a section \"Prior step output: {previous}\" when relevant. This is a bigger change.\n- For a first minimal version, don't pass previous output; each step runs independently with fresh context. Use this for prompts that don't need prior output (e.g. p-brainstorm -> p-plan where plan step can re-brainstorm? Actually plan benefits from brainstorm output. Without passing, plan step receives no brainstorm. So either use fork/inherit context, or include `{previous}`.\n- A better design: create wrapper prompt templates for chain use that embed `{previous}` in the task, e.g. `p-plan-with-context.md` with body \"Previous step produced: {previous}\\n\\nCreate a structured implementation plan for: $@\". But this duplicates. Could also modify existing p-*.md to include an optional prior context section: add at top \"If a previous step output is provided in {previous}, use it as context.\" Since chain engine substitutes `{previous}` if present. This makes them chain-aware without breaking interactive use (when not in chain, {previous} is empty string). Need verify engine replaces `{previous}` with empty for first step; yes.\n\nActually the existing prompts use `${@:-the current task}` etc. If we add `{previous}` text, pi core prompt substitution won't replace it; it will remain literal `{previous}` in parent prompt. That is bad for interactive use. Unless we wrap it in a comment? Hmm. If we edit p-plan.md body to include `{previous}` placeholder, then invoking `/p-plan` will produce literal `{previous}` in user message, which is noisy. Not good.\n\nAlternative: create chain-specific wrappers that import/include the original prompt content? Not possible with simple templates. Could copy. Or use chain files with agent-based steps instead of reusing prompt templates. But user asks combine prompts.\n\nMaybe the best approach: use the existing prompt templates as chain steps but rely on `context: fork` so each delegate child inherits the full parent conversation history, which includes previous child outputs? Wait each chain step is a separate subagent run. If context is `fork`, it branches from current persisted parent session. At the time step 2 starts, step 1 has completed and returned to parent conversation. If forked context includes parent history up to current point, step 2 will see step 1's output in conversation. That provides state transfer. `delegate` default context likely fresh, but we can set `fork: true` in frontmatter. However, forked context includes all parent history, which might be too large/noisy. But acceptable. For chains, prompt-workflow code sets context based on workflow.context; if not set, uses runtime option; otherwise default. We can set `inheritContext: true` or `fork: true` in frontmatter of chainable prompts so each step runs in forked context and sees previous outputs. Need be careful: if first step runs in fork, it inherits parent. That is fine.\n\nBut do the existing p-*.md need to run in parent or child? For interactive `/p-plan`, context is parent itself, not subagent. The frontmatter `fork: true` only affects `/prompt-workflow` adapter; pi core ignores it. So safe.\n\nTherefore a minimal plan:\n1. Choose 2-3 initial chains and the prompts in each.\n2. Add `subagent: true` and `fork: true` (or `fresh: true` depending) to each chosen prompt file. These are extra frontmatter keys; core will ignore, adapter uses them. Keep `description` and `argument-hint`.\n3. Create chain recipe prompts with `chain: p-X -> p-Y -> p-Z`. Name them e.g. `p-design-build.md`, `p-fix-commit.md`, etc.\n4. Reload pi or use `/reload` and test with `/prompt-workflow list` and `/chain-prompts ...`.\n5. Update Doc/README with chain table and examples.\n6. Iterate on state handoff and cost.\n\nNeed verify via `/prompt-workflow list` that prompts show with agent. But existing p-*.md have no `subagent`, so agent defaults to `delegate`. We can add `subagent: delegate` or true. Also if they have `chain` frontmatter, then `/prompt-workflow` will run chain instead of body. That means the prompt itself becomes a chain recipe. But if we want both individual and chain, we should not put `chain` on the same files; create separate chain recipe files.\n\nMaybe the cleanest: define chain recipes as separate files e.g. `p-feature.chain.md`:\n```\n---\ndescription: Brainstorm, plan, then implement a feature using existing prompts\nsubagent: true\nchain: p-brainstorm -> p-plan -> p-test -> p-commit\n---\nFeature or task to work through: $@\n```\nThen `/prompt-workflow p-feature.chain add user auth` runs p-brainstorm, p-plan, p-test, p-commit sequentially, each as delegate with forked context (if p-* have fork: true). The existing p-* remain individually usable.\n\nNeed also consider output paths. Since adapter doesn't support output, the chain results are inline. That may be fine for prompts.\n\nPotential risks:\n- Adding frontmatter to existing prompts might be parsed by pi core and break if unknown keys cause errors. But pi core likely only uses known keys. Need test.\n- Running each prompt as subagent can be expensive and slower; also child delegate has tools and may behave differently (e.g., may ask clarifying questions). The p-plan etc. include \"do not write implementation code\" which is fine.\n- Chain engine may pass huge previous outputs in context if forked, causing token bloat. Use fresh context per step if no previous state needed, or use selective `{previous}` snippets.\n- If a step fails, chain stops. Need decide whether acceptable.\n- Naming conflicts: new chain recipe files must not clash with existing slash commands.\n- The `RESERVED_COMMAND_NAMES` list includes `chain-prompts` etc. Not relevant.\n\nOpen questions to ask user:\n1. Which exact prompt sequences do you want to chain? (Examples: design-build, fix-commit, summarize-plan-test, etc.)\n2. Do you want each step to see the previous step's output (stateful chain) or run independently? This affects frontmatter `fork`/`fresh` and whether we add `{previous}` handling.\n3. Should the chain be triggered via a single slash command (e.g., `/p-design-build`) or only via `/chain-prompts`? (If single slash, create recipe files.)\n4. Are you okay with each prompt executing as a subagent (separate child session, extra cost/latency), or did you mean a lightweight \"send these prompts one after another in the same session\"?\n\nMaybe we can ask these now? The user asked for implementation plan. But to make plan concrete, we need clarifications. p-plan format has an Open Questions section. We can list them and maybe ask. The instructions say ask when ambiguous before starting. Since we are producing a plan, we can include open questions and maybe ask the user for answers. However, the user may expect the plan to proceed. We can give a plan that is parameterized, and ask the open questions at the end. That should be acceptable.\n\nNeed also maybe mention alternative approach of using saved `.chain.md` agent chains (like `.pi_1` examples) rather than prompt chains. The user's question is about prompts, but we can note that for end-to-end implementation with code edits, agent chains (scout→planner→worker→reviewer) are already supported and can be saved. However, to chain the existing p-* prompts specifically, use prompt-workflow adapter.\n\nLet's ensure we cite concrete file paths:\n- `~/.pi/agent/prompts/p-*.md`\n- `~/.pi/agent/prompts/p-<chain>.chain.md` (new chain recipes)\n- `~/.pi/agent/prompts/Doc/README.md`\n- `~/.pi/agent/settings.json` (if need to override agent context; maybe not)\n\nVerification steps:\n- `/reload` in pi to pick up prompt changes.\n- `/prompt-workflow list` shows chain recipes and selected p-* with `subagent: true` and context.\n- `/prompt-workflow p-<chain>.chain \"test task\"` runs without \"Unknown prompt workflow\" and completes all steps.\n- `/chain-prompts p-brainstorm -> p-plan -- \"test task\"` works.\n- Check that `/p-plan` still works interactively and produces expected plan.\n- Inspect child run status and outputs for state handoff (forked context includes previous outputs? Need verify).\n\nRollbacks:\n- Remove or rename new chain recipe files.\n- Revert frontmatter changes in p-*.md via git or backup.\n- If `/p-<verb>` broke due to frontmatter, remove added keys.\n- Disable subagent adapter? Can't easily; but deleting chain files and frontmatter stops chaining.\n\nNeed mention this is in dotfiles repo; use git to commit after each step.\n\nLet's think if there is any test harness for prompt templates. No tests. Manual verification.\n\nNeed ensure plan's steps are small and verifiable. We'll enumerate.\n\nPotential subtlety: pi prompt template frontmatter parsing may not accept `subagent`, `chain`, etc. But these are in same file; pi core uses parseFrontmatter? The pi core prompt template loader might be different. It likely ignores unknown keys. But let's verify by reading pi core prompt template loader? Maybe not needed. We can include a verification step: inspect that pi startup header still loads prompts and `/p-plan` autocomplete works.\n\nLet's search pi core code for prompt template frontmatter accepted keys.","thinkingSignature":"reasoning"},{"type":"toolCall","id":"functions.ffgrep:47","name":"ffgrep","arguments":{"pattern":"prompt template|parseFrontmatter|description|argument-hint","path":"/home/liph/.local/lib/node_modules/@earendil-works/pi-coding-agent","limit":30}}],"api":"openai-completions","provider":"ollama","model":"kimi-k2.7-code:cloud","usage":{"input":71453,"output":3023,"cacheRead":0,"cacheWrite":0,"reasoning":0,"totalTokens":74476,"cost":{"input":0,"output":0,"cacheRead":0,"cacheWrite":0,"total":0}},"stopReason":"toolUse","timestamp":1784906310288,"responseId":"chatcmpl-332","responseModel":"kimi-k2.7-code"}}
{"type":"message","id":"37f569a5","parentId":"63d78070","timestamp":"2026-07-24T15:19:05.388Z","message":{"role":"toolResult","toolCallId":"functions.ffgrep:47","toolName":"ffgrep","content":[{"type":"text","text":"CHANGELOG.md\n 571: - Added default-value expansion for prompt template positional arguments, e.g. `${1:-7}` ([#5553](https://github.com/earendil-works/pi/pull/5553) by [@dannote](https://github.com/dannote)).\n 918: - Fixed prompt template argument parsing to split unquoted multiline input on newlines ([#4553](https://github.com/earendil-works/pi/issues/4553)).\n 1236: - Fixed remaining hardcoded `pi` / `.pi` branding to route through `APP_NAME` and `CONFIG_DIR_NAME` extension points, so SDK rebrands get consistent naming in `/quit` description, `process.title`, and the project-local extensions directory ([#3583](https://github.com/badlogic/pi-mono/pull/3583) by [@jlaneve](https://github.com/jlaneve))\n 1393: - Prompt templates support an `argument-hint` frontmatter field that renders before the description in the `/` autocomplete dropdown, using `<angle>` for required and `[square]` for optional arguments. See [docs/prompt-templates.md#argument-hints](docs/prompt-templates.md#argument-hints).\n 1395: - Compact interactive startup header with a comma-separated view of loaded AGENTS.md files, prompt templates, skills, and extensions. Press `Ctrl+O` to toggle the expanded listing.\n 1400: - Added `argument-hint` frontmatter field for prompt templates, displayed before the description in the autocomplete dropdown ([#2780](https://github.com/badlogic/pi-mono/pull/2780) by [@andresvi94](https://github.com/andresvi94))\n 1406: - Changed interactive startup header to a compact, comma-separated view of loaded AGENTS.md files, prompt templates, skills, and extensions, with `Ctrl+O` to toggle the expanded listing ([#3267](https://github.com/badlogic/pi-mono/pull/3267))\n 1587: - Fixed resource collision precedence so project and user skills, prompt templates, and themes override package resources consistently, and CLI-provided paths take precedence over discovered resources ([#2781](https://github.com/badlogic/pi-mono/issues/2781))\n 1806: - Unified source provenance via `sourceInfo`. All resources, commands, tools, skills, and prompt templates now carry structured `sourceInfo` with path, scope, and source metadata. Visible in autocomplete, RPC discovery, and SDK introspection. See [docs/extensions.md](docs/extensions.md).\n 1843: - Fixed slash command source attribution for extension commands, prompt templates, and skills in autocomplete and command discovery ([#1734](https://github.com/badlogic/pi-mono/issues/1734))\n 1960: - Changed custom tool system prompt behavior so extension and SDK tools are included in the default `Available tools` section only when they provide `promptSnippet`. Omitting `promptSnippet` now leaves the tool out of that section instead of falling back to `description` ([#2285](https://github.com/badlogic/pi-mono/issues/2285))\n 2396: - `/export` HTML now includes collapsible tool input schemas (parameter names, types, and descriptions), improving session review and sharing workflows ([#1416](https://github.com/badlogic/pi-mono/pull/1416) by [@marchellodev](https://github.com/marchellodev)).\n 2397: - `pi.getAllTools()` now exposes tool parameters in addition to name and description, enabling richer extension integrations ([#1416](https://github.com/badlogic/pi-mono/pull/1416) by [@marchellodev](https://github.com/marchellodev)).\n 2403: - `/export` HTML now includes tool input schema (parameter names, types, descriptions) in a collapsible section under each tool ([#1416](https://github.com/badlogic/pi-mono/pull/1416) by [@marchellodev](https://github.com/marchellodev))\n 2404: - `pi.getAllTools()` now returns tool parameters in addition to name and description ([#1416](https://github.com/badlogic/pi-mono/pull/1416) by [@marchellodev](https://github.com/marchellodev))\n 2609: - Added `ExtensionAPI.getCommands()` to let extensions list available slash commands (extensions, prompt templates, skills) for invocation via `prompt` ([#1210](https://github.com/badlogic/pi-mono/pull/1210) by [@w-winter](https://github.com/w-winter))\n 2857: - Hot reload (`/reload`) of resources including AGENTS.md, SYSTEM.md, APPEND_SYSTEM.md, prompt templates, skills, themes, and extensions. See [README.md#commands](README.md#commands) and [README.md#context-files](README.md#context-files).\n 2912: - Skill, prompt template, and theme discovery now use settings and CLI path arrays instead of legacy filters ([#645](https://github.com/badlogic/pi-mono/issues/645))\n 3055: - Added bash-style argument slicing for prompt templates ([#770](https://github.com/badlogic/pi-mono/pull/770) by [@airtonix](https://github.com/airtonix))\n 3104: - Multi-line YAML frontmatter in skills and prompt templates now parses correctly. Centralized frontmatter parsing using the `yaml` library. ([#728](https://github.com/badlogic/pi-mono/pull/728) by [@richardgill](https://github.com/richardgill))\n 3127: - Show loaded prompt templates on startup ([#743](https://github.com/badlogic/pi-mono/pull/743) by [@tallshort](https://github.com/tallshort))\n 3209: - `pi.getAllTools()` now returns `ToolInfo[]` (with `name` and `description`) instead of `string[]`. Extensions that only need names can use `.map(t => t.name)`. ([#648](https://github.com/badlogic/pi-mono/pull/648) by [@carsonfarmer](https://github.com/carsonfarmer))\n 3295: - Symlinked directories in `prompts/` folders are now followed when loading prompt templates ([#601](https://github.com/badlogic/pi-mono/pull/601) by [@aliou](https://github.com/aliou))\n 3500: This release unifies hooks and custom tools into a single \"extensions\" system and renames \"slash commands\" to \"prompt templates\". ([#454](https://github.com/badlogic/pi-mono/issues/454))\n 3634: \"Slash commands\" (markdown files defining reusable prompts invoked via `/name`) are renamed to \"prompt templates\" to avoid confusion with extension-registered commands.\n 3756: - System prompt now automatically rebuilds when tools change via `setActiveTools()`, updating tool descriptions and guidelines to match the new tool set\n 4460: - **Skills standard compliance**: Skills now adhere to the [Agent Skills standard](https://agentskills.io/specification). Validates name (must match parent directory, lowercase, max 64 chars), description (required, max 1024 chars), and frontmatter fields. Warns on violations but remains lenient. Prompt format changed to XML structure. Removed `{baseDir}` placeholder in favor of relative paths. ([#231](https://github.com/badlogic/pi-mono/issues/231))\n 4650: - **Skills system**: Auto-discover and load instruction files on-demand. Supports Claude Code (`~/.claude/skills/*/SKILL.md`), Codex CLI (`~/.codex/skills/`), and Pi-native formats (`~/.pi/agent/skills/`, `.pi/skills/`). Skills are listed in system prompt with descriptions, agent loads them via read tool when needed. Supports `{baseDir}` placeholder. Disable with `--no-skills` or `skills.enabled: false` in settings. ([#169](https://github.com/badlogic/pi-mono/issues/169))\n 4995: - **File-based Slash Commands**: Create custom reusable prompts as `.txt` files in `~/.pi/slash-commands/`. Files become `/filename` commands with first-line descriptions. Supports `{{selection}}` placeholder for referencing selected/attached content.\n\nREADME.md\n 15: Pi is a minimal terminal coding harness. Adapt pi to your workflows, not the other way around, without having to fork and modify pi internals. Extend it with TypeScript [Extensions](#extensions), [Skills](#skills), [Prompt Templates](#prompt-templates), and [Themes](#themes). Put your extensions, skills, prompt templates, and themes in [Pi Packages](#pi-packages) and share them with others via npm or git.\n 91: Then just talk to pi. By default, pi gives the model four tools: `read`, `write`, `edit`, and `bash`. The model uses these to fulfill your requests. Add capabilities via [skills](#skills), [prompt templates](#prompt-templates), [extensions](#extensions), or [pi packages](#pi-packages).\n 152: - **Startup header** - Shows shortcuts (`/hotkeys` for all), loaded AGENTS.md files, prompt templates, skills, and extensions\n 174: Type `/` in the editor to trigger commands. [Extensions](#extensions) can register custom commands, [skills](#skills) are available as `/skill:name`, and [prompt templates](#prompt-templates) expand via `/templatename`.\n 594: | `--prompt-template <path>` | Load prompt template (repeatable) |\n 595: | `--no-prompt-templates` | Disable prompt template discovery |\n\ndist/config.d.ts\n 89: /** Get path to prompt templates directory */\n\ndist/index.d.ts\n 31: export { parseFrontmatter, stripFrontmatter } from \"./utils/frontmatter.ts\";\n\ndist/core/agent-session.d.ts\n 146: /** Whether to expand file-based prompt templates (default: true) */\n 304: * Get all configured tools with name, description, parameter schema, prompt guidelines, and source metadata.\n 339: /** File-based prompt templates */\n 349: * - Expands file-based prompt templates by default\n 367: * Expands skill commands and prompt templates. Errors on extension commands.\n 375: * Expands skill commands and prompt templates. Errors on extension commands.\n\ndist/core/keybindings.d.ts\n 54: readonly description: \"Move cursor up\";\n 58: readonly description: \"Move cursor down\";\n 62: readonly description: \"Move cursor left\";\n 66: readonly description: \"Move cursor right\";\n 70: readonly description: \"Move cursor word left\";\n 74: readonly description: \"Move cursor word right\";\n 78: readonly description: \"Move to line start\";\n 82: readonly description: \"Move to line end\";\n 86: readonly description: \"Jump forward to character\";\n 90: readonly description: \"Jump backward to character\";\n 94: readonly description: \"Page up\";\n 98: readonly description: \"Page down\";\n 102: readonly description: \"Delete character backward\";\n 106: readonly description: \"Delete character forward\";\n 110: readonly description: \"Delete word backward\";\n 114: readonly description: \"Delete word forward\";\n 118: readonly description: \"Delete to line start\";\n 122: readonly description: \"Delete to line end\";\n 126: readonly description: \"Yank\";\n 130: readonly description: \"Yank pop\";\n 134: readonly description: \"Undo\";\n 138: readonly description: \"Insert newline\";\n 142: readonly description: \"Submit input\";\n 146: readonly description: \"Tab / autocomplete\";\n 150: readonly description: \"Copy selection\";\n 154: readonly description: \"Move selection up\";\n 158: readonly description: \"Move selection down\";\n 162: readonly description: \"Selection page up\";\n 166: readonly description: \"Selection page down\";\n 170: readonly description: \"Confirm selection\";\n\n[Continue with cursor=\"fff_c2\"]"}],"details":{"totalMatched":73,"totalFiles":875},"isError":false,"timestamp":1784906345388}}
{"type":"message","id":"fc9aa1ed","parentId":"37f569a5","timestamp":"2026-07-24T15:19:34.530Z","message":{"role":"assistant","content":[{"type":"thinking","thinking":"The docs show frontmatter fields are description, argument-hint. It doesn't mention rejecting others. Pi core likely stores whole frontmatter and only uses known keys. So adding keys safe.\n\nNow formulate final plan. It must be in structured format exactly as requested. Let's draft.\n\nNeed be mindful of over-explaining; user asked for plan. We'll include clear sections.\n\nLet's craft final answer with no code but file paths and commands.\n\nPotential steps detail:\n\n1. Select the first chain recipe. Example candidate: `p-brainstorm -> p-plan -> p-test -> p-commit` for a new feature from idea to commit. Another: `p-summarize -> p-diagnose -> p-debug -> p-test` for debugging. We can list a few options and recommend.\n\nActually the open questions should ask which. But steps can be generic: \"Pick 1–2 chain recipes\".\n\nLet's propose three candidate recipes in plan as examples, not final. The plan can say \"Step 1: Decide on chain recipes (candidates below)\". That covers ambiguity.\n\n2. Add minimal `subagent:` frontmatter to the prompt files involved. `subagent: delegate` (or `true`). Also set `context` strategy. For stateful chains, use `fork: true` so each child inherits parent conversation and sees prior outputs. But this might include too much. Alternatively `fresh: true` for independent runs. We can recommend `fork: true` for chains where steps build on each other, `fresh: true` for independent passes. Need mention this is an open question.\n\n3. Create chain recipe files, e.g. `~/.pi/agent/prompts/p-design-build.md`:\n```\n---\ndescription: Brainstorm alternatives, pick one, plan, implement, test, and commit\nsubagent: true\nchain: p-brainstorm -> p-plan -> p-test -> p-commit\nargument-hint: \"[feature or problem]\"\n---\nRun the full design-build chain for: $@\n```\nNeed note `subagent: true` maps to `delegate`. `chain` frontmatter triggers native chain. The body becomes the task for the first step? Actually in prompt-workflow code, if chain present, it builds chain from named workflows and uses each workflow's body as task; the top-level body is not used except maybe `task` field set to runtime.args.join(\" \") and chain uses each workflow's task. So body can be a comment or just `$@`. Good.\n\n4. Reload Pi and test `/prompt-workflow list` shows new recipes and selected prompts with context.\n\n5. Test each chain recipe with a small safe task in a scratch repo (to avoid real edits). Verify each step completes and the final output appears.\n\n6. Refine state handoff: if prior output is not being used, either keep `fork` context or add `{previous}` placeholder by creating chain-specific wrappers. This is step 6 after initial test.\n\n7. Document in `Doc/README.md`: add chain table, `/chain-prompts` examples, and note frontmatter.\n\n8. Commit changes to dotfiles.\n\nVerification per step:\n- Step 2: `/prompt-workflow list` output includes prompts with `subagent:` and context; `/p-plan` still works.\n- Step 3: file exists; `/prompt-workflow list` includes recipe.\n- Step 5: run chain; inspect `subagent({ action: \"status\" })` or `/subagents-fleet` for step states; verify no errors.\n- Step 6: check next step's output references prior step's conclusions.\n- Step 7: README updated and renders.\n\nRisks:\n- Frontmatter keys may conflict with pi core in future. Mitigation: keep backups.\n- Cost/latency: each prompt as subagent is a full child session. Mitigation: use for non-trivial tasks, limit chain length.\n- State bloat with forked context. Mitigation: use fresh context or wrappers with `{previous}`.\n- Chain failure stops sequence. Mitigation: run async? But prompt-workflow chain doesn't continue on failure. Could design shorter chains.\n- Existing `/p-foo` interactive behavior unchanged if frontmatter additions ignored; but verify.\n\nOpen Questions:\n1. Which prompt sequences? (provide examples)\n2. Stateful or independent steps? (affects `fork`/`fresh` and `{previous}`)\n3. Single slash entry points (recipe files) or only `/chain-prompts` ad hoc?\n4. Are any of the prompts used for writing code (p-refactor/p-test) where running as subagent may edit files? If so, concurrency/writer isolation?\n\nWe should maybe ask these to user. But final answer can list them. Since we have ask_user_question tool, should we ask? The user asked for plan; providing open questions is part of plan. We can ask them now to refine, but it's optional. The plan format includes open questions. I think listing open questions satisfies. However, if we want to be interactive, we could ask. But the instructions: \"Use ask_user_question whenever the user's request is underspecified and you cannot proceed without concrete decisions\". We are proceeding with a parameterized plan, not implementation. So no need to ask? But to make the plan actionable, we could include the open questions and note plan can be updated after answers. That is fine.\n\nNeed keep final response concise but complete. Also mention that `.pi_1` already has agent chain examples; we could optionally port them. But maybe too much.\n\nLet's craft final. Ensure no code blocks with implementation; only illustrative snippets maybe? The instruction says do not write implementation code yet; only produce the plan. We can include example frontmatter snippets as part of plan; that's not implementation code, it's plan specification. It's okay.\n\nLet's final.","thinkingSignature":"reasoning"},{"type":"text","text":"## Implementation Plan: Combine `p-*.md` Prompt Templates into Chains\n\n### 1. Goal\nEnable the existing `~/.pi/agent/prompts/p-*.md` templates to be composed into reusable, sequential subagent chains using the already-installed `pi-subagents` native prompt-workflow adapter, while keeping the individual `/p-<verb>` interactive prompts unchanged.\n\n### 2. Constraints\n- **Existing prompts** (`p-brainstorm.md`, `p-plan.md`, `p-debug.md`, `p-diagnose.md`, `p-refactor.md`, `p-test.md`, `p-review.md`, `p-commit.md`, `p-doc.md`, `p-explain.md`, `p-summarize.md`, `p-secaudit.md`) are parent-facing instructions intended to be expanded in the main session.\n- **Installed machinery**: `pi-subagents` is loaded and exposes:\n - `/prompt-workflow <name> [args]` — runs a prompt template as a subagent step.\n - `/chain-prompts a -> b -> c -- args` — runs prompt templates as a native subagent chain.\n - A prompt frontmatter adapter that reads `subagent`, `chain`, `model`, `skill`, `cwd`, `fork`/`fresh`/`inheritContext`, and `worktree`.\n- **No existing chains** in the active `.pi` profile (the backup `.pi_1` has agent-chain examples, but not prompt-template chains).\n- **Pi core** only uses `description` and `argument-hint` from prompt frontmatter; extra keys are generally ignored, but this must be verified before relying on it.\n- Prompt templates use shell-style argument substitution (`$@`, `$1`, `${@:-...}`), which the native adapter also supports.\n- New file names must avoid the `pi-subagents` reserved names (`chain-prompts`, `prompt-workflow`, `run`, `chain`, `parallel`, `run-chain`, `subagents-doctor`, `subagents-models`).\n\n### 3. Approach\nCreate small **chain-recipe prompt files** that only contain frontmatter-driven orchestration. Keep the original `p-*.md` files untouched except for a few optional adapter hints (`subagent`, `fork`/`fresh`) if we want them to run as child subagents with a specific context mode. Use the `chain:` frontmatter field so `/prompt-workflow <recipe>` expands into a sequence of existing prompts. This avoids turning every existing prompt into a complex workflow object and preserves their current standalone behavior.\n\n### 4. Steps\n\n1. **Pick the first 1–2 chain recipes** \n Candidate recipes to choose from:\n - `p-brainstorm -> p-plan -> p-test -> p-commit` (design → plan → test → commit)\n - `p-summarize -> p-diagnose -> p-debug -> p-test` (understand → diagnose → fix → regression-test)\n - `p-refactor -> p-test -> p-review -> p-commit` (safe refactor → validate → review → commit)\n - `p-secaudit -> p-review -> p-test` (security-first review loop)\n\n2. **Decide the context handoff strategy** \n Two options:\n - **Forked/inherited context** (`fork: true` on each step): each child sees the parent conversation, so later steps implicitly see earlier outputs. Simpler but can bloat context.\n - **Fresh context + explicit `{previous}`**: each child starts clean and the chain engine injects the prior step’s text as `{previous}`. Requires adding `{previous}` handling to the prompts that need it.\n\n3. **Add minimal adapter frontmatter to the prompts used in the chosen recipes** \n Only add `subagent:` (e.g. `subagent: delegate`) and a context hint (`fork: true` or `fresh: true`). Do not change the body text yet. Example addition:\n ```yaml\n ---\n description: ...\n argument-hint: ...\n subagent: true # new; tells the adapter to delegate this prompt\n fork: true # new; or fresh: true depending on step 2\n ---\n ```\n\n4. **Create chain-recipe prompt files** \n For each chosen recipe, add a new file such as:\n - `~/.pi/agent/prompts/p-design-build.md`\n - `~/.pi/agent/prompts/p-fix-commit.md` \n Each contains only:\n ```yaml\n ---\n description: <what the chain does>\n argument-hint: \"[task description]\"\n subagent: true\n chain: p-brainstorm -> p-plan -> p-test -> p-commit\n ---\n Run the full chain for: $@\n ```\n\n5. **Reload Pi and list workflows** \n Run `/reload`, then `/prompt-workflow list` and confirm:\n - New recipe files appear.\n - Existing `p-*.md` files appear with `subagent: delegate` and the chosen context mode.\n - The original `/p-<verb>` autocomplete still works.\n\n6. **Run a dry-run chain in a scratch repo** \n Test one recipe with a harmless task, e.g.:\n ```\n /prompt-workflow p-design-build \"a toy feature\"\n ```\n or\n ```\n /chain-prompts p-brainstorm -> p-plan -- \"a toy feature\"\n ```\n Inspect the chain via `/subagents-fleet` or `subagent({ action: \"status\" })`.\n\n7. **Refine state handoff if needed** \n If later steps are not using earlier outputs:\n - For forked context: verify the child transcript includes the parent turns.\n - For fresh context: create thin wrapper prompt files (e.g. `p-plan-with-context.md`) whose body contains `{previous}` and then re-invokes the original prompt logic, or edit the original prompts to include an optional “Prior context” section guarded by `{previous}`.\n\n8. **Update `Doc/README.md`** \n Add a “Chaining prompts” section with the chain table, example `/chain-prompts` commands, and notes on `subagent`/`chain` frontmatter.\n\n9. **Commit the dotfiles changes** \n Commit the new recipe files and any frontmatter additions so they are tracked and easy to revert.\n\n### 5. Verification\n- `/prompt-workflow list` shows recipes and selected `p-*` prompts with the expected `subagent` / context metadata.\n- `/p-plan \"test task\"` still produces a normal plan in the parent session.\n- `/chain-prompts p-brainstorm -> p-plan -- \"test task\"` completes both subagent steps without “Unknown prompt workflow” errors.\n- `/prompt-workflow p-design-build \"test task\"` runs the full recipe and returns final output.\n- `subagent({ action: \"status\" })` shows each chain step in `complete` state.\n- For stateful chains, the second step’s output explicitly references conclusions from the first step.\n- `Doc/README.md` renders correctly and the new examples work when copied.\n\n### 6. Risks & Rollbacks\n| Risk | Mitigation / Rollback |\n|------|----------------------|\n| Extra frontmatter confuses Pi core and breaks `/p-<verb>` | Test `/p-plan` after adding keys; rollback by removing the new frontmatter lines. |\n| Each prompt as a subagent is slower/more expensive than one parent turn | Use chains only for non-trivial tasks; keep recipes short (≤4 steps). |\n| Forked context bloats later steps with full conversation history | Switch to `fresh: true` and explicit `{previous}` wrappers. |\n| A step fails and aborts the whole chain | Accept for now; chains are meant to be linear. Keep individual prompts available as fallbacks. |\n| New recipe file names collide with reserved or existing commands | Check `/prompt-workflow list` and rename if needed. |\n| Subagent writes files unexpectedly when chaining `p-refactor` / `p-test` | Mark those recipes as writer chains and run them one at a time; do not parallelize writers unless isolated by worktree. |\n\n### 7. Open Questions\n1. **Which exact sequences do you want first?** (e.g. design-build, fix-commit, summarize-diagnose-fix, security-review loop?)\n2. **Do steps need to share output, or can they run independently?** This decides `fork` vs. `fresh` and whether we need `{previous}` wrappers.\n3. **Do you want named slash recipes** (`/p-design-build`) **or just ad-hoc `/chain-prompts` usage?** Named recipes are more discoverable; ad-hoc is more flexible.\n4. **Are you comfortable with each chained prompt running as a full subagent session,** or did you mean a lighter “send these prompts one after another in the same session” mechanism?\n\nOnce you answer these, I can tighten the recipe list and produce the exact frontmatter and chain files."}],"api":"openai-completions","provider":"ollama","model":"kimi-k2.7-code:cloud","usage":{"input":77049,"output":3087,"cacheRead":0,"cacheWrite":0,"reasoning":0,"totalTokens":80136,"cost":{"input":0,"output":0,"cacheRead":0,"cacheWrite":0,"total":0}},"stopReason":"stop","timestamp":1784906345390,"responseId":"chatcmpl-466","responseModel":"kimi-k2.7-code"}}
{"type":"message","id":"58d6a710","parentId":"fc9aa1ed","timestamp":"2026-07-24T15:30:06.445Z","message":{"role":"user","content":[{"type":"text","text":"Create a structured implementation plan for: - p-brainstorm -> p-plan -> p-test -> p-commit (design → plan → test → commit) - p-summarize -> p-diagnose -> p-debug -> p-test (understand → diagnose → fix → regression-test) - p-refactor -> p-test -> p-review -> p-commit (safe refactor → validate → review → commit) - p-secaudit -> p-review -> p-test (security-first review loop) 1. create these mentioned chain recipes, but instead of p- use c- (for chain). 2. what should i choos? im unsure. 3. use the slashed version but call the chain c- as in 1. 4. i didnt get the one with the subagent: delegate explain please\n\nFollow this format:\n1. **Goal** — one-sentence objective\n2. **Constraints** — existing code, dependencies, tests, or assumptions to respect\n3. **Approach** — high-level strategy and rationale\n4. **Steps** — numbered, actionable tasks small enough to verify one at a time\n5. **Verification** — how to confirm each step works (tests, logs, manual checks)\n6. **Risks & Rollbacks** — what could go wrong and how to undo safely\n7. **Open Questions** — anything that needs clarification before starting\n\nUse the codebase context as needed. Do not write implementation code yet; only produce the plan."}],"timestamp":1784907006337}}
{"type":"message","id":"7dfde22c","parentId":"58d6a710","timestamp":"2026-07-24T15:31:50.679Z","message":{"role":"assistant","content":[{"type":"thinking","thinking":"The user wants a structured implementation plan for creating chain recipe prompt files named with `c-` prefix instead of `p-`. They want 4 specific chains:\n1. c-brainstorm -> c-plan -> c-test -> c-commit (design → plan → test → commit)\n2. c-summarize -> c-diagnose -> c-debug -> c-test (understand → diagnose → fix → regression-test)\n3. c-refactor -> c-test -> c-review -> c-commit (safe refactor → validate → review → commit)\n4. c-secaudit -> c-review -> c-test (security-first review loop)\n\nThey also have questions:\n2. what should I choose? (unsure about context handoff strategy)\n3. use the slashed version but call the chain c- as in 1. (they want slash commands `/c-*` to invoke the chains)\n4. explain `subagent: delegate`\n\nI should produce a plan addressing all this. Since context-mode is active and I've already read the relevant files, I don't need to read more. I should use the codebase context I already have.\n\nKey points to address:\n- The existing `p-*.md` prompts are interactive parent-session templates. To chain them as subagent workflows, we can either:\n a) Add frontmatter to existing `p-*.md` to make them runnable via `/prompt-workflow` or `/chain-prompts`, OR\n b) Create new `c-*.md` wrapper files that reference the existing `p-*.md` content via the `chain:` frontmatter field\n\nThe user wants option (b): create `c-*.md` chain recipe files. The `chain:` frontmatter in pi-subagents lets you specify `chain: p-brainstorm -> p-plan -> ...` but the names refer to other prompt workflow files. Since they want `c-` chains, we could have:\n- `c-design-build.md` with `chain: p-brainstorm -> p-plan -> p-test -> p-commit`\n- `c-fix-commit.md` with `chain: p-summarize -> p-diagnose -> p-debug -> p-test`\n- `c-refactor-commit.md` with `chain: p-refactor -> p-test -> p-review -> p-commit`\n- `c-security-loop.md` with `chain: p-secaudit -> p-review -> p-test`\n\nBut wait - the `chain:` frontmatter in prompt-workflows.ts uses `splitPromptChain(workflow.chain)` and maps each step name to a workflow file found in the prompts directories. So the chain references other `.md` files by their base name (without .md). The existing `p-*.md` files would need to be loadable as prompt workflows.\n\nHowever, the existing `p-*.md` files don't have `subagent:` frontmatter. The prompt-workflow adapter's `parseAgent` function defaults to `delegate` when `subagent` is not set or is `true`. So if no `subagent:` field, it defaults to `delegate`. That answers question 4: `subagent: delegate` is the default lightweight subagent that inherits parent model and has tools including edit/write/bash/etc.\n\nImportant issue: the existing `p-*.md` prompts are written to be run in the PARENT session, not as subagents. For example, `p-plan.md` says \"Create a structured implementation plan for: ${@:-the current task}\". If run as a subagent, the subagent will receive this as its task and will produce the plan. That's fine.\n\nBut the chain question is about context sharing. The subagent chain engine passes `{previous}` (the prior step's text response) to subsequent steps. However, the existing `p-*.md` templates don't reference `{previous}`. So each step would run with fresh context (if `fresh: true`) or forked context (if `fork: true`), but the prompt body doesn't instruct the agent to read/consume the previous output.\n\nFor the chains to be meaningful, we need the steps to share context. Options:\n1. **Forked context** (`fork: true`): Each subagent inherits the parent conversation history. So when step 2 runs, it sees the user's original request AND step 1's output in the parent history (because step 1 was a subagent that returned output to the parent, which then queued step 2). Actually, in a chain, the chain runner executes steps sequentially and passes outputs. Forked context means the child session branches from the parent's persisted session, so it sees parent history up to the point of launch. Since chain steps are launched by the parent runner, each step sees the parent conversation including prior step outputs that were returned to the parent. This gives implicit context sharing.\n\n2. **Fresh context** (`fresh: true`): Each child gets a minimal context. The chain runner passes `{previous}` as the prior step's output. But the prompt body doesn't use `{previous}`, so the child just gets the original task args. This breaks the chain.\n\n3. **Hybrid**: Use `fresh: true` on the chain recipe but modify/wrap prompts to consume `{previous}`. This is more complex.\n\nThe user is unsure what to choose. I should explain the trade-offs clearly and recommend forked context for these chains because:\n- It requires no changes to existing `p-*.md` bodies\n- Each step naturally sees the accumulated conversation\n- It's the simplest path to get working chains\n- Downside: context bloat/cost. But for these short 3-4 step chains, it's acceptable.\n\nAlternative: fresh context + wrapper prompts. More work but cleaner. Given the user wants minimal changes, recommend forked.\n\nWait, but there's a subtlety. The chain recipes use `chain: p-brainstorm -> p-plan -> ...`. The prompt-workflow code for `workflowParams` sets `context` from runtime options or workflow.context. For chain steps, `workflowChainStep` calls `workflowParams` which uses `runtime.fork ? \"fork\" : runtime.fresh ? \"fresh\" : workflow.context`. Since the chain step is derived from the target workflow (e.g., p-plan.md), it uses p-plan.md's context setting. If p-plan.md has no context setting, it defaults to no context field, which means the subagent tool's default context applies.\n\nIn pi-subagents, the default context for builtin agents like delegate is... let me check. The `delegate.md` agent has no `defaultContext`, so it uses whatever the subagent tool default is. The `subagent` tool defaults: if not specified, I believe it uses the agent's frontmatter `defaultContext` or the system default. The tool description says: \"If omitted, each requested agent uses its own defaultContext; agents without defaultContext: 'fork' run fresh.\" Wait, looking at the tool description: \"context: 'fresh' or 'fork' to branch from parent session. Explicit context overrides every child in the invocation. If omitted, each requested agent uses its own defaultContext; agents without defaultContext: 'fork' run fresh.\"\n\nHmm, that's a bit ambiguous. Looking at delegate.md: no `defaultContext`. So delegate would run fresh by default. But the ollama-orchestrator.md had `defaultContext: fresh`. The builtin agents like planner/worker/oracle have `defaultContext: fork`. The delegate agent does not specify, so it would default to fresh.\n\nThis means if we chain p-* prompts through the prompt-workflow adapter with default `subagent: delegate` and no context hint, each step runs fresh, and since the prompts don't use `{previous}`, the chain won't share context.\n\nSo we need to add `fork: true` to either:\n- The existing p-*.md files (but user wants to keep p- as is maybe?), OR\n- The c- chain recipe files? But the chain frontmatter derives context from each step workflow, not the recipe workflow. Looking at the code: `workflowChainStep` creates a ChainStep from `workflowParams(stepWorkflow, args, runtime)`. The `context` is determined by runtime options or `stepWorkflow.context` (the p-*.md file's context). The recipe workflow's context is NOT passed to chain steps.\n\nWait, let me re-read:\n```typescript\nfunction workflowParams(workflow: PromptWorkflow, args: string[], runtime: ReturnType<typeof parseRuntimeOptions>): SubagentParamsLike {\n\tconst task = substituteArgs(workflow.body, args).trim();\n\tconst context = runtime.fork ? \"fork\" : runtime.fresh ? \"fresh\" : workflow.context;\n\treturn {\n\t\tagent: runtime.agentOverride ?? workflow.agent,\n\t\ttask,\n\t\t...(context ? { context } : {}),\n\t\t...\n\t};\n}\n```\n\nFor a chain step, `workflow` is the step workflow (e.g. p-plan.md). `runtime` comes from the `/chain-prompts` command options or `/prompt-workflow` options. If no `--fork` or `--fresh` flag is passed, `context` falls back to `workflow.context` of the step (p-plan.md).\n\nSo to make the chain use forked context by default, we need to add `fork: true` to each p-*.md file used in chains.\n\nBut the user said: \"create these mentioned chain recipes, but instead of p- use c-\". This could mean they want the chain files to be named c-*.md but the steps still reference the p-*.md files. The user also said \"use the slashed version but call the chain c- as in 1\" which I interpret as: the slash command should be `/c-design-build` etc.\n\nSo the plan should be:\n1. Create 4 new chain recipe files: `c-design-build.md`, `c-fix-commit.md`, `c-refactor-commit.md`, `c-security-loop.md` in `~/.pi/agent/prompts/`\n2. Each recipe has frontmatter like:\n ```yaml\n ---\n description: Design, plan, test, and commit a feature\n argument-hint: \"[task description]\"\n chain: p-brainstorm -> p-plan -> p-test -> p-commit\n ---\n ```\n With maybe `subagent: true` or nothing (defaults to delegate).\n3. To make steps share context, we need the existing p-*.md files to have `fork: true` in their frontmatter. This is a modification to existing files. Alternatively, we can create c- wrapper files that duplicate the p- content with fork: true, but that duplicates content.\n\nActually, wait. There's another option. The chain recipe itself could use the `chain:` field, and when invoked via `/prompt-workflow c-design-build`, the adapter reads the chain and executes each step. But as established, context is per-step. However, maybe forked context isn't strictly necessary if the chain engine itself passes the full previous output as part of the task template.\n\nLooking at chain execution in `subagent-runner.ts`, the task template uses `{previous}` placeholder. For chain steps from prompt workflows, the task is the substituted body of the prompt. The body of p-plan.md is \"Create a structured implementation plan for: ${@:-the current task}\". When the chain runs, the task becomes that text (with args substituted). The `{previous}` is NOT inserted unless the prompt body contains `{previous}`.\n\nWait, looking at `workflowChainStep`, it returns:\n```typescript\nreturn {\n\tagent: params.agent ?? \"delegate\",\n\ttask: params.task,\n\t...\n};\n```\n\nThe `params.task` is just the substituted body. There's no automatic prepending of previous output. So for fresh context, the chain steps don't see previous outputs.\n\nTherefore, for the chains to work meaningfully with existing p-*.md bodies unchanged, we MUST use forked context. And to get forked context by default, we must add `fork: true` to the p-*.md files.\n\nBut is that safe? Adding `fork: true` to a prompt template frontmatter only affects how it runs when invoked via `/prompt-workflow` or as a chain step. It does NOT affect the normal `/p-plan` slash expansion in the parent session, because normal prompt template expansion doesn't read `fork`/`subagent`/`chain` — those are pi-subagents adapter extensions.\n\nWait, actually I should verify: when you type `/p-plan` in Pi, does it use the pi-subagents adapter or just expand the markdown into the editor? The pi-subagents README says: \"It also includes a native prompt-workflow adapter for reusable subagent prompt templates... Then run it through the native adapter: `/prompt-workflow take-screenshot`\". This suggests that `/prompt-name` still works the normal way (expanding into the editor/parent session), while `/prompt-workflow prompt-name` routes through the subagent adapter.\n\nSo adding `subagent:`/`fork:`/`chain:` frontmatter to p-*.md should not break `/p-plan`. It just enables them to also be used as subagent workflows.\n\nTherefore, the plan should include:\n- Add minimal frontmatter to p-*.md files used in chains: `subagent: true` (or omit, default is delegate anyway) and `fork: true`\n- Create 4 c-*.md recipe files with `chain:` frontmatter\n- Verify both `/p-plan` and `/c-design-build` work\n\nNow, the user question 4: \"i didnt get the one with the subagent: delegate explain please\"\n\nI should explain:\n- `subagent:` in prompt frontmatter tells the pi-subagents native prompt-workflow adapter which agent role to use when running that prompt as a subagent.\n- `delegate` is the built-in lightweight general-purpose subagent. It inherits the parent model, has read/bash/edit/write tools, and just executes the task directly.\n- If `subagent` is omitted or set to `true`, the adapter defaults to `delegate`.\n- So `subagent: delegate` means \"run this prompt as a child subagent using the default flexible worker role\".\n\nFor question 2: \"what should i choose?\" — I should recommend forked context with a clear explanation, and mention fresh+{previous} as the alternative if they want cleaner/cheaper chains later.\n\nQuestion 3: \"use the slashed version but call the chain c- as in 1.\" — This means the recipe files should be named `c-*.md` so they appear as `/c-*` slash commands (both in normal Pi prompt expansion and in `/prompt-workflow` listing). But since `chain:` frontmatter makes them chain recipes, invoking `/c-design-build` will expand the body, not run the chain. To run the chain, they'd use `/prompt-workflow c-design-build` or we could add body text that instructs the parent to run the chain? Hmm.\n\nWait, the slash command `/c-design-build` would just expand the markdown body into the editor as a normal prompt template. If the body says \"Run the chain p-brainstorm -> p-plan -> p-test -> p-commit for: $@\", then the parent agent sees that text and could invoke the chain. But that's not automatic.\n\nAlternatively, the user might mean: they want to type `/c-design-build` and have it execute the chain. That requires the prompt to be recognized by the pi-subagents adapter, not just normal expansion. The `/prompt-workflow` command is what routes through the adapter. The `/c-design-build` without `/prompt-workflow` would just expand the body.\n\nHmm, but the pi-subagents prompt-workflow code registers `/prompt-workflow` and `/chain-prompts` commands. It does NOT make prompt templates with `chain:` frontmatter auto-execute as subagent chains when invoked via their normal `/name`. The normal `/name` expansion is handled by Pi core.\n\nHowever, maybe we can make the body of c-*.md instruct the parent to run the chain via the subagent tool? Like:\n```markdown\n---\ndescription: ...\nargument-hint: ...\n---\nRun the prompt chain via: /chain-prompts p-brainstorm -> p-plan -> p-test -> p-commit -- $@\n```\n\nBut that's just text expansion. The user (or parent agent) would need to actually run that command.\n\nActually, looking more carefully at the prompt-workflow code: `discoverPromptWorkflows` scans the prompts directories. Pi core also scans the same directories for normal prompt templates. So `c-design-build.md` will show up as both a normal prompt template (`/c-design-build`) and a prompt workflow (`/prompt-workflow c-design-build`). When invoked via `/c-design-build`, Pi core expands the body. When invoked via `/prompt-workflow c-design-build`, the adapter sees the `chain:` frontmatter and runs the chain.\n\nSo to \"use the slashed version but call the chain c-\", the user could type either:\n- `/prompt-workflow c-design-build \"task\"` — runs the chain\n- `/c-design-build \"task\"` — expands the body text (which could remind them to use `/prompt-workflow`)\n\nMaybe the best approach is to put in the body a note that this is a chain recipe and should be invoked via `/prompt-workflow`. Or, we could omit the body entirely (or make it minimal) and rely on `/prompt-workflow`.\n\nActually, a better idea: the chain recipe file frontmatter can have `chain:` which is used by `/prompt-workflow`. The body can contain the human-readable expansion text for `/c-design-build` that explicitly says \"Running chain: ...\" but the chain is actually triggered via `/prompt-workflow`.\n\nHmm, but the user said \"use the slashed version but call the chain c- as in 1.\" I think they mean: they want the slash command name to be `c-design-build` (not `p-design-build`), and they want it to run the chain. The pi-subagents adapter doesn't hijack normal slash expansion, so the practical answer is:\n- Type `/prompt-workflow c-design-build \"task\"` to run the chain\n- Optionally also create a normal `/c-design-build` prompt whose body tells you to run that command\n\nOr, we could create a `c-design-build.md` with `chain:` frontmatter and the body could be empty/minimal. In Pi, if you type `/c-design-build`, it expands the body. If the body is empty, it might just send nothing or the filename. That's not useful.\n\nI think the cleanest interpretation: the recipe files are named `c-*.md`, and they are invoked via `/prompt-workflow c-*` (or `/chain-prompts` for ad-hoc). The `/c-*` slash command exists as a normal prompt template too, but its body can be a helpful note.\n\nLet me also reconsider: maybe we should NOT modify existing p-*.md files, and instead create c- wrapper files that duplicate the p- content with `fork: true`? But the user said \"create chain recipes... instead of p- use c-\". They likely mean the chain file names use c-, but the steps still reference p-*. \n\nActually, re-reading: \"create these mentioned chain recipes, but instead of p- use c- (for chain).\" This means the 4 chain recipe files should be named with c- prefix. It does NOT necessarily mean the individual steps should be renamed. The steps are still p-brainstorm, p-plan, etc.\n\nAnd \"use the slashed version but call the chain c- as in 1.\" — use slash commands, call them c-*.\n\nOK so the plan is clear now.\n\nLet me structure the response:\n\n1. Goal — one sentence\n2. Constraints — including the fact that p-*.md prompts are parent-session templates, pi-subagents adapter exists, chain frontmatter support, need fork context, etc.\n3. Approach — create c-*.md chain recipe files with `chain:` frontmatter; add `fork: true` to the p-*.md files used as steps so each subagent inherits parent conversation; use `subagent: delegate` (or default).\n4. Steps — numbered, actionable\n5. Verification\n6. Risks & Rollbacks\n7. Open Questions — minimal since user has mostly answered them, but maybe ask about whether they want to modify existing p-*.md files or create c- wrapper copies\n\nActually, the user asked 4 questions embedded in their request. I should answer them within the plan, particularly in Approach/Open Questions. The plan format requires 7 sections, so I can address the questions in Approach (recommendation for #2), within steps (how to invoke), and Open Questions (anything remaining).\n\nWait, the user explicitly asked: \"2. what should i choos? im unsure.\" This is about the context handoff strategy. I should give a clear recommendation in the Approach section.\n\n\"3. use the slashed version but call the chain c- as in 1.\" — I should explain how to invoke: `/prompt-workflow c-design-build \"task\"` or `/chain-prompts p-brainstorm -> p-plan -> p-test -> p-commit -- \"task\"`.\n\n\"4. i didnt get the one with the subagent: delegate explain please\" — explain in Approach or a note.\n\nI should also consider whether we can avoid modifying existing p-*.md files by adding `fork: true` to the chain recipe and expecting it to propagate. But as I established, the chain recipe's own `fork: true` does NOT propagate to chain steps. We need it on each step's workflow file (p-*.md) or we need to pass `--fork` on every `/prompt-workflow` or `/chain-prompts` invocation.\n\nCould the c-*.md recipe body instruct the user to pass `--fork`? Like:\n```markdown\nRun this chain with forked context: /prompt-workflow c-design-build --fork \"task\"\n```\nBut that's error-prone.\n\nAlternatively, can we add `fork: true` to the c- recipe and have it work? No, because the adapter only uses `workflow.context` of the step workflow, not the recipe.\n\nWait, let me double-check. In `workflowChainStep`, it calls `workflowParams(stepWorkflow, args, runtime)`. The `context` is computed as:\n```typescript\nconst context = runtime.fork ? \"fork\" : runtime.fresh ? \"fresh\" : workflow.context;\n```\nHere `workflow` is `stepWorkflow` (the p-* file). So the recipe's context is ignored.\n\nBut wait — when we invoke `/prompt-workflow c-design-build`, the code path is:\n```typescript\nif (workflow.chain) {\n const chainNames = splitPromptChain(workflow.chain);\n const chain = chainNames.map((stepName) => {\n const step = findWorkflow(workflows, stepName);\n ...\n return workflowChainStep(step, runtime.args, runtime);\n });\n await run({ chain, task: runtime.args.join(\" \"), ... }, ctx);\n}\n```\n\nSo `runtime` contains the parsed options from the invocation. If we pass `--fork`, `runtime.fork` is true, and ALL steps get forked context. So one option is to always invoke with `--fork`. But that's not \"slashed version\" friendly.\n\nThe better option is to add `fork: true` to each p-*.md used in chains. This is a small, safe change.\n\nAnother option: create c- wrapper files for each step too, like `c-brainstorm.md` that includes the same body as `p-brainstorm.md` but with `fork: true` and `chain: ...`? No, that would be confusing.\n\nActually, the simplest and most correct approach: \n- Create c-*.md chain recipe files.\n- Add `fork: true` to the p-*.md files used as chain steps.\n- The chain recipe references the p-* files by name.\n\nThis means modifying existing files, but the modifications are only subagent-adapter metadata and don't affect normal `/p-*` usage.\n\nShould we add `subagent: delegate` too? It's the default, so not strictly necessary, but being explicit helps. I recommend adding `subagent: true` or `subagent: delegate` to make the intent clear.\n\nWait, `subagent: true` is treated as `delegate` by `parseAgent`:\n```typescript\nfunction parseAgent(frontmatter: Record<string, string>): string {\n\tconst subagent = stringField(frontmatter, \"subagent\");\n\tif (!subagent || subagent === \"true\") return \"delegate\";\n\treturn subagent;\n}\n```\nSo `subagent: true` → delegate. `subagent: delegate` also → delegate. We can use either. Using `subagent: true` is simpler.\n\nNow, what about the `chain:` field in c-*.md? The adapter reads `chain:` from frontmatter. So `c-design-build.md` frontmatter:\n```yaml\n---\ndescription: Design → plan → test → commit\nargument-hint: \"[task or feature]\"\nsubagent: true\nfork: true\nchain: p-brainstorm -> p-plan -> p-test -> p-commit\n---\n```\n\nWait, if c-design-build.md has `fork: true`, does that do anything? When invoked via `/prompt-workflow c-design-build`, the adapter sees `workflow.chain` and builds a chain. The recipe's own `subagent`/`fork`/`model` are NOT used because `workflowParams` is called on each step workflow, not the recipe. The recipe's body is not used as a task. Looking at the code, when `workflow.chain` is present:\n```typescript\nconst chain = chainNames.map((stepName) => {\n const step = findWorkflow(workflows, stepName);\n if (!step) throw new Error(...);\n return workflowChainStep(step, runtime.args, runtime);\n});\nawait run({ chain, task: runtime.args.join(\" \"), clarify: false, agentScope: \"both\", ...(runtime.bg ? { async: true } : {}) }, ctx);\n```\n\nSo yes, the recipe's own `subagent`/`fork`/`model`/`skill`/`cwd`/`worktree` are ignored when `chain:` is present. Only `chain:` matters. We could still include them for documentation, but they have no effect. Better to keep the recipe frontmatter minimal:\n```yaml\n---\ndescription: Design → plan → test → commit\nargument-hint: \"[task or feature]\"\nchain: p-brainstorm -> p-plan -> p-test -> p-commit\n---\n```\n\nAnd put invocation guidance in the body for when someone types `/c-design-build`:\n```markdown\nChain recipe. Run via: /prompt-workflow c-design-build \"task\"\nOr step-by-step: /chain-prompts p-brainstorm -> p-plan -> p-test -> p-commit -- \"task\"\n```\n\nActually, if the body is just informational, typing `/c-design-build` would paste that into the editor. That's not bad — it reminds the user how to run it. But it doesn't run the chain automatically.\n\nAlternatively, we could put in the body a direct instruction that the parent agent would execute:\n```markdown\nRun the chain /prompt-workflow c-design-build for: $@\n```\nBut that still requires the user/agent to run the command.\n\nGiven pi's architecture, there's no way to make `/c-design-build` automatically run a subagent chain without modifying Pi core or creating an extension. So `/prompt-workflow c-design-build` is the correct invocation.\n\nLet me also think: could we use the existing `/chain-prompts` command with the c- names? `/chain-prompts` only works with individual prompt workflow names, not chain recipes. So `/chain-prompts c-design-build` wouldn't work because `c-design-build` is itself a chain recipe, not a single step. We could only do `/chain-prompts p-brainstorm -> p-plan -> ...`.\n\nOK, I have enough understanding. Let me also verify a few more things from the codebase quickly. Actually, I've already read the key files. I can just write the plan now.\n\nWait, the session state says `<session_mode>investigate</session_mode>` and context-mode is active. I should maybe use `ctx_execute` or `ctx_batch_execute` if I need to process anything, but I don't need to — I can just produce the plan based on what I've read. The user asked not to write implementation code yet, only the plan.\n\nI should be concise but complete. Since the user asked the same question in two turns (first general, now specific), I should produce the plan addressing the specific requirements.\n\nLet me draft the plan.\n\nOne more consideration: should the p-*.md modifications include only the 10 prompts used in the 4 chains? Let's map:\n- c-design-build: p-brainstorm, p-plan, p-test, p-commit\n- c-fix-commit: p-summarize, p-diagnose, p-debug, p-test\n- c-refactor-commit: p-refactor, p-test, p-review, p-commit\n- c-security-loop: p-secaudit, p-review, p-test\n\nAll p-* prompts in the directory are used except... actually all 12 are used. p-doc and p-explain are not used in these chains. We could add metadata to all for consistency, or only to the ones in chains. For the plan, I recommend adding to all 12 for consistency and future-proofing, but it could be scoped to just the chain participants. I'll mention this as a decision point.\n\nAlso: `p-commit.md` says \"Generate a commit message for: ${@:-the current uncommitted changes (run git status / git diff first)}\". When run as a subagent in a chain, the subagent will run git status/diff itself, which is good.\n\n`p-test.md` says \"Write tests for: ${@:-the current code or context}\". In a chain, the previous step's output provides context via forked context, so it can infer what to test.\n\n`p-refactor.md` explicitly says \"Do not combine refactor with new features.\" That's fine.\n\n`p-secaudit.md` is security review. Good.\n\n`p-review.md` is general review. Good.\n\nOK, plan draft:\n\nGoal: Create four `c-*.md` subagent chain recipes in `~/.pi/agent/prompts/` that reuse the existing `p-*.md` prompts as sequential steps, using forked context so each step inherits the accumulated conversation.\n\nConstraints:\n- Existing p-*.md are parent-session prompt templates; they must remain usable via `/p-<verb>`.\n- pi-subagents native prompt-workflow adapter reads `chain:` frontmatter and runs named prompts as subagent steps.\n- Chain steps derive their context mode from the step workflow file, not the recipe file.\n- Reserved names must be avoided.\n\nApproach:\n- Add minimal subagent metadata (`subagent: true`, `fork: true`) to all 12 p-*.md files (or at least the chain participants). This makes them runnable as forked-context subagents without changing their standalone behavior.\n- Create four new recipe files `c-design-build.md`, `c-fix-commit.md`, `c-refactor-commit.md`, `c-security-loop.md` with `chain:` frontmatter referencing the p-* steps.\n- Recommend forked context because it requires no changes to prompt bodies; fresh+{previous} is the cleaner alternative if cost/context is a concern.\n\nSteps:\n1. Backup current prompts dir (git commit or copy).\n2. Add `subagent: true` and `fork: true` to p-*.md frontmatter.\n3. Create the four c-*.md recipe files with chain frontmatter and helpful body text.\n4. Reload Pi (`/reload`) and list workflows (`/prompt-workflow list`).\n5. Test `/p-plan` still works standalone.\n6. Test `/prompt-workflow c-design-build \"a toy feature\"` in a scratch repo.\n7. Inspect chain status and verify each step completed.\n8. Run the other three chains.\n9. Update `Doc/README.md`.\n10. Commit changes.\n\nVerification:\n- `/prompt-workflow list` shows c-* recipes and p-* prompts with expected metadata.\n- Standalone `/p-*` commands unchanged.\n- Each chain completes all steps.\n- Final step output references earlier steps.\n\nRisks & Rollbacks:\n- Frontmatter breaks normal slash expansion → test and rollback by removing metadata lines.\n- Forked context bloat → switch to fresh + {previous} wrappers later.\n- Chain step fails → chain stops; fix the step or split chain.\n\nOpen Questions:\n- Should metadata be added to all 12 p-*.md or only the chain participants?\n- Should we also create ad-hoc `/chain-prompts` aliases, or is `/prompt-workflow c-*` sufficient?\n- Do you want async chains by default? (add `--bg` guidance)\n\nAnd answer the user's questions inline:\n- #2 recommendation: forked context\n- #3: invoke via `/prompt-workflow c-design-build \"task\"`\n- #4: explain `subagent: delegate`\n\nThe format must be exactly the 7 sections. I can weave answers into Approach and Open Questions.\n\nActually, the user wants the plan, not just answers. I should produce the full structured plan. The questions are answered within it.\n\nLet me make sure I don't write implementation code. Just plan.\n\nOne final check: is `chain:` frontmatter in c-*.md enough, or do we also need `subagent:` in c-*.md? As established, `chain:` overrides and the recipe's own `subagent` is ignored. So c-*.md only needs `chain:`, `description`, `argument-hint`. The body can be informational.\n\nWait, but what about the `subagent: true` in p-*.md? The adapter needs to load them as prompt workflows. It will load them regardless of `subagent:` field; `subagent:` just determines the agent. Since the default is delegate, we could omit it. But including it makes the intent explicit.\n\nAlso, `fork: true` is critical. Without it, steps run fresh and don't share context.\n\nActually, one more subtle thing: the p-*.md files use `${@:-...}` for default args. When run through the adapter, `args` are passed and substituted. That's fine.\n\nThe chain recipe's `argument-hint` should probably be `[task]` since the same task is passed to all steps.\n\nOK, I'm ready to write the final answer.","thinkingSignature":"reasoning"},{"type":"text","text":"## Implementation Plan: Create `c-*` Subagent Chain Recipes Reusing `p-*` Prompts\n\n### 1. Goal\nCreate four new `c-*.md` chain recipe files in `~/.pi/agent/prompts/` that run the existing `p-*.md` prompts as sequential `pi-subagents` workflows, while keeping the original `/p-<verb>` interactive prompts unchanged.\n\n### 2. Constraints\n- The existing `p-*.md` files are parent-session prompt templates; their standalone behavior via `/p-brainstorm`, `/p-plan`, etc. must not break.\n- `pi-subagents` is installed and provides the native prompt-workflow adapter:\n - `/prompt-workflow <name> [args]` runs a prompt as a subagent step.\n - `/chain-prompts a -> b -> c -- args` runs prompts as an ad-hoc chain.\n - The adapter reads `chain:` frontmatter to build a saved chain.\n- **Chain steps inherit their context mode from the step workflow file**, not from the recipe file. So the `p-*.md` files used as steps need explicit context metadata.\n- Prompt frontmatter uses shell-style argument substitution (`$@`, `${@:-...}`) which the adapter also supports.\n- Recipe file names must not collide with reserved `pi-subagents` command names (`chain-prompts`, `prompt-workflow`, `run`, `chain`, `parallel`, `run-chain`, `subagents-doctor`, `subagents-models`).\n\n### 3. Approach\n\n**Recommended context strategy: forked context.** \nEach step in a chain needs to see what the previous step produced. The two ways to achieve this are:\n\n| Strategy | How it works | Pros | Cons |\n|---|---|---|---|\n| **Forked context** (`fork: true` on each step) | Each subagent branches from the parent session and inherits the full conversation, including earlier step outputs. | No changes to existing prompt bodies; works immediately. | Higher context/cost because each child carries prior turns. |\n| **Fresh context + `{previous}`** | Each child starts clean and the chain runner injects the prior step's text as `{previous}`; prompts must explicitly consume it. | Leaner, more focused subagents. | Requires editing every `p-*.md` body to reference `{previous}`, or creating wrapper files. |\n\nFor these four short chains, **forked context is the pragmatic choice**: it preserves the existing prompts exactly and is reliable from day one. You can migrate to fresh+`{previous}` later if context cost becomes a problem.\n\n**What `subagent: delegate` means:** \nIn a prompt frontmatter, `subagent:` tells the `pi-subagents` prompt-workflow adapter which agent role should execute the prompt. `delegate` is the built-in lightweight general-purpose subagent — it inherits the parent model, has `read/bash/edit/write/contact_supervisor`, and simply executes the task. If you write `subagent: true` or omit the field entirely, the adapter also defaults to `delegate`. So `subagent: delegate` just means “run this prompt as a plain child subagent.”\n\n**How to invoke the chains:** \nBecause normal Pi slash expansion (`/c-design-build`) just pastes the markdown body into the editor, the actual chain execution must go through the adapter:\n\n- `/prompt-workflow c-design-build \"task\"`\n- `/prompt-workflow c-fix-commit \"weird behavior\"`\n- `/prompt-workflow c-refactor-commit \"src/utils.ts\"`\n- `/prompt-workflow c-security-loop \"auth endpoint\"`\n\nYou can also run the same sequence ad-hoc with: \n`/chain-prompts p-brainstorm -> p-plan -> p-test -> p-commit -- \"task\"`\n\n### 4. Steps\n\n1. **Snapshot the current prompts directory.** \n Commit the existing state of `~/.pi/agent/prompts/` so any frontmatter additions are easy to revert.\n\n2. **Add minimal subagent metadata to the `p-*.md` files used in chains.** \n Insert two lines into the YAML frontmatter of the relevant prompts (all 12 for consistency, or only the 10 that appear in chains): \n ```yaml\n subagent: true\n fork: true\n ``` \n This makes each prompt runnable as a forked-context subagent step without changing its normal `/p-<verb>` behavior.\n\n3. **Create the four chain recipe files** in `~/.pi/agent/prompts/`:\n - `c-design-build.md` — `chain: p-brainstorm -> p-plan -> p-test -> p-commit`\n - `c-fix-commit.md` — `chain: p-summarize -> p-diagnose -> p-debug -> p-test`\n - `c-refactor-commit.md` — `chain: p-refactor -> p-test -> p-review -> p-commit`\n - `c-security-loop.md` — `chain: p-secaudit -> p-review -> p-test`\n\n Each recipe frontmatter should contain `description`, `argument-hint`, and `chain:`. The body can be a short reminder of how to run it via `/prompt-workflow`.\n\n4. **Reload Pi resources.** \n Run `/reload` in Pi, then `/prompt-workflow list` and confirm all four `c-*` recipes appear plus the `p-*` prompts show `subagent: true` / `fork: true` metadata.\n\n5. **Verify standalone prompts still work.** \n Type `/p-plan \"test task\"` and confirm it expands normally in the parent session.\n\n6. **Dry-run the first chain in a scratch repo.** \n Run `/prompt-workflow c-design-build \"a tiny CLI flag feature\"` in an empty or throwaway git repo. Inspect progress with `/subagents-fleet` or `subagent({ action: \"status\" })`.\n\n7. **Validate context flows between steps.** \n Check that `p-plan`'s output references alternatives from `p-brainstorm`, that `p-test` refers to the planned implementation, and that `p-commit` sees the resulting diff.\n\n8. **Run the remaining three chains** with trivial inputs to confirm they all complete without “Unknown prompt workflow” or context errors.\n\n9. **Update `Doc/README.md`.** \n Add a “Chaining prompts” subsection listing the four `/prompt-workflow c-*` recipes, their step sequences, and example invocations.\n\n10. **Commit the dotfiles changes.** \n Stage and commit the new `c-*.md` files and the frontmatter additions to `p-*.md`.\n\n### 5. Verification\n- `/prompt-workflow list` shows `c-design-build`, `c-fix-commit`, `c-refactor-commit`, and `c-security-loop` with clear descriptions.\n- The `p-*.md` entries in that list show `subagent: true` and `fork: true`.\n- `/p-plan \"test\"` still expands as plain text in the parent session (no subagent launch).\n- `/prompt-workflow c-design-build \"test\"` launches four sequential subagents, each appearing in `/subagents-fleet`.\n- `subagent({ action: \"status\" })` reports each chain step as `complete`.\n- The final chain output is coherent and references earlier steps.\n- `Doc/README.md` renders correctly and the copied example commands work.\n\n### 6. Risks & Rollbacks\n\n| Risk | Mitigation / Rollback |\n|---|---|\n| Extra frontmatter breaks normal `/p-*` expansion | Test immediately after adding the two lines; rollback by reverting the frontmatter edit. |\n| Forked context inflates token usage per chain | Accept for now; later migrate to fresh context with `{previous}` wrappers if needed. |\n| A chain step fails and aborts the whole chain | Keep individual `/p-*` prompts available as fallbacks; fix the offending step in isolation. |\n| Recipe names collide with reserved commands | Verify with `/prompt-workflow list`; rename if needed (`c-design-build` is safe). |\n| `p-commit` or `p-test` subagent makes unexpected edits | Chains run sequentially with one writer at a time; review the diff before committing. |\n| User forgets to use `/prompt-workflow` and types `/c-design-build` instead | The recipe body will contain a reminder; no accidental subagent launch occurs. |\n\n### 7. Open Questions\n1. **Scope of frontmatter additions:** Should `subagent: true` / `fork: true` be added to all 12 `p-*.md` files for consistency, or only the 10 that participate in the four chains?\n2. **Async by default:** Do you want the recipes to recommend adding `--bg` so chains run in the background, or keep them foreground by default?\n3. **Fresh-context migration:** After the chains work, do you want a follow-up plan to convert them to leaner fresh-context wrappers with explicit `{previous}` handling?"}],"api":"openai-completions","provider":"ollama","model":"kimi-k2.7-code:cloud","usage":{"input":71602,"output":9097,"cacheRead":0,"cacheWrite":0,"reasoning":0,"totalTokens":80699,"cost":{"input":0,"output":0,"cacheRead":0,"cacheWrite":0,"total":0}},"stopReason":"stop","timestamp":1784907006450,"responseId":"chatcmpl-651","responseModel":"kimi-k2.7-code"}}
{"type":"message","id":"ed9d0485","parentId":"7dfde22c","timestamp":"2026-07-24T15:36:41.666Z","message":{"role":"user","content":[{"type":"text","text":"only the individual prompts should be used as subagents\nchains can run in the background\nnot yet"}],"timestamp":1784907401571}}
{"type":"message","id":"25c03dc1","parentId":"ed9d0485","timestamp":"2026-07-24T15:37:06.877Z","message":{"role":"assistant","content":[{"type":"text","text":"## Implementation Plan: Create `c-*` Subagent Chain Recipes Reusing `p-*` Prompts\n\n### 1. Goal\nCreate four new `c-*.md` chain recipe files in `~/.pi/agent/prompts/` that run only the existing `p-*.md` prompts as sequential `pi-subagents` workflows, while keeping the original `/p-<verb>` interactive prompts unchanged.\n\n### 2. Constraints\n- The existing `p-*.md` files are parent-session prompt templates; their standalone behavior via `/p-brainstorm`, `/p-plan`, etc. must not break.\n- `pi-subagents` is installed and provides the native prompt-workflow adapter:\n - `/prompt-workflow <name> [args]` runs a prompt as a subagent step.\n - `/chain-prompts a -> b -> c -- args` runs prompts as an ad-hoc chain.\n - The adapter reads `chain:` frontmatter to build a saved chain.\n- **Only the individual prompts should be used as subagents** — recipe files are just orchestration wrappers, not delegated agents.\n- **Chains can run in the background** — recipe files should set `async: true` in frontmatter so `/prompt-workflow c-*` detaches by default.\n- Prompt frontmatter uses shell-style argument substitution (`$@`, `${@:-...}`) which the adapter also supports.\n- Recipe file names must not collide with reserved `pi-subagents` command names (`chain-prompts`, `prompt-workflow`, `run`, `chain`, `parallel`, `run-chain`, `subagents-doctor`, `subagents-models`).\n\n### 3. Approach\n\n**Context strategy: forked context.** \nEach step in a chain needs to see what the previous step produced. The two ways to achieve this are:\n\n| Strategy | How it works | Pros | Cons |\n|---|---|---|---|\n| **Forked context** (`fork: true` on each step) | Each subagent branches from the parent session and inherits the full conversation, including earlier step outputs. | No changes to existing prompt bodies; works immediately. | Higher context/cost because each child carries prior turns. |\n| **Fresh context + `{previous}`** | Each child starts clean and the chain runner injects the prior step's text as `{previous}`; prompts must explicitly consume it. | Leaner, more focused subagents. | Requires editing every `p-*.md` body to reference `{previous}`, or creating wrapper files. |\n\nFor these four short chains, **forked context is the pragmatic choice**: it preserves the existing prompts exactly and is reliable from day one. You can migrate to fresh+`{previous}` later if context cost becomes a problem.\n\n**What `subagent: true` on a `p-*.md` means:** \nWhen a prompt template has `subagent: true` in its frontmatter, the `pi-subagents` prompt-workflow adapter knows it can be delegated to a child Pi session rather than pasted into the parent editor. `subagent: true` is the same as `subagent: delegate` — it uses the built-in lightweight general-purpose subagent that inherits the parent model, has `read/bash/edit/write/contact_supervisor`, and simply executes the task. The recipe file only declares `chain: p-foo -> p-bar`; the adapter automatically turns each step into a `delegate` subagent call because the referenced prompts declare `subagent: true`.\n\n**How to invoke the chains:** \nBecause normal Pi slash expansion (`/c-design-build`) just pastes the markdown body into the editor, the actual chain execution must go through the adapter:\n\n- `/prompt-workflow c-design-build \"task\"`\n- `/prompt-workflow c-fix-commit \"weird behavior\"`\n- `/prompt-workflow c-refactor-commit \"src/utils.ts\"`\n- `/prompt-workflow c-security-loop \"auth endpoint\"`\n\nBecause the recipe frontmatter sets `async: true`, these will detach by default. You can also run the same sequence ad-hoc with:\n\n- `/chain-prompts p-brainstorm -> p-plan -> p-test -> p-commit --bg -- \"task\"`\n\n### 4. Steps\n\n1. **Snapshot the current prompts directory.** \n Commit the existing state of `~/.pi/agent/prompts/` so any frontmatter additions are easy to revert.\n\n2. **Add minimal subagent metadata to the `p-*.md` files used in chains.** \n Insert two lines into the YAML frontmatter of the relevant prompts (the 10 that appear in the four chains): \n ```yaml\n subagent: true\n fork: true\n ``` \n This makes each prompt runnable as a forked-context subagent step without changing its normal `/p-<verb>` behavior.\n\n3. **Create the four chain recipe files** in `~/.pi/agent/prompts/`:\n - `c-design-build.md` — `chain: p-brainstorm -> p-plan -> p-test -> p-commit`\n - `c-fix-commit.md` — `chain: p-summarize -> p-diagnose -> p-debug -> p-test`\n - `c-refactor-commit.md` — `chain: p-refactor -> p-test -> p-review -> p-commit`\n - `c-security-loop.md` — `chain: p-secaudit -> p-review -> p-test`\n\n Each recipe frontmatter should contain `description`, `argument-hint`, `chain:`, and `async: true`. The body can be a short reminder of how to run it via `/prompt-workflow`.\n\n4. **Reload Pi resources.** \n Run `/reload` in Pi, then `/prompt-workflow list` and confirm all four `c-*` recipes appear plus the referenced `p-*` prompts show `subagent: true` / `fork: true` metadata.\n\n5. **Verify standalone prompts still work.** \n Type `/p-plan \"test task\"` and confirm it expands normally in the parent session.\n\n6. **Dry-run the first chain in a scratch repo.** \n Run `/prompt-workflow c-design-build \"a tiny CLI flag feature\"` in an empty or throwaway git repo. Because the recipe has `async: true`, it will run in the background; inspect progress with `/subagents-fleet` or `subagent({ action: \"status\" })`.\n\n7. **Validate context flows between steps.** \n Once the chain completes, check that `p-plan`'s output references alternatives from `p-brainstorm`, that `p-test` refers to the planned implementation, and that `p-commit` sees the resulting diff.\n\n8. **Run the remaining three chains** with trivial inputs to confirm they all complete without “Unknown prompt workflow” or context errors.\n\n9. **Update `Doc/README.md`.** \n Add a “Chaining prompts” subsection listing the four `/prompt-workflow c-*` recipes, their step sequences, example invocations, and a note that they run async by default.\n\n10. **Commit the dotfiles changes.** \n Stage and commit the new `c-*.md` files and the frontmatter additions to `p-*.md`.\n\n### 5. Verification\n- `/prompt-workflow list` shows `c-design-build`, `c-fix-commit`, `c-refactor-commit`, and `c-security-loop` with clear descriptions and `async: true`.\n- The referenced `p-*.md` entries in that list show `subagent: true` and `fork: true`.\n- `/p-plan \"test\"` still expands as plain text in the parent session (no subagent launch).\n- `/prompt-workflow c-design-build \"test\"` immediately returns control and launches the chain as a background run.\n- `/subagents-fleet` shows four sequential subagent steps; `subagent({ action: \"status\" })` reports them as `complete`.\n- The final chain output is coherent and references earlier steps.\n- `Doc/README.md` renders correctly and the copied example commands work.\n\n### 6. Risks & Rollbacks\n\n| Risk | Mitigation / Rollback |\n|---|---|\n| Extra frontmatter breaks normal `/p-*` expansion | Test immediately after adding the two lines; rollback by reverting the frontmatter edit. |\n| Forked context inflates token usage per chain | Accept for now; later migrate to fresh context with `{previous}` wrappers if needed. |\n| A chain step fails and aborts the whole chain | Keep individual `/p-*` prompts available as fallbacks; fix the offending step in isolation. |\n| Recipe names collide with reserved commands | Verify with `/prompt-workflow list`; rename if needed (`c-design-build` is safe). |\n| `p-commit` or `p-test` subagent makes unexpected edits | Chains run sequentially with one writer at a time; review the diff before committing. |\n| User forgets to use `/prompt-workflow` and types `/c-design-build` instead | The recipe body will contain a reminder; no accidental subagent launch occurs. |\n| `async: true` frontmatter not honored by adapter | Verify with a dry run; if ignored, add `--bg` to the invocation or add `bg: true` instead. |\n\n### 7. Open Questions\n1. **Scope of frontmatter additions:** Should `subagent: true` / `fork: true` be added to all 12 `p-*.md` files for consistency, or only the 10 that participate in the four chains?\n2. **Fresh-context migration:** After the chains work, do you want a follow-up plan to convert them to leaner fresh-context wrappers with explicit `{previous}` handling?"}],"api":"openai-completions","provider":"ollama","model":"kimi-k2.7-code:cloud","usage":{"input":73505,"output":2002,"cacheRead":0,"cacheWrite":0,"reasoning":0,"totalTokens":75507,"cost":{"input":0,"output":0,"cacheRead":0,"cacheWrite":0,"total":0}},"stopReason":"stop","timestamp":1784907401668,"responseId":"chatcmpl-132","responseModel":"kimi-k2.7-code"}}
{"type":"message","id":"9b782001","parentId":"25c03dc1","timestamp":"2026-07-24T15:37:33.809Z","message":{"role":"user","content":[{"type":"text","text":"1. only the 10 that participate in the cahins\n2. not yet"}],"timestamp":1784907453718}}
{"type":"message","id":"b6eb1b1c","parentId":"9b782001","timestamp":"2026-07-24T15:37:41.608Z","message":{"role":"assistant","content":[{"type":"thinking","thinking":"The user wants me to implement the plan now. They confirmed:\n1. Only the 10 prompts that participate in chains get frontmatter\n2. Not yet on fresh-context migration\n\nSo I need to:\n1. Add `subagent: true` and `fork: true` to 10 p-*.md files:\n - p-brainstorm.md\n - p-plan.md\n - p-test.md\n - p-commit.md\n - p-summarize.md\n - p-diagnose.md\n - p-debug.md\n - p-refactor.md\n - p-review.md\n - p-secaudit.md\n2. Create 4 c-*.md chain recipe files with async: true and chain: frontmatter\n3. Update Doc/README.md\n\nI should use edit tool to add frontmatter. Let me first read the current frontmatter structure of each file to make precise edits.\n\nThe 10 files are:\n- p-brainstorm.md\n- p-commit.md\n- p-debug.md\n- p-diagnose.md\n- p-doc.md (not in chains - skip)\n- p-explain.md (not in chains - skip)\n- p-plan.md\n- p-refactor.md\n- p-review.md\n- p-secaudit.md\n- p-summarize.md\n- p-test.md\n\nNow I'll add `subagent: true` and `fork: true` to the frontmatter. The existing structure is:\n```\n---\ndescription: ...\nargument-hint: ...\n---\n```\n\nI need to add:\n```\n---\ndescription: ...\nargument-hint: ...\nsubagent: true\nfork: true\n---\n```\n\nThen create the 4 chain recipe files. Each should have:\n- description\n- argument-hint\n- chain:\n- async: true\n\nBody should explain how to run via /prompt-workflow.\n\nI need to be careful with context-mode instructions. Since this is implementation (read/edit files), I should use ctx_execute_file? Actually, the instructions say \"Read/edit files → ctx_execute_file\". But I already read the files earlier. The edit tool is available. However, context-mode says to use ctx_execute_file when editing files? Let me check the hierarchy: ctx_batch_execute > ctx_execute > ctx_execute_file > ctx_search. Read/edit files → ctx_execute_file. But ctx_execute_file is for running code over a file, not editing. The edit tool is still needed for actual text replacement. I think context-mode means use ctx_execute_file for analysis of files, but edits still use edit tool.\n\nActually, the user's message just activated context-mode. The tool use policy says hierarchy. For editing files, I should probably still use the edit tool because ctx_execute_file is read-only (processes FILE_CONTENT and prints summary). So I'll use edit for the actual edits.\n\nLet me proceed with edits. I'll do all 10 files with multiple edit entries in one call.\n\nFor each file, the oldText is:\n```\n---\ndescription: ...\nargument-hint: ...\n---\n```\n\nAnd newText is:\n```\n---\ndescription: ...\nargument-hint: ...\nsubagent: true\nfork: true\n---\n```\n\nWait, the argument-hint values are different for each file. I should use oldText unique to each. Let me get the exact frontmatter for each. I have them from earlier reads.\n\nThen create 4 new files with write tool.\n\nLet me do the edits first.","thinkingSignature":"reasoning"},{"type":"toolCall","id":"functions.edit:48","name":"edit","arguments":{"path":"/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/agent/prompts/p-brainstorm.md","edits":[{"newText":"---\ndescription: Generate 3–5 design alternatives with trade-offs before committing to an approach\nargument-hint: \"[problem or feature to design]\"\nsubagent: true\nfork: true\n---","oldText":"---\ndescription: Generate 3–5 design alternatives with trade-offs before committing to an approach\nargument-hint: \"[problem or feature to design]\"\n---"}]}}],"api":"openai-completions","provider":"ollama","model":"kimi-k2.7-code:cloud","usage":{"input":75532,"output":831,"cacheRead":0,"cacheWrite":0,"reasoning":0,"totalTokens":76363,"cost":{"input":0,"output":0,"cacheRead":0,"cacheWrite":0,"total":0}},"stopReason":"toolUse","timestamp":1784907453810,"responseId":"chatcmpl-970","responseModel":"kimi-k2.7-code"}}
{"type":"message","id":"176aa36a","parentId":"b6eb1b1c","timestamp":"2026-07-24T15:37:41.618Z","message":{"role":"toolResult","toolCallId":"functions.edit:48","toolName":"edit","content":[{"type":"text","text":"Successfully replaced 1 block(s) in /home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/agent/prompts/p-brainstorm.md."}],"details":{"diff":" 1 ---\n 2 description: Generate 3–5 design alternatives with trade-offs before committing to an approach\n 3 argument-hint: \"[problem or feature to design]\"\n+ 4 subagent: true\n+ 5 fork: true\n 4 ---\n 5 Brainstorm approaches for: ${@:-the current problem or feature}\n 6 \n 7 Structure your answer as:\n ...","patch":"--- /home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/agent/prompts/p-brainstorm.md\n+++ /home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/agent/prompts/p-brainstorm.md\n@@ -1,7 +1,9 @@\n ---\n description: Generate 3–5 design alternatives with trade-offs before committing to an approach\n argument-hint: \"[problem or feature to design]\"\n+subagent: true\n+fork: true\n ---\n Brainstorm approaches for: ${@:-the current problem or feature}\n \n Structure your answer as:\n","firstChangedLine":4},"isError":false,"timestamp":1784907461618}}
{"type":"message","id":"84d1269c","parentId":"176aa36a","timestamp":"2026-07-24T15:37:49.370Z","message":{"role":"assistant","content":[{"type":"toolCall","id":"functions.edit:49","name":"edit","arguments":{"path":"/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/agent/prompts/p-commit.md","edits":[{"newText":"---\ndescription: Generate a conventional commit message and optional PR description from current changes\nargument-hint: \"[diff, file list, or 'auto' to use git status]\"\nsubagent: true\nfork: true\n---","oldText":"---\ndescription: Generate a conventional commit message and optional PR description from current changes\nargument-hint: \"[diff, file list, or 'auto' to use git status]\"\n---"}]}},{"type":"toolCall","id":"functions.edit:50","name":"edit","arguments":{"path":"/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/agent/prompts/p-debug.md","edits":[{"newText":"---\ndescription: Diagnose a failing test, build, or runtime error\nargument-hint: \"[error message, test name, or stack trace]\"\nsubagent: true\nfork: true\n---","oldText":"---\ndescription: Diagnose a failing test, build, or runtime error\nargument-hint: \"[error message, test name, or stack trace]\"\n---"}]}},{"type":"toolCall","id":"functions.edit:51","name":"edit","arguments":{"path":"/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/agent/prompts/p-diagnose.md","edits":[{"newText":"---\ndescription: Diagnose unexpected behavior, not just failures (race conditions, perf regressions, weird output)\nargument-hint: \"[symptom or observed behavior]\"\nsubagent: true\nfork: true\n---","oldText":"---\ndescription: Diagnose unexpected behavior, not just failures (race conditions, perf regressions, weird output)\nargument-hint: \"[symptom or observed behavior]\"\n---"}]}},{"type":"toolCall","id":"functions.edit:52","name":"edit","arguments":{"path":"/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/agent/prompts/p-plan.md","edits":[{"newText":"---\ndescription: Create a structured implementation plan before coding\nargument-hint: \"[task or feature]\"\nsubagent: true\nfork: true\n---","oldText":"---\ndescription: Create a structured implementation plan before coding\nargument-hint: \"[task or feature]\"\n---"}]}},{"type":"toolCall","id":"functions.edit:53","name":"edit","arguments":{"path":"/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/agent/prompts/p-refactor.md","edits":[{"newText":"---\ndescription: Safely restructure code without changing behavior\nargument-hint: \"[file path or symbol to refactor]\"\nsubagent: true\nfork: true\n---","oldText":"---\ndescription: Safely restructure code without changing behavior\nargument-hint: \"[file path or symbol to refactor]\"\n---"}]}},{"type":"toolCall","id":"functions.edit:54","name":"edit","arguments":{"path":"/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/agent/prompts/p-review.md","edits":[{"newText":"---\ndescription: Review code, diffs, or changes with actionable feedback\nargument-hint: \"[target: file path, diff, or PR]\"\nsubagent: true\nfork: true\n---","oldText":"---\ndescription: Review code, diffs, or changes with actionable feedback\nargument-hint: \"[target: file path, diff, or PR]\"\n---"}]}},{"type":"toolCall","id":"functions.edit:55","name":"edit","arguments":{"path":"/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/agent/prompts/p-secaudit.md","edits":[{"newText":"---\ndescription: Security-focused review covering OWASP-style categories\nargument-hint: \"[file path, diff, or feature to audit]\"\nsubagent: true\nfork: true\n---","oldText":"---\ndescription: Security-focused review covering OWASP-style categories\nargument-hint: \"[file path, diff, or feature to audit]\"\n---"}]}},{"type":"toolCall","id":"functions.edit:56","name":"edit","arguments":{"path":"/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/agent/prompts/p-summarize.md","edits":[{"newText":"---\ndescription: Summarize a long file, log, diff, or document into structured notes\nargument-hint: \"[file path, log, or topic to summarize]\"\nsubagent: true\nfork: true\n---","oldText":"---\ndescription: Summarize a long file, log, diff, or document into structured notes\nargument-hint: \"[file path, log, or topic to summarize]\"\n---"}]}},{"type":"toolCall","id":"functions.edit:57","name":"edit","arguments":{"path":"/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/agent/prompts/p-test.md","edits":[{"newText":"---\ndescription: Write or expand unit / integration tests for the given code\nargument-hint: \"[file path, function, or feature to test]\"\nsubagent: true\nfork: true\n---","oldText":"---\ndescription: Write or expand unit / integration tests for the given code\nargument-hint: \"[file path, function, or feature to test]\"\n---"}]}}],"api":"openai-completions","provider":"ollama","model":"kimi-k2.7-code:cloud","usage":{"input":76302,"output":1116,"cacheRead":0,"cacheWrite":0,"reasoning":0,"totalTokens":77418,"cost":{"input":0,"output":0,"cacheRead":0,"cacheWrite":0,"total":0}},"stopReason":"toolUse","timestamp":1784907461620,"responseId":"chatcmpl-271","responseModel":"kimi-k2.7-code"}}
{"type":"message","id":"84412f58","parentId":"84d1269c","timestamp":"2026-07-24T15:37:49.378Z","message":{"role":"toolResult","toolCallId":"functions.edit:49","toolName":"edit","content":[{"type":"text","text":"Successfully replaced 1 block(s) in /home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/agent/prompts/p-commit.md."}],"details":{"diff":" 1 ---\n 2 description: Generate a conventional commit message and optional PR description from current changes\n 3 argument-hint: \"[diff, file list, or 'auto' to use git status]\"\n+ 4 subagent: true\n+ 5 fork: true\n 4 ---\n 5 Generate a commit message for: ${@:-the current uncommitted changes (run git status / git diff first)}\n 6 \n 7 Structure your answer as:\n ...","patch":"--- /home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/agent/prompts/p-commit.md\n+++ /home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/agent/prompts/p-commit.md\n@@ -1,7 +1,9 @@\n ---\n description: Generate a conventional commit message and optional PR description from current changes\n argument-hint: \"[diff, file list, or 'auto' to use git status]\"\n+subagent: true\n+fork: true\n ---\n Generate a commit message for: ${@:-the current uncommitted changes (run git status / git diff first)}\n \n Structure your answer as:\n","firstChangedLine":4},"isError":false,"timestamp":1784907469378}}
{"type":"message","id":"a10f7aa4","parentId":"84412f58","timestamp":"2026-07-24T15:37:49.379Z","message":{"role":"toolResult","toolCallId":"functions.edit:50","toolName":"edit","content":[{"type":"text","text":"Successfully replaced 1 block(s) in /home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/agent/prompts/p-debug.md."}],"details":{"diff":" 1 ---\n 2 description: Diagnose a failing test, build, or runtime error\n 3 argument-hint: \"[error message, test name, or stack trace]\"\n+ 4 subagent: true\n+ 5 fork: true\n 4 ---\n 5 Diagnose the following failure: ${@:-the current failing test or error}\n 6 \n 7 Structure your answer as:\n ...","patch":"--- /home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/agent/prompts/p-debug.md\n+++ /home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/agent/prompts/p-debug.md\n@@ -1,7 +1,9 @@\n ---\n description: Diagnose a failing test, build, or runtime error\n argument-hint: \"[error message, test name, or stack trace]\"\n+subagent: true\n+fork: true\n ---\n Diagnose the following failure: ${@:-the current failing test or error}\n \n Structure your answer as:\n","firstChangedLine":4},"isError":false,"timestamp":1784907469379}}
{"type":"message","id":"23e1bbdc","parentId":"a10f7aa4","timestamp":"2026-07-24T15:37:49.379Z","message":{"role":"toolResult","toolCallId":"functions.edit:51","toolName":"edit","content":[{"type":"text","text":"Successfully replaced 1 block(s) in /home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/agent/prompts/p-diagnose.md."}],"details":{"diff":" 1 ---\n 2 description: Diagnose unexpected behavior, not just failures (race conditions, perf regressions, weird output)\n 3 argument-hint: \"[symptom or observed behavior]\"\n+ 4 subagent: true\n+ 5 fork: true\n 4 ---\n 5 Diagnose the following unexpected behavior: ${@:-the current code or recent change}\n 6 \n 7 Structure your answer as:\n ...","patch":"--- /home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/agent/prompts/p-diagnose.md\n+++ /home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/agent/prompts/p-diagnose.md\n@@ -1,7 +1,9 @@\n ---\n description: Diagnose unexpected behavior, not just failures (race conditions, perf regressions, weird output)\n argument-hint: \"[symptom or observed behavior]\"\n+subagent: true\n+fork: true\n ---\n Diagnose the following unexpected behavior: ${@:-the current code or recent change}\n \n Structure your answer as:\n","firstChangedLine":4},"isError":false,"timestamp":1784907469379}}
{"type":"message","id":"3a203e3f","parentId":"23e1bbdc","timestamp":"2026-07-24T15:37:49.379Z","message":{"role":"toolResult","toolCallId":"functions.edit:52","toolName":"edit","content":[{"type":"text","text":"Successfully replaced 1 block(s) in /home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/agent/prompts/p-plan.md."}],"details":{"diff":" 1 ---\n 2 description: Create a structured implementation plan before coding\n 3 argument-hint: \"[task or feature]\"\n+ 4 subagent: true\n+ 5 fork: true\n 4 ---\n 5 Create a structured implementation plan for: ${@:-the current task}\n 6 \n 7 Follow this format:\n ...","patch":"--- /home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/agent/prompts/p-plan.md\n+++ /home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/agent/prompts/p-plan.md\n@@ -1,7 +1,9 @@\n ---\n description: Create a structured implementation plan before coding\n argument-hint: \"[task or feature]\"\n+subagent: true\n+fork: true\n ---\n Create a structured implementation plan for: ${@:-the current task}\n \n Follow this format:\n","firstChangedLine":4},"isError":false,"timestamp":1784907469379}}
{"type":"message","id":"5023e057","parentId":"3a203e3f","timestamp":"2026-07-24T15:37:49.379Z","message":{"role":"toolResult","toolCallId":"functions.edit:53","toolName":"edit","content":[{"type":"text","text":"Successfully replaced 1 block(s) in /home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/agent/prompts/p-refactor.md."}],"details":{"diff":" 1 ---\n 2 description: Safely restructure code without changing behavior\n 3 argument-hint: \"[file path or symbol to refactor]\"\n+ 4 subagent: true\n+ 5 fork: true\n 4 ---\n 5 Refactor: ${@:-the current code or context}\n 6 \n 7 Structure your answer as:\n ...","patch":"--- /home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/agent/prompts/p-refactor.md\n+++ /home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/agent/prompts/p-refactor.md\n@@ -1,7 +1,9 @@\n ---\n description: Safely restructure code without changing behavior\n argument-hint: \"[file path or symbol to refactor]\"\n+subagent: true\n+fork: true\n ---\n Refactor: ${@:-the current code or context}\n \n Structure your answer as:\n","firstChangedLine":4},"isError":false,"timestamp":1784907469379}}
{"type":"message","id":"2eb28e03","parentId":"5023e057","timestamp":"2026-07-24T15:37:49.379Z","message":{"role":"toolResult","toolCallId":"functions.edit:54","toolName":"edit","content":[{"type":"text","text":"Successfully replaced 1 block(s) in /home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/agent/prompts/p-review.md."}],"details":{"diff":" 1 ---\n 2 description: Review code, diffs, or changes with actionable feedback\n 3 argument-hint: \"[target: file path, diff, or PR]\"\n+ 4 subagent: true\n+ 5 fork: true\n 4 ---\n 5 Review the following code or changes: ${@:-the current file / diff / staged changes}\n 6 \n 7 Provide feedback in these categories:\n ...","patch":"--- /home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/agent/prompts/p-review.md\n+++ /home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/agent/prompts/p-review.md\n@@ -1,7 +1,9 @@\n ---\n description: Review code, diffs, or changes with actionable feedback\n argument-hint: \"[target: file path, diff, or PR]\"\n+subagent: true\n+fork: true\n ---\n Review the following code or changes: ${@:-the current file / diff / staged changes}\n \n Provide feedback in these categories:\n","firstChangedLine":4},"isError":false,"timestamp":1784907469379}}
{"type":"message","id":"7ba31c0d","parentId":"2eb28e03","timestamp":"2026-07-24T15:37:49.379Z","message":{"role":"toolResult","toolCallId":"functions.edit:55","toolName":"edit","content":[{"type":"text","text":"Successfully replaced 1 block(s) in /home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/agent/prompts/p-secaudit.md."}],"details":{"diff":" 1 ---\n 2 description: Security-focused review covering OWASP-style categories\n 3 argument-hint: \"[file path, diff, or feature to audit]\"\n+ 4 subagent: true\n+ 5 fork: true\n 4 ---\n 5 Security-audit: ${@:-the current code, diff, or feature}\n 6 \n 7 Structure your answer as:\n ...","patch":"--- /home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/agent/prompts/p-secaudit.md\n+++ /home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/agent/prompts/p-secaudit.md\n@@ -1,7 +1,9 @@\n ---\n description: Security-focused review covering OWASP-style categories\n argument-hint: \"[file path, diff, or feature to audit]\"\n+subagent: true\n+fork: true\n ---\n Security-audit: ${@:-the current code, diff, or feature}\n \n Structure your answer as:\n","firstChangedLine":4},"isError":false,"timestamp":1784907469379}}
{"type":"message","id":"eaf03a28","parentId":"7ba31c0d","timestamp":"2026-07-24T15:37:49.379Z","message":{"role":"toolResult","toolCallId":"functions.edit:56","toolName":"edit","content":[{"type":"text","text":"Successfully replaced 1 block(s) in /home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/agent/prompts/p-summarize.md."}],"details":{"diff":" 1 ---\n 2 description: Summarize a long file, log, diff, or document into structured notes\n 3 argument-hint: \"[file path, log, or topic to summarize]\"\n+ 4 subagent: true\n+ 5 fork: true\n 4 ---\n 5 Summarize: ${@:-the current file or context}\n 6 \n 7 Structure your answer as:\n ...","patch":"--- /home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/agent/prompts/p-summarize.md\n+++ /home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/agent/prompts/p-summarize.md\n@@ -1,7 +1,9 @@\n ---\n description: Summarize a long file, log, diff, or document into structured notes\n argument-hint: \"[file path, log, or topic to summarize]\"\n+subagent: true\n+fork: true\n ---\n Summarize: ${@:-the current file or context}\n \n Structure your answer as:\n","firstChangedLine":4},"isError":false,"timestamp":1784907469379}}
{"type":"message","id":"701f5a6f","parentId":"eaf03a28","timestamp":"2026-07-24T15:37:49.379Z","message":{"role":"toolResult","toolCallId":"functions.edit:57","toolName":"edit","content":[{"type":"text","text":"Successfully replaced 1 block(s) in /home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/agent/prompts/p-test.md."}],"details":{"diff":" 1 ---\n 2 description: Write or expand unit / integration tests for the given code\n 3 argument-hint: \"[file path, function, or feature to test]\"\n+ 4 subagent: true\n+ 5 fork: true\n 4 ---\n 5 Write tests for: ${@:-the current code or context}\n 6 \n 7 Structure your answer as:\n ...","patch":"--- /home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/agent/prompts/p-test.md\n+++ /home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/agent/prompts/p-test.md\n@@ -1,7 +1,9 @@\n ---\n description: Write or expand unit / integration tests for the given code\n argument-hint: \"[file path, function, or feature to test]\"\n+subagent: true\n+fork: true\n ---\n Write tests for: ${@:-the current code or context}\n \n Structure your answer as:\n","firstChangedLine":4},"isError":false,"timestamp":1784907469379}}
{"type":"message","id":"72ed9121","parentId":"701f5a6f","timestamp":"2026-07-24T15:37:54.662Z","message":{"role":"assistant","content":[{"type":"toolCall","id":"functions.write:58","name":"write","arguments":{"path":"/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/agent/prompts/c-design-build.md","content":"---\ndescription: Brainstorm → plan → test → commit in one background chain\nargument-hint: \"[task or feature]\"\nchain: p-brainstorm -> p-plan -> p-test -> p-commit\nasync: true\n---\nRun the design → plan → test → commit chain for: ${@:-the current task}\n\nInvoke with:\n/prompt-workflow c-design-build \"add a rate-limiter to the API\"\n"}},{"type":"toolCall","id":"functions.write:59","name":"write","arguments":{"path":"/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/agent/prompts/c-fix-commit.md","content":"---\ndescription: Summarize → diagnose → debug → test in one background chain\nargument-hint: \"[symptom, error, or observed behavior]\"\nchain: p-summarize -> p-diagnose -> p-debug -> p-test\nasync: true\n---\nRun the understand → diagnose → fix → regression-test chain for: ${@:-the current unexpected behavior}\n\nInvoke with:\n/prompt-workflow c-fix-commit \"the checkout intermittently times out\"\n"}},{"type":"toolCall","id":"functions.write:60","name":"write","arguments":{"path":"/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/agent/prompts/c-refactor-commit.md","content":"---\ndescription: Refactor → test → review → commit in one background chain\nargument-hint: \"[file path or symbol to refactor]\"\nchain: p-refactor -> p-test -> p-review -> p-commit\nasync: true\n---\nRun the safe refactor → validate → review → commit chain for: ${@:-the current code or context}\n\nInvoke with:\n/prompt-workflow c-refactor-commit \"src/utils.ts\"\n"}},{"type":"toolCall","id":"functions.write:61","name":"write","arguments":{"path":"/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/agent/prompts/c-security-loop.md","content":"---\ndescription: Security audit → review → test in one background chain\nargument-hint: \"[file path, diff, or feature to audit]\"\nchain: p-secaudit -> p-review -> p-test\nasync: true\n---\nRun the security-first review loop for: ${@:-the current code or feature}\n\nInvoke with:\n/prompt-workflow c-security-loop \"auth endpoint\"\n"}}],"api":"openai-completions","provider":"ollama","model":"kimi-k2.7-code:cloud","usage":{"input":77734,"output":522,"cacheRead":0,"cacheWrite":0,"reasoning":0,"totalTokens":78256,"cost":{"input":0,"output":0,"cacheRead":0,"cacheWrite":0,"total":0}},"stopReason":"toolUse","timestamp":1784907469381,"responseId":"chatcmpl-899","responseModel":"kimi-k2.7-code"}}
{"type":"message","id":"e7c1c307","parentId":"72ed9121","timestamp":"2026-07-24T15:37:54.666Z","message":{"role":"toolResult","toolCallId":"functions.write:58","toolName":"write","content":[{"type":"text","text":"Successfully wrote 328 bytes to /home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/agent/prompts/c-design-build.md"}],"isError":false,"timestamp":1784907474666}}
{"type":"message","id":"c1a1c321","parentId":"e7c1c307","timestamp":"2026-07-24T15:37:54.666Z","message":{"role":"toolResult","toolCallId":"functions.write:59","toolName":"write","content":[{"type":"text","text":"Successfully wrote 390 bytes to /home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/agent/prompts/c-fix-commit.md"}],"isError":false,"timestamp":1784907474666}}
{"type":"message","id":"c66c6250","parentId":"c1a1c321","timestamp":"2026-07-24T15:37:54.666Z","message":{"role":"toolResult","toolCallId":"functions.write:60","toolName":"write","content":[{"type":"text","text":"Successfully wrote 354 bytes to /home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/agent/prompts/c-refactor-commit.md"}],"isError":false,"timestamp":1784907474666}}
{"type":"message","id":"af998b2e","parentId":"c66c6250","timestamp":"2026-07-24T15:37:54.666Z","message":{"role":"toolResult","toolCallId":"functions.write:61","toolName":"write","content":[{"type":"text","text":"Successfully wrote 321 bytes to /home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/agent/prompts/c-security-loop.md"}],"isError":false,"timestamp":1784907474666}}
{"type":"message","id":"36233d4c","parentId":"af998b2e","timestamp":"2026-07-24T15:37:56.260Z","message":{"role":"assistant","content":[{"type":"toolCall","id":"functions.read:62","name":"read","arguments":{"path":"/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/agent/prompts/Doc/README.md"}}],"api":"openai-completions","provider":"ollama","model":"kimi-k2.7-code:cloud","usage":{"input":78430,"output":32,"cacheRead":0,"cacheWrite":0,"reasoning":0,"totalTokens":78462,"cost":{"input":0,"output":0,"cacheRead":0,"cacheWrite":0,"total":0}},"stopReason":"toolUse","timestamp":1784907474668,"responseId":"chatcmpl-283","responseModel":"kimi-k2.7-code"}}
{"type":"message","id":"d11c1ea5","parentId":"36233d4c","timestamp":"2026-07-24T15:37:56.261Z","message":{"role":"toolResult","toolCallId":"functions.read:62","toolName":"read","content":[{"type":"text","text":"# Prompts\n\nSlash-style prompts for the interactive pi session. Each file is a `p-<verb>.md` template with a frontmatter `description` + `argument-hint` and a structured body. Invoke with `:p-<verb> [arg]` or via the `:prompts` TUI picker.\n\n## When to use which\n\n| Prompt | Use it when… | Pairs well with |\n| ------------------ | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------- |\n| **`p-plan`** | You're about to start a non-trivial change and want a structured plan before coding. | `p-brainstorm` (first), then `p-refactor` / `p-test` |\n| **`p-brainstorm`** | You have a problem but no chosen approach yet; want 3–5 alternatives with trade-offs. | `p-plan` (after picking one) |\n| **`p-explain`** | You don't understand a piece of code, a concept, or an error message. | `p-debug` / `p-diagnose` (if it's a problem) |\n| **`p-debug`** | A test, build, or command is failing with a clear error. You have the error in hand. | `p-test` (add a regression test after the fix) |\n| **`p-diagnose`** | Nothing is \"failing\" but behavior is wrong — wrong values, races, perf drift, \"passes locally, broken in prod.\" | `p-debug` (if you find a hard failure) |\n| **`p-review`** | You want a code review of a diff, file, or staged change. General quality feedback. | `p-secaudit` (security subset) |\n| **`p-secaudit`** | Touching auth, input handling, secrets, network, deserialization, or any trust boundary. | `p-review` (broader quality), `p-test` |\n| **`p-refactor`** | Restructuring code without changing behavior. Safety-first, mechanical steps. | `p-test` (first, as the safety net), `p-review` (after) |\n| **`p-test`** | You need to write or expand tests for existing or new code. | `p-debug` (after a failure), `p-refactor` (before) |\n| **`p-doc`** | Writing or improving README, docstrings, JSDoc, godoc, or ADRs. | `p-summarize` (skim the code first) |\n| **`p-commit`** | About to commit. You want a conventional message and (optionally) a PR description. | `p-review` (final check before committing) |\n| **`p-summarize`** | A file, log, diff, or document is too long to read in full. You need the gist + key details. | `p-plan` / `p-debug` (then dive into specifics) |\n\n## Decision flow\n\n```\nGot an idea or vague problem?\n└─ Yes → p-brainstorm → pick an approach → p-plan → implement\n └─ p-test → p-commit\nTouching existing code that needs to change?\n└─ p-refactor (after p-test confirms a safety net) → p-review → p-commit\nSomething is broken?\n├─ Hard failure (error message, failing test) → p-debug\n└─ Soft failure (wrong output, race, perf) → p-diagnose\n → fix → p-test (regression) → p-commit\nTouching a trust boundary, auth, secrets, or untrusted input?\n└─ p-secaudit (then p-review for general quality)\nNeed to understand a long file/log/diff quickly?\n└─ p-summarize\nNeed to write or update docs?\n└─ p-doc\nDon't know what something does or what an error means?\n└─ p-explain\n```\n\n## Conventions\n\n- Every prompt uses `${@:-<default>}` so it works with or without an argument.\n- Output is structured (numbered sections, fixed categories) so the result is diff-friendly and skim-friendly.\n- Prompts intentionally do **not** overlap with subagent workflows (`agents/`, `chains/`, `skills/`) — those are for orchestration; these are for interactive turns.\n- Prefer one prompt per turn. Chain them yourself (`p-brainstorm` → `p-plan` → `p-refactor`) rather than asking one prompt to do everything.\n"}],"isError":false,"timestamp":1784907476261}}
{"type":"message","id":"725df636","parentId":"d11c1ea5","timestamp":"2026-07-24T15:38:02.676Z","message":{"role":"assistant","content":[{"type":"toolCall","id":"functions.edit:63","name":"edit","arguments":{"path":"/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/agent/prompts/Doc/README.md","edits":[{"newText":"## Chain recipes\n\nThe `c-*` files are not prompts you run directly in the editor. They are orchestration recipes that run a sequence of `p-*` prompts through the `pi-subagents` prompt-workflow adapter. Each `p-*` step is executed as a forked-context subagent, so later steps can see earlier outputs. Chains run asynchronously by default.\n\n| Recipe | Sequence | Use it when… |\n| ------------------ | ----------------------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n| **`c-design-build`** | `p-brainstorm → p-plan → p-test → p-commit` | You want to design a feature, plan it, add tests, and commit in one go. |\n| **`c-fix-commit`** | `p-summarize → p-diagnose → p-debug → p-test` | You need to understand a bug, diagnose it, fix it, and add regression tests. |\n| **`c-refactor-commit`** | `p-refactor → p-test → p-review → p-commit` | You want a safe refactor with tests, review, and a commit. |\n| **`c-security-loop`** | `p-secaudit → p-review → p-test` | You need a security-first review plus tests before proceeding. |\n\nInvoke a chain with `/prompt-workflow`, not `/c-recipe`:\n\n```text\n/prompt-workflow c-design-build \"add a rate-limiter to the API\"\n/prompt-workflow c-fix-commit \"the checkout intermittently times out\"\n/prompt-workflow c-refactor-commit \"src/utils.ts\"\n/prompt-workflow c-security-loop \"auth endpoint\"\n```\n\nEach chain runs in the background. Watch it with `/subagents-fleet` or check status with `subagent({ action: \"status\" })`. If you want to run the same sequence ad-hoc, use `/chain-prompts`:\n\n```text\n/chain-prompts p-brainstorm -> p-plan -> p-test -> p-commit -- \"add a rate-limiter\"\n```\n\n## Conventions\n\n- Every prompt uses `${@:-<default>}` so it works with or without an argument.\n- Output is structured (numbered sections, fixed categories) so the result is diff-friendly and skim-friendly.\n- Prompts intentionally do **not** overlap with subagent workflows (`agents/`, `chains/`, `skills/`) — those are for orchestration; these are for interactive turns.\n- Prefer one prompt per turn. Chain them yourself (`p-brainstorm` → `p-plan` → `p-refactor`) rather than asking one prompt to do everything.","oldText":"## Conventions\n\n- Every prompt uses `${@:-<default>}` so it works with or without an argument.\n- Output is structured (numbered sections, fixed categories) so the result is diff-friendly and skim-friendly.\n- Prompts intentionally do **not** overlap with subagent workflows (`agents/`, `chains/`, `skills/`) — those are for orchestration; these are for interactive turns.\n- Prefer one prompt per turn. Chain them yourself (`p-brainstorm` → `p-plan` → `p-refactor`) rather than asking one prompt to do everything."}]}}],"api":"openai-completions","provider":"ollama","model":"kimi-k2.7-code:cloud","usage":{"input":79447,"output":735,"cacheRead":0,"cacheWrite":0,"reasoning":0,"totalTokens":80182,"cost":{"input":0,"output":0,"cacheRead":0,"cacheWrite":0,"total":0}},"stopReason":"toolUse","timestamp":1784907476263,"responseId":"chatcmpl-976","responseModel":"kimi-k2.7-code"}}
{"type":"message","id":"b0d7499e","parentId":"725df636","timestamp":"2026-07-24T15:38:02.679Z","message":{"role":"toolResult","toolCallId":"functions.edit:63","toolName":"edit","content":[{"type":"text","text":"Successfully replaced 1 block(s) in /home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/agent/prompts/Doc/README.md."}],"details":{"diff":" ...\n 40 Don't know what something does or what an error means?\n 41 └─ p-explain\n 42 ```\n 43 \n+44 ## Chain recipes\n+45 \n+46 The `c-*` files are not prompts you run directly in the editor. They are orchestration recipes that run a sequence of `p-*` prompts through the `pi-subagents` prompt-workflow adapter. Each `p-*` step is executed as a forked-context subagent, so later steps can see earlier outputs. Chains run asynchronously by default.\n+47 \n+48 | Recipe | Sequence | Use it when… |\n+49 | ------------------ | ----------------------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n+50 | **`c-design-build`** | `p-brainstorm → p-plan → p-test → p-commit` | You want to design a feature, plan it, add tests, and commit in one go. |\n+51 | **`c-fix-commit`** | `p-summarize → p-diagnose → p-debug → p-test` | You need to understand a bug, diagnose it, fix it, and add regression tests. |\n+52 | **`c-refactor-commit`** | `p-refactor → p-test → p-review → p-commit` | You want a safe refactor with tests, review, and a commit. |\n+53 | **`c-security-loop`** | `p-secaudit → p-review → p-test` | You need a security-first review plus tests before proceeding. |\n+54 \n+55 Invoke a chain with `/prompt-workflow`, not `/c-recipe`:\n+56 \n+57 ```text\n+58 /prompt-workflow c-design-build \"add a rate-limiter to the API\"\n+59 /prompt-workflow c-fix-commit \"the checkout intermittently times out\"\n+60 /prompt-workflow c-refactor-commit \"src/utils.ts\"\n+61 /prompt-workflow c-security-loop \"auth endpoint\"\n+62 ```\n+63 \n+64 Each chain runs in the background. Watch it with `/subagents-fleet` or check status with `subagent({ action: \"status\" })`. If you want to run the same sequence ad-hoc, use `/chain-prompts`:\n+65 \n+66 ```text\n+67 /chain-prompts p-brainstorm -> p-plan -> p-test -> p-commit -- \"add a rate-limiter\"\n+68 ```\n+69 \n 44 ## Conventions\n 45 \n 46 - Every prompt uses `${@:-<default>}` so it works with or without an argument.\n 47 - Output is structured (numbered sections, fixed categories) so the result is diff-friendly and skim-friendly.\n ...","patch":"--- /home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/agent/prompts/Doc/README.md\n+++ /home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/agent/prompts/Doc/README.md\n@@ -40,8 +40,34 @@\n Don't know what something does or what an error means?\n └─ p-explain\n ```\n \n+## Chain recipes\n+\n+The `c-*` files are not prompts you run directly in the editor. They are orchestration recipes that run a sequence of `p-*` prompts through the `pi-subagents` prompt-workflow adapter. Each `p-*` step is executed as a forked-context subagent, so later steps can see earlier outputs. Chains run asynchronously by default.\n+\n+| Recipe | Sequence | Use it when… |\n+| ------------------ | ----------------------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n+| **`c-design-build`** | `p-brainstorm → p-plan → p-test → p-commit` | You want to design a feature, plan it, add tests, and commit in one go. |\n+| **`c-fix-commit`** | `p-summarize → p-diagnose → p-debug → p-test` | You need to understand a bug, diagnose it, fix it, and add regression tests. |\n+| **`c-refactor-commit`** | `p-refactor → p-test → p-review → p-commit` | You want a safe refactor with tests, review, and a commit. |\n+| **`c-security-loop`** | `p-secaudit → p-review → p-test` | You need a security-first review plus tests before proceeding. |\n+\n+Invoke a chain with `/prompt-workflow`, not `/c-recipe`:\n+\n+```text\n+/prompt-workflow c-design-build \"add a rate-limiter to the API\"\n+/prompt-workflow c-fix-commit \"the checkout intermittently times out\"\n+/prompt-workflow c-refactor-commit \"src/utils.ts\"\n+/prompt-workflow c-security-loop \"auth endpoint\"\n+```\n+\n+Each chain runs in the background. Watch it with `/subagents-fleet` or check status with `subagent({ action: \"status\" })`. If you want to run the same sequence ad-hoc, use `/chain-prompts`:\n+\n+```text\n+/chain-prompts p-brainstorm -> p-plan -> p-test -> p-commit -- \"add a rate-limiter\"\n+```\n+\n ## Conventions\n \n - Every prompt uses `${@:-<default>}` so it works with or without an argument.\n - Output is structured (numbered sections, fixed categories) so the result is diff-friendly and skim-friendly.\n","firstChangedLine":44},"isError":false,"timestamp":1784907482679}}
{"type":"message","id":"f74e2ff1","parentId":"b0d7499e","timestamp":"2026-07-24T15:38:04.234Z","message":{"role":"assistant","content":[{"type":"toolCall","id":"functions.bash:64","name":"bash","arguments":{"command":"cd /home/liph/dotfiles && git status --short"}}],"api":"openai-completions","provider":"ollama","model":"kimi-k2.7-code:cloud","usage":{"input":80241,"output":28,"cacheRead":0,"cacheWrite":0,"reasoning":0,"totalTokens":80269,"cost":{"input":0,"output":0,"cacheRead":0,"cacheWrite":0,"total":0}},"stopReason":"toolUse","timestamp":1784907482681,"responseId":"chatcmpl-252","responseModel":"kimi-k2.7-code"}}
{"type":"message","id":"cf121061","parentId":"f74e2ff1","timestamp":"2026-07-24T15:38:04.284Z","message":{"role":"toolResult","toolCallId":"functions.bash:64","toolName":"bash","content":[{"type":"text","text":" M nvim/.config/nvim/lazy-lock.json\n D nvim/.config/nvim/lua/plugins/obsidian.lua\n D pi/.pi/agent/.pi-subagents/artifacts/187b7128_ollama-orchestrator_0_input.md\n D pi/.pi/agent/.pi-subagents/artifacts/187b7128_ollama-orchestrator_0_meta.json\n D pi/.pi/agent/.pi-subagents/artifacts/187b7128_ollama-orchestrator_0_output.md\n D pi/.pi/agent/.pi-subagents/artifacts/187b7128_ollama-orchestrator_0_transcript.jsonl\n D pi/.pi/agent/agents/.pi-subagents/artifacts/4059014e_ollama-planner_0_input.md\n D pi/.pi/agent/agents/.pi-subagents/artifacts/4059014e_ollama-planner_0_meta.json\n D pi/.pi/agent/agents/.pi-subagents/artifacts/4059014e_ollama-planner_0_output.md\n D pi/.pi/agent/agents/.pi-subagents/artifacts/4059014e_ollama-planner_0_transcript.jsonl\n D pi/.pi/agent/agents/.pi-subagents/artifacts/outputs/4059014e/plan.md\n D pi/.pi/agent/agents/ollama-coder.md\n D pi/.pi/agent/agents/ollama-orchestrator.md\n D pi/.pi/agent/agents/ollama-planner.md\n D pi/.pi/agent/agents/ollama-researcher.md\n D pi/.pi/agent/agents/ollama-reviewer.md\n D pi/.pi/agent/chains/feature-build.chain.md\n D pi/.pi/agent/chains/research-brief.chain.md\n D pi/.pi/agent/profiles/pi-subagents/README.md\n D pi/.pi/agent/profiles/pi-subagents/ollama.quality.json\n D pi/.pi/agent/profiles/pi-subagents/ollama.quota.json\n M pi/.pi/agent/prompts/p-explain.md\n M pi/.pi/agent/prompts/p-plan.md\n M pi/.pi/agent/prompts/p-review.md\n M pi/.pi/agent/run-history.jsonl\n M pi/.pi/agent/sessions/--home-liph-dotfiles-pi-.pi-agent-prompts--/2026-07-04T11-50-03-152Z_019f2cf6-da90-7ce5-b860-89b3bc41e7cd.jsonl\n M pi/.pi/agent/settings.json\n M pi/.pi/context-mode/content/aa673b1056f331f7.db\n M pi/.pi/context-mode/sessions/0b552d378e09330e.db\n M pi/.pi/context-mode/sessions/12c859f108b03852.db\n M pi/.pi/context-mode/sessions/12c859f108b03852.db-shm\n M pi/.pi/context-mode/sessions/12c859f108b03852.db-wal\n M pi/.pi/context-mode/sessions/3ea71be6c83c47ea.db\n M pi/.pi/context-mode/sessions/aa673b1056f331f7.db\n D pi/.pi/teams/audit/prune.jsonl\n D pi/.pi/teams/state/metrics/2026-07-04.jsonl\n M zshrc/.aliases.zsh\n?? nvim/.config/nvim/lua/plugins.inactive/obsidian.lua\n?? pi/.pi/.pi-subagents/\n?? pi/.pi/agent/prompts/Doc/\n?? pi/.pi/agent/prompts/c-design-build.md\n?? pi/.pi/agent/prompts/c-fix-commit.md\n?? pi/.pi/agent/prompts/c-refactor-commit.md\n?? pi/.pi/agent/prompts/c-security-loop.md\n?? pi/.pi/agent/prompts/p-brainstorm.md\n?? pi/.pi/agent/prompts/p-commit.md\n?? pi/.pi/agent/prompts/p-debug.md\n?? pi/.pi/agent/prompts/p-diagnose.md\n?? pi/.pi/agent/prompts/p-doc.md\n?? pi/.pi/agent/prompts/p-refactor.md\n?? pi/.pi/agent/prompts/p-secaudit.md\n?? pi/.pi/agent/prompts/p-summarize.md\n?? pi/.pi/agent/prompts/p-test.md\n?? pi/.pi/agent/sessions/--home-liph--/2026-07-23T18-25-35-096Z_019f9039-cd78-745f-91f1-bb6dd3cf77e6.jsonl\n?? pi/.pi/agent/sessions/--home-liph--/2026-07-23T18-25-35-096Z_019f9039-cd78-745f-91f1-bb6dd3cf77e6/\n?? pi/.pi/agent/sessions/--home-liph--/2026-07-23T18-32-44-056Z_019f9040-5918-762b-811b-fb9850208280.jsonl\n?? pi/.pi/agent/sessions/--home-liph--/2026-07-23T18-32-44-056Z_019f9040-5918-762b-811b-feaabc3f9b9a.jsonl\n?? pi/.pi/agent/sessions/--home-liph--/2026-07-23T18-32-44-057Z_019f9040-5919-727f-b8ec-418a0aa8b20c.jsonl\n?? pi/.pi/agent/sessions/--home-liph--/2026-07-23T20-57-15-297Z_019f90c4-a921-71a7-9fdc-2f4209cb98b9.jsonl\n?? pi/.pi/agent/sessions/--home-liph--/2026-07-23T20-57-52-036Z_019f90c5-38a4-7f20-999e-3c03519de661.jsonl\n?? pi/.pi/agent/sessions/--home-liph--/2026-07-24T05-51-34-958Z_019f92ad-da2e-74fe-95b0-267fea0989b9.jsonl\n?? pi/.pi/agent/sessions/--home-liph--/2026-07-24T05-51-34-958Z_019f92ad-da2e-74fe-95b0-267fea0989b9/\n?? pi/.pi/agent/sessions/--home-liph--/2026-07-24T06-13-46-544Z_019f92c2-2bb0-7e3b-9f6e-dbded9a290df.jsonl\n?? pi/.pi/agent/sessions/--home-liph--/2026-07-24T06-13-46-544Z_019f92c2-2bb0-7e3b-9f6e-dbded9a290df/\n?? pi/.pi/agent/sessions/--home-liph--/2026-07-24T06-32-26-008Z_019f92d3-4098-7db8-8ad9-043be2a000ed.jsonl\n?? pi/.pi/agent/sessions/--home-liph--/2026-07-24T06-45-27-619Z_019f92df-2dc3-760d-8a73-4d74c76d438e.jsonl\n?? pi/.pi/agent/sessions/--home-liph--/2026-07-24T14-19-00-509Z_019f947e-6a1d-766b-bb2d-f3f67a77e93a.jsonl\n?? pi/.pi/agent/sessions/--home-liph--/2026-07-24T14-19-33-625Z_019f947e-eb79-7247-a9b3-082ca8e24ae0.jsonl\n?? pi/.pi/agent/sessions/--home-liph--/2026-07-24T14-19-44-138Z_019f947f-148a-7912-8113-05e1e7baf223.jsonl\n?? pi/.pi/agent/sessions/--home-liph--/2026-07-24T14-24-30-883Z_019f9483-74a3-7e2d-9887-f4047bdc6aa5.jsonl\n?? pi/.pi/agent/sessions/--home-liph--/2026-07-24T14-25-21-257Z_019f9484-3969-7efb-a573-fead87b87d16.jsonl\n?? pi/.pi/agent/sessions/--home-liph--/2026-07-24T14-26-27-525Z_019f9485-3c45-77e7-8816-702036ac50eb.jsonl\n?? pi/.pi/agent/sessions/--home-liph--/2026-07-24T14-27-40-439Z_019f9486-5917-7b5e-8fed-2808a5849ca2.jsonl\n?? pi/.pi/agent/sessions/--home-liph-.pi-subagents-artifacts--/\n?? pi/.pi/agent/sessions/--home-liph-dotfiles-pi-.pi--/\n?? pi/.pi/agent/sessions/--home-liph-dotfiles-pi-.pi-agent--/2026-07-24T06-05-55-700Z_019f92ba-fc74-7b34-b217-99583d070904.jsonl\n?? pi/.pi/agent/sessions/--home-liph-dotfiles-pi-.pi-agent--/2026-07-24T06-05-55-700Z_019f92ba-fc74-7b34-b217-99583d070904/\n?? pi/.pi/agent/sessions/--home-liph-dotfiles-pi-.pi-agent--/2026-07-24T06-07-49-964Z_019f92bc-bacc-759d-b548-969978281b98.jsonl\n?? pi/.pi/agent/sessions/--home-liph-dotfiles-pi-.pi-agent--/2026-07-24T06-07-49-964Z_019f92bc-bacc-759d-b548-969978281b98/\n?? pi/.pi/agent/sessions/--home-liph-dotfiles-pi-.pi-agent--/2026-07-24T07-39-48-126Z_019f9310-ee1e-7e02-8adc-277ee17bddc0.jsonl\n?? pi/.pi/agent/sessions/--home-liph-dotfiles-pi-.pi-agent--/2026-07-24T07-49-24-675Z_019f9319-ba43-788b-93e4-6b42870de193.jsonl\n?? pi/.pi/agent/sessions/--home-liph-dotfiles-pi-.pi-agent--/2026-07-24T14-29-40-567Z_019f9488-2e57-7c47-b1bf-f7cf02f89dcc.jsonl\n?? pi/.pi/agent/sessions/--home-liph-dotfiles-pi-.pi-agent-prompts--/2026-07-24T14-46-31-236Z_019f9497-9a44-7a63-a1ef-46ded13c01a8.jsonl\n?? pi/.pi/agent/sessions/--home-liph-dotfiles-pi-.pi-agent-prompts--/2026-07-24T15-15-24-515Z_019f94b2-0ce3-7c27-8099-78ceea97d2cf.jsonl\n?? pi/.pi/agent/sessions/--home-liph-dotfiles-pi-.pi-agent-prompts-Doc--/\n?? pi/.pi/agent/sessions/--home-liph-dotfiles-pi-.pi-agent-themes--/\n?? pi/.pi/agent/sessions/--mnt-flash1-code-aerc--/\n?? pi/.pi/agent/sessions/--mnt-flash1-code-candles--/\n?? pi/.pi/agent/sessions/--mnt-flash1-code-feuerkreis--/\n?? \"pi/.pi/agent/sessions/--mnt-flash1-code-m\\303\\244nnerzirkel--/\"\n?? pi/.pi/agent/sessions/--mnt-flash1-code-webpage--/\n?? pi/.pi/agent/sessions/--mnt-flash1-code-webstore--/\n?? pi/.pi/agent/themes/rose-pine-beautiful.json\n?? pi/.pi/context-mode/sessions/10f3e3c5d13d91cb.db\n?? pi/.pi/context-mode/sessions/10f3e3c5d13d91cb.db-shm\n?? pi/.pi/context-mode/sessions/10f3e3c5d13d91cb.db-wal\n?? pi/.pi/context-mode/sessions/150ea8def36d4286.db\n?? pi/.pi/context-mode/sessions/150ea8def36d4286.db-shm\n?? pi/.pi/context-mode/sessions/150ea8def36d4286.db-wal\n?? pi/.pi/context-mode/sessions/15bbe2b9c6a5cf3a.db\n?? pi/.pi/context-mode/sessions/15bbe2b9c6a5cf3a.db-shm\n?? pi/.pi/context-mode/sessions/15bbe2b9c6a5cf3a.db-wal\n?? pi/.pi/context-mode/sessions/1632b17542982f7e.db\n?? pi/.pi/context-mode/sessions/1632b17542982f7e.db-shm\n?? pi/.pi/context-mode/sessions/1632b17542982f7e.db-wal\n?? pi/.pi/context-mode/sessions/27411074f5f7a61e.db\n?? pi/.pi/context-mode/sessions/27411074f5f7a61e.db-shm\n?? pi/.pi/context-mode/sessions/27411074f5f7a61e.db-wal\n?? pi/.pi/context-mode/sessions/36f8c52c1bab0f41.db\n?? pi/.pi/context-mode/sessions/36f8c52c1bab0f41.db-shm\n?? pi/.pi/context-mode/sessions/36f8c52c1bab0f41.db-wal\n?? pi/.pi/context-mode/sessions/3bb61de67e8a4fe4.db\n?? pi/.pi/context-mode/sessions/3bb61de67e8a4fe4.db-shm\n?? pi/.pi/context-mode/sessions/3bb61de67e8a4fe4.db-wal\n?? pi/.pi/context-mode/sessions/4480bf537cca1bcf.db\n?? pi/.pi/context-mode/sessions/4480bf537cca1bcf.db-shm\n?? pi/.pi/context-mode/sessions/4480bf537cca1bcf.db-wal\n?? pi/.pi/context-mode/sessions/c340569da3996957.db\n?? pi/.pi/context-mode/sessions/c340569da3996957.db-shm\n?? pi/.pi/context-mode/sessions/c340569da3996957.db-wal\n?? pi/.pi/context-mode/sessions/f05bb7382a9480de.db-shm\n?? pi/.pi/context-mode/sessions/f05bb7382a9480de.db-wal\n?? pi/.pi/context-mode/sessions/f9a74f35a5704572.db\n?? pi/.pi/context-mode/sessions/f9a74f35a5704572.db-shm\n?? pi/.pi/context-mode/sessions/f9a74f35a5704572.db-wal\n?? pi/.pi/context-mode/sessions/stats-pid-218958.json\n?? pi/.pi/context-mode/sessions/stats-pid-219161.json\n?? pi/.pi/context-mode/sessions/stats-pid-223177.json\n?? pi/.pi/context-mode/sessions/stats-pid-223858.json\n?? pi/.pi/context-mode/sessions/stats-pid-225773.json\n?? pi/.pi/context-mode/sessions/stats-pid-226205.json\n?? pi/.pi/context-mode/sessions/stats-pid-227510.json\n?? pi/.pi/context-mode/sessions/stats-pid-228197.json\n?? pi/.pi/context-mode/sessions/stats-pid-229441.json\n?? pi/.pi/context-mode/sessions/stats-pid-230590.json\n?? pi/.pi/context-mode/sessions/stats-pid-235591.json\n?? pi/.pi/context-mode/sessions/stats-pid-236348.json\n?? pi/.pi/context-mode/sessions/stats-pid-236973.json\n?? pi/.pi/context-mode/sessions/stats-pid-237788.json\n?? pi/.pi/context-mode/sessions/stats-pid-239646.json\n?? pi/.pi/context-mode/sessions/stats-pid-240289.json\n?? pi/.pi/context-mode/sessions/stats-pid-240592.json\n?? pi/.pi/context-mode/sessions/stats-pid-240593.json\n?? pi/.pi/context-mode/sessions/stats-pid-241374.json\n?? pi/.pi/context-mode/sessions/stats-pid-244139.json\n?? pi/.pi/context-mode/sessions/stats-pid-248583.json\n?? pi/.pi/context-mode/sessions/stats-pid-249076.json\n?? pi/.pi/context-mode/sessions/stats-pid-249292.json\n?? pi/.pi/context-mode/sessions/stats-pid-251943.json\n?? pi/.pi/context-mode/sessions/stats-pid-253194.json\n?? pi/.pi/context-mode/sessions/stats-pid-266999.json\n?? pi/.pi/context-mode/sessions/stats-pid-267230.json\n?? pi/.pi/context-mode/sessions/stats-pid-267545.json\n?? pi/.pi/context-mode/sessions/stats-pid-270991.json\n?? pi/.pi/context-mode/sessions/stats-pid-271215.json\n?? pi/.pi/context-mode/sessions/stats-pid-273458.json\n?? pi/.pi/context-mode/sessions/stats-pid-273690.json\n?? pi/.pi/context-mode/sessions/stats-pid-273992.json\n?? pi/.pi/context-mode/sessions/stats-pid-274378.json\n?? pi/.pi/context-mode/sessions/stats-pid-274842.json\n?? pi/.pi/context-mode/sessions/stats-pid-275196.json\n?? pi/.pi/context-mode/sessions/stats-pid-276550.json\n?? pi/.pi/context-mode/sessions/stats-pid-276948.json\n?? pi/.pi/context-mode/sessions/stats-pid-277525.json\n?? pi/.pi/context-mode/sessions/stats-pid-91796.json\n?? pi/.pi/context-mode/sessions/stats-pid-92117.json\n?? pi/.pi/context-mode/sessions/stats-pid-92239.json\n?? pi/.pi/context-mode/sessions/stats-pid-92541.json\n?? pi/.pi/context-mode/sessions/stats-pid-92766.json\n?? pi/.pi/context-mode/sessions/stats-pid-94676.json\n?? pi/.pi_1/\n"}],"isError":false,"timestamp":1784907484284}}
{"type":"message","id":"2769ec5a","parentId":"cf121061","timestamp":"2026-07-24T15:38:09.096Z","message":{"role":"assistant","content":[{"type":"text","text":"Implemented the chain recipes and frontmatter updates.\n\n### What changed\n\n**Added `subagent: true` + `fork: true` to the 10 prompts used in chains:**\n- `p-brainstorm.md`\n- `p-plan.md`\n- `p-test.md`\n- `p-commit.md`\n- `p-summarize.md`\n- `p-diagnose.md`\n- `p-debug.md`\n- `p-refactor.md`\n- `p-review.md`\n- `p-secaudit.md`\n\n**Created 4 chain recipe files:**\n- `c-design-build.md` → `p-brainstorm → p-plan → p-test → p-commit`\n- `c-fix-commit.md` → `p-summarize → p-diagnose → p-debug → p-test`\n- `c-refactor-commit.md` → `p-refactor → p-test → p-review → p-commit`\n- `c-security-loop.md` → `p-secaudit → p-review → p-test`\n\nEach recipe has `async: true`, so they run in the background by default.\n\n**Updated `Doc/README.md`** with a “Chain recipes” section listing the sequences, usage examples, and `/chain-prompts` ad-hoc syntax.\n\n### How to use\n\n```text\n/prompt-workflow c-design-build \"add a rate-limiter to the API\"\n/prompt-workflow c-fix-commit \"the checkout intermittently times out\"\n/prompt-workflow c-refactor-commit \"src/utils.ts\"\n/prompt-workflow c-security-loop \"auth endpoint\"\n```\n\nWatch progress with `/subagents-fleet` or `subagent({ action: \"status\" })`.\n\n### Next step\n\nReload Pi resources (`/reload`) and run `/prompt-workflow list` to confirm the new `c-*` recipes and updated `p-*` prompts appear correctly. Then dry-run one chain in a scratch repo.\n\nNote: `git status` shows unrelated pre-existing changes in the dotfiles repo, so I did not commit anything. When you’re ready, stage only the prompts/Doc files under `pi/.pi/agent/prompts/`."}],"api":"openai-completions","provider":"ollama","model":"kimi-k2.7-code:cloud","usage":{"input":84525,"output":435,"cacheRead":0,"cacheWrite":0,"reasoning":0,"totalTokens":84960,"cost":{"input":0,"output":0,"cacheRead":0,"cacheWrite":0,"total":0}},"stopReason":"stop","timestamp":1784907484287,"responseId":"chatcmpl-30","responseModel":"kimi-k2.7-code"}}
{"type":"message","id":"504a56fb","parentId":"2769ec5a","timestamp":"2026-07-24T15:39:59.183Z","message":{"role":"user","content":[{"type":"text","text":"can you create a .md file in the Doc folder for clarity in the chain commands"}],"timestamp":1784907598783}}
{"type":"message","id":"7758978d","parentId":"504a56fb","timestamp":"2026-07-24T15:40:11.655Z","message":{"role":"assistant","content":[{"type":"toolCall","id":"functions.write:65","name":"write","arguments":{"path":"/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/agent/prompts/Doc/chain-commands.md","content":"# Chain Commands Reference\n\nThis file documents how to invoke the `c-*` chain recipes defined in `~/.pi/agent/prompts/`.\n\n## What the chains are\n\nThe `c-*` files are orchestration recipes. They do not contain new prompts; they reuse the existing `p-*` prompts and run them in sequence through the `pi-subagents` prompt-workflow adapter. Each step is executed as a forked-context subagent, so later steps can see the outputs from earlier steps.\n\n## Available chains\n\n| Command file | Sequence | Use it when |\n|---|---|---|\n| `c-design-build.md` | `p-brainstorm → p-plan → p-test → p-commit` | You want to design a feature, plan it, add tests, and commit in one go. |\n| `c-fix-commit.md` | `p-summarize → p-diagnose → p-debug → p-test` | You need to understand a bug, diagnose it, fix it, and add regression tests. |\n| `c-refactor-commit.md` | `p-refactor → p-test → p-review → p-commit` | You want a safe refactor with tests, review, and a commit. |\n| `c-security-loop.md` | `p-secaudit → p-review → p-test` | You need a security-first review plus tests before proceeding. |\n\n## How to run a chain\n\nChains are not invoked with `/c-...` in the editor, because normal slash expansion just pastes the file body into the chat. Instead, run them through the `pi-subagents` adapter with `/prompt-workflow`:\n\n```text\n/prompt-workflow c-design-build \"add a rate-limiter to the API\"\n/prompt-workflow c-fix-commit \"the checkout intermittently times out\"\n/prompt-workflow c-refactor-commit \"src/utils.ts\"\n/prompt-workflow c-security-loop \"auth endpoint\"\n```\n\nEach chain runs asynchronously by default. Check progress with:\n\n```text\n/subagents-fleet\n```\n\nor inspect a specific run with:\n\n```text\nsubagent({ action: \"status\" })\n```\n\n## Ad-hoc chains\n\nYou can also run the same sequence on the fly without creating a recipe file:\n\n```text\n/chain-prompts p-brainstorm -> p-plan -> p-test -> p-commit -- \"add a rate-limiter\"\n/chain-prompts p-summarize -> p-diagnose -> p-debug -> p-test -- \"intermittent timeout\"\n/chain-prompts p-refactor -> p-test -> p-review -> p-commit -- \"src/utils.ts\"\n/chain-prompts p-secaudit -> p-review -> p-test -- \"auth endpoint\"\n```\n\nUse `--bg` or `--async` to detach an ad-hoc chain:\n\n```text\n/chain-prompts p-refactor -> p-test -> p-review -> p-commit --bg -- \"src/utils.ts\"\n```\n\n## Why individual prompts are the subagents\n\nOnly the `p-*.md` files are marked with `subagent: true` and `fork: true`. The `c-*.md` recipe files are pure wrappers. When `/prompt-workflow` loads a recipe:\n\n1. It sees the `chain:` frontmatter.\n2. It resolves each named step to a `p-*.md` file.\n3. It runs that prompt as a forked-context subagent (`delegate` by default).\n4. The output of each step is passed to the next step via the chain runner.\n\nThis keeps the chain recipes small and the individual prompts reusable as both standalone slash templates and chain steps.\n\n## Context flow\n\nBecause each `p-*` step uses `fork: true`, every subagent inherits the parent session history. That means later steps naturally see what earlier steps produced, without needing explicit `{previous}` placeholders inside the prompt bodies.\n\nThe trade-off is higher per-step context usage. If token cost becomes an issue, a future migration could switch the `p-*` prompts to `fresh: true` and introduce explicit `{previous}` handling inside their bodies.\n\n## Troubleshooting\n\n| Symptom | What to check |\n|---|---|\n| `/c-design-build` just pastes text | Use `/prompt-workflow c-design-build ...` instead. |\n| Chain step fails with “Unknown prompt workflow” | Run `/reload`, then `/prompt-workflow list` and confirm each `p-*` in the chain appears. |\n| Chain does not run in background | Confirm the recipe has `async: true` in frontmatter, or add `--bg` to the command. |\n| Steps seem disconnected | `fork: true` is required on each `p-*.md`. Check frontmatter. |\n"}}],"api":"openai-completions","provider":"ollama","model":"kimi-k2.7-code:cloud","usage":{"input":84385,"output":1079,"cacheRead":0,"cacheWrite":0,"reasoning":0,"totalTokens":85464,"cost":{"input":0,"output":0,"cacheRead":0,"cacheWrite":0,"total":0}},"stopReason":"toolUse","timestamp":1784907599278,"responseId":"chatcmpl-764","responseModel":"kimi-k2.7-code"}}
{"type":"message","id":"fa2314a8","parentId":"7758978d","timestamp":"2026-07-24T15:40:11.669Z","message":{"role":"toolResult","toolCallId":"functions.write:65","toolName":"write","content":[{"type":"text","text":"Successfully wrote 3843 bytes to /home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/agent/prompts/Doc/chain-commands.md"}],"isError":false,"timestamp":1784907611669}}
{"type":"message","id":"321a9948","parentId":"fa2314a8","timestamp":"2026-07-24T15:40:14.411Z","message":{"role":"assistant","content":[{"type":"text","text":"Created `Doc/chain-commands.md` with a full reference for the chain commands.\n\nIt covers:\n- What the `c-*` recipes are\n- The 4 available chains and their sequences\n- How to run them via `/prompt-workflow`\n- How to watch async progress\n- Ad-hoc `/chain-prompts` syntax, including `--bg`\n- Why only the individual `p-*` prompts are subagents\n- How context flows between forked steps\n- A troubleshooting table\n\nLet me know if you want this merged into the main `README.md` instead, or if you want a shorter quick-reference card."}],"api":"openai-completions","provider":"ollama","model":"kimi-k2.7-code:cloud","usage":{"input":85447,"output":132,"cacheRead":0,"cacheWrite":0,"reasoning":0,"totalTokens":85579,"cost":{"input":0,"output":0,"cacheRead":0,"cacheWrite":0,"total":0}},"stopReason":"stop","timestamp":1784907611672,"responseId":"chatcmpl-447","responseModel":"kimi-k2.7-code"}}
{"type":"custom_message","customType":"subagent-slash-result","content":"Step 1: delegate\nSecurity-audit: ${@:-the current code, diff, or feature}\n\nStructure your answer as:\n1. **Trust boundary** — where untrusted input enters, where sensitive data leaves; map the attack surface in one paragraph\n2. **Findings** — grouped by severity (Critical / High / Medium / Low / Info). For each:\n - **Category** — one of: Injection, AuthN/AuthZ, Secrets, Crypto, Input validation, Output encoding, Deserialization, SSRF, Path traversal, Race/TOC-TOU, Dependency, Logging/PII, Configuration, Supply chain\n - **Location** — file, line, function\n - **Description** — the vulnerability, with a concrete exploit scenario\n - **Fix** — the minimal secure change, with a code snippet\n3. **Missing controls** — auth, rate limiting, audit logging, CSRF/CORS, headers, etc. that should exist but don't\n4. **Dependencies** — any third-party packages with known CVEs in this surface (if you can determine versions)\n5. **Threat model gaps** — what's out of scope for this audit but worth a separate pass\n\nBe concrete and adversarial — describe a real attack, not \"consider validating input.\" If the code is sound, say so explicitly and explain what you'd look for if it weren't. Do not pad with general security advice that doesn't apply to the specific code.\n\nStep 2: delegate\nReview the following code or changes: ${@:-the current file / diff / staged changes}\n\nProvide feedback in these categories:\n- **Correctness** — bugs, logic errors, edge cases, race conditions\n- **Security** — injection, unsafe defaults, secrets, auth/z issues\n- **Performance** — unnecessary work, memory leaks, hot-path inefficiencies\n- **Maintainability** — naming, complexity, duplication, testability\n- **Style & Idioms** — consistency with the surrounding codebase\n- **Error Handling** — missing or misleading failure modes\n\nFor each issue, include:\n- The specific location (file, line, function)\n- A clear description of the problem\n- A concrete suggestion or example fix\n\nAlso call out anything done well. Keep the review concise and prioritized.\n\nStep 3: delegate\nWrite tests for: ${@:-the current code or context}\n\nStructure your answer as:\n1. **Existing conventions** — name patterns, framework, assertion style, fixtures; match what's already there\n2. **Test cases to add** — grouped as:\n - **Happy path** — the primary expected behavior\n - **Edge cases** — empty, zero, max, boundary, off-by-one\n - **Error cases** — invalid input, missing deps, timeouts, permission failures\n3. **Test code** — minimal, runnable, following the project's framework (jest, pytest, go test, etc.)\n4. **How to run** — the exact command, plus how to run just the new tests\n5. **Coverage gaps** — anything still untestable without a refactor; flag it but do not refactor in this pass\n\nKeep tests independent, deterministic, and fast. Prefer many small tests over one large one. If the codebase has no test setup yet, propose the smallest viable setup and call it out clearly so the user can approve before you scaffold it.","display":true,"details":{"requestId":"53b5d677-4cf3-40c7-b61f-1d4e52124504","result":{"content":[{"type":"text","text":"Step 1: delegate\nSecurity-audit: ${@:-the current code, diff, or feature}\n\nStructure your answer as:\n1. **Trust boundary** — where untrusted input enters, where sensitive data leaves; map the attack surface in one paragraph\n2. **Findings** — grouped by severity (Critical / High / Medium / Low / Info). For each:\n - **Category** — one of: Injection, AuthN/AuthZ, Secrets, Crypto, Input validation, Output encoding, Deserialization, SSRF, Path traversal, Race/TOC-TOU, Dependency, Logging/PII, Configuration, Supply chain\n - **Location** — file, line, function\n - **Description** — the vulnerability, with a concrete exploit scenario\n - **Fix** — the minimal secure change, with a code snippet\n3. **Missing controls** — auth, rate limiting, audit logging, CSRF/CORS, headers, etc. that should exist but don't\n4. **Dependencies** — any third-party packages with known CVEs in this surface (if you can determine versions)\n5. **Threat model gaps** — what's out of scope for this audit but worth a separate pass\n\nBe concrete and adversarial — describe a real attack, not \"consider validating input.\" If the code is sound, say so explicitly and explain what you'd look for if it weren't. Do not pad with general security advice that doesn't apply to the specific code.\n\nStep 2: delegate\nReview the following code or changes: ${@:-the current file / diff / staged changes}\n\nProvide feedback in these categories:\n- **Correctness** — bugs, logic errors, edge cases, race conditions\n- **Security** — injection, unsafe defaults, secrets, auth/z issues\n- **Performance** — unnecessary work, memory leaks, hot-path inefficiencies\n- **Maintainability** — naming, complexity, duplication, testability\n- **Style & Idioms** — consistency with the surrounding codebase\n- **Error Handling** — missing or misleading failure modes\n\nFor each issue, include:\n- The specific location (file, line, function)\n- A clear description of the problem\n- A concrete suggestion or example fix\n\nAlso call out anything done well. Keep the review concise and prioritized.\n\nStep 3: delegate\nWrite tests for: ${@:-the current code or context}\n\nStructure your answer as:\n1. **Existing conventions** — name patterns, framework, assertion style, fixtures; match what's already there\n2. **Test cases to add** — grouped as:\n - **Happy path** — the primary expected behavior\n - **Edge cases** — empty, zero, max, boundary, off-by-one\n - **Error cases** — invalid input, missing deps, timeouts, permission failures\n3. **Test code** — minimal, runnable, following the project's framework (jest, pytest, go test, etc.)\n4. **How to run** — the exact command, plus how to run just the new tests\n5. **Coverage gaps** — anything still untestable without a refactor; flag it but do not refactor in this pass\n\nKeep tests independent, deterministic, and fast. Prefer many small tests over one large one. If the codebase has no test setup yet, propose the smallest viable setup and call it out clearly so the user can approve before you scaffold it."}],"details":{"mode":"chain","results":[{"agent":"delegate","task":"Security-audit: ${@:-the current code, diff, or feature}\n\nStructure your answer as:\n1. **Trust boundary** — where untrusted input enters, where sensitive data leaves; map the attack surface in one paragraph\n2. **Findings** — grouped by severity (Critical / High / Medium / Low / Info). For each:\n - **Category** — one of: Injection, AuthN/AuthZ, Secrets, Crypto, Input validation, Output encoding, Deserialization, SSRF, Path traversal, Race/TOC-TOU, Dependency, Logging/PII, Configuration, Supply chain\n - **Location** — file, line, function\n - **Description** — the vulnerability, with a concrete exploit scenario\n - **Fix** — the minimal secure change, with a code snippet\n3. **Missing controls** — auth, rate limiting, audit logging, CSRF/CORS, headers, etc. that should exist but don't\n4. **Dependencies** — any third-party packages with known CVEs in this surface (if you can determine versions)\n5. **Threat model gaps** — what's out of scope for this audit but worth a separate pass\n\nBe concrete and adversarial — describe a real attack, not \"consider validating input.\" If the code is sound, say so explicitly and explain what you'd look for if it weren't. Do not pad with general security advice that doesn't apply to the specific code.","exitCode":0,"messages":[],"usage":{"input":0,"output":0,"cacheRead":0,"cacheWrite":0,"cost":0,"turns":0},"progress":{"index":0,"agent":"delegate","status":"running","task":"Security-audit: ${@:-the current code, diff, or feature}\n\nStructure your answer as:\n1. **Trust boundary** — where untrusted input enters, where sensitive data leaves; map the attack surface in one paragraph\n2. **Findings** — grouped by severity (Critical / High / Medium / Low / Info). For each:\n - **Category** — one of: Injection, AuthN/AuthZ, Secrets, Crypto, Input validation, Output encoding, Deserialization, SSRF, Path traversal, Race/TOC-TOU, Dependency, Logging/PII, Configuration, Supply chain\n - **Location** — file, line, function\n - **Description** — the vulnerability, with a concrete exploit scenario\n - **Fix** — the minimal secure change, with a code snippet\n3. **Missing controls** — auth, rate limiting, audit logging, CSRF/CORS, headers, etc. that should exist but don't\n4. **Dependencies** — any third-party packages with known CVEs in this surface (if you can determine versions)\n5. **Threat model gaps** — what's out of scope for this audit but worth a separate pass\n\nBe concrete and adversarial — describe a real attack, not \"consider validating input.\" If the code is sound, say so explicitly and explain what you'd look for if it weren't. Do not pad with general security advice that doesn't apply to the specific code.","recentTools":[],"recentOutput":[],"toolCount":0,"tokens":0,"durationMs":0}},{"agent":"delegate","task":"Review the following code or changes: ${@:-the current file / diff / staged changes}\n\nProvide feedback in these categories:\n- **Correctness** — bugs, logic errors, edge cases, race conditions\n- **Security** — injection, unsafe defaults, secrets, auth/z issues\n- **Performance** — unnecessary work, memory leaks, hot-path inefficiencies\n- **Maintainability** — naming, complexity, duplication, testability\n- **Style & Idioms** — consistency with the surrounding codebase\n- **Error Handling** — missing or misleading failure modes\n\nFor each issue, include:\n- The specific location (file, line, function)\n- A clear description of the problem\n- A concrete suggestion or example fix\n\nAlso call out anything done well. Keep the review concise and prioritized.","exitCode":0,"messages":[],"usage":{"input":0,"output":0,"cacheRead":0,"cacheWrite":0,"cost":0,"turns":0},"progress":{"index":1,"agent":"delegate","status":"pending","task":"Review the following code or changes: ${@:-the current file / diff / staged changes}\n\nProvide feedback in these categories:\n- **Correctness** — bugs, logic errors, edge cases, race conditions\n- **Security** — injection, unsafe defaults, secrets, auth/z issues\n- **Performance** — unnecessary work, memory leaks, hot-path inefficiencies\n- **Maintainability** — naming, complexity, duplication, testability\n- **Style & Idioms** — consistency with the surrounding codebase\n- **Error Handling** — missing or misleading failure modes\n\nFor each issue, include:\n- The specific location (file, line, function)\n- A clear description of the problem\n- A concrete suggestion or example fix\n\nAlso call out anything done well. Keep the review concise and prioritized.","recentTools":[],"recentOutput":[],"toolCount":0,"tokens":0,"durationMs":0}},{"agent":"delegate","task":"Write tests for: ${@:-the current code or context}\n\nStructure your answer as:\n1. **Existing conventions** — name patterns, framework, assertion style, fixtures; match what's already there\n2. **Test cases to add** — grouped as:\n - **Happy path** — the primary expected behavior\n - **Edge cases** — empty, zero, max, boundary, off-by-one\n - **Error cases** — invalid input, missing deps, timeouts, permission failures\n3. **Test code** — minimal, runnable, following the project's framework (jest, pytest, go test, etc.)\n4. **How to run** — the exact command, plus how to run just the new tests\n5. **Coverage gaps** — anything still untestable without a refactor; flag it but do not refactor in this pass\n\nKeep tests independent, deterministic, and fast. Prefer many small tests over one large one. If the codebase has no test setup yet, propose the smallest viable setup and call it out clearly so the user can approve before you scaffold it.","exitCode":0,"messages":[],"usage":{"input":0,"output":0,"cacheRead":0,"cacheWrite":0,"cost":0,"turns":0},"progress":{"index":2,"agent":"delegate","status":"pending","task":"Write tests for: ${@:-the current code or context}\n\nStructure your answer as:\n1. **Existing conventions** — name patterns, framework, assertion style, fixtures; match what's already there\n2. **Test cases to add** — grouped as:\n - **Happy path** — the primary expected behavior\n - **Edge cases** — empty, zero, max, boundary, off-by-one\n - **Error cases** — invalid input, missing deps, timeouts, permission failures\n3. **Test code** — minimal, runnable, following the project's framework (jest, pytest, go test, etc.)\n4. **How to run** — the exact command, plus how to run just the new tests\n5. **Coverage gaps** — anything still untestable without a refactor; flag it but do not refactor in this pass\n\nKeep tests independent, deterministic, and fast. Prefer many small tests over one large one. If the codebase has no test setup yet, propose the smallest viable setup and call it out clearly so the user can approve before you scaffold it.","recentTools":[],"recentOutput":[],"toolCount":0,"tokens":0,"durationMs":0}}],"progress":[{"index":0,"agent":"delegate","status":"running","task":"Security-audit: ${@:-the current code, diff, or feature}\n\nStructure your answer as:\n1. **Trust boundary** — where untrusted input enters, where sensitive data leaves; map the attack surface in one paragraph\n2. **Findings** — grouped by severity (Critical / High / Medium / Low / Info). For each:\n - **Category** — one of: Injection, AuthN/AuthZ, Secrets, Crypto, Input validation, Output encoding, Deserialization, SSRF, Path traversal, Race/TOC-TOU, Dependency, Logging/PII, Configuration, Supply chain\n - **Location** — file, line, function\n - **Description** — the vulnerability, with a concrete exploit scenario\n - **Fix** — the minimal secure change, with a code snippet\n3. **Missing controls** — auth, rate limiting, audit logging, CSRF/CORS, headers, etc. that should exist but don't\n4. **Dependencies** — any third-party packages with known CVEs in this surface (if you can determine versions)\n5. **Threat model gaps** — what's out of scope for this audit but worth a separate pass\n\nBe concrete and adversarial — describe a real attack, not \"consider validating input.\" If the code is sound, say so explicitly and explain what you'd look for if it weren't. Do not pad with general security advice that doesn't apply to the specific code.","recentTools":[],"recentOutput":[],"toolCount":0,"tokens":0,"durationMs":0},{"index":1,"agent":"delegate","status":"pending","task":"Review the following code or changes: ${@:-the current file / diff / staged changes}\n\nProvide feedback in these categories:\n- **Correctness** — bugs, logic errors, edge cases, race conditions\n- **Security** — injection, unsafe defaults, secrets, auth/z issues\n- **Performance** — unnecessary work, memory leaks, hot-path inefficiencies\n- **Maintainability** — naming, complexity, duplication, testability\n- **Style & Idioms** — consistency with the surrounding codebase\n- **Error Handling** — missing or misleading failure modes\n\nFor each issue, include:\n- The specific location (file, line, function)\n- A clear description of the problem\n- A concrete suggestion or example fix\n\nAlso call out anything done well. Keep the review concise and prioritized.","recentTools":[],"recentOutput":[],"toolCount":0,"tokens":0,"durationMs":0},{"index":2,"agent":"delegate","status":"pending","task":"Write tests for: ${@:-the current code or context}\n\nStructure your answer as:\n1. **Existing conventions** — name patterns, framework, assertion style, fixtures; match what's already there\n2. **Test cases to add** — grouped as:\n - **Happy path** — the primary expected behavior\n - **Edge cases** — empty, zero, max, boundary, off-by-one\n - **Error cases** — invalid input, missing deps, timeouts, permission failures\n3. **Test code** — minimal, runnable, following the project's framework (jest, pytest, go test, etc.)\n4. **How to run** — the exact command, plus how to run just the new tests\n5. **Coverage gaps** — anything still untestable without a refactor; flag it but do not refactor in this pass\n\nKeep tests independent, deterministic, and fast. Prefer many small tests over one large one. If the codebase has no test setup yet, propose the smallest viable setup and call it out clearly so the user can approve before you scaffold it.","recentTools":[],"recentOutput":[],"toolCount":0,"tokens":0,"durationMs":0}],"chainAgents":["delegate","delegate","delegate"],"totalSteps":3,"currentStepIndex":0}}},"id":"c35450e7","parentId":"321a9948","timestamp":"2026-07-24T15:42:44.163Z"}
{"type":"custom_message","customType":"subagent-slash-result","content":"## Subagent result\n\nCancelled","display":false,"details":{"requestId":"53b5d677-4cf3-40c7-b61f-1d4e52124504","result":{"content":[{"type":"text","text":"Cancelled"}],"details":{"mode":"chain","results":[{"agent":"delegate","task":"Security-audit: ${@:-the current code, diff, or feature}\n\nStructure your answer as:\n1. **Trust boundary** — where untrusted input enters, where sensitive data leaves; map the attack surface in one paragraph\n2. **Findings** — grouped by severity (Critical / High / Medium / Low / Info). For each:\n - **Category** — one of: Injection, AuthN/AuthZ, Secrets, Crypto, Input validation, Output encoding, Deserialization, SSRF, Path traversal, Race/TOC-TOU, Dependency, Logging/PII, Configuration, Supply chain\n - **Location** — file, line, function\n - **Description** — the vulnerability, with a concrete exploit scenario\n - **Fix** — the minimal secure change, with a code snippet\n3. **Missing controls** — auth, rate limiting, audit logging, CSRF/CORS, headers, etc. that should exist but don't\n4. **Dependencies** — any third-party packages with known CVEs in this surface (if you can determine versions)\n5. **Threat model gaps** — what's out of scope for this audit but worth a separate pass\n\nBe concrete and adversarial — describe a real attack, not \"consider validating input.\" If the code is sound, say so explicitly and explain what you'd look for if it weren't. Do not pad with general security advice that doesn't apply to the specific code.","exitCode":1,"messages":[],"usage":{"input":0,"output":0,"cacheRead":0,"cacheWrite":0,"cost":0,"turns":0},"progress":{"index":0,"agent":"delegate","status":"failed","task":"Security-audit: ${@:-the current code, diff, or feature}\n\nStructure your answer as:\n1. **Trust boundary** — where untrusted input enters, where sensitive data leaves; map the attack surface in one paragraph\n2. **Findings** — grouped by severity (Critical / High / Medium / Low / Info). For each:\n - **Category** — one of: Injection, AuthN/AuthZ, Secrets, Crypto, Input validation, Output encoding, Deserialization, SSRF, Path traversal, Race/TOC-TOU, Dependency, Logging/PII, Configuration, Supply chain\n - **Location** — file, line, function\n - **Description** — the vulnerability, with a concrete exploit scenario\n - **Fix** — the minimal secure change, with a code snippet\n3. **Missing controls** — auth, rate limiting, audit logging, CSRF/CORS, headers, etc. that should exist but don't\n4. **Dependencies** — any third-party packages with known CVEs in this surface (if you can determine versions)\n5. **Threat model gaps** — what's out of scope for this audit but worth a separate pass\n\nBe concrete and adversarial — describe a real attack, not \"consider validating input.\" If the code is sound, say so explicitly and explain what you'd look for if it weren't. Do not pad with general security advice that doesn't apply to the specific code.","recentTools":[],"recentOutput":[],"toolCount":0,"tokens":0,"durationMs":0},"error":"Cancelled"},{"agent":"delegate","task":"Review the following code or changes: ${@:-the current file / diff / staged changes}\n\nProvide feedback in these categories:\n- **Correctness** — bugs, logic errors, edge cases, race conditions\n- **Security** — injection, unsafe defaults, secrets, auth/z issues\n- **Performance** — unnecessary work, memory leaks, hot-path inefficiencies\n- **Maintainability** — naming, complexity, duplication, testability\n- **Style & Idioms** — consistency with the surrounding codebase\n- **Error Handling** — missing or misleading failure modes\n\nFor each issue, include:\n- The specific location (file, line, function)\n- A clear description of the problem\n- A concrete suggestion or example fix\n\nAlso call out anything done well. Keep the review concise and prioritized.","exitCode":1,"messages":[],"usage":{"input":0,"output":0,"cacheRead":0,"cacheWrite":0,"cost":0,"turns":0},"progress":{"index":1,"agent":"delegate","status":"failed","task":"Review the following code or changes: ${@:-the current file / diff / staged changes}\n\nProvide feedback in these categories:\n- **Correctness** — bugs, logic errors, edge cases, race conditions\n- **Security** — injection, unsafe defaults, secrets, auth/z issues\n- **Performance** — unnecessary work, memory leaks, hot-path inefficiencies\n- **Maintainability** — naming, complexity, duplication, testability\n- **Style & Idioms** — consistency with the surrounding codebase\n- **Error Handling** — missing or misleading failure modes\n\nFor each issue, include:\n- The specific location (file, line, function)\n- A clear description of the problem\n- A concrete suggestion or example fix\n\nAlso call out anything done well. Keep the review concise and prioritized.","recentTools":[],"recentOutput":[],"toolCount":0,"tokens":0,"durationMs":0},"error":"Cancelled"},{"agent":"delegate","task":"Write tests for: ${@:-the current code or context}\n\nStructure your answer as:\n1. **Existing conventions** — name patterns, framework, assertion style, fixtures; match what's already there\n2. **Test cases to add** — grouped as:\n - **Happy path** — the primary expected behavior\n - **Edge cases** — empty, zero, max, boundary, off-by-one\n - **Error cases** — invalid input, missing deps, timeouts, permission failures\n3. **Test code** — minimal, runnable, following the project's framework (jest, pytest, go test, etc.)\n4. **How to run** — the exact command, plus how to run just the new tests\n5. **Coverage gaps** — anything still untestable without a refactor; flag it but do not refactor in this pass\n\nKeep tests independent, deterministic, and fast. Prefer many small tests over one large one. If the codebase has no test setup yet, propose the smallest viable setup and call it out clearly so the user can approve before you scaffold it.","exitCode":1,"messages":[],"usage":{"input":0,"output":0,"cacheRead":0,"cacheWrite":0,"cost":0,"turns":0},"progress":{"index":2,"agent":"delegate","status":"failed","task":"Write tests for: ${@:-the current code or context}\n\nStructure your answer as:\n1. **Existing conventions** — name patterns, framework, assertion style, fixtures; match what's already there\n2. **Test cases to add** — grouped as:\n - **Happy path** — the primary expected behavior\n - **Edge cases** — empty, zero, max, boundary, off-by-one\n - **Error cases** — invalid input, missing deps, timeouts, permission failures\n3. **Test code** — minimal, runnable, following the project's framework (jest, pytest, go test, etc.)\n4. **How to run** — the exact command, plus how to run just the new tests\n5. **Coverage gaps** — anything still untestable without a refactor; flag it but do not refactor in this pass\n\nKeep tests independent, deterministic, and fast. Prefer many small tests over one large one. If the codebase has no test setup yet, propose the smallest viable setup and call it out clearly so the user can approve before you scaffold it.","recentTools":[],"recentOutput":[],"toolCount":0,"tokens":0,"durationMs":0},"error":"Cancelled"}],"progress":[{"index":0,"agent":"delegate","status":"failed","task":"Security-audit: ${@:-the current code, diff, or feature}\n\nStructure your answer as:\n1. **Trust boundary** — where untrusted input enters, where sensitive data leaves; map the attack surface in one paragraph\n2. **Findings** — grouped by severity (Critical / High / Medium / Low / Info). For each:\n - **Category** — one of: Injection, AuthN/AuthZ, Secrets, Crypto, Input validation, Output encoding, Deserialization, SSRF, Path traversal, Race/TOC-TOU, Dependency, Logging/PII, Configuration, Supply chain\n - **Location** — file, line, function\n - **Description** — the vulnerability, with a concrete exploit scenario\n - **Fix** — the minimal secure change, with a code snippet\n3. **Missing controls** — auth, rate limiting, audit logging, CSRF/CORS, headers, etc. that should exist but don't\n4. **Dependencies** — any third-party packages with known CVEs in this surface (if you can determine versions)\n5. **Threat model gaps** — what's out of scope for this audit but worth a separate pass\n\nBe concrete and adversarial — describe a real attack, not \"consider validating input.\" If the code is sound, say so explicitly and explain what you'd look for if it weren't. Do not pad with general security advice that doesn't apply to the specific code.","recentTools":[],"recentOutput":[],"toolCount":0,"tokens":0,"durationMs":0},{"index":1,"agent":"delegate","status":"failed","task":"Review the following code or changes: ${@:-the current file / diff / staged changes}\n\nProvide feedback in these categories:\n- **Correctness** — bugs, logic errors, edge cases, race conditions\n- **Security** — injection, unsafe defaults, secrets, auth/z issues\n- **Performance** — unnecessary work, memory leaks, hot-path inefficiencies\n- **Maintainability** — naming, complexity, duplication, testability\n- **Style & Idioms** — consistency with the surrounding codebase\n- **Error Handling** — missing or misleading failure modes\n\nFor each issue, include:\n- The specific location (file, line, function)\n- A clear description of the problem\n- A concrete suggestion or example fix\n\nAlso call out anything done well. Keep the review concise and prioritized.","recentTools":[],"recentOutput":[],"toolCount":0,"tokens":0,"durationMs":0},{"index":2,"agent":"delegate","status":"failed","task":"Write tests for: ${@:-the current code or context}\n\nStructure your answer as:\n1. **Existing conventions** — name patterns, framework, assertion style, fixtures; match what's already there\n2. **Test cases to add** — grouped as:\n - **Happy path** — the primary expected behavior\n - **Edge cases** — empty, zero, max, boundary, off-by-one\n - **Error cases** — invalid input, missing deps, timeouts, permission failures\n3. **Test code** — minimal, runnable, following the project's framework (jest, pytest, go test, etc.)\n4. **How to run** — the exact command, plus how to run just the new tests\n5. **Coverage gaps** — anything still untestable without a refactor; flag it but do not refactor in this pass\n\nKeep tests independent, deterministic, and fast. Prefer many small tests over one large one. If the codebase has no test setup yet, propose the smallest viable setup and call it out clearly so the user can approve before you scaffold it.","recentTools":[],"recentOutput":[],"toolCount":0,"tokens":0,"durationMs":0}],"chainAgents":["delegate","delegate","delegate"],"totalSteps":3,"currentStepIndex":0}}},"id":"c0d4f57e","parentId":"c35450e7","timestamp":"2026-07-24T15:42:52.302Z"}
{"type":"message","id":"4d47f8a5","parentId":"c0d4f57e","timestamp":"2026-07-24T15:43:24.219Z","message":{"role":"user","content":[{"type":"text","text":"Run the security-first review loop for: this is a test\n\nInvoke with:\n/prompt-workflow c-security-loop \"auth endpoint\""}],"timestamp":1784907803771}}
{"type":"message","id":"2bf3bbff","parentId":"4d47f8a5","timestamp":"2026-07-24T15:43:25.995Z","message":{"role":"assistant","content":[{"type":"text","text":"I see you tried to run `/prompt-workflow c-security-loop \"this is a test\"`, but the subagent result was cancelled. Let me check the status of the async run and see what happened."},{"type":"toolCall","id":"functions.subagent:66","name":"subagent","arguments":{"action":"status","view":"fleet"}}],"api":"openai-completions","provider":"ollama","model":"kimi-k2.7-code:cloud","usage":{"input":86425,"output":66,"cacheRead":0,"cacheWrite":0,"reasoning":0,"totalTokens":86491,"cost":{"input":0,"output":0,"cacheRead":0,"cacheWrite":0,"total":0}},"stopReason":"toolUse","timestamp":1784907804224,"responseId":"chatcmpl-151","responseModel":"kimi-k2.7-code"}}
{"type":"message","id":"b1861c18","parentId":"2bf3bbff","timestamp":"2026-07-24T15:43:26.014Z","message":{"role":"toolResult","toolCallId":"functions.subagent:66","toolName":"subagent","content":[{"type":"text","text":"Spawn budget: unlimited\nNo active subagent fleet. Background runs that already finished are available through completion notifications or subagent({ action: \"status\", id: \"...\" })."}],"details":{"mode":"management","results":[],"spawnBudget":{"used":0,"configuredLimit":null,"granted":0,"limit":null,"remaining":null,"grantRemaining":null,"grantHistory":[]}},"isError":false,"timestamp":1784907806014}}
{"type":"message","id":"3fd75720","parentId":"b1861c18","timestamp":"2026-07-24T15:43:31.208Z","message":{"role":"assistant","content":[{"type":"text","text":"No active subagent fleet — the chain was cancelled before it started, likely because of the `async: true` frontmatter but no active parent session to persist to.\n\nThe `pi-subagents` prompt-workflow adapter requires a persisted parent session to fork from. If the session is ephemeral (`--no-session`) or not yet saved, forked-context subagent chains will fail.\n\n### Quick checks\n\n1. **Is your current Pi session persisted?** Run `/session` and confirm a session file path is shown.\n2. **Did you run this from a fresh/throwaway session?** Forked context only works once the session has been saved to disk.\n3. **Does `/prompt-workflow list` show `c-security-loop` and the `p-*` prompts?** Run `/reload` first if you just added the files.\n\n### To test the chain safely\n\nCreate a persisted session, then run:\n\n```text\n/prompt-workflow c-security-loop \"this is a test\"\n```\n\nor use ad-hoc fresh context instead:\n\n```text\n/chain-prompts p-secaudit -> p-review -> p-test --fresh -- \"this is a test\"\n```\n\nThat avoids the forked-context requirement by running each step fresh.\n\n### Do you want me to adjust the recipes?\n\nI can change the `c-*` chain recipes to default to fresh context instead of forked context. This removes the persisted-session requirement, but later steps won’t automatically see earlier outputs unless we also add `{previous}` handling to the `p-*` prompts.\n\nWhich direction do you prefer?\n- **A) Keep forked context** — chains work only from persisted sessions.\n- **B) Switch to fresh context** — chains work anywhere, but individual prompts may need small `{previous}` edits."}],"api":"openai-completions","provider":"ollama","model":"kimi-k2.7-code:cloud","usage":{"input":86439,"output":367,"cacheRead":0,"cacheWrite":0,"reasoning":0,"totalTokens":86806,"cost":{"input":0,"output":0,"cacheRead":0,"cacheWrite":0,"total":0}},"stopReason":"stop","timestamp":1784907806018,"responseId":"chatcmpl-437","responseModel":"kimi-k2.7-code"}}
{"type":"message","id":"880ad960","parentId":"3fd75720","timestamp":"2026-07-24T15:43:59.391Z","message":{"role":"user","content":[{"type":"text","text":"i"}],"timestamp":1784907839304}}
{"type":"message","id":"13ebf68c","parentId":"880ad960","timestamp":"2026-07-24T15:44:01.848Z","message":{"role":"assistant","content":[{"type":"thinking","thinking":"The user just typed \"i\" and then context-mode became active. This seems like an accidental or incomplete input. I should wait or ask what they meant. But actually, the system says context-mode active, so maybe I should respond normally and ask for clarification about their preference (A or B) since my last message was asking them to choose.\n\nThe \"i\" might","thinkingSignature":"reasoning"}],"api":"openai-completions","provider":"ollama","model":"kimi-k2.7-code:cloud","usage":{"input":0,"output":0,"cacheRead":0,"cacheWrite":0,"totalTokens":0,"cost":{"input":0,"output":0,"cacheRead":0,"cacheWrite":0,"total":0}},"stopReason":"aborted","timestamp":1784907839393,"responseId":"chatcmpl-127","responseModel":"kimi-k2.7-code","errorMessage":"Operation aborted"}}
{"type":"custom_message","customType":"subagent-slash-result","content":"Step 1: delegate\nSecurity-audit: ${@:-the current code, diff, or feature}\n\nStructure your answer as:\n1. **Trust boundary** — where untrusted input enters, where sensitive data leaves; map the attack surface in one paragraph\n2. **Findings** — grouped by severity (Critical / High / Medium / Low / Info). For each:\n - **Category** — one of: Injection, AuthN/AuthZ, Secrets, Crypto, Input validation, Output encoding, Deserialization, SSRF, Path traversal, Race/TOC-TOU, Dependency, Logging/PII, Configuration, Supply chain\n - **Location** — file, line, function\n - **Description** — the vulnerability, with a concrete exploit scenario\n - **Fix** — the minimal secure change, with a code snippet\n3. **Missing controls** — auth, rate limiting, audit logging, CSRF/CORS, headers, etc. that should exist but don't\n4. **Dependencies** — any third-party packages with known CVEs in this surface (if you can determine versions)\n5. **Threat model gaps** — what's out of scope for this audit but worth a separate pass\n\nBe concrete and adversarial — describe a real attack, not \"consider validating input.\" If the code is sound, say so explicitly and explain what you'd look for if it weren't. Do not pad with general security advice that doesn't apply to the specific code.\n\nStep 2: delegate\nReview the following code or changes: ${@:-the current file / diff / staged changes}\n\nProvide feedback in these categories:\n- **Correctness** — bugs, logic errors, edge cases, race conditions\n- **Security** — injection, unsafe defaults, secrets, auth/z issues\n- **Performance** — unnecessary work, memory leaks, hot-path inefficiencies\n- **Maintainability** — naming, complexity, duplication, testability\n- **Style & Idioms** — consistency with the surrounding codebase\n- **Error Handling** — missing or misleading failure modes\n\nFor each issue, include:\n- The specific location (file, line, function)\n- A clear description of the problem\n- A concrete suggestion or example fix\n\nAlso call out anything done well. Keep the review concise and prioritized.\n\nStep 3: delegate\nWrite tests for: ${@:-the current code or context}\n\nStructure your answer as:\n1. **Existing conventions** — name patterns, framework, assertion style, fixtures; match what's already there\n2. **Test cases to add** — grouped as:\n - **Happy path** — the primary expected behavior\n - **Edge cases** — empty, zero, max, boundary, off-by-one\n - **Error cases** — invalid input, missing deps, timeouts, permission failures\n3. **Test code** — minimal, runnable, following the project's framework (jest, pytest, go test, etc.)\n4. **How to run** — the exact command, plus how to run just the new tests\n5. **Coverage gaps** — anything still untestable without a refactor; flag it but do not refactor in this pass\n\nKeep tests independent, deterministic, and fast. Prefer many small tests over one large one. If the codebase has no test setup yet, propose the smallest viable setup and call it out clearly so the user can approve before you scaffold it.","display":true,"details":{"requestId":"f2fe29ec-82de-4619-9e09-bb94c548f3fa","result":{"content":[{"type":"text","text":"Step 1: delegate\nSecurity-audit: ${@:-the current code, diff, or feature}\n\nStructure your answer as:\n1. **Trust boundary** — where untrusted input enters, where sensitive data leaves; map the attack surface in one paragraph\n2. **Findings** — grouped by severity (Critical / High / Medium / Low / Info). For each:\n - **Category** — one of: Injection, AuthN/AuthZ, Secrets, Crypto, Input validation, Output encoding, Deserialization, SSRF, Path traversal, Race/TOC-TOU, Dependency, Logging/PII, Configuration, Supply chain\n - **Location** — file, line, function\n - **Description** — the vulnerability, with a concrete exploit scenario\n - **Fix** — the minimal secure change, with a code snippet\n3. **Missing controls** — auth, rate limiting, audit logging, CSRF/CORS, headers, etc. that should exist but don't\n4. **Dependencies** — any third-party packages with known CVEs in this surface (if you can determine versions)\n5. **Threat model gaps** — what's out of scope for this audit but worth a separate pass\n\nBe concrete and adversarial — describe a real attack, not \"consider validating input.\" If the code is sound, say so explicitly and explain what you'd look for if it weren't. Do not pad with general security advice that doesn't apply to the specific code.\n\nStep 2: delegate\nReview the following code or changes: ${@:-the current file / diff / staged changes}\n\nProvide feedback in these categories:\n- **Correctness** — bugs, logic errors, edge cases, race conditions\n- **Security** — injection, unsafe defaults, secrets, auth/z issues\n- **Performance** — unnecessary work, memory leaks, hot-path inefficiencies\n- **Maintainability** — naming, complexity, duplication, testability\n- **Style & Idioms** — consistency with the surrounding codebase\n- **Error Handling** — missing or misleading failure modes\n\nFor each issue, include:\n- The specific location (file, line, function)\n- A clear description of the problem\n- A concrete suggestion or example fix\n\nAlso call out anything done well. Keep the review concise and prioritized.\n\nStep 3: delegate\nWrite tests for: ${@:-the current code or context}\n\nStructure your answer as:\n1. **Existing conventions** — name patterns, framework, assertion style, fixtures; match what's already there\n2. **Test cases to add** — grouped as:\n - **Happy path** — the primary expected behavior\n - **Edge cases** — empty, zero, max, boundary, off-by-one\n - **Error cases** — invalid input, missing deps, timeouts, permission failures\n3. **Test code** — minimal, runnable, following the project's framework (jest, pytest, go test, etc.)\n4. **How to run** — the exact command, plus how to run just the new tests\n5. **Coverage gaps** — anything still untestable without a refactor; flag it but do not refactor in this pass\n\nKeep tests independent, deterministic, and fast. Prefer many small tests over one large one. If the codebase has no test setup yet, propose the smallest viable setup and call it out clearly so the user can approve before you scaffold it."}],"details":{"mode":"chain","results":[{"agent":"delegate","task":"Security-audit: ${@:-the current code, diff, or feature}\n\nStructure your answer as:\n1. **Trust boundary** — where untrusted input enters, where sensitive data leaves; map the attack surface in one paragraph\n2. **Findings** — grouped by severity (Critical / High / Medium / Low / Info). For each:\n - **Category** — one of: Injection, AuthN/AuthZ, Secrets, Crypto, Input validation, Output encoding, Deserialization, SSRF, Path traversal, Race/TOC-TOU, Dependency, Logging/PII, Configuration, Supply chain\n - **Location** — file, line, function\n - **Description** — the vulnerability, with a concrete exploit scenario\n - **Fix** — the minimal secure change, with a code snippet\n3. **Missing controls** — auth, rate limiting, audit logging, CSRF/CORS, headers, etc. that should exist but don't\n4. **Dependencies** — any third-party packages with known CVEs in this surface (if you can determine versions)\n5. **Threat model gaps** — what's out of scope for this audit but worth a separate pass\n\nBe concrete and adversarial — describe a real attack, not \"consider validating input.\" If the code is sound, say so explicitly and explain what you'd look for if it weren't. Do not pad with general security advice that doesn't apply to the specific code.","exitCode":0,"messages":[],"usage":{"input":0,"output":0,"cacheRead":0,"cacheWrite":0,"cost":0,"turns":0},"progress":{"index":0,"agent":"delegate","status":"running","task":"Security-audit: ${@:-the current code, diff, or feature}\n\nStructure your answer as:\n1. **Trust boundary** — where untrusted input enters, where sensitive data leaves; map the attack surface in one paragraph\n2. **Findings** — grouped by severity (Critical / High / Medium / Low / Info). For each:\n - **Category** — one of: Injection, AuthN/AuthZ, Secrets, Crypto, Input validation, Output encoding, Deserialization, SSRF, Path traversal, Race/TOC-TOU, Dependency, Logging/PII, Configuration, Supply chain\n - **Location** — file, line, function\n - **Description** — the vulnerability, with a concrete exploit scenario\n - **Fix** — the minimal secure change, with a code snippet\n3. **Missing controls** — auth, rate limiting, audit logging, CSRF/CORS, headers, etc. that should exist but don't\n4. **Dependencies** — any third-party packages with known CVEs in this surface (if you can determine versions)\n5. **Threat model gaps** — what's out of scope for this audit but worth a separate pass\n\nBe concrete and adversarial — describe a real attack, not \"consider validating input.\" If the code is sound, say so explicitly and explain what you'd look for if it weren't. Do not pad with general security advice that doesn't apply to the specific code.","recentTools":[],"recentOutput":[],"toolCount":0,"tokens":0,"durationMs":0}},{"agent":"delegate","task":"Review the following code or changes: ${@:-the current file / diff / staged changes}\n\nProvide feedback in these categories:\n- **Correctness** — bugs, logic errors, edge cases, race conditions\n- **Security** — injection, unsafe defaults, secrets, auth/z issues\n- **Performance** — unnecessary work, memory leaks, hot-path inefficiencies\n- **Maintainability** — naming, complexity, duplication, testability\n- **Style & Idioms** — consistency with the surrounding codebase\n- **Error Handling** — missing or misleading failure modes\n\nFor each issue, include:\n- The specific location (file, line, function)\n- A clear description of the problem\n- A concrete suggestion or example fix\n\nAlso call out anything done well. Keep the review concise and prioritized.","exitCode":0,"messages":[],"usage":{"input":0,"output":0,"cacheRead":0,"cacheWrite":0,"cost":0,"turns":0},"progress":{"index":1,"agent":"delegate","status":"pending","task":"Review the following code or changes: ${@:-the current file / diff / staged changes}\n\nProvide feedback in these categories:\n- **Correctness** — bugs, logic errors, edge cases, race conditions\n- **Security** — injection, unsafe defaults, secrets, auth/z issues\n- **Performance** — unnecessary work, memory leaks, hot-path inefficiencies\n- **Maintainability** — naming, complexity, duplication, testability\n- **Style & Idioms** — consistency with the surrounding codebase\n- **Error Handling** — missing or misleading failure modes\n\nFor each issue, include:\n- The specific location (file, line, function)\n- A clear description of the problem\n- A concrete suggestion or example fix\n\nAlso call out anything done well. Keep the review concise and prioritized.","recentTools":[],"recentOutput":[],"toolCount":0,"tokens":0,"durationMs":0}},{"agent":"delegate","task":"Write tests for: ${@:-the current code or context}\n\nStructure your answer as:\n1. **Existing conventions** — name patterns, framework, assertion style, fixtures; match what's already there\n2. **Test cases to add** — grouped as:\n - **Happy path** — the primary expected behavior\n - **Edge cases** — empty, zero, max, boundary, off-by-one\n - **Error cases** — invalid input, missing deps, timeouts, permission failures\n3. **Test code** — minimal, runnable, following the project's framework (jest, pytest, go test, etc.)\n4. **How to run** — the exact command, plus how to run just the new tests\n5. **Coverage gaps** — anything still untestable without a refactor; flag it but do not refactor in this pass\n\nKeep tests independent, deterministic, and fast. Prefer many small tests over one large one. If the codebase has no test setup yet, propose the smallest viable setup and call it out clearly so the user can approve before you scaffold it.","exitCode":0,"messages":[],"usage":{"input":0,"output":0,"cacheRead":0,"cacheWrite":0,"cost":0,"turns":0},"progress":{"index":2,"agent":"delegate","status":"pending","task":"Write tests for: ${@:-the current code or context}\n\nStructure your answer as:\n1. **Existing conventions** — name patterns, framework, assertion style, fixtures; match what's already there\n2. **Test cases to add** — grouped as:\n - **Happy path** — the primary expected behavior\n - **Edge cases** — empty, zero, max, boundary, off-by-one\n - **Error cases** — invalid input, missing deps, timeouts, permission failures\n3. **Test code** — minimal, runnable, following the project's framework (jest, pytest, go test, etc.)\n4. **How to run** — the exact command, plus how to run just the new tests\n5. **Coverage gaps** — anything still untestable without a refactor; flag it but do not refactor in this pass\n\nKeep tests independent, deterministic, and fast. Prefer many small tests over one large one. If the codebase has no test setup yet, propose the smallest viable setup and call it out clearly so the user can approve before you scaffold it.","recentTools":[],"recentOutput":[],"toolCount":0,"tokens":0,"durationMs":0}}],"progress":[{"index":0,"agent":"delegate","status":"running","task":"Security-audit: ${@:-the current code, diff, or feature}\n\nStructure your answer as:\n1. **Trust boundary** — where untrusted input enters, where sensitive data leaves; map the attack surface in one paragraph\n2. **Findings** — grouped by severity (Critical / High / Medium / Low / Info). For each:\n - **Category** — one of: Injection, AuthN/AuthZ, Secrets, Crypto, Input validation, Output encoding, Deserialization, SSRF, Path traversal, Race/TOC-TOU, Dependency, Logging/PII, Configuration, Supply chain\n - **Location** — file, line, function\n - **Description** — the vulnerability, with a concrete exploit scenario\n - **Fix** — the minimal secure change, with a code snippet\n3. **Missing controls** — auth, rate limiting, audit logging, CSRF/CORS, headers, etc. that should exist but don't\n4. **Dependencies** — any third-party packages with known CVEs in this surface (if you can determine versions)\n5. **Threat model gaps** — what's out of scope for this audit but worth a separate pass\n\nBe concrete and adversarial — describe a real attack, not \"consider validating input.\" If the code is sound, say so explicitly and explain what you'd look for if it weren't. Do not pad with general security advice that doesn't apply to the specific code.","recentTools":[],"recentOutput":[],"toolCount":0,"tokens":0,"durationMs":0},{"index":1,"agent":"delegate","status":"pending","task":"Review the following code or changes: ${@:-the current file / diff / staged changes}\n\nProvide feedback in these categories:\n- **Correctness** — bugs, logic errors, edge cases, race conditions\n- **Security** — injection, unsafe defaults, secrets, auth/z issues\n- **Performance** — unnecessary work, memory leaks, hot-path inefficiencies\n- **Maintainability** — naming, complexity, duplication, testability\n- **Style & Idioms** — consistency with the surrounding codebase\n- **Error Handling** — missing or misleading failure modes\n\nFor each issue, include:\n- The specific location (file, line, function)\n- A clear description of the problem\n- A concrete suggestion or example fix\n\nAlso call out anything done well. Keep the review concise and prioritized.","recentTools":[],"recentOutput":[],"toolCount":0,"tokens":0,"durationMs":0},{"index":2,"agent":"delegate","status":"pending","task":"Write tests for: ${@:-the current code or context}\n\nStructure your answer as:\n1. **Existing conventions** — name patterns, framework, assertion style, fixtures; match what's already there\n2. **Test cases to add** — grouped as:\n - **Happy path** — the primary expected behavior\n - **Edge cases** — empty, zero, max, boundary, off-by-one\n - **Error cases** — invalid input, missing deps, timeouts, permission failures\n3. **Test code** — minimal, runnable, following the project's framework (jest, pytest, go test, etc.)\n4. **How to run** — the exact command, plus how to run just the new tests\n5. **Coverage gaps** — anything still untestable without a refactor; flag it but do not refactor in this pass\n\nKeep tests independent, deterministic, and fast. Prefer many small tests over one large one. If the codebase has no test setup yet, propose the smallest viable setup and call it out clearly so the user can approve before you scaffold it.","recentTools":[],"recentOutput":[],"toolCount":0,"tokens":0,"durationMs":0}],"chainAgents":["delegate","delegate","delegate"],"totalSteps":3,"currentStepIndex":0}}},"id":"7938a3f8","parentId":"13ebf68c","timestamp":"2026-07-24T15:44:16.013Z"}
{"type":"custom_message","customType":"subagent-slash-result","content":"## Subagent result\n\nCancelled","display":false,"details":{"requestId":"f2fe29ec-82de-4619-9e09-bb94c548f3fa","result":{"content":[{"type":"text","text":"Cancelled"}],"details":{"mode":"chain","results":[{"agent":"delegate","task":"Security-audit: ${@:-the current code, diff, or feature}\n\nStructure your answer as:\n1. **Trust boundary** — where untrusted input enters, where sensitive data leaves; map the attack surface in one paragraph\n2. **Findings** — grouped by severity (Critical / High / Medium / Low / Info). For each:\n - **Category** — one of: Injection, AuthN/AuthZ, Secrets, Crypto, Input validation, Output encoding, Deserialization, SSRF, Path traversal, Race/TOC-TOU, Dependency, Logging/PII, Configuration, Supply chain\n - **Location** — file, line, function\n - **Description** — the vulnerability, with a concrete exploit scenario\n - **Fix** — the minimal secure change, with a code snippet\n3. **Missing controls** — auth, rate limiting, audit logging, CSRF/CORS, headers, etc. that should exist but don't\n4. **Dependencies** — any third-party packages with known CVEs in this surface (if you can determine versions)\n5. **Threat model gaps** — what's out of scope for this audit but worth a separate pass\n\nBe concrete and adversarial — describe a real attack, not \"consider validating input.\" If the code is sound, say so explicitly and explain what you'd look for if it weren't. Do not pad with general security advice that doesn't apply to the specific code.","exitCode":1,"messages":[],"usage":{"input":0,"output":0,"cacheRead":0,"cacheWrite":0,"cost":0,"turns":0},"progress":{"index":0,"agent":"delegate","status":"failed","task":"Security-audit: ${@:-the current code, diff, or feature}\n\nStructure your answer as:\n1. **Trust boundary** — where untrusted input enters, where sensitive data leaves; map the attack surface in one paragraph\n2. **Findings** — grouped by severity (Critical / High / Medium / Low / Info). For each:\n - **Category** — one of: Injection, AuthN/AuthZ, Secrets, Crypto, Input validation, Output encoding, Deserialization, SSRF, Path traversal, Race/TOC-TOU, Dependency, Logging/PII, Configuration, Supply chain\n - **Location** — file, line, function\n - **Description** — the vulnerability, with a concrete exploit scenario\n - **Fix** — the minimal secure change, with a code snippet\n3. **Missing controls** — auth, rate limiting, audit logging, CSRF/CORS, headers, etc. that should exist but don't\n4. **Dependencies** — any third-party packages with known CVEs in this surface (if you can determine versions)\n5. **Threat model gaps** — what's out of scope for this audit but worth a separate pass\n\nBe concrete and adversarial — describe a real attack, not \"consider validating input.\" If the code is sound, say so explicitly and explain what you'd look for if it weren't. Do not pad with general security advice that doesn't apply to the specific code.","recentTools":[],"recentOutput":[],"toolCount":0,"tokens":0,"durationMs":0},"error":"Cancelled"},{"agent":"delegate","task":"Review the following code or changes: ${@:-the current file / diff / staged changes}\n\nProvide feedback in these categories:\n- **Correctness** — bugs, logic errors, edge cases, race conditions\n- **Security** — injection, unsafe defaults, secrets, auth/z issues\n- **Performance** — unnecessary work, memory leaks, hot-path inefficiencies\n- **Maintainability** — naming, complexity, duplication, testability\n- **Style & Idioms** — consistency with the surrounding codebase\n- **Error Handling** — missing or misleading failure modes\n\nFor each issue, include:\n- The specific location (file, line, function)\n- A clear description of the problem\n- A concrete suggestion or example fix\n\nAlso call out anything done well. Keep the review concise and prioritized.","exitCode":1,"messages":[],"usage":{"input":0,"output":0,"cacheRead":0,"cacheWrite":0,"cost":0,"turns":0},"progress":{"index":1,"agent":"delegate","status":"failed","task":"Review the following code or changes: ${@:-the current file / diff / staged changes}\n\nProvide feedback in these categories:\n- **Correctness** — bugs, logic errors, edge cases, race conditions\n- **Security** — injection, unsafe defaults, secrets, auth/z issues\n- **Performance** — unnecessary work, memory leaks, hot-path inefficiencies\n- **Maintainability** — naming, complexity, duplication, testability\n- **Style & Idioms** — consistency with the surrounding codebase\n- **Error Handling** — missing or misleading failure modes\n\nFor each issue, include:\n- The specific location (file, line, function)\n- A clear description of the problem\n- A concrete suggestion or example fix\n\nAlso call out anything done well. Keep the review concise and prioritized.","recentTools":[],"recentOutput":[],"toolCount":0,"tokens":0,"durationMs":0},"error":"Cancelled"},{"agent":"delegate","task":"Write tests for: ${@:-the current code or context}\n\nStructure your answer as:\n1. **Existing conventions** — name patterns, framework, assertion style, fixtures; match what's already there\n2. **Test cases to add** — grouped as:\n - **Happy path** — the primary expected behavior\n - **Edge cases** — empty, zero, max, boundary, off-by-one\n - **Error cases** — invalid input, missing deps, timeouts, permission failures\n3. **Test code** — minimal, runnable, following the project's framework (jest, pytest, go test, etc.)\n4. **How to run** — the exact command, plus how to run just the new tests\n5. **Coverage gaps** — anything still untestable without a refactor; flag it but do not refactor in this pass\n\nKeep tests independent, deterministic, and fast. Prefer many small tests over one large one. If the codebase has no test setup yet, propose the smallest viable setup and call it out clearly so the user can approve before you scaffold it.","exitCode":1,"messages":[],"usage":{"input":0,"output":0,"cacheRead":0,"cacheWrite":0,"cost":0,"turns":0},"progress":{"index":2,"agent":"delegate","status":"failed","task":"Write tests for: ${@:-the current code or context}\n\nStructure your answer as:\n1. **Existing conventions** — name patterns, framework, assertion style, fixtures; match what's already there\n2. **Test cases to add** — grouped as:\n - **Happy path** — the primary expected behavior\n - **Edge cases** — empty, zero, max, boundary, off-by-one\n - **Error cases** — invalid input, missing deps, timeouts, permission failures\n3. **Test code** — minimal, runnable, following the project's framework (jest, pytest, go test, etc.)\n4. **How to run** — the exact command, plus how to run just the new tests\n5. **Coverage gaps** — anything still untestable without a refactor; flag it but do not refactor in this pass\n\nKeep tests independent, deterministic, and fast. Prefer many small tests over one large one. If the codebase has no test setup yet, propose the smallest viable setup and call it out clearly so the user can approve before you scaffold it.","recentTools":[],"recentOutput":[],"toolCount":0,"tokens":0,"durationMs":0},"error":"Cancelled"}],"progress":[{"index":0,"agent":"delegate","status":"failed","task":"Security-audit: ${@:-the current code, diff, or feature}\n\nStructure your answer as:\n1. **Trust boundary** — where untrusted input enters, where sensitive data leaves; map the attack surface in one paragraph\n2. **Findings** — grouped by severity (Critical / High / Medium / Low / Info). For each:\n - **Category** — one of: Injection, AuthN/AuthZ, Secrets, Crypto, Input validation, Output encoding, Deserialization, SSRF, Path traversal, Race/TOC-TOU, Dependency, Logging/PII, Configuration, Supply chain\n - **Location** — file, line, function\n - **Description** — the vulnerability, with a concrete exploit scenario\n - **Fix** — the minimal secure change, with a code snippet\n3. **Missing controls** — auth, rate limiting, audit logging, CSRF/CORS, headers, etc. that should exist but don't\n4. **Dependencies** — any third-party packages with known CVEs in this surface (if you can determine versions)\n5. **Threat model gaps** — what's out of scope for this audit but worth a separate pass\n\nBe concrete and adversarial — describe a real attack, not \"consider validating input.\" If the code is sound, say so explicitly and explain what you'd look for if it weren't. Do not pad with general security advice that doesn't apply to the specific code.","recentTools":[],"recentOutput":[],"toolCount":0,"tokens":0,"durationMs":0},{"index":1,"agent":"delegate","status":"failed","task":"Review the following code or changes: ${@:-the current file / diff / staged changes}\n\nProvide feedback in these categories:\n- **Correctness** — bugs, logic errors, edge cases, race conditions\n- **Security** — injection, unsafe defaults, secrets, auth/z issues\n- **Performance** — unnecessary work, memory leaks, hot-path inefficiencies\n- **Maintainability** — naming, complexity, duplication, testability\n- **Style & Idioms** — consistency with the surrounding codebase\n- **Error Handling** — missing or misleading failure modes\n\nFor each issue, include:\n- The specific location (file, line, function)\n- A clear description of the problem\n- A concrete suggestion or example fix\n\nAlso call out anything done well. Keep the review concise and prioritized.","recentTools":[],"recentOutput":[],"toolCount":0,"tokens":0,"durationMs":0},{"index":2,"agent":"delegate","status":"failed","task":"Write tests for: ${@:-the current code or context}\n\nStructure your answer as:\n1. **Existing conventions** — name patterns, framework, assertion style, fixtures; match what's already there\n2. **Test cases to add** — grouped as:\n - **Happy path** — the primary expected behavior\n - **Edge cases** — empty, zero, max, boundary, off-by-one\n - **Error cases** — invalid input, missing deps, timeouts, permission failures\n3. **Test code** — minimal, runnable, following the project's framework (jest, pytest, go test, etc.)\n4. **How to run** — the exact command, plus how to run just the new tests\n5. **Coverage gaps** — anything still untestable without a refactor; flag it but do not refactor in this pass\n\nKeep tests independent, deterministic, and fast. Prefer many small tests over one large one. If the codebase has no test setup yet, propose the smallest viable setup and call it out clearly so the user can approve before you scaffold it.","recentTools":[],"recentOutput":[],"toolCount":0,"tokens":0,"durationMs":0}],"chainAgents":["delegate","delegate","delegate"],"totalSteps":3,"currentStepIndex":0}}},"id":"273365dc","parentId":"7938a3f8","timestamp":"2026-07-24T15:44:51.540Z"}
{"type":"custom_message","customType":"subagent-slash-result","content":"Step 1: delegate\nBrainstorm approaches for: ${@:-the current problem or feature}\n\nStructure your answer as:\n1. **Problem restatement** — one paragraph; what we're solving, what constraints matter, what \"done\" looks like\n2. **Alternatives** — 3 to 5 distinct approaches. For each:\n - **Summary** — one or two sentences\n - **How it works** — the key mechanism\n - **Pros** — what it gets right\n - **Cons** — what it costs, risks, or breaks\n - **Best when** — the conditions that would make this the right pick\n3. **Comparison table** — across the alternatives, score or rank on: complexity, time-to-ship, reversibility, performance, fit-with-existing-code\n4. **Recommendation** — which one to pick *given the current codebase*, with the second choice as a fallback\n5. **Unknowns** — questions that, if answered, would change the recommendation\n\nBe opinionated. Surface real trade-offs, not strawmen. If the obvious approach wins decisively, say so and only enumerate 2 alternatives — don't manufacture options for the sake of a full set. If the problem is under-specified, ask clarifying questions before brainstorming.\n\nStep 2: delegate\nCreate a structured implementation plan for: ${@:-the current task}\n\nFollow this format:\n1. **Goal** — one-sentence objective\n2. **Constraints** — existing code, dependencies, tests, or assumptions to respect\n3. **Approach** — high-level strategy and rationale\n4. **Steps** — numbered, actionable tasks small enough to verify one at a time\n5. **Verification** — how to confirm each step works (tests, logs, manual checks)\n6. **Risks & Rollbacks** — what could go wrong and how to undo safely\n7. **Open Questions** — anything that needs clarification before starting\n\nUse the codebase context as needed. Do not write implementation code yet; only produce the plan.\n\nStep 3: delegate\nWrite tests for: ${@:-the current code or context}\n\nStructure your answer as:\n1. **Existing conventions** — name patterns, framework, assertion style, fixtures; match what's already there\n2. **Test cases to add** — grouped as:\n - **Happy path** — the primary expected behavior\n - **Edge cases** — empty, zero, max, boundary, off-by-one\n - **Error cases** — invalid input, missing deps, timeouts, permission failures\n3. **Test code** — minimal, runnable, following the project's framework (jest, pytest, go test, etc.)\n4. **How to run** — the exact command, plus how to run just the new tests\n5. **Coverage gaps** — anything still untestable without a refactor; flag it but do not refactor in this pass\n\nKeep tests independent, deterministic, and fast. Prefer many small tests over one large one. If the codebase has no test setup yet, propose the smallest viable setup and call it out clearly so the user can approve before you scaffold it.\n\nStep 4: delegate\nGenerate a commit message for: ${@:-the current uncommitted changes (run git status / git diff first)}\n\nStructure your answer as:\n1. **Type & scope** — one of: feat, fix, refactor, perf, test, docs, build, ci, chore, style; scope is the affected module/subsystem\n2. **Subject** — imperative mood, ≤72 chars, no trailing period, no emoji\n3. **Body** — wrapped at 72 cols, explain *why* not *what*. Use bullet points for multiple distinct changes.\n4. **Footer** — `BREAKING CHANGE: …` if applicable; `Refs: #123` for linked issues\n5. **PR description** (if the change is non-trivial) — Summary, Motivation, Changes, Test plan, Risks\n\nFormat the final message in a single fenced block ready to copy. If the change spans multiple logical commits, propose a split with one subject per commit and the file groups that belong in each.\n\nRead the diff before writing — never invent files, symbols, or behavior. If `git status` is empty or the diff is unclear, ask before fabricating.","display":true,"details":{"requestId":"263c7806-35c3-4561-901b-a22cab3fddf1","result":{"content":[{"type":"text","text":"Step 1: delegate\nBrainstorm approaches for: ${@:-the current problem or feature}\n\nStructure your answer as:\n1. **Problem restatement** — one paragraph; what we're solving, what constraints matter, what \"done\" looks like\n2. **Alternatives** — 3 to 5 distinct approaches. For each:\n - **Summary** — one or two sentences\n - **How it works** — the key mechanism\n - **Pros** — what it gets right\n - **Cons** — what it costs, risks, or breaks\n - **Best when** — the conditions that would make this the right pick\n3. **Comparison table** — across the alternatives, score or rank on: complexity, time-to-ship, reversibility, performance, fit-with-existing-code\n4. **Recommendation** — which one to pick *given the current codebase*, with the second choice as a fallback\n5. **Unknowns** — questions that, if answered, would change the recommendation\n\nBe opinionated. Surface real trade-offs, not strawmen. If the obvious approach wins decisively, say so and only enumerate 2 alternatives — don't manufacture options for the sake of a full set. If the problem is under-specified, ask clarifying questions before brainstorming.\n\nStep 2: delegate\nCreate a structured implementation plan for: ${@:-the current task}\n\nFollow this format:\n1. **Goal** — one-sentence objective\n2. **Constraints** — existing code, dependencies, tests, or assumptions to respect\n3. **Approach** — high-level strategy and rationale\n4. **Steps** — numbered, actionable tasks small enough to verify one at a time\n5. **Verification** — how to confirm each step works (tests, logs, manual checks)\n6. **Risks & Rollbacks** — what could go wrong and how to undo safely\n7. **Open Questions** — anything that needs clarification before starting\n\nUse the codebase context as needed. Do not write implementation code yet; only produce the plan.\n\nStep 3: delegate\nWrite tests for: ${@:-the current code or context}\n\nStructure your answer as:\n1. **Existing conventions** — name patterns, framework, assertion style, fixtures; match what's already there\n2. **Test cases to add** — grouped as:\n - **Happy path** — the primary expected behavior\n - **Edge cases** — empty, zero, max, boundary, off-by-one\n - **Error cases** — invalid input, missing deps, timeouts, permission failures\n3. **Test code** — minimal, runnable, following the project's framework (jest, pytest, go test, etc.)\n4. **How to run** — the exact command, plus how to run just the new tests\n5. **Coverage gaps** — anything still untestable without a refactor; flag it but do not refactor in this pass\n\nKeep tests independent, deterministic, and fast. Prefer many small tests over one large one. If the codebase has no test setup yet, propose the smallest viable setup and call it out clearly so the user can approve before you scaffold it.\n\nStep 4: delegate\nGenerate a commit message for: ${@:-the current uncommitted changes (run git status / git diff first)}\n\nStructure your answer as:\n1. **Type & scope** — one of: feat, fix, refactor, perf, test, docs, build, ci, chore, style; scope is the affected module/subsystem\n2. **Subject** — imperative mood, ≤72 chars, no trailing period, no emoji\n3. **Body** — wrapped at 72 cols, explain *why* not *what*. Use bullet points for multiple distinct changes.\n4. **Footer** — `BREAKING CHANGE: …` if applicable; `Refs: #123` for linked issues\n5. **PR description** (if the change is non-trivial) — Summary, Motivation, Changes, Test plan, Risks\n\nFormat the final message in a single fenced block ready to copy. If the change spans multiple logical commits, propose a split with one subject per commit and the file groups that belong in each.\n\nRead the diff before writing — never invent files, symbols, or behavior. If `git status` is empty or the diff is unclear, ask before fabricating."}],"details":{"mode":"chain","results":[{"agent":"delegate","task":"Brainstorm approaches for: ${@:-the current problem or feature}\n\nStructure your answer as:\n1. **Problem restatement** — one paragraph; what we're solving, what constraints matter, what \"done\" looks like\n2. **Alternatives** — 3 to 5 distinct approaches. For each:\n - **Summary** — one or two sentences\n - **How it works** — the key mechanism\n - **Pros** — what it gets right\n - **Cons** — what it costs, risks, or breaks\n - **Best when** — the conditions that would make this the right pick\n3. **Comparison table** — across the alternatives, score or rank on: complexity, time-to-ship, reversibility, performance, fit-with-existing-code\n4. **Recommendation** — which one to pick *given the current codebase*, with the second choice as a fallback\n5. **Unknowns** — questions that, if answered, would change the recommendation\n\nBe opinionated. Surface real trade-offs, not strawmen. If the obvious approach wins decisively, say so and only enumerate 2 alternatives — don't manufacture options for the sake of a full set. If the problem is under-specified, ask clarifying questions before brainstorming.","exitCode":0,"messages":[],"usage":{"input":0,"output":0,"cacheRead":0,"cacheWrite":0,"cost":0,"turns":0},"progress":{"index":0,"agent":"delegate","status":"running","task":"Brainstorm approaches for: ${@:-the current problem or feature}\n\nStructure your answer as:\n1. **Problem restatement** — one paragraph; what we're solving, what constraints matter, what \"done\" looks like\n2. **Alternatives** — 3 to 5 distinct approaches. For each:\n - **Summary** — one or two sentences\n - **How it works** — the key mechanism\n - **Pros** — what it gets right\n - **Cons** — what it costs, risks, or breaks\n - **Best when** — the conditions that would make this the right pick\n3. **Comparison table** — across the alternatives, score or rank on: complexity, time-to-ship, reversibility, performance, fit-with-existing-code\n4. **Recommendation** — which one to pick *given the current codebase*, with the second choice as a fallback\n5. **Unknowns** — questions that, if answered, would change the recommendation\n\nBe opinionated. Surface real trade-offs, not strawmen. If the obvious approach wins decisively, say so and only enumerate 2 alternatives — don't manufacture options for the sake of a full set. If the problem is under-specified, ask clarifying questions before brainstorming.","recentTools":[],"recentOutput":[],"toolCount":0,"tokens":0,"durationMs":0}},{"agent":"delegate","task":"Create a structured implementation plan for: ${@:-the current task}\n\nFollow this format:\n1. **Goal** — one-sentence objective\n2. **Constraints** — existing code, dependencies, tests, or assumptions to respect\n3. **Approach** — high-level strategy and rationale\n4. **Steps** — numbered, actionable tasks small enough to verify one at a time\n5. **Verification** — how to confirm each step works (tests, logs, manual checks)\n6. **Risks & Rollbacks** — what could go wrong and how to undo safely\n7. **Open Questions** — anything that needs clarification before starting\n\nUse the codebase context as needed. Do not write implementation code yet; only produce the plan.","exitCode":0,"messages":[],"usage":{"input":0,"output":0,"cacheRead":0,"cacheWrite":0,"cost":0,"turns":0},"progress":{"index":1,"agent":"delegate","status":"pending","task":"Create a structured implementation plan for: ${@:-the current task}\n\nFollow this format:\n1. **Goal** — one-sentence objective\n2. **Constraints** — existing code, dependencies, tests, or assumptions to respect\n3. **Approach** — high-level strategy and rationale\n4. **Steps** — numbered, actionable tasks small enough to verify one at a time\n5. **Verification** — how to confirm each step works (tests, logs, manual checks)\n6. **Risks & Rollbacks** — what could go wrong and how to undo safely\n7. **Open Questions** — anything that needs clarification before starting\n\nUse the codebase context as needed. Do not write implementation code yet; only produce the plan.","recentTools":[],"recentOutput":[],"toolCount":0,"tokens":0,"durationMs":0}},{"agent":"delegate","task":"Write tests for: ${@:-the current code or context}\n\nStructure your answer as:\n1. **Existing conventions** — name patterns, framework, assertion style, fixtures; match what's already there\n2. **Test cases to add** — grouped as:\n - **Happy path** — the primary expected behavior\n - **Edge cases** — empty, zero, max, boundary, off-by-one\n - **Error cases** — invalid input, missing deps, timeouts, permission failures\n3. **Test code** — minimal, runnable, following the project's framework (jest, pytest, go test, etc.)\n4. **How to run** — the exact command, plus how to run just the new tests\n5. **Coverage gaps** — anything still untestable without a refactor; flag it but do not refactor in this pass\n\nKeep tests independent, deterministic, and fast. Prefer many small tests over one large one. If the codebase has no test setup yet, propose the smallest viable setup and call it out clearly so the user can approve before you scaffold it.","exitCode":0,"messages":[],"usage":{"input":0,"output":0,"cacheRead":0,"cacheWrite":0,"cost":0,"turns":0},"progress":{"index":2,"agent":"delegate","status":"pending","task":"Write tests for: ${@:-the current code or context}\n\nStructure your answer as:\n1. **Existing conventions** — name patterns, framework, assertion style, fixtures; match what's already there\n2. **Test cases to add** — grouped as:\n - **Happy path** — the primary expected behavior\n - **Edge cases** — empty, zero, max, boundary, off-by-one\n - **Error cases** — invalid input, missing deps, timeouts, permission failures\n3. **Test code** — minimal, runnable, following the project's framework (jest, pytest, go test, etc.)\n4. **How to run** — the exact command, plus how to run just the new tests\n5. **Coverage gaps** — anything still untestable without a refactor; flag it but do not refactor in this pass\n\nKeep tests independent, deterministic, and fast. Prefer many small tests over one large one. If the codebase has no test setup yet, propose the smallest viable setup and call it out clearly so the user can approve before you scaffold it.","recentTools":[],"recentOutput":[],"toolCount":0,"tokens":0,"durationMs":0}},{"agent":"delegate","task":"Generate a commit message for: ${@:-the current uncommitted changes (run git status / git diff first)}\n\nStructure your answer as:\n1. **Type & scope** — one of: feat, fix, refactor, perf, test, docs, build, ci, chore, style; scope is the affected module/subsystem\n2. **Subject** — imperative mood, ≤72 chars, no trailing period, no emoji\n3. **Body** — wrapped at 72 cols, explain *why* not *what*. Use bullet points for multiple distinct changes.\n4. **Footer** — `BREAKING CHANGE: …` if applicable; `Refs: #123` for linked issues\n5. **PR description** (if the change is non-trivial) — Summary, Motivation, Changes, Test plan, Risks\n\nFormat the final message in a single fenced block ready to copy. If the change spans multiple logical commits, propose a split with one subject per commit and the file groups that belong in each.\n\nRead the diff before writing — never invent files, symbols, or behavior. If `git status` is empty or the diff is unclear, ask before fabricating.","exitCode":0,"messages":[],"usage":{"input":0,"output":0,"cacheRead":0,"cacheWrite":0,"cost":0,"turns":0},"progress":{"index":3,"agent":"delegate","status":"pending","task":"Generate a commit message for: ${@:-the current uncommitted changes (run git status / git diff first)}\n\nStructure your answer as:\n1. **Type & scope** — one of: feat, fix, refactor, perf, test, docs, build, ci, chore, style; scope is the affected module/subsystem\n2. **Subject** — imperative mood, ≤72 chars, no trailing period, no emoji\n3. **Body** — wrapped at 72 cols, explain *why* not *what*. Use bullet points for multiple distinct changes.\n4. **Footer** — `BREAKING CHANGE: …` if applicable; `Refs: #123` for linked issues\n5. **PR description** (if the change is non-trivial) — Summary, Motivation, Changes, Test plan, Risks\n\nFormat the final message in a single fenced block ready to copy. If the change spans multiple logical commits, propose a split with one subject per commit and the file groups that belong in each.\n\nRead the diff before writing — never invent files, symbols, or behavior. If `git status` is empty or the diff is unclear, ask before fabricating.","recentTools":[],"recentOutput":[],"toolCount":0,"tokens":0,"durationMs":0}}],"progress":[{"index":0,"agent":"delegate","status":"running","task":"Brainstorm approaches for: ${@:-the current problem or feature}\n\nStructure your answer as:\n1. **Problem restatement** — one paragraph; what we're solving, what constraints matter, what \"done\" looks like\n2. **Alternatives** — 3 to 5 distinct approaches. For each:\n - **Summary** — one or two sentences\n - **How it works** — the key mechanism\n - **Pros** — what it gets right\n - **Cons** — what it costs, risks, or breaks\n - **Best when** — the conditions that would make this the right pick\n3. **Comparison table** — across the alternatives, score or rank on: complexity, time-to-ship, reversibility, performance, fit-with-existing-code\n4. **Recommendation** — which one to pick *given the current codebase*, with the second choice as a fallback\n5. **Unknowns** — questions that, if answered, would change the recommendation\n\nBe opinionated. Surface real trade-offs, not strawmen. If the obvious approach wins decisively, say so and only enumerate 2 alternatives — don't manufacture options for the sake of a full set. If the problem is under-specified, ask clarifying questions before brainstorming.","recentTools":[],"recentOutput":[],"toolCount":0,"tokens":0,"durationMs":0},{"index":1,"agent":"delegate","status":"pending","task":"Create a structured implementation plan for: ${@:-the current task}\n\nFollow this format:\n1. **Goal** — one-sentence objective\n2. **Constraints** — existing code, dependencies, tests, or assumptions to respect\n3. **Approach** — high-level strategy and rationale\n4. **Steps** — numbered, actionable tasks small enough to verify one at a time\n5. **Verification** — how to confirm each step works (tests, logs, manual checks)\n6. **Risks & Rollbacks** — what could go wrong and how to undo safely\n7. **Open Questions** — anything that needs clarification before starting\n\nUse the codebase context as needed. Do not write implementation code yet; only produce the plan.","recentTools":[],"recentOutput":[],"toolCount":0,"tokens":0,"durationMs":0},{"index":2,"agent":"delegate","status":"pending","task":"Write tests for: ${@:-the current code or context}\n\nStructure your answer as:\n1. **Existing conventions** — name patterns, framework, assertion style, fixtures; match what's already there\n2. **Test cases to add** — grouped as:\n - **Happy path** — the primary expected behavior\n - **Edge cases** — empty, zero, max, boundary, off-by-one\n - **Error cases** — invalid input, missing deps, timeouts, permission failures\n3. **Test code** — minimal, runnable, following the project's framework (jest, pytest, go test, etc.)\n4. **How to run** — the exact command, plus how to run just the new tests\n5. **Coverage gaps** — anything still untestable without a refactor; flag it but do not refactor in this pass\n\nKeep tests independent, deterministic, and fast. Prefer many small tests over one large one. If the codebase has no test setup yet, propose the smallest viable setup and call it out clearly so the user can approve before you scaffold it.","recentTools":[],"recentOutput":[],"toolCount":0,"tokens":0,"durationMs":0},{"index":3,"agent":"delegate","status":"pending","task":"Generate a commit message for: ${@:-the current uncommitted changes (run git status / git diff first)}\n\nStructure your answer as:\n1. **Type & scope** — one of: feat, fix, refactor, perf, test, docs, build, ci, chore, style; scope is the affected module/subsystem\n2. **Subject** — imperative mood, ≤72 chars, no trailing period, no emoji\n3. **Body** — wrapped at 72 cols, explain *why* not *what*. Use bullet points for multiple distinct changes.\n4. **Footer** — `BREAKING CHANGE: …` if applicable; `Refs: #123` for linked issues\n5. **PR description** (if the change is non-trivial) — Summary, Motivation, Changes, Test plan, Risks\n\nFormat the final message in a single fenced block ready to copy. If the change spans multiple logical commits, propose a split with one subject per commit and the file groups that belong in each.\n\nRead the diff before writing — never invent files, symbols, or behavior. If `git status` is empty or the diff is unclear, ask before fabricating.","recentTools":[],"recentOutput":[],"toolCount":0,"tokens":0,"durationMs":0}],"chainAgents":["delegate","delegate","delegate","delegate"],"totalSteps":4,"currentStepIndex":0}}},"id":"17572299","parentId":"273365dc","timestamp":"2026-07-24T15:45:10.623Z"}
{"type":"custom_message","customType":"subagent-slash-result","content":"## Subagent result\n\n❌ Chain failed at step 4: Subagent completed without making edits for an implementation task.\nIt appears to have returned planning or scratchpad output instead of applying changes.\n\n📋 Progress: (none)\n📁 Artifacts: /home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/agent/prompts/.pi-subagents/chain-runs/5f390df5\n\n## Child session exports\n\n- `/home/liph/.pi/agent/sessions/--home-liph-dotfiles-pi-.pi-agent-prompts--/2026-07-24T15-15-24-515Z_019f94b2-0ce3-7c27-8099-78ceea97d2cf/5f390df5/run-0/session.jsonl`\n- `/home/liph/.pi/agent/sessions/--home-liph-dotfiles-pi-.pi-agent-prompts--/2026-07-24T15-15-24-515Z_019f94b2-0ce3-7c27-8099-78ceea97d2cf/5f390df5/run-1/session.jsonl`\n- `/home/liph/.pi/agent/sessions/--home-liph-dotfiles-pi-.pi-agent-prompts--/2026-07-24T15-15-24-515Z_019f94b2-0ce3-7c27-8099-78ceea97d2cf/5f390df5/run-2/session.jsonl`\n- `/home/liph/.pi/agent/sessions/--home-liph-dotfiles-pi-.pi-agent-prompts--/2026-07-24T15-15-24-515Z_019f94b2-0ce3-7c27-8099-78ceea97d2cf/5f390df5/run-3/session.jsonl`\n\n## Artifact outputs\n\n- `/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/agent/prompts/.pi-subagents/artifacts/5f390df5_delegate_0_output.md`\n- `/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/agent/prompts/.pi-subagents/artifacts/5f390df5_delegate_1_output.md`\n- `/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/agent/prompts/.pi-subagents/artifacts/5f390df5_delegate_2_output.md`\n- `/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/agent/prompts/.pi-subagents/artifacts/5f390df5_delegate_3_output.md`","display":false,"details":{"requestId":"263c7806-35c3-4561-901b-a22cab3fddf1","result":{"content":[{"type":"text","text":"❌ Chain failed at step 4: Subagent completed without making edits for an implementation task.\nIt appears to have returned planning or scratchpad output instead of applying changes.\n\n📋 Progress: (none)\n📁 Artifacts: /home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/agent/prompts/.pi-subagents/chain-runs/5f390df5"}],"details":{"mode":"chain","results":[{"agent":"delegate","task":"Brainstorm approaches for: ${@:-the current problem or feature}\n\nStructure your answer as:\n1. **Problem restatement** — one paragraph; what we're solving, what constraints matter, what \"done\" looks like\n2. **Alternatives** — 3 to 5 distinct approaches. For each:\n - **Summary** — one or two sentences\n - **How it works** — the key mechanism\n - **Pros** — what it gets right\n - **Cons** — what it costs, risks, or breaks\n - **Best when** — the conditions that would make this the right pick\n3. **Comparison table** — across the alternatives, score or rank on: complexity, time-to-ship, reversibility, performance, fit-with-existing-code\n4. **Recommendation** — which one to pick *given the current codebase*, with the second choice as a fallback\n5. **Unknowns** — questions that, if answered, would change the recommendation\n\nBe opinionated. Surface real trade-offs, not strawmen. If the obvious approach wins decisively, say so and only enumerate 2 alternatives — don't manufacture options for the sake of a full set. If the problem is under-specified, ask clarifying questions before brainstorming.","exitCode":0,"usage":{"input":12542,"output":2362,"cacheRead":0,"cacheWrite":0,"cost":0,"turns":3},"model":"ollama/minimax-m3:cloud","artifactPaths":{"inputPath":"/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/agent/prompts/.pi-subagents/artifacts/5f390df5_delegate_0_input.md","outputPath":"/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/agent/prompts/.pi-subagents/artifacts/5f390df5_delegate_0_output.md","jsonlPath":"/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/agent/prompts/.pi-subagents/artifacts/5f390df5_delegate_0.jsonl","transcriptPath":"/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/agent/prompts/.pi-subagents/artifacts/5f390df5_delegate_0_transcript.jsonl","metadataPath":"/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/agent/prompts/.pi-subagents/artifacts/5f390df5_delegate_0_meta.json"},"transcriptPath":"/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/agent/prompts/.pi-subagents/artifacts/5f390df5_delegate_0_transcript.jsonl","progressSummary":{"toolCount":2,"tokens":14904,"durationMs":33353},"outputMode":"inline","finalOutput":"# Brainstorm Result: Empty Topic ($${@:-default fallback})\n\n## 1. Problem restatement\n\nThe invocation arrived with `${@:-the current problem or feature}` literally unsubstituted — there is no concrete problem statement, no target codebase, no feature request, and no constraints supplied. Because of the `:-` shell defaulting, an empty argument list silently resolves to the placeholder string rather than an empty value. We cannot compare approaches, recommend a primary, or surface real trade-offs without knowing what we are designing for. \"Done\" here is a single resolved, scoped problem statement that names the system, the user, and the acceptance bar.\n\n## 2. Alternatives — three meta-approaches to handling the missing input\n\nI considered three ways to handle a malformed/empty invocation. I am not enumerating 3–5 design alternatives to a *feature*, because no feature has been stated. Manufacturing options against a placeholder would be the strawman the prompt warns against.\n\n### A. Refuse and ask for the topic (recommended)\n\n**Summary** — Return a short reply explaining the placeholder issue, list the minimum info needed, and wait.\n**How it works** — Detect that the rendered argument equals the default sentinel `${@:-...}`, then emit a clarifying prompt instead of a fabricated brainstorm.\n**Pros** — No hallucinated work, no wasted cycles downstream, no false confidence in a recommendation.\n**Cons** — Latency cost of a round-trip; user must restate the request.\n**Best when** — The argument is genuinely missing or malformed, as it is here.\n\n### B. Infer the topic from session context\n\n**Summary** — Try to recover a problem statement from the parent session, recent files, or active plan.\n**How it works** — Read the parent orchestrator's context, the working directory (`/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/agent/prompts`), recent git changes, or a pinned issue.\n**Pros** — Potentially one-shot delivery without restating; respects \"don't make me repeat myself.\"\n**Cons** — High risk of guessing wrong; a brainstorm built on a guessed topic is worse than no brainstorm; the fork/subagent boundary may not have rich context anyway.\n**Best when** — There is a strong, unambiguous signal in the environment (e.g., an open plan or an explicit \"brainstorm on X\" header nearby).\n\n### C. Brainstorm a meta-topic: \"designing a brainstorming workflow\"\n\n**Summary** — Treat the missing topic as the topic itself — design improvements to the brainstorm command's input handling.\n**How it works** — Generate alternatives for how the prompt should validate, default, or fail-fast on missing input.\n**Pros** — Produces a real, bounded deliverable; useful artifact for hardening this command.\n**Cons** — Almost certainly not what the caller wanted; a prompt-fixing brainstorm instead of the intended feature brainstorm.\n**Best when** — The user is explicitly iterating on the prompt itself.\n\n## 3. Comparison table\n\n| Approach | Complexity | Time-to-ship | Reversibility | Performance | Fit with existing code |\n|---|---|---|---|---|---|\n| A. Refuse and ask | Very low | Immediate | N/A (no commitment) | Trivial | High — matches the prompt's own \"ask clarifying questions\" rule |\n| B. Infer from context | Medium | Medium | High — still easy to discard | One extra read pass | Low — guesses can pollute the parent session |\n| C. Meta-brainstorm | Low | Low | High | Trivial | Low — sidesteps the actual request |\n\nScoring: 1 (worst) – 5 (best) for fit; lower complexity is better.\n\n| Approach | Complexity | Time-to-ship | Reversibility | Fit |\n|---|---|---|---|---|\n| A | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 |\n| B | 2 | 3 | 4 | 2 |\n| C | 4 | 4 | 4 | 2 |\n\n## 4. Recommendation\n\n**Pick A.** The prompt explicitly says: *\"If the problem is under-specified, ask clarifying questions before brainstorming.\"* Silently substituting a placeholder and inventing a problem would directly violate that instruction and produce an artifact with no actionable value. The fallback, if the user insists on a non-blocking response, is **C** — turn the lens on the prompt's own input handling and ship a small set of hardening options.\n\n## 5. Unknowns\n\nThese are the questions whose answers would change the recommendation immediately:\n\n1. **What is the actual problem or feature?** Required. The single most important unknown; everything below is contingent on this.\n2. **Is the user available to clarify now, or is this an autonomous run?** If autonomous, B (context inference) becomes more attractive.\n3. **Is the goal to improve this `p-brainstorm.md` command itself?** If yes, switch to approach C and brainstorm input-validation strategies.\n4. **What codebase is in scope?** Brainstorm fit-with-existing-code requires knowing the existing code.\n5. **Are there hard constraints (language, runtime, deadlines, regulatory)?** These prune the alternative space before evaluation.\n\n---","attemptedModels":["ollama/minimax-m3:cloud"],"modelAttempts":[{"model":"ollama/minimax-m3:cloud","success":true,"exitCode":0,"usage":{"input":12542,"output":2362,"cacheRead":0,"cacheWrite":0,"cost":0,"turns":3}}],"sessionFile":"/home/liph/.pi/agent/sessions/--home-liph-dotfiles-pi-.pi-agent-prompts--/2026-07-24T15-15-24-515Z_019f94b2-0ce3-7c27-8099-78ceea97d2cf/5f390df5/run-0/session.jsonl","acceptance":{"status":"attested","explicit":false,"effectiveAcceptance":{"level":"attested","explicit":false,"inferredReason":["default lightweight attestation"],"criteria":[{"id":"criterion-1","must":"Return a concise result and residual risks when applicable","evidence":["manual-notes","residual-risks"],"severity":"required"}],"evidence":["manual-notes","residual-risks"],"verify":[],"stopRules":[]},"inferredReason":["default lightweight attestation"],"criteria":[{"id":"criterion-1","must":"Return a concise result and residual risks when applicable","evidence":["manual-notes","residual-risks"],"severity":"required"}],"runtimeChecks":[],"verifyRuns":[],"childReport":{"criteriaSatisfied":[{"id":"criterion-1","status":"satisfied","evidence":"Concise result delivered as a meta-brainstorm on the missing input problem, with explicit residual risks listed in residualRisks[] and a recommended path forward."}],"changedFiles":["/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/agent/prompts/.pi-subagents/<this-session>/report.md"],"testsAddedOrUpdated":[],"commandsRun":[{"command":"ls -la /home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/agent/prompts/","result":"passed","summary":"Listed prompt directory to verify scope of available commands"},{"command":"read p-brainstorm.md","result":"passed","summary":"Read the source prompt to confirm behavior on missing arguments"}],"validationOutput":["Prompt source confirmed: argument-hint '[problem or feature to design]' with default fallback 'the current problem or feature'; no topic provided."],"residualRisks":["No concrete topic was supplied, so no domain-specific design was produced.","If this was meant as an autonomous run with implicit context, approach A (refuse) may add a round-trip latency the caller wanted to avoid.","Recommendation may flip to B if the parent session can supply a topic the user already approved."],"noStagedFiles":true,"diffSummary":"No code changes; pure reasoning artifact for a missing-input condition.","reviewFindings":["no blockers","blocker-equivalent: caller must restate the problem or confirm approach C (harden the prompt) is the actual goal."],"manualNotes":"Invocation came in with the unrendered default placeholder, indicating the upstream caller did not pass an argument. The fork/subagent context here has no other signal about the intended topic, so I refused to invent one per the prompt's own rule against manufacturing strawman alternatives."}},"toolCalls":[{"text":"$ ls -la /home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/agent/prompts/ 2>/dev/null...","expandedText":"$ ls -la /home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/agent/prompts/ 2>/dev/null | head -30"},{"text":"read ~/dotfiles/pi/.pi/agent/prompts/p-brainstorm.md","expandedText":"read ~/dotfiles/pi/.pi/agent/prompts/p-brainstorm.md"}]},{"agent":"delegate","task":"Create a structured implementation plan for: ${@:-the current task}\n\nFollow this format:\n1. **Goal** — one-sentence objective\n2. **Constraints** — existing code, dependencies, tests, or assumptions to respect\n3. **Approach** — high-level strategy and rationale\n4. **Steps** — numbered, actionable tasks small enough to verify one at a time\n5. **Verification** — how to confirm each step works (tests, logs, manual checks)\n6. **Risks & Rollbacks** — what could go wrong and how to undo safely\n7. **Open Questions** — anything that needs clarification before starting\n\nUse the codebase context as needed. Do not write implementation code yet; only produce the plan.\n\n---\nPrevious step output:\n# Brainstorm Result: Empty Topic ($${@:-default fallback})\n\n## 1. Problem restatement\n\nThe invocation arrived with `${@:-the current problem or feature}` literally unsubstituted — there is no concrete problem statement, no target codebase, no feature request, and no constraints supplied. Because of the `:-` shell defaulting, an empty argument list silently resolves to the placeholder string rather than an empty value. We cannot compare approaches, recommend a primary, or surface real trade-offs without knowing what we are designing for. \"Done\" here is a single resolved, scoped problem statement that names the system, the user, and the acceptance bar.\n\n## 2. Alternatives — three meta-approaches to handling the missing input\n\nI considered three ways to handle a malformed/empty invocation. I am not enumerating 3–5 design alternatives to a *feature*, because no feature has been stated. Manufacturing options against a placeholder would be the strawman the prompt warns against.\n\n### A. Refuse and ask for the topic (recommended)\n\n**Summary** — Return a short reply explaining the placeholder issue, list the minimum info needed, and wait.\n**How it works** — Detect that the rendered argument equals the default sentinel `${@:-...}`, then emit a clarifying prompt instead of a fabricated brainstorm.\n**Pros** — No hallucinated work, no wasted cycles downstream, no false confidence in a recommendation.\n**Cons** — Latency cost of a round-trip; user must restate the request.\n**Best when** — The argument is genuinely missing or malformed, as it is here.\n\n### B. Infer the topic from session context\n\n**Summary** — Try to recover a problem statement from the parent session, recent files, or active plan.\n**How it works** — Read the parent orchestrator's context, the working directory (`/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/agent/prompts`), recent git changes, or a pinned issue.\n**Pros** — Potentially one-shot delivery without restating; respects \"don't make me repeat myself.\"\n**Cons** — High risk of guessing wrong; a brainstorm built on a guessed topic is worse than no brainstorm; the fork/subagent boundary may not have rich context anyway.\n**Best when** — There is a strong, unambiguous signal in the environment (e.g., an open plan or an explicit \"brainstorm on X\" header nearby).\n\n### C. Brainstorm a meta-topic: \"designing a brainstorming workflow\"\n\n**Summary** — Treat the missing topic as the topic itself — design improvements to the brainstorm command's input handling.\n**How it works** — Generate alternatives for how the prompt should validate, default, or fail-fast on missing input.\n**Pros** — Produces a real, bounded deliverable; useful artifact for hardening this command.\n**Cons** — Almost certainly not what the caller wanted; a prompt-fixing brainstorm instead of the intended feature brainstorm.\n**Best when** — The user is explicitly iterating on the prompt itself.\n\n## 3. Comparison table\n\n| Approach | Complexity | Time-to-ship | Reversibility | Performance | Fit with existing code |\n|---|---|---|---|---|---|\n| A. Refuse and ask | Very low | Immediate | N/A (no commitment) | Trivial | High — matches the prompt's own \"ask clarifying questions\" rule |\n| B. Infer from context | Medium | Medium | High — still easy to discard | One extra read pass | Low — guesses can pollute the parent session |\n| C. Meta-brainstorm | Low | Low | High | Trivial | Low — sidesteps the actual request |\n\nScoring: 1 (worst) – 5 (best) for fit; lower complexity is better.\n\n| Approach | Complexity | Time-to-ship | Reversibility | Fit |\n|---|---|---|---|---|\n| A | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 |\n| B | 2 | 3 | 4 | 2 |\n| C | 4 | 4 | 4 | 2 |\n\n## 4. Recommendation\n\n**Pick A.** The prompt explicitly says: *\"If the problem is under-specified, ask clarifying questions before brainstorming.\"* Silently substituting a placeholder and inventing a problem would directly violate that instruction and produce an artifact with no actionable value. The fallback, if the user insists on a non-blocking response, is **C** — turn the lens on the prompt's own input handling and ship a small set of hardening options.\n\n## 5. Unknowns\n\nThese are the questions whose answers would change the recommendation immediately:\n\n1. **What is the actual problem or feature?** Required. The single most important unknown; everything below is contingent on this.\n2. **Is the user available to clarify now, or is this an autonomous run?** If autonomous, B (context inference) becomes more attractive.\n3. **Is the goal to improve this `p-brainstorm.md` command itself?** If yes, switch to approach C and brainstorm input-validation strategies.\n4. **What codebase is in scope?** Brainstorm fit-with-existing-code requires knowing the existing code.\n5. **Are there hard constraints (language, runtime, deadlines, regulatory)?** These prune the alternative space before evaluation.\n\n---","exitCode":0,"usage":{"input":15353,"output":3292,"cacheRead":0,"cacheWrite":0,"cost":0,"turns":3},"model":"ollama/minimax-m3:cloud","artifactPaths":{"inputPath":"/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/agent/prompts/.pi-subagents/artifacts/5f390df5_delegate_1_input.md","outputPath":"/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/agent/prompts/.pi-subagents/artifacts/5f390df5_delegate_1_output.md","jsonlPath":"/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/agent/prompts/.pi-subagents/artifacts/5f390df5_delegate_1.jsonl","transcriptPath":"/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/agent/prompts/.pi-subagents/artifacts/5f390df5_delegate_1_transcript.jsonl","metadataPath":"/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/agent/prompts/.pi-subagents/artifacts/5f390df5_delegate_1_meta.json"},"transcriptPath":"/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/agent/prompts/.pi-subagents/artifacts/5f390df5_delegate_1_transcript.jsonl","progressSummary":{"toolCount":2,"tokens":18645,"durationMs":43483},"outputMode":"inline","finalOutput":"# Implementation Plan: Resolving Empty `${@}` Placeholder in `p-plan.md`\n\n> **Note on input:** The task argument arrived as the literal sentinel `${@:-the current task}` — the shell's default-value expansion never resolved because no real argument was passed. The previous `p-brainstorm` step (severity: blocker) flagged the identical issue. I will not fabricate a plan against a placeholder; instead, the plan below scopes the *real* work that must happen first: obtaining a concrete task. Once a real task is supplied, this artifact is re-runnable against it.\n\n---\n\n## 1. Goal\nProduce a concrete, verifiable implementation plan for a real task by closing the input-validation gap in the `p-plan` prompt (and sibling `p-*` prompts) so a missing argument yields a clarifying question instead of a placeholder-substituted phantom task.\n\n## 2. Constraints\n- **No implementation yet.** This step only produces a plan; the parent decides whether to execute.\n- **Working directory:** `/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/agent/prompts/` — contains 12 `p-*.md` prompts and 4 `c-*.md` commands, all using the same `${@:-...}` pattern.\n- **Existing contract:** the `p-plan` body mandates a 7-section format (Goal, Constraints, Approach, Steps, Verification, Risks & Rollbacks, Open Questions). Any new validation must preserve that contract when a real task *is* supplied.\n- **Acceptance contract (from parent):** attested level; final reply must end with a fenced `acceptance-report` JSON block; `criteriaSatisfied[].status` ∈ {satisfied, not-satisfied, not-applicable}; `commandsRun[].result` ∈ {passed, failed, not-run}.\n- **No write tools in scope** for the current run (review/find only) — if the parent wants the prompt edited, it must do that itself or assign a write-capable subagent.\n- **Subagent role:** I am a delegated worker, not the orchestrator. I must not propose further subagents; I report findings only.\n\n## 3. Approach\nAdopt the **\"refuse and ask\"** strategy recommended by the prior `p-brainstorm` step (Approach A, score 5/5 on fit). Treat the placeholder as a blocking precondition, not a topic to plan around. The plan's *Steps* therefore describe the smallest set of clarifications and follow-up actions the parent must take to unblock a real plan.\n\nRationale: every other branch (infer from context, meta-plan the prompt) requires a writeable surface or risks guessing wrong. Refusal is the only branch that is reversible, low-cost, and aligned with the prompt's own \"ask clarifying questions\" rule.\n\n## 4. Steps\n1. **Confirm the input is empty** — re-read the rendered argument; verify it equals the sentinel `${@:-the current task}` rather than an empty string. *(This step is satisfied: the prior step's diff confirmed the sentinel leaked through.)*\n2. **State the blocker explicitly** to the parent, naming the sentinel and the file responsible (`p-plan.md` line 4).\n3. **Request the minimum task shape** needed to re-emit a real plan: target system/codebase, user/audience, desired change, acceptance bar, hard constraints (language, runtime, deadline, regulatory).\n4. **Offer the meta-fallback** (Approach C from the brainstorm): if the actual goal is to harden the `p-*.md` prompt family, the parent can confirm and the next plan will cover input validation, sentinel detection, and failure-mode UX.\n5. **On receipt of a real task:** re-run this prompt with the task substituted, then verify all 7 sections of the produced plan against the acceptance contract.\n6. **On receipt of \"harden the prompts\":** produce a follow-up plan covering (a) sentinel detection in the prompt loader, (b) clarifying-question branch, (c) regression test using a sample invocation with an empty arg, (d) roll-forward migration for the other 11 `p-*.md` files.\n\n## 5. Verification\n- **Step 1:** re-render `${@}` via the same shell that invoked this prompt; confirm sentinel presence. *(Already done by the parent before this delegation.)*\n- **Step 3:** parent's reply contains at least the 5 fields listed (target, user, change, acceptance, constraints).\n- **Step 5:** re-issued plan contains 7 sections, each non-empty, no `TBD` placeholders, all `Open Questions` either resolved or explicitly deferred with a reason.\n- **Step 6:** follow-up plan names all 12 `p-*.md` files and the 4 `c-*.md` commands; lists the migration order (lowest-risk prompts first, e.g. `p-explain.md` before `p-brainstorm.md`).\n- **Acceptance report:** final reply ends with a parseable JSON `acceptance-report` block; `criteriaSatisfied[].status` values are valid; `commandsRun[]` reflects only what was actually run.\n\n## 6. Risks & Rollbacks\n- **Risk: parent interprets refusal as a hang.** Mitigation: this reply is the refusal, with a single concrete question, so no rollback is needed.\n- **Risk: meta-fallback (Step 4) is misread as scope creep.** Mitigation: explicitly framed as a branch the parent must opt into; default branch is \"supply a real task.\"\n- **Risk: a follow-up subagent re-introduces the sentinel** by echoing `${@:-...}` in its own template. Mitigation: the follow-up plan (Step 6c) should require a grep-based check that no rendered output contains the literal string `${@:-`.\n- **Rollback:** this artifact is review-only; nothing was written, so \"rollback\" is just discarding this reply and re-invoking with a real task.\n\n## 7. Open Questions (require parent decision before any real planning)\n1. **What is the actual task?** (Required — see brainstorm's Unknown #1.)\n2. **Is the user available now, or is this an autonomous run?** If autonomous and the parent can supply context, I can attempt context-inferred planning (Approach B from the brainstorm) on the next turn.\n3. **Is the goal to fix the `p-*.md` prompt family itself?** If yes, switch this plan to Step 6's scope.\n4. **Which subagent gets write access to `p-*.md`?** I do not, and the parent should not assume I will.\n5. **What is the deadline for a real plan?** Drives whether to spend a turn on clarification or accept a lower-confidence inference.\n\n---","attemptedModels":["ollama/minimax-m3:cloud"],"modelAttempts":[{"model":"ollama/minimax-m3:cloud","success":true,"exitCode":0,"usage":{"input":15353,"output":3292,"cacheRead":0,"cacheWrite":0,"cost":0,"turns":3}}],"sessionFile":"/home/liph/.pi/agent/sessions/--home-liph-dotfiles-pi-.pi-agent-prompts--/2026-07-24T15-15-24-515Z_019f94b2-0ce3-7c27-8099-78ceea97d2cf/5f390df5/run-1/session.jsonl","acceptance":{"status":"attested","explicit":false,"effectiveAcceptance":{"level":"attested","explicit":false,"inferredReason":["read-only task wording"],"criteria":[{"id":"criterion-1","must":"Return concrete findings with file paths and severity when applicable","evidence":["review-findings","residual-risks"],"severity":"required"}],"evidence":["review-findings","residual-risks"],"verify":[],"stopRules":[]},"inferredReason":["read-only task wording"],"criteria":[{"id":"criterion-1","must":"Return concrete findings with file paths and severity when applicable","evidence":["review-findings","residual-risks"],"severity":"required"}],"runtimeChecks":[],"verifyRuns":[],"childReport":{"criteriaSatisfied":[{"id":"criterion-1","status":"satisfied","evidence":"Plan contains concrete findings with file paths (p-plan.md line 4, p-*.md family in /home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/agent/prompts/) and severity (blocker on missing argument, mirroring prior p-brainstorm step). Residual risks enumerated in section 6."}],"changedFiles":[],"testsAddedOrUpdated":[],"commandsRun":[{"command":"ls -la /home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/agent/prompts/","result":"passed","summary":"Confirmed 12 p-*.md prompts and 4 c-*.md commands; identified p-plan.md as the source of the unsubstituted ${@:-...} sentinel."},{"command":"read /home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/agent/prompts/p-plan.md","result":"passed","summary":"Verified the prompt body uses ${@:-the current task} with no fallback clarification branch."}],"validationOutput":["Input argument resolved to literal sentinel; refused to fabricate a plan; produced a precondition-clarification plan instead, per prior p-brainstorm recommendation (Approach A, 5/5 fit)."],"residualRisks":["Parent may interpret the clarification as scope creep; mitigation: explicit opt-in branch for prompt-hardening in Step 4.","Subagent role is read-only; if the parent wants the prompt edited, it must delegate to a write-capable worker or do it itself.","Re-issuing with a real task will require a fresh delegation; this artifact cannot self-rehydrate."],"noStagedFiles":true,"diffSummary":"No files modified. Produced a review-only plan artifact that names the blocker (unsubstituted ${@:-...} sentinel in p-plan.md and 11 sibling p-*.md prompts) and the minimum clarifications needed to re-emit a real plan.","reviewFindings":["blocker: p-plan.md:4 - ${@:-the current task} not resolved; same defect in p-brainstorm.md, p-debug.md, p-diagnose.md, p-doc.md, p-explain.md, p-refactor.md, p-review.md, p-secaudit.md, p-summarize.md, p-test.md, p-commit.md (11 files)","warning: no clarifying-question branch exists in any p-*.md prompt; missing argument silently becomes a placeholder"],"manualNotes":"This run mirrors the prior p-brainstorm run. The parent should either (a) re-invoke with a real task argument, or (b) confirm the meta-fallback (harden the p-*.md prompt family) and assign a write-capable subagent for the edits."}},"toolCalls":[{"text":"$ ls -la /home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/agent/prompts/ 2>&1 | head...","expandedText":"$ ls -la /home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/agent/prompts/ 2>&1 | head -50"},{"text":"read ~/dotfiles/pi/.pi/agent/prompts/p-plan.md","expandedText":"read ~/dotfiles/pi/.pi/agent/prompts/p-plan.md"}]},{"agent":"delegate","task":"Write tests for: ${@:-the current code or context}\n\nStructure your answer as:\n1. **Existing conventions** — name patterns, framework, assertion style, fixtures; match what's already there\n2. **Test cases to add** — grouped as:\n - **Happy path** — the primary expected behavior\n - **Edge cases** — empty, zero, max, boundary, off-by-one\n - **Error cases** — invalid input, missing deps, timeouts, permission failures\n3. **Test code** — minimal, runnable, following the project's framework (jest, pytest, go test, etc.)\n4. **How to run** — the exact command, plus how to run just the new tests\n5. **Coverage gaps** — anything still untestable without a refactor; flag it but do not refactor in this pass\n\nKeep tests independent, deterministic, and fast. Prefer many small tests over one large one. If the codebase has no test setup yet, propose the smallest viable setup and call it out clearly so the user can approve before you scaffold it.\n\n---\nPrevious step output:\n# Implementation Plan: Resolving Empty `${@}` Placeholder in `p-plan.md`\n\n> **Note on input:** The task argument arrived as the literal sentinel `${@:-the current task}` — the shell's default-value expansion never resolved because no real argument was passed. The previous `p-brainstorm` step (severity: blocker) flagged the identical issue. I will not fabricate a plan against a placeholder; instead, the plan below scopes the *real* work that must happen first: obtaining a concrete task. Once a real task is supplied, this artifact is re-runnable against it.\n\n---\n\n## 1. Goal\nProduce a concrete, verifiable implementation plan for a real task by closing the input-validation gap in the `p-plan` prompt (and sibling `p-*` prompts) so a missing argument yields a clarifying question instead of a placeholder-substituted phantom task.\n\n## 2. Constraints\n- **No implementation yet.** This step only produces a plan; the parent decides whether to execute.\n- **Working directory:** `/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/agent/prompts/` — contains 12 `p-*.md` prompts and 4 `c-*.md` commands, all using the same `${@:-...}` pattern.\n- **Existing contract:** the `p-plan` body mandates a 7-section format (Goal, Constraints, Approach, Steps, Verification, Risks & Rollbacks, Open Questions). Any new validation must preserve that contract when a real task *is* supplied.\n- **Acceptance contract (from parent):** attested level; final reply must end with a fenced `acceptance-report` JSON block; `criteriaSatisfied[].status` ∈ {satisfied, not-satisfied, not-applicable}; `commandsRun[].result` ∈ {passed, failed, not-run}.\n- **No write tools in scope** for the current run (review/find only) — if the parent wants the prompt edited, it must do that itself or assign a write-capable subagent.\n- **Subagent role:** I am a delegated worker, not the orchestrator. I must not propose further subagents; I report findings only.\n\n## 3. Approach\nAdopt the **\"refuse and ask\"** strategy recommended by the prior `p-brainstorm` step (Approach A, score 5/5 on fit). Treat the placeholder as a blocking precondition, not a topic to plan around. The plan's *Steps* therefore describe the smallest set of clarifications and follow-up actions the parent must take to unblock a real plan.\n\nRationale: every other branch (infer from context, meta-plan the prompt) requires a writeable surface or risks guessing wrong. Refusal is the only branch that is reversible, low-cost, and aligned with the prompt's own \"ask clarifying questions\" rule.\n\n## 4. Steps\n1. **Confirm the input is empty** — re-read the rendered argument; verify it equals the sentinel `${@:-the current task}` rather than an empty string. *(This step is satisfied: the prior step's diff confirmed the sentinel leaked through.)*\n2. **State the blocker explicitly** to the parent, naming the sentinel and the file responsible (`p-plan.md` line 4).\n3. **Request the minimum task shape** needed to re-emit a real plan: target system/codebase, user/audience, desired change, acceptance bar, hard constraints (language, runtime, deadline, regulatory).\n4. **Offer the meta-fallback** (Approach C from the brainstorm): if the actual goal is to harden the `p-*.md` prompt family, the parent can confirm and the next plan will cover input validation, sentinel detection, and failure-mode UX.\n5. **On receipt of a real task:** re-run this prompt with the task substituted, then verify all 7 sections of the produced plan against the acceptance contract.\n6. **On receipt of \"harden the prompts\":** produce a follow-up plan covering (a) sentinel detection in the prompt loader, (b) clarifying-question branch, (c) regression test using a sample invocation with an empty arg, (d) roll-forward migration for the other 11 `p-*.md` files.\n\n## 5. Verification\n- **Step 1:** re-render `${@}` via the same shell that invoked this prompt; confirm sentinel presence. *(Already done by the parent before this delegation.)*\n- **Step 3:** parent's reply contains at least the 5 fields listed (target, user, change, acceptance, constraints).\n- **Step 5:** re-issued plan contains 7 sections, each non-empty, no `TBD` placeholders, all `Open Questions` either resolved or explicitly deferred with a reason.\n- **Step 6:** follow-up plan names all 12 `p-*.md` files and the 4 `c-*.md` commands; lists the migration order (lowest-risk prompts first, e.g. `p-explain.md` before `p-brainstorm.md`).\n- **Acceptance report:** final reply ends with a parseable JSON `acceptance-report` block; `criteriaSatisfied[].status` values are valid; `commandsRun[]` reflects only what was actually run.\n\n## 6. Risks & Rollbacks\n- **Risk: parent interprets refusal as a hang.** Mitigation: this reply is the refusal, with a single concrete question, so no rollback is needed.\n- **Risk: meta-fallback (Step 4) is misread as scope creep.** Mitigation: explicitly framed as a branch the parent must opt into; default branch is \"supply a real task.\"\n- **Risk: a follow-up subagent re-introduces the sentinel** by echoing `${@:-...}` in its own template. Mitigation: the follow-up plan (Step 6c) should require a grep-based check that no rendered output contains the literal string `${@:-`.\n- **Rollback:** this artifact is review-only; nothing was written, so \"rollback\" is just discarding this reply and re-invoking with a real task.\n\n## 7. Open Questions (require parent decision before any real planning)\n1. **What is the actual task?** (Required — see brainstorm's Unknown #1.)\n2. **Is the user available now, or is this an autonomous run?** If autonomous and the parent can supply context, I can attempt context-inferred planning (Approach B from the brainstorm) on the next turn.\n3. **Is the goal to fix the `p-*.md` prompt family itself?** If yes, switch this plan to Step 6's scope.\n4. **Which subagent gets write access to `p-*.md`?** I do not, and the parent should not assume I will.\n5. **What is the deadline for a real plan?** Drives whether to spend a turn on clarification or accept a lower-confidence inference.\n\n---","exitCode":0,"usage":{"input":36522,"output":3706,"cacheRead":0,"cacheWrite":0,"cost":0,"turns":6},"model":"ollama/minimax-m3:cloud","artifactPaths":{"inputPath":"/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/agent/prompts/.pi-subagents/artifacts/5f390df5_delegate_2_input.md","outputPath":"/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/agent/prompts/.pi-subagents/artifacts/5f390df5_delegate_2_output.md","jsonlPath":"/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/agent/prompts/.pi-subagents/artifacts/5f390df5_delegate_2.jsonl","transcriptPath":"/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/agent/prompts/.pi-subagents/artifacts/5f390df5_delegate_2_transcript.jsonl","metadataPath":"/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/agent/prompts/.pi-subagents/artifacts/5f390df5_delegate_2_meta.json"},"transcriptPath":"/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/agent/prompts/.pi-subagents/artifacts/5f390df5_delegate_2_transcript.jsonl","progressSummary":{"toolCount":5,"tokens":40228,"durationMs":45062},"outputMode":"inline","finalOutput":"I've now verified the full situation:\n\n1. The task arrived as the literal string `Write tests for: ${@:-the current code or context}` — the `${@:-...}` is the prompt template, and the shell expansion has resolved the inner default value to `the current code or context` only because the argument was empty. There is no actual file, function, or feature named.\n2. The working directory is a dotfiles repo containing pi agent prompt markdown files — no source code, no test framework, no `package.json` at the repo root, no build system. The only code-shaped assets are two unrelated `package.json` files for pi extensions.\n3. I have read tools (this subagent) but no write/edit tools, and even if I did, there is no code in this directory to test.\n\nThe honest, useful response is to apply the same \"refuse and ask\" strategy the previous step used, then show what I *would* produce the moment a real target arrives. Let me also verify the only realistic alternative (treating the p-test.md / p-plan.md prompt family itself as the test target) before declining.\n\n**Decision: stop and ask for the actual target.** I will not invent tests for unspecified code.\n\n---\n\n## Status: blocked on the same `${@:-...}` placeholder the previous step flagged\n\nI am the `p-test` subagent. My template's first line is literally `Write tests for: ${@:-the current code or context}`. The shell that invoked me passed no arguments, so the default-value expansion substituted `the current code or context` — a description, not a target.\n\n### What I confirmed in this session\n- **Argument was empty** — `echo $#` → `0`; quoted expansion rendered the default.\n- **No code exists in the working directory** — `/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/agent/prompts/` contains 12 `p-*.md` prompt templates, 4 `c-*.md` command templates, and a `Doc/` folder. No `*.ts`, `*.js`, `*.py`, `*.go`, or test files. Only `package.json` files (extension manifest metadata) exist anywhere in the repo, and they have no test scripts.\n- **The blocker is identical to the one `p-plan` flagged** — same `${@:-...}` sentinel, same family of files. The previous step's plan explicitly said \"any new validation must preserve that contract when a real task *is* supplied\" and listed \"re-render `${@}` via the same shell\" as Step 1 verification. I re-rendered it; sentinel confirmed.\n\n### The minimum I need to produce real tests\nReply with **at least one** of the following so I have a real target:\n\n1. **A concrete file or function** — e.g. `src/foo.ts:bar()`, or a directory to scan.\n2. **A concrete feature** — e.g. \"the retry logic in extension X\", \"the parser in tool Y\".\n3. **The \"harden the prompt family\" meta-target** — explicit confirmation that you want tests for the `${@:-...}` sentinel-detection behavior in `p-*.md` / `c-*.md` itself (I can then test the *loader* contract, not the markdown content).\n\nOnce I have a target I will deliver the 5-section answer the template asks for: conventions → cases → code → run command → coverage gaps.\n\n### What I will *not* do\n- I will not invent tests against `the current code or context`. \"Context\" is not a test target; \"the current code\" is a phrase, not a function.\n- I will not refactor the `p-*.md` files in this pass even if asked, because (a) I do not have write tools in this delegation, and (b) the previous step's plan said to wait for parent direction before touching them.\n- I will not propose further subagents — I am a worker, not the orchestrator.\n\n### Coverage gaps I can already flag (pre-emptive, no code needed)\n- **No test framework is installed** at the repo root. The smallest viable setup for the prompt-family hardening target would be a single `test/prompts.test.ts` using `node --test` (Node 20+ built-in) — no `npm install` required. I will scaffold it only after the parent approves.\n- **No fixtures exist** for the placeholder expansion. If the target is the loader, the first thing the test needs is a captured rendering of `p-test.md` invoked with empty `$@` — that capture does not yet exist.","attemptedModels":["ollama/minimax-m3:cloud"],"modelAttempts":[{"model":"ollama/minimax-m3:cloud","success":true,"exitCode":0,"usage":{"input":36522,"output":3706,"cacheRead":0,"cacheWrite":0,"cost":0,"turns":6}}],"sessionFile":"/home/liph/.pi/agent/sessions/--home-liph-dotfiles-pi-.pi-agent-prompts--/2026-07-24T15-15-24-515Z_019f94b2-0ce3-7c27-8099-78ceea97d2cf/5f390df5/run-2/session.jsonl","acceptance":{"status":"rejected","explicit":false,"effectiveAcceptance":{"level":"reviewed","explicit":false,"inferredReason":["risky write-capable run"],"criteria":[{"id":"criterion-1","must":"Implement the requested change without widening scope","evidence":["changed-files","tests-added","commands-run","validation-output","residual-risks","no-staged-files"],"severity":"required"},{"id":"criterion-2","must":"Return evidence sufficient for an independent acceptance review","evidence":["changed-files","tests-added","commands-run","validation-output","residual-risks","no-staged-files"],"severity":"required"}],"evidence":["changed-files","tests-added","commands-run","validation-output","residual-risks","no-staged-files"],"verify":[],"review":{"agent":"reviewer","required":true},"stopRules":[]},"inferredReason":["risky write-capable run"],"criteria":[{"id":"criterion-1","must":"Implement the requested change without widening scope","evidence":["changed-files","tests-added","commands-run","validation-output","residual-risks","no-staged-files"],"severity":"required"},{"id":"criterion-2","must":"Return evidence sufficient for an independent acceptance review","evidence":["changed-files","tests-added","commands-run","validation-output","residual-risks","no-staged-files"],"severity":"required"}],"runtimeChecks":[{"id":"criterion:criterion-1","status":"failed","message":"Required criterion 'criterion-1' was reported as not-satisfied."},{"id":"criterion:criterion-2","status":"passed","message":"Required criterion 'criterion-2' satisfied."},{"id":"evidence:changed-files","status":"not-applicable","message":"changed-files evidence explicitly reported as not applicable."},{"id":"evidence:tests-added","status":"not-applicable","message":"tests-added evidence explicitly reported as not applicable."},{"id":"evidence:commands-run","status":"passed","message":"commands-run evidence present."},{"id":"evidence:validation-output","status":"passed","message":"validation-output evidence present."},{"id":"evidence:residual-risks","status":"passed","message":"residual-risks evidence present."},{"id":"evidence:no-staged-files","status":"passed","message":"no-staged-files evidence present."},{"id":"no-staged-files","status":"passed","message":"No staged files detected."}],"verifyRuns":[],"childReport":{"criteriaSatisfied":[{"id":"criterion-1","status":"not-satisfied","evidence":"Refused to write tests. The task argument was the unresolved ${@:-...} sentinel from the prompt template; there is no code in the working directory to test, and inventing a target would fabricate scope rather than satisfy 'implement the requested change'."},{"id":"criterion-2","status":"satisfied","evidence":"Re-rendered the shell expansion (echo $# -> 0; quoted default -> 'the current code or context'), listed the working directory showing no source files, read p-test.md to confirm the template, and cross-referenced the previous step's blocker. All four findings are inspectable."}],"changedFiles":[],"testsAddedOrUpdated":[],"commandsRun":[{"command":"echo $# and quoted ${@:-...} expansion in bash","result":"passed","summary":"Confirmed 0 arguments; default value 'the current code or context' was substituted, proving the sentinel leaked through."},{"command":"ls /home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/agent/prompts/","result":"passed","summary":"Directory contains only .md prompt templates and a Doc/ folder; no source code."},{"command":"find /home/liph/dotfiles/pi -name package.json -o -name '*.test.*' -o -name '*_test.*'","result":"passed","summary":"Only two unrelated extension-manifest package.json files found; no test files and no test framework installed at the repo root."},{"command":"read /home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/agent/prompts/p-test.md","result":"passed","summary":"Confirmed the p-test template itself uses the same ${@:-...} pattern flagged by the prior p-plan step."}],"validationOutput":["Blocker reproduced: empty argv -> default-value substitution -> placeholder text rendered as the task description.","No code-shaped assets in scope; only markdown prompts and extension manifests.","Same family of files (p-*.md, c-*.md) as the previous p-plan step's review target."],"residualRisks":["If the parent intended a specific file and the task runner dropped it, the real target is lost and only the parent can re-supply it.","The 'harden the prompt family' meta-target is available but requires explicit opt-in; defaulting to it without confirmation would be scope creep.","This subagent has read tools only; even if a target were supplied, writing the test file requires a write-capable subagent or the parent."],"noStagedFiles":true,"diffSummary":"No files changed. Task was refused because the argument carried the same ${@:-...} placeholder the previous step flagged; re-rendering confirmed the sentinel leaked through with zero argv.","reviewFindings":["blocker: task argument is the unresolved ${@:-the current code or context} sentinel; no concrete file/function/feature was provided","no blockers in the refusal itself — refusal matches the 'ask clarifying questions' rule stated in p-plan.md and follows the same strategy the previous p-plan step used"],"manualNotes":"Re-run with a concrete target appended, e.g. 'Write tests for: src/parser.ts:parse'. If the actual goal is to harden the p-*.md prompt family itself, reply with that explicitly and I will scope tests to the loader/sentinel behavior instead of guessing."}},"toolCalls":[{"text":"$ ls -la /home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/agent/prompts/ 2>&1 | head...","expandedText":"$ ls -la /home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/agent/prompts/ 2>&1 | head -50"},{"text":"read ~/dotfiles/pi/.pi/agent/prompts/p-test.md","expandedText":"read ~/dotfiles/pi/.pi/agent/prompts/p-test.md"},{"text":"$ echo \"Argv[0]: $0\"; echo \"Number of args: $#\"; echo \"Args: [...","expandedText":"$ echo \"Argv[0]: $0\"; echo \"Number of args: $#\"; echo \"Args: [$@]\"; echo \"Quoted: [${@:-the current code or context}]\""},{"text":"$ cd /home/liph/dotfiles/pi && find . -maxdepth 4 \\( -name \"pa...","expandedText":"$ cd /home/liph/dotfiles/pi && find . -maxdepth 4 \\( -name \"package.json\" -o -name \"pyproject.toml\" -o -name \"go.mod\" -o -name \"Cargo.toml\" -o -name \"*.test.*\" -o -name \"*_test.*\" -o -name \"*.spec.*\" \\) 2>/dev/null | grep -v node_modules | he..."},{"text":"$ cd /home/liph/dotfiles/pi && ls -la && cat .pi/agent/npm/pac...","expandedText":"$ cd /home/liph/dotfiles/pi && ls -la && cat .pi/agent/npm/package.json 2>/dev/null | head -40"}]},{"agent":"delegate","task":"Generate a commit message for: ${@:-the current uncommitted changes (run git status / git diff first)}\n\nStructure your answer as:\n1. **Type & scope** — one of: feat, fix, refactor, perf, test, docs, build, ci, chore, style; scope is the affected module/subsystem\n2. **Subject** — imperative mood, ≤72 chars, no trailing period, no emoji\n3. **Body** — wrapped at 72 cols, explain *why* not *what*. Use bullet points for multiple distinct changes.\n4. **Footer** — `BREAKING CHANGE: …` if applicable; `Refs: #123` for linked issues\n5. **PR description** (if the change is non-trivial) — Summary, Motivation, Changes, Test plan, Risks\n\nFormat the final message in a single fenced block ready to copy. If the change spans multiple logical commits, propose a split with one subject per commit and the file groups that belong in each.\n\nRead the diff before writing — never invent files, symbols, or behavior. If `git status` is empty or the diff is unclear, ask before fabricating.\n\n---\nPrevious step output:\nI've now verified the full situation:\n\n1. The task arrived as the literal string `Write tests for: ${@:-the current code or context}` — the `${@:-...}` is the prompt template, and the shell expansion has resolved the inner default value to `the current code or context` only because the argument was empty. There is no actual file, function, or feature named.\n2. The working directory is a dotfiles repo containing pi agent prompt markdown files — no source code, no test framework, no `package.json` at the repo root, no build system. The only code-shaped assets are two unrelated `package.json` files for pi extensions.\n3. I have read tools (this subagent) but no write/edit tools, and even if I did, there is no code in this directory to test.\n\nThe honest, useful response is to apply the same \"refuse and ask\" strategy the previous step used, then show what I *would* produce the moment a real target arrives. Let me also verify the only realistic alternative (treating the p-test.md / p-plan.md prompt family itself as the test target) before declining.\n\n**Decision: stop and ask for the actual target.** I will not invent tests for unspecified code.\n\n---\n\n## Status: blocked on the same `${@:-...}` placeholder the previous step flagged\n\nI am the `p-test` subagent. My template's first line is literally `Write tests for: ${@:-the current code or context}`. The shell that invoked me passed no arguments, so the default-value expansion substituted `the current code or context` — a description, not a target.\n\n### What I confirmed in this session\n- **Argument was empty** — `echo $#` → `0`; quoted expansion rendered the default.\n- **No code exists in the working directory** — `/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/agent/prompts/` contains 12 `p-*.md` prompt templates, 4 `c-*.md` command templates, and a `Doc/` folder. No `*.ts`, `*.js`, `*.py`, `*.go`, or test files. Only `package.json` files (extension manifest metadata) exist anywhere in the repo, and they have no test scripts.\n- **The blocker is identical to the one `p-plan` flagged** — same `${@:-...}` sentinel, same family of files. The previous step's plan explicitly said \"any new validation must preserve that contract when a real task *is* supplied\" and listed \"re-render `${@}` via the same shell\" as Step 1 verification. I re-rendered it; sentinel confirmed.\n\n### The minimum I need to produce real tests\nReply with **at least one** of the following so I have a real target:\n\n1. **A concrete file or function** — e.g. `src/foo.ts:bar()`, or a directory to scan.\n2. **A concrete feature** — e.g. \"the retry logic in extension X\", \"the parser in tool Y\".\n3. **The \"harden the prompt family\" meta-target** — explicit confirmation that you want tests for the `${@:-...}` sentinel-detection behavior in `p-*.md` / `c-*.md` itself (I can then test the *loader* contract, not the markdown content).\n\nOnce I have a target I will deliver the 5-section answer the template asks for: conventions → cases → code → run command → coverage gaps.\n\n### What I will *not* do\n- I will not invent tests against `the current code or context`. \"Context\" is not a test target; \"the current code\" is a phrase, not a function.\n- I will not refactor the `p-*.md` files in this pass even if asked, because (a) I do not have write tools in this delegation, and (b) the previous step's plan said to wait for parent direction before touching them.\n- I will not propose further subagents — I am a worker, not the orchestrator.\n\n### Coverage gaps I can already flag (pre-emptive, no code needed)\n- **No test framework is installed** at the repo root. The smallest viable setup for the prompt-family hardening target would be a single `test/prompts.test.ts` using `node --test` (Node 20+ built-in) — no `npm install` required. I will scaffold it only after the parent approves.\n- **No fixtures exist** for the placeholder expansion. If the target is the loader, the first thing the test needs is a captured rendering of `p-test.md` invoked with empty `$@` — that capture does not yet exist.","exitCode":1,"usage":{"input":120951,"output":3498,"cacheRead":0,"cacheWrite":0,"cost":0,"turns":7},"model":"ollama/minimax-m3:cloud","artifactPaths":{"inputPath":"/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/agent/prompts/.pi-subagents/artifacts/5f390df5_delegate_3_input.md","outputPath":"/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/agent/prompts/.pi-subagents/artifacts/5f390df5_delegate_3_output.md","jsonlPath":"/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/agent/prompts/.pi-subagents/artifacts/5f390df5_delegate_3.jsonl","transcriptPath":"/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/agent/prompts/.pi-subagents/artifacts/5f390df5_delegate_3_transcript.jsonl","metadataPath":"/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/agent/prompts/.pi-subagents/artifacts/5f390df5_delegate_3_meta.json"},"transcriptPath":"/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/agent/prompts/.pi-subagents/artifacts/5f390df5_delegate_3_transcript.jsonl","progressSummary":{"toolCount":6,"tokens":124449,"durationMs":46926},"error":"Subagent completed without making edits for an implementation task.\nIt appears to have returned planning or scratchpad output instead of applying changes.","outputMode":"inline","finalOutput":"I have enough to write a faithful commit message. The substantive changes are:\n\n1. `zshrc/.aliases.zsh` — switch all quick-pi aliases to `ollama-cloud` provider; add `qg` (glm-5.2) and `qd` (deepseek-v4-flash); drop standalone `qm`.\n2. `pi/.pi/agent/prompts/p-explain.md`, `p-plan.md`, `p-review.md` — replaced 2–3 line plain-text prompts with full frontmatter (description, argument-hint, subagent/fork flags) + structured body.\n3. `nvim/.config/nvim/lazy-lock.json` — version bumps for ~20 plugins (managed by lazy.nvim, not authored).\n4. `nvim/.config/nvim/lua/plugins/obsidian.lua` → `plugins.inactive/obsidian.lua` — moved (not deleted).\n\nEverything else (sessions/, context-mode .db, run-history, .pi-subagents/, .pi_1/, agent subagent files) is runtime state — should be `.gitignore`d, not committed. I'll flag that in the body but not invent a commit for it.\n\nHere is the commit message for the substantive source changes:\n\n```\nchore(zshrc): route all quick-pi aliases through ollama-cloud\n\nSwitch qk and qc to the ollama-cloud provider so the same backend hosts\nthe entire quick-pi launcher family, and add qg (glm-5.2) and qd\n(deepseek-v4-flash) alongside them. The standalone qm (minimax-m3) alias\nis dropped because the local model path is no longer in daily use; qm\ncan be reintroduced as a single line if needed.\n\nWhy: keeps the model launcher surface consistent (one provider) and\nmakes new model experiments a one-line alias addition instead of a\nprovider remapping. The default provider is unchanged, so non-aliased\npi invocations are not affected.\n```\n\nAnd for the prompt-template work, a second logical commit:\n\n```\nfeat(prompts): give explain/plan/review YAML frontmatter and a body\n\nReplace the bare two- and three-line p-explain, p-plan, and p-review\nfiles with full pi prompt templates: a YAML frontmatter block\n(description, argument-hint, plus subagent: true and fork: true for\nplan and review) and a structured body that names the sections the\nsubagent must fill in.\n\nWhy: the previous prompts relied on the agent inferring structure from\na single instruction line, which produced inconsistent output across\nruns. The argument-hint makes the prompts discoverable in /commands,\nand subagent+fork offloads plan and review to a worker session so the\nmain conversation stays focused on the user's task. p-explain stays\ninline because its output is short and benefits from main-thread\ncontext.\n\nThe ${@:-<fallback>} pattern in each body preserves the original\n\"explain the current code\", \"plan the current task\", \"review the\ncurrent file\" behavior when the user invokes the prompt with no\narguments, so existing muscle memory keeps working.\n```\n\nCombined as a single non-breaking commit if you prefer one:\n\n```\nchore(dotfiles): align quick-pi aliases, refresh prompt templates, bump lazy plugins\n\n- zshrc: route qk and qc through ollama-cloud; add qg (glm-5.2) and qd\n (deepseek-v4-flash); drop qm (minimax-m3)\n- pi/.pi/agent/prompts: add YAML frontmatter (description,\n argument-hint, subagent+fork for plan and review) and a structured\n body to p-explain, p-plan, p-review; keep the ${@:-<fallback>} default\n so bare invocations still target the current file/diff/task\n- nvim: bump ~20 plugin commits in lazy-lock.json; move\n plugins/obsidian.lua to plugins.inactive/obsidian.lua to disable the\n plugin without losing the config\n\nWhy: unify the quick-pi launcher on one provider, make the prompt\ntemplates discoverable and consistent across runs, and let lazy.nvim\npull upstream plugin fixes. Disabling obsidian.nvim is unrelated to\nthe prompt/alias work but lives in the same working set.\n\nBREAKING CHANGE: the qm alias is removed; users who relied on\n`qm \"<prompt>\"` for the local minimax-m3 model must invoke pi\ndirectly with --provider and --model flags.\n```","controlEvents":[{"type":"needs_attention","to":"needs_attention","ts":1784908079532,"runId":"5f390df5","agent":"delegate","index":3,"message":"delegate completed without making edits for an implementation task","reason":"completion_guard"}],"attemptedModels":["ollama/minimax-m3:cloud"],"modelAttempts":[{"model":"ollama/minimax-m3:cloud","success":false,"exitCode":1,"error":"Subagent completed without making edits for an implementation task.\nIt appears to have returned planning or scratchpad output instead of applying changes.","usage":{"input":120951,"output":3498,"cacheRead":0,"cacheWrite":0,"cost":0,"turns":7}}],"sessionFile":"/home/liph/.pi/agent/sessions/--home-liph-dotfiles-pi-.pi-agent-prompts--/2026-07-24T15-15-24-515Z_019f94b2-0ce3-7c27-8099-78ceea97d2cf/5f390df5/run-3/session.jsonl","acceptance":{"status":"checked","explicit":false,"effectiveAcceptance":{"level":"checked","explicit":false,"inferredReason":["write-capable worker/task"],"criteria":[{"id":"criterion-1","must":"Implement the requested change without widening scope","evidence":["changed-files","tests-added","commands-run","residual-risks","no-staged-files"],"severity":"required"}],"evidence":["changed-files","tests-added","commands-run","residual-risks","no-staged-files"],"verify":[],"stopRules":[]},"inferredReason":["write-capable worker/task"],"criteria":[{"id":"criterion-1","must":"Implement the requested change without widening scope","evidence":["changed-files","tests-added","commands-run","residual-risks","no-staged-files"],"severity":"required"}],"runtimeChecks":[{"id":"criterion:criterion-1","status":"passed","message":"Required criterion 'criterion-1' satisfied."},{"id":"evidence:changed-files","status":"passed","message":"changed-files evidence present."},{"id":"evidence:tests-added","status":"not-applicable","message":"tests-added evidence explicitly reported as not applicable."},{"id":"evidence:commands-run","status":"passed","message":"commands-run evidence present."},{"id":"evidence:residual-risks","status":"passed","message":"residual-risks evidence present."},{"id":"evidence:no-staged-files","status":"passed","message":"no-staged-files evidence present."},{"id":"no-staged-files","status":"passed","message":"No staged files detected."}],"verifyRuns":[],"childReport":{"criteriaSatisfied":[{"id":"criterion-1","status":"satisfied","evidence":"Read git status and git diff (and the full diff for the four substantive paths) before writing. The commit message names only files, aliases, and frontmatter keys that appear verbatim in the diff. Nothing about sessions/, context-mode .db files, run-history.jsonl, .pi-subagents/, .pi_1/, or the deleted agent/chains/profiles/ollama-* files is asserted as a change in the message — those are flagged as runtime noise to be .gitignore'd, not committed."}],"changedFiles":["zshrc/.aliases.zsh","pi/.pi/agent/prompts/p-explain.md","pi/.pi/agent/prompts/p-plan.md","pi/.pi/agent/prompts/p-review.md","nvim/.config/nvim/lazy-lock.json","nvim/.config/nvim/lua/plugins/obsidian.lua (moved to plugins.inactive/obsidian.lua)"],"testsAddedOrUpdated":[],"commandsRun":[{"command":"git -C /home/liph/dotfiles status --short","result":"passed","summary":"listed all dirty and untracked paths in the repo"},{"command":"git -C /home/liph/dotfiles diff -- <substantive paths>","result":"passed","summary":"read full diff for zshrc, three prompt files, and lazy-lock.json"},{"command":"ls /home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/agent/prompts/ && ls /home/liph/dotfiles/nvim/.config/nvim/lua/plugins.inactive/","result":"passed","summary":"confirmed the new prompt files and the moved obsidian.lua exist on disk"}],"validationOutput":["Substantive source diffs verified by reading them in full; untracked prompt files and plugins.inactive/obsidian.lua confirmed present on disk; everything else in git status is runtime state (sessions jsonl, context-mode sqlite dbs and stats-pid-*.json, run-history.jsonl, .pi-subagents/, .pi_1/, deleted agent/chains/profiles/ollama-*) and should be covered by .gitignore, not committed."],"residualRisks":["The message recommends a single combined commit, but a three-way split (zshrc / prompts / nvim) would keep history cleaner — split is offered above; the parent's git log conventions should decide.","The deleted agents/, chains/, profiles/pi-subagents/, teams/state/metrics/ paths under pi/.pi/ were not inspected individually; if any of those are intentionally removed (vs. accidentally deleted), a separate 'chore: remove ollama-* agent variants' commit should carry them with explanation."],"noStagedFiles":true,"diffSummary":"Four logical edits: (1) zshrc/.aliases.zsh — qk/qc switch to ollama-cloud provider, qg and qd added, qm removed; (2) pi/.pi/agent/prompts/p-{explain,plan,review}.md — gain YAML frontmatter and a structured body, with subagent+fork on plan and review; (3) nvim/.config/nvim/lazy-lock.json — ~20 plugin commit bumps; (4) nvim/.../plugins/obsidian.lua moved to plugins.inactive/obsidian.lua.","reviewFindings":["no blockers in the substantive diffs","caution: large number of untracked runtime artifacts (sessions/, context-mode .db, .pi-subagents/, .pi_1/, run-history.jsonl) are mixed in with the real source changes — recommend a 'git add <pathspec>' for only the four logical groups, not 'git add .', to avoid committing session state"],"manualNotes":"The previous step's p-test subagent flagged that the p-test.md / p-plan.md / p-explain.md prompts all use the ${@:-...} default-value pattern and the parent was asked to decide whether to harden that contract. The proposed message documents the pattern as intentional (preserving the bare-invocation behavior) and does not change it; if the parent wanted to remove the fallback, that is a follow-up commit on top of this one."}},"toolCalls":[{"text":"$ git diff --staged","expandedText":"$ git diff --staged"},{"text":"$ git diff","expandedText":"$ git diff"},{"text":"$ git status --short","expandedText":"$ git status --short"},{"text":"$ git diff -- zshrc/.aliases.zsh nvim/.config/nvim/lazy-lock.j...","expandedText":"$ git diff -- zshrc/.aliases.zsh nvim/.config/nvim/lazy-lock.json pi/.pi/settings.json pi/.pi/agent/prompts/p-explain.md pi/.pi/agent/prompts/p-plan.md pi/.pi/agent/prompts/p-review.md"},{"text":"$ git -C /home/liph/dotfiles diff -- zshrc/.aliases.zsh nvim/....","expandedText":"$ git -C /home/liph/dotfiles diff -- zshrc/.aliases.zsh nvim/.config/nvim/lazy-lock.json pi/.pi/settings.json pi/.pi/agent/prompts/p-explain.md pi/.pi/agent/prompts/p-plan.md pi/.pi/agent/prompts/p-review.md"},{"text":"$ git -C /home/liph/dotfiles diff -- nvim/.config/nvim/lua/plu...","expandedText":"$ git -C /home/liph/dotfiles diff -- nvim/.config/nvim/lua/plugins/obsidian.lua 2>&1 | head -40; echo \"---\"; ls -la /home/liph/dotfiles/nvim/.config/nvim/lua/plugins.inactive/obsidian.lua 2>&1 | head -5; echo \"---\"; ls /home/liph/dotfiles/pi/..."}]}],"artifacts":{"dir":"/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/agent/prompts/.pi-subagents/artifacts","files":[{"inputPath":"/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/agent/prompts/.pi-subagents/artifacts/5f390df5_delegate_0_input.md","outputPath":"/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/agent/prompts/.pi-subagents/artifacts/5f390df5_delegate_0_output.md","jsonlPath":"/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/agent/prompts/.pi-subagents/artifacts/5f390df5_delegate_0.jsonl","transcriptPath":"/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/agent/prompts/.pi-subagents/artifacts/5f390df5_delegate_0_transcript.jsonl","metadataPath":"/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/agent/prompts/.pi-subagents/artifacts/5f390df5_delegate_0_meta.json"},{"inputPath":"/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/agent/prompts/.pi-subagents/artifacts/5f390df5_delegate_1_input.md","outputPath":"/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/agent/prompts/.pi-subagents/artifacts/5f390df5_delegate_1_output.md","jsonlPath":"/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/agent/prompts/.pi-subagents/artifacts/5f390df5_delegate_1.jsonl","transcriptPath":"/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/agent/prompts/.pi-subagents/artifacts/5f390df5_delegate_1_transcript.jsonl","metadataPath":"/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/agent/prompts/.pi-subagents/artifacts/5f390df5_delegate_1_meta.json"},{"inputPath":"/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/agent/prompts/.pi-subagents/artifacts/5f390df5_delegate_2_input.md","outputPath":"/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/agent/prompts/.pi-subagents/artifacts/5f390df5_delegate_2_output.md","jsonlPath":"/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/agent/prompts/.pi-subagents/artifacts/5f390df5_delegate_2.jsonl","transcriptPath":"/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/agent/prompts/.pi-subagents/artifacts/5f390df5_delegate_2_transcript.jsonl","metadataPath":"/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/agent/prompts/.pi-subagents/artifacts/5f390df5_delegate_2_meta.json"},{"inputPath":"/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/agent/prompts/.pi-subagents/artifacts/5f390df5_delegate_3_input.md","outputPath":"/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/agent/prompts/.pi-subagents/artifacts/5f390df5_delegate_3_output.md","jsonlPath":"/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/agent/prompts/.pi-subagents/artifacts/5f390df5_delegate_3.jsonl","transcriptPath":"/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/agent/prompts/.pi-subagents/artifacts/5f390df5_delegate_3_transcript.jsonl","metadataPath":"/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/agent/prompts/.pi-subagents/artifacts/5f390df5_delegate_3_meta.json"}]},"chainAgents":["delegate","delegate","delegate","delegate"],"totalSteps":4,"currentStepIndex":3,"outputs":{},"totalChildUsage":{"input":185368,"output":12858,"cacheRead":0,"cacheWrite":0,"cost":0,"turns":19},"totalCost":{"inputTokens":185368,"outputTokens":12858,"costUsd":0},"workflowGraph":{"runId":"5f390df5","mode":"chain","phases":[],"nodes":[{"id":"step-0","kind":"step","agent":"delegate","label":"delegate","status":"completed","flatIndex":0,"stepIndex":0,"structured":false,"acceptanceStatus":"attested"},{"id":"step-1","kind":"step","agent":"delegate","label":"delegate","status":"completed","flatIndex":1,"stepIndex":1,"structured":false,"acceptanceStatus":"attested"},{"id":"step-2","kind":"step","agent":"delegate","label":"delegate","status":"completed","flatIndex":2,"stepIndex":2,"structured":false,"acceptanceStatus":"rejected"},{"id":"step-3","kind":"step","agent":"delegate","label":"delegate","status":"failed","flatIndex":3,"stepIndex":3,"structured":false,"acceptanceStatus":"checked","error":"Subagent completed without making edits for an implementation task.\nIt appears to have returned planning or scratchpad output instead of applying changes."}],"currentNodeId":"step-3"},"runId":"5f390df5"},"isError":true}},"id":"9486434f","parentId":"17572299","timestamp":"2026-07-24T15:48:00.076Z"}
{"type":"message","id":"959934dd","parentId":"9486434f","timestamp":"2026-07-24T15:48:56.781Z","message":{"role":"user","content":[{"type":"text","text":"q"}],"timestamp":1784908136686}}
Reference in New Issue View Git Blame Copy Permalink