opc

name opc version 0.10.2 description OPC — One Person Company. Digraph-based task pipeline with independent multi-role evaluation. Builds, reviews, analyzes, and brainstorms with specialist agents. Every path ends with evaluation. /opc <task>, /opc -i <task>, /opc <role> [role...] OPC — One Person Company One principle: the agent that does the work never evaluates it. A full team in a single skill. The digraph engine handles any task — building code, reviewing code, analyzing problems, brainstorming designs. It infers which flow and entry point to use from the task itself, and every path ends with independent evaluation. Invocation Harness path: The opc-harness binary lives at bin/opc-harness.mjs relative to this skill's install directory. Resolve it once at session start: OPC_HARNESS= " $HOME /.claude/skills/opc/bin/opc-harness.mjs" All opc-harness references below mean node "$OPC_HARNESS" . Set this as a shell variable and reuse it throughout the session. /opc <task> # auto mode — infer flow and roles from the task /opc -i <task> # interactive mode — ask questions before dispatch /opc <role> [role...] # explicit roles — skip role selection, dispatch directly /opc loop <task> # autonomous loop — decompose, schedule cron, run 24h unattended /opc skip # skip current node, advance via PASS edge /opc pass # force-pass current gate /opc stop # terminate flow, preserve session state /opc goto <nodeId> # manual jump to a node (cycle limits still enforced) Task Inference + Flow Selection The orchestrator reads the task, selects a flow template, and determines the entry point. Task says... Flow template Default entry "review", "audit", "check", "before we merge", "找问题", "开源前看看" review review "analyze", "diagnose", "what's wrong with", "分析" review review "build", "implement", "create", "fix bug", "帮我实现", "重构成..." build-verify brief "quick fix", "small change", "one-liner", "patch", "trivial fix", "快速修复", "小改动" quick build "brainstorm", "explore options", "what are the approaches", "有什么方案" build-verify brief "plan", "decompose", "break this down", "scope", "estimate", "拆一下" build-verify brief "verify", "test", "QA", "check before release", "发布前验收" pre-release acceptance "post-release", "user test", "onboarding check", "用户验收" pre-release acceptance Complex, vague, or multi-keyword request full-stack discuss /opc loop or multi-unit feature backlog loop-protocol plan decomposition Entry override — user context can shift the entry point (only if target ∈ template nodes): User has... Entry override A vague idea or brief First node in template A spec or design doc brief (if ∈ template), else build An implementation plan brief (if ∈ template), else build A qualified build-brief.md from prior run build (skip brief if lint passes) Code/artifact that needs evaluation review, code-review, or test-design (if ∈ template) Everything done, needs acceptance acceptance (if ∈ template) Priority rules: /opc loop <task> = enter autonomous loop mode. Follow ./pipeline/loop-protocol.md : first check .opc/runbooks/ for a matching runbook, otherwise decompose task into units. Initialize loop state, start cron, execute ticks. Each tick runs the appropriate OPC flow for that unit type. /opc <role> [role...] without a task = review of current codebase using review flow with named roles. /opc with no arguments = prompt user to describe their task. If task matches multiple rows, prefer the flow that includes build — code changes must precede review. Show triage result: 📌 Flow: {flow template name} 📍 Entry: {entry node} ⚡ Interaction: auto / interactive Rationale: {1 sentence} Override: If user explicitly names a task type, respect that. Users can adjust after seeing triage. Flow Templates Flow graph structures (nodes, edges, limits) are defined in opc-harness code. The orchestrator uses opc-harness route to determine next nodes — do not look up edges yourself . Each template below describes which agents to dispatch at each node and which protocol to use. legacy-linear Equivalent to v0.4.x behavior. Used as internal fallback only. Node Type Agents Protocol design discussion [planner] design exploration plan build [planner] task decomposition build build [implementer] implementer-prompt.md evaluate review [selected roles] role-evaluator-prompt.md deliver build — commit + report review Node Type Agents Protocol review review [selected roles] role-evaluator-prompt.md gate gate — gate-protocol.md Gate loopback: FAIL/ITERATE → review (multi-round with prior findings as context). Review is not limited to code — it evaluates any artifact: architecture proposals, documents, strategies, products. build-verify Node Type Agents Protocol brief brief [architect] brief-protocol.md build build [implementer] implementer-prompt.md code-review review [selected roles] role-evaluator-prompt.md test-design review [tester, + user/domain roles] test-design-protocol.md test-execute execute [orchestrator] executor-protocol.md gate gate — gate-protocol.md test-design is a review node where multiple roles design test cases (API tests, E2E UI tests, edge cases) without executing them. test-execute runs the designed test plan and captures evidence. Principle: the person who decides what to test must not be the person who runs the tests. quick Node Type Agents Protocol build build [implementer] implementer-prompt.md review review [selected roles] role-evaluator-prompt.md test-design review [tester, + user/domain roles] test-design-protocol.md test-execute execute [orchestrator] executor-protocol.md gate gate — gate-protocol.md Scope : Non-UI, single-file or ≤3 file changes, low risk. If task involves UI/design, multi-module refactoring, or security-related changes → use build-verify instead. Gate loops back to build (no brief node), and quick still requires OPC-generated testCommand evidence before final PASS. full-stack The complete flow with discussion, multi-stage gates, and E2E verification. Node Type Agents Protocol discuss discussion [architect, engineer, tester] discussion-protocol.md brief brief [architect] brief-protocol.md build build [implementer] implementer-prompt.md code-review review [frontend, backend] role-evaluator-prompt.md test-design review [tester, + user/domain roles] test-design-protocol.md test-execute execute [orchestrator] executor-protocol.md gate-test gate — gate-protocol.md acceptance review [pm, designer] role-evaluator-prompt.md gate-acceptance gate — gate-protocol.md audit review [security, compliance, a11y] role-evaluator-prompt.md gate-audit gate — gate-protocol.md e2e-user execute [new-user, active-user, churned-user] executor-protocol.md gate-e2e gate — gate-protocol.md ux-simulation execute [new-user, active-user, churned-user] ux-simulation-protocol.md + ux-observer-protocol.md gate-final gate — gate-protocol.md pre-release Node Type Agents Protocol acceptance review [pm, designer] role-evaluator-prompt.md gate-acceptance gate — gate-protocol.md audit review [security, compliance, a11y] role-evaluator-prompt.md gate-audit gate — gate-protocol.md e2e-user execute [new-user, active-user, churned-user] executor-protocol.md gate-e2e gate — gate-protocol.md Getting Started Before task inference , check for existing state: Run opc-harness ls to discover active flows. If any exist for the current project, show them and ask whether to resume or start fresh. If .harness/ has wave-* files but no flow-state.json → legacy v0.4.x format detected . Print: "Detected v0.4.x .harness/ format. Please delete .harness/ and re-run, or manually migrate." Do not proceed. Otherwise → fresh start. After flow selection, initialize with the matching interaction mode: opc-harness init --auto --claude-session-id " ${CLAUDE_SESSION_ID} " --flow {TEMPLATE} --entry {ENTRY_NODE} opc-harness init --flow {TEMPLATE} --entry {ENTRY_NODE} # interactive (`/opc -i`) only Auto init requires the installed OPC PreToolUse hook. Interactive init does not create a Claude session registry and is not subject to the node or repair-edge circuit breaker. Init auto-creates ~/.opc/sessions/{project-hash}/{session-id}/ and updates the latest symlink. All subsequent harness commands automatically resolve to the latest session dir — you do NOT need to pass --dir or capture the output. Just run commands normally: opc-harness route --node review --verdict PASS --flow {TEMPLATE} opc-harness transition --from review --to gate --verdict PASS --flow {TEMPLATE} opc-harness viz --flow {TEMPLATE} Multi-window safety: Each init creates a new session dir. If multiple OPC windows run on the same project, the last one to init becomes latest . To pin a specific session, pass --dir <path> explicitly. Backward compat: Pass --dir .harness to init for a project-local harness dir. Show flow graph — immediately after init, run opc-harness viz --flow {TEMPLATE} and display the ASCII output to the user. This gives them a visual map of the entire flow before execution begins. Before starting, extract acceptance criteria — 3-7 concrete, testable bullet points. Evaluators grade against these. Agent Model Routing — Mandatory Pre-Flight Flow topology and model tier are independent. Keep every selected node, round, and role, but before each Agent call run: opc-harness model-route --node {NODE_ID} --node-type {NODE_TYPE} [--role {ROLE}] -- dir {PROJECT_ROOT} Pass the returned model through the host's per-dispatch selector. dispatch: false means no Agent. On an error or unsupported selector, stop instead of silently inheriting the root model. Re-run with --allow-premium only after explicit user approval. Show 💰 Model route: {tier} → {model} ({source}) before launch. Read ./pipeline/model-routing.md only for configuration or troubleshooting. Quality Tier Selection — Mandatory Pre-Flight Before the Definition of Done questions, the orchestrator MUST select a quality tier . See ./pipeline/quality-tiers.md for full definitions. Tier When Baseline functional CLI, API, backend, library, infra No UI craft requirements polished UI, frontend, website, dashboard, docs Dark/light, responsive, loading/error/empty states, favicon, focus styles delightful Showcase, demo, pitch, consumer product All of polished + transitions, animations, micro-interactions, onboarding Selection rules: User explicitly specifies tier → use it Task involves UI/frontend → default polished Task is CLI/API/backend → default functional Task includes "showcase", "demo", "pitch", "delightful", "beautiful" → delightful Interactive mode → ask the user Show tier selection: 🎯 Quality Tier: {tier} Baseline: {N items from tier checklist} The tier's baseline checklist items are automatically appended to acceptance criteria under a "## Quality Baseline ({tier})" section in acceptance-criteria.md (in the session dir). The implementer and evaluator both receive the tier as context. Definition of Done — Mandatory Pre-Flight (all modes) Before dispatching ANY work, the orchestrator MUST establish a clear definition of done. This applies to both auto and interactive modes — the only difference is how the answers are obtained (inferred vs asked). Three questions that must have answers before the first node executes: What does "done" look like? — Concrete, observable outcomes. Not "implement auth" but "user can log in with email/password, session persists across refresh, logout clears session." How will we verify it? — Map each outcome to a verification method: Code change → which tests? ( npm test , specific test file, new test to write?) UI change → which page/component to screenshot? What should be visible? API change → which endpoint to curl? What response shape? Refactor → which existing tests must still pass? How will we evaluate quality? — What should reviewers look for beyond "it works"? Performance constraints? ("page load < 2s") Security concerns? ("no PII in logs") Compatibility? ("works in Safari") Edge cases? ("handles empty input, 10k items, unicode")