implementation: let implement-dispatch run a spec'd item list without a PLAN.md
维护者通常 1 天内回复
还没有人认领这个 Issue。
评估
- 难度
- 4/5
- 预计耗时
- 3-5 天
- 新手友好度
- 32/100
- Issue 类型
- 功能
- 描述清晰度
- 基本清楚
- 活跃度
- 活跃
- 技术栈
- markdown, shell
调研方向
Start from the existing /implementation:implement-dispatch skill and SKILL.md (item 11 on quoting PLAN.md ## Design, phases, and implementation:phase-verifier). Trace how briefs, phases, and verifiers currently require an approved PLAN.md. Design an item-list mode (e.g. --items <report path>) that groups file:line items into disjoint workers, injects a shared PR-lifecycle block, uses per-item acceptance checks instead of phase-verifier, and defines a denied-edit return shape. Related: #5764. Done when dispatch can run from a scoped audit/report without writing PLAN.md.
由索引模型根据 Issue 内容生成。
描述
Problem
/implementation:implement-dispatch assumes an approved PLAN.md: briefs quote its ## Design section (SKILL.md item 11), phases come from it, and each phase boundary runs implementation:phase-verifier. In the 2026-10-04 CI-performance session the work arrived instead as audit or report output that was already scoped to file:line with acceptance evidence:
- a version-consumer audit listing 10 required changes with file:line targets;
- a selection-gap plan (F1-F9) with file:line targets and expected gap counts;
- verifier findings to fold back into open PRs.
Writing a PLAN.md for that would only restate the report. So the session bypassed the skill and hand-dispatched general agents, each told to spawn its own fresh-context verifier and carry its own PR through ready → CI → review threads → merge. That worked, but every brief re-typed the same lifecycle rules, and three recurring gaps had no skill support:
- File-ownership fencing across parallel workers. Two workers started in overlapping areas. The coordinator had to reassign ownership by hand mid-flight and relay one worker's half-built script to another.
- PR lifecycle per worker. Each worker needed: draft, verifier, ready, an empty commit when a draft-era ci-status failure lingers, review threads resolved with resolveReviewThread as a separate call, merge-queue
--match-head-commit, version-conflict resolver, re-queue once on a known flake. All of it was re-specified in every brief. - Classifier denials in a worker. A worker cannot see the owner's in-session approval, so an approved edit was denied in the worker and had to be escalated and applied in the main session. The skill has no "escalate the exact edit to the coordinator" return shape.
Ask
Add a context-specific entry point that keeps the dispatch discipline but drops the plan-document requirement when the input is already scoped. For example implement-dispatch --items <report path> or an "item-list mode":
- Input: a list of items, each with file:line targets and an acceptance check, from an audit, review or report file.
- Group items into workers by disjoint file sets, and record ownership so a second worker is refused an owned path.
- One fresh-context verifier per resulting PR, with criteria taken from each item's acceptance check. This replaces phase-verifier, which needs a plan.
- A shared PR-lifecycle block (the steps in 2) injected into every brief, instead of hand-copied.
- A standard return shape for "denied edit, here is the exact diff" so the coordinator can apply it where the approval is visible.
Related: #5764 (dispatch independent plan phases in parallel by default).
Evidence
Session dba79e68-af19-4ecc-a0ce-69d8b1dbefbb (transcript under ~/.claude/projects/C--Users-KyleSexton/). Resulting PRs include #6343-#6346, #6359, #6369, #6370 and the phase-3 PRs for #6006.
- 主要语言
- Shell
- 星标
- 22
- 派生
- 2
- 平均合并
- 5 小时 11 分钟
- 30 天内合并 PR
- 838
环境准备
- 没有 Dockerfile 或 Docker Compose 文件
- 没有 Pull Request 模板
- 阅读贡献指南
从这里开始
- 先读完整个 Issue，再读项目的贡献指南。
- 在 Issue 下留言说明你要接手 —— 这能避免两个人做同样的事。
- Fork 仓库，在一个分支上完成修改。
- 提交 Pull Request，并在描述里引用这个 Issue 编号。
melodic-software/claude-code-plugins 的其他 Issue
-
good first issue needs-triage priority: medium
难度 2/5 1-3 小时 新手友好度 72/100
melodic-software/claude-code-plugins#6631 · 1 条评论 ·
维护者通常 1 天内回复
-
needs-triage
难度 2/5 1-3 小时 新手友好度 78/100
melodic-software/claude-code-plugins#6547 ·
维护者通常 1 天内回复
-
needs-triage
难度 2/5 1-3 小时 新手友好度 76/100
melodic-software/claude-code-plugins#6535 ·
维护者通常 1 天内回复
-
test_comment_census.py: SccArgv flag-shaped-filename test errors on Windows (#!/bin/sh scc shim)未关闭good first issue needs-triage priority: low
难度 2/5 1-3 小时 新手友好度 72/100
melodic-software/claude-code-plugins#6532 · 1 条评论 ·
维护者通常 1 天内回复
-
good first issue needs-triage priority: low
难度 2/5 1-3 小时 新手友好度 72/100
melodic-software/claude-code-plugins#6390 · 1 条评论 ·
维护者通常 1 天内回复
查看 melodic-software/claude-code-plugins 的全部 Issue
相似的 Issue
-
status:needs-triage
难度 2/5 1-3 小时 新手友好度 72/100
维护者通常 1 天内回复
-
enhancement good first issue help wanted
难度 2/5 1-3 小时 新手友好度 82/100
Sorogate/example-consumer#14 ·
-
github_actions good first issue help wanted
难度 2/5 1-3 小时 新手友好度 75/100
-
documentation
难度 2/5 1-3 小时 新手友好度 82/100
alunduil/alunduil-chezmoi#874 ·
维护者通常 1 天内回复
-
enhancement
难度 1/5 1 小时以内 新手友好度 85/100
alunduil/zellij-claude-pair#53 ·
维护者通常 1 天内回复