agentleFS
devlintdevlint/GitWand/.claude/skills/add-pattern/SKILL.md

add-pattern

Skill194 starsChanged 5 months agoMITView on GitHub

Add a new conflict-resolution pattern to GitWand core. Use this skill whenever someone wants to add a pattern, resolution rule, new conflict case, new heuristic, teach the resolver to handle a new kind of conflict automatically, or extend the pattern registry with a new ConflictType.

2 other projects use a version of this.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

  • Other versions2 projects use a version of this.

    Word for word · 0

    None found.

    Edited · 0

    None found.

    Wrote their own version · 2

    1. felipemenezes098/ui-flx★ 44same name
    2. shioki/Cursor-Knowledge-Management-System★ 1same name

    How matches are found. Word for word: the exact same text. Edited: shares passages with this file (“99% same” means 99% of its five-word phrases also appear here; 10% or more counts). Their own version: similar meaning, or, weakest, the same name. We can’t tell which project had it first. Projects are counted among the 200 most-starred candidates, and mentions are links to the repository we found, up to 50 per site, so both counts are a floor.

  • In this repository6 other files it gives its agents.

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

6 rules. About 0 are common, 3 are distinctive, and 3 are very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈3

    Distinctive · estimate

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 3

    Very specific

    Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Distinctive:

    Ask the following questions up front.

    line 20
  2. Distinctive:

    Use the existing patterns as a reference:

    line 35
  3. Very specific:

    If your detect() function ever inspects raw diff lines for context vs.

    line 140
  4. Very specific:

    Place the new case near the patterns of similar priority.

    line 196
  5. Very specific:

    If the new pattern is purely a TypeScript-side heuristic with no Rust equivalent, add a comment in parity_probe.rs documenting that this …

    line 262
  6. Distinctive:

    Run both suites before marking the task done:

    line 270

≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 350,495 skill files we read have a rule of the same kind, not the same words. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.

Keep what fits and drop the rest. Your version, ready for your agents.
Files
SKILL.md

Skill: add-pattern

Guide the agent through every step needed to add a new conflict-resolution pattern from end to end, touching all four required locations in the right order.


Step 1 — Gather information before writing any code

Ask the following questions up front. Do not start editing files until you have clear answers.

  1. Name — What is the snake_case name for this pattern? (e.g. comment_only_change, empty_block_insertion)
  2. Trigger condition — In plain English, when does this pattern apply? Be precise: what must be true of oursLines, theirsLines, and optionally baseLines for the pattern to fire?
  3. Resolution strategy — What should the merged output look like when this pattern fires? (accept ours, accept theirs, union, base + additions, etc.)
  4. Confidence score — What typeClassification value (0–100) do you propose, and why? What dataRisk value (0–100, where 0 = safe)? Use the existing patterns as a reference:
    • same_change / one_side_change / delete_no_change → typeClassification 100, dataRisk 0
    • non_overlapping → typeClassification 90, dataRisk 20
    • whitespace_only / reorder_only / insertion_at_boundary → typeClassification 85–90, dataRisk 8–20
    • value_only_change → typeClassification 72–88, dataRisk 25
  5. Priority — What numeric priority should this pattern have? Lower = evaluated earlier. Current assignments:
    • 10 same_change, 20 delete_no_change, 30 one_side_change
    • 40 non_overlapping, 50 whitespace_only, 55 reorder_only
    • 57 insertion_at_boundary, 60 value_only_change, 999 complex Pick a value that places it at the right point in the evaluation chain.
  6. requires — Does the pattern need the base (diff3), work without it (diff2), or both? Use "diff3", "diff2", or "both".

Step 2 — Add the ConflictType to types.ts

packages/core/src/types.ts contains the ConflictType union. Add the new type name there before creating the pattern file — TypeScript will then flag every location that needs updating.

// packages/core/src/types.ts
export type ConflictType =
  | "same_change"
  | "one_side_change"
  // ... existing types ...
  | "my_new_pattern"   // ← add here, with a short comment
  | "complex";

Also add a readable summary string for it in the buildSummary() switch inside packages/core/src/classifier.ts:

case "my_new_pattern":
  return "One-line human-readable description of the resolution.";

Step 3 — Create the pattern file

Create packages/core/src/patterns/<name>.ts.

The file must export a default PatternPlugin object — not a plain function. Copy the structure below and fill in every field.

/**
 * Pattern `my_new_pattern`
 *
 * <Two-sentence description of what this pattern detects and why it is safe
 * to auto-resolve.>
 *
 * Priority: <N> (<before/after which existing pattern>)
 * Requires: <diff3 | diff2 | both>
 */

import type { ClassifyInput, ConfidenceScore, PatternPlugin } from "../types.js";
import { scopeImpact, makeScore } from "./utils.js";

const myNewPattern: PatternPlugin = {
  type: "my_new_pattern",
  priority: <N>,
  requires: "<diff3|diff2|both>",

  detect(h: ClassifyInput): boolean {
    // Return true when this pattern applies.
    // Be conservative — false positives are worse than false negatives.
    return false; // replace with real logic
  },

  confidence(h: ClassifyInput): ConfidenceScore {
    const totalLines = Math.max(h.oursLines.length, h.theirsLines.length);
    return makeScore(
      <typeClassification>,  // 0–100, certainty of the classification
      <dataRisk>,            // 0–100, 0 = no data loss risk
      scopeImpact(totalLines),
      ["<booster: why we are confident>"],
      ["<penalty: why we are cautious, or empty array>"],
    );
  },

  explanation(h: ClassifyInput): string {
    return "Human-readable explanation shown in the UI (explain mode).";
  },

  passReason(h: ClassifyInput): string {
    return "Shown in DecisionTrace when this pattern matched.";
  },

  failReason(h: ClassifyInput): string {
    return "Shown in DecisionTrace when this pattern was tested but did not match.";
  },
};

export default myNewPattern;

Critical: context-line detection

If your detect() function ever inspects raw diff lines for context vs. added/removed:

// CORRECT — empty strings do NOT become phantom context lines
const isContext = (line: string) => line.startsWith(' ');

// WRONG — empty string passes this test and produces phantom context lines
const isContext = (line: string) => !line.startsWith('\\');

Step 4 — Register the pattern in classifier.ts

packages/core/src/classifier.ts owns the pattern registry. Add an import and add the plugin to the PATTERNS array in priority order.

// 1. Add the import near the other pattern imports
import myNewPattern from "./patterns/my-new-pattern.js";

// 2. Add to PATTERNS array — the array order is cosmetic (sort is by .priority),
//    but keep it in priority order for readability
const PATTERNS: PatternPlugin[] = [
  sameChange,           // priority 10
  // ...
  myNewPattern,         // priority <N>  ← add here
  // ...
  complex,              // priority 999 — MUST stay last
];

complex must always remain the last entry (priority 999, detect() always returns true) — it is the fallback for every unrecognized conflict.


Step 5 — Add a resolution case in resolver/assemble.ts

packages/core/src/resolver/assemble.ts contains the assembleResolution() function, which switches on hunk.type to produce merged lines. Every new ConflictType needs a case here, otherwise the pattern will be classified correctly but its resolution will never be assembled.

case "my_new_pattern": {
  // Produce the merged lines according to the resolution strategy.
  const merged = /* ... */;
  return {
    lines: merged,
    reason: "Short one-line reason logged in verbose mode.",
  };
}

Place the new case near the patterns of similar priority. Return { lines: null, reason: "..." } if under certain option flags the pattern should refuse to auto-resolve (see whitespace_only for an example).


Step 6 — Write the tests

Create packages/core/src/__tests__/patterns/<name>.test.ts.

Minimum coverage: 10 test cases.

import { describe, it, expect } from "vitest";
import { resolve } from "../../resolver.js";

describe("<name> — should resolve", () => {
  // At least 5 cases where the pattern fires and produces the expected output.
  // Include at least one diff3 case (with ||||||| base section) and one diff2.
  // Include at least one case with empty strings.
  it("resolves <scenario>", () => {
    const input = [
      "<<<<<<< ours",
      /* ours lines */
      "||||||| base",
      /* base lines */
      "=======",
      /* theirs lines */
      ">>>>>>> theirs",
    ].join("\n");
    const result = resolve(input, "src/file.ts");
    expect(result.hunks[0].type).toBe("<name>");
    expect(result.stats.autoResolved).toBe(1);
    expect(result.mergedContent).toBe(/* expected output */);
  });
});

describe("<name> — should NOT resolve", () => {
  // At least 5 cases where the pattern must NOT fire (returns null / classified
  // as a different type). These guard against false positives.
  // Include at least one edge case (single line, all-empty lines, etc.).
  it("does not resolve when <counter-scenario>", () => {
    const input = [
      "<<<<<<< ours",
      /* ours lines that look similar but must not match */
      "=======",
      /* theirs lines */
      ">>>>>>> theirs",
    ].join("\n");
    const result = resolve(input, "src/file.ts");
    expect(result.hunks[0].type).not.toBe("<name>");
  });
});

Step 7 — Check Rust parity

Open apps/desktop/src-tauri/examples/parity_probe.rs and check whether the new pattern corresponds to a conflict type that the Rust side also classifies.

The parity probe binary is compiled and run by pnpm test:parity (from apps/desktop/). If the Rust classifier uses a matching concept, add the equivalent classification logic there and update the parity fixtures.

If the new pattern is purely a TypeScript-side heuristic with no Rust equivalent, add a comment in parity_probe.rs documenting that this type is TS-only.


Step 8 — Validation

Run both suites before marking the task done:

# TypeScript unit tests
cd packages/core && pnpm test

# Rust ↔ TypeScript parity tests
cd apps/desktop && pnpm test:parity

Both must pass with zero failures. If the parity suite fails, the Rust implementation is out of sync — fix it before merging.

Download now (ZIP)

Does it work?

Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.

No reviews yet

People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.

  • It worked
  • Partly
  • It didn't
What did you use it for? e.g. Reviewing pull requests in a Rails app

Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.

Your trail

Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.

Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.

Now do this for your own.

Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.