refactor(runtime): replace unicode dashes in prompt strings

Ultraworked with [Sisyphus](https://github.com/code-yeongyu/oh-my-openagent) Co-authored-by: Sisyphus <clio-agent@sisyphuslabs.ai>
2026-04-04 01:27:51 +09:00
parent 146ca34a7a
commit fabbcaa4b7
51 changed files with 780 additions and 780 deletions
@@ -44,8 +44,8 @@ export const ULTRAWORK_DEFAULT_MESSAGE = `<ultrawork-mode>

 **WHEN IN DOUBT:**
 \`\`\`
-task(subagent_type="explore", load_skills=[], prompt="I'm implementing [TASK DESCRIPTION] and need to understand [SPECIFIC KNOWLEDGE GAP]. Find [X] patterns in the codebase — show file paths, implementation approach, and conventions used. I'll use this to [HOW RESULTS WILL BE USED]. Focus on src/ directories, skip test files unless test patterns are specifically needed. Return concrete file paths with brief descriptions of what each file does.", run_in_background=true)
-task(subagent_type="librarian", load_skills=[], prompt="I'm working with [LIBRARY/TECHNOLOGY] and need [SPECIFIC INFORMATION]. Find official documentation and production-quality examples for [Y] — specifically: API reference, configuration options, recommended patterns, and common pitfalls. Skip beginner tutorials. I'll use this to [DECISION THIS WILL INFORM].", run_in_background=true)
+task(subagent_type="explore", load_skills=[], prompt="I'm implementing [TASK DESCRIPTION] and need to understand [SPECIFIC KNOWLEDGE GAP]. Find [X] patterns in the codebase - show file paths, implementation approach, and conventions used. I'll use this to [HOW RESULTS WILL BE USED]. Focus on src/ directories, skip test files unless test patterns are specifically needed. Return concrete file paths with brief descriptions of what each file does.", run_in_background=true)
+task(subagent_type="librarian", load_skills=[], prompt="I'm working with [LIBRARY/TECHNOLOGY] and need [SPECIFIC INFORMATION]. Find official documentation and production-quality examples for [Y] - specifically: API reference, configuration options, recommended patterns, and common pitfalls. Skip beginner tutorials. I'll use this to [DECISION THIS WILL INFORM].", run_in_background=true)
 task(subagent_type="oracle", load_skills=[], prompt="I need architectural review of my approach to [TASK]. Here's my plan: [DESCRIBE PLAN WITH SPECIFIC FILES AND CHANGES]. My concerns are: [LIST SPECIFIC UNCERTAINTIES]. Please evaluate: correctness of approach, potential issues I'm missing, and whether a better alternative exists.", run_in_background=false)
 \`\`\`

@@ -202,7 +202,7 @@ BEFORE writing ANY code, you MUST define:
 | **Observable** | What can be measured/seen | "Console shows 'success', no errors" |
 | **Pass/Fail** | Binary, no ambiguity | "Returns 200 OK" not "should work" |

-Write these criteria explicitly. **Record them in your TODO/Task items.** Each task MUST include a "QA: [how to verify]" field. These criteria are your CONTRACT — work toward them, verify against them.
+Write these criteria explicitly. **Record them in your TODO/Task items.** Each task MUST include a "QA: [how to verify]" field. These criteria are your CONTRACT - work toward them, verify against them.

 ### Test Plan Template (MANDATORY for non-trivial tasks)

@@ -233,7 +233,7 @@ Write these criteria explicitly. **Record them in your TODO/Task items.** Each t

 **YOUR FAILURE MODE**: You finish coding, run lsp_diagnostics, and declare "done" without actually TESTING the feature. lsp_diagnostics catches type errors, NOT functional bugs. Your work is NOT verified until you MANUALLY test it.

-**WHAT MANUAL QA MEANS — execute ALL that apply:**
+**WHAT MANUAL QA MEANS - execute ALL that apply:**

 | If your change... | YOU MUST... |
 |---|---|
@@ -245,10 +245,10 @@ Write these criteria explicitly. **Record them in your TODO/Task items.** Each t
 | Modifies config handling | Load the config. Verify it parses correctly. |

 **UNACCEPTABLE QA CLAIMS:**
- "This should work" — RUN IT.
- "The types check out" — Types don't catch logic bugs. RUN IT.
- "lsp_diagnostics is clean" — That's a TYPE check, not a FUNCTIONAL check. RUN IT.
- "Tests pass" — Tests cover known cases. Does the ACTUAL FEATURE work as the user expects? RUN IT.
+- "This should work" - RUN IT.
+- "The types check out" - Types don't catch logic bugs. RUN IT.
+- "lsp_diagnostics is clean" - That's a TYPE check, not a FUNCTIONAL check. RUN IT.
+- "Tests pass" - Tests cover known cases. Does the ACTUAL FEATURE work as the user expects? RUN IT.

 **You have Bash, you have tools. There is ZERO excuse for not running manual QA.**
 **Manual QA is the FINAL gate before reporting completion. Skip it and your work is INCOMPLETE.**
@@ -21,12 +21,12 @@ export const ULTRAWORK_GEMINI_MESSAGE = `<ultrawork-mode>
 [CODE RED] Maximum precision required. Ultrathink before acting.

 <GEMINI_INTENT_GATE>
-## STEP 0: CLASSIFY INTENT — THIS IS NOT OPTIONAL
+## STEP 0: CLASSIFY INTENT - THIS IS NOT OPTIONAL

 **Before ANY tool call, exploration, or action, you MUST output:**

 \`\`\`
-I detect [TYPE] intent — [REASON].
+I detect [TYPE] intent - [REASON].
 My approach: [ROUTING DECISION].
 \`\`\`

@@ -81,8 +81,8 @@ Where TYPE is one of: research | implementation | investigation | evaluation | f

 **WHEN IN DOUBT:**
 \`\`\`
-task(subagent_type="explore", load_skills=[], prompt="I'm implementing [TASK DESCRIPTION] and need to understand [SPECIFIC KNOWLEDGE GAP]. Find [X] patterns in the codebase — show file paths, implementation approach, and conventions used. I'll use this to [HOW RESULTS WILL BE USED]. Focus on src/ directories, skip test files unless test patterns are specifically needed. Return concrete file paths with brief descriptions of what each file does.", run_in_background=true)
-task(subagent_type="librarian", load_skills=[], prompt="I'm working with [LIBRARY/TECHNOLOGY] and need [SPECIFIC INFORMATION]. Find official documentation and production-quality examples for [Y] — specifically: API reference, configuration options, recommended patterns, and common pitfalls. Skip beginner tutorials. I'll use this to [DECISION THIS WILL INFORM].", run_in_background=true)
+task(subagent_type="explore", load_skills=[], prompt="I'm implementing [TASK DESCRIPTION] and need to understand [SPECIFIC KNOWLEDGE GAP]. Find [X] patterns in the codebase - show file paths, implementation approach, and conventions used. I'll use this to [HOW RESULTS WILL BE USED]. Focus on src/ directories, skip test files unless test patterns are specifically needed. Return concrete file paths with brief descriptions of what each file does.", run_in_background=true)
+task(subagent_type="librarian", load_skills=[], prompt="I'm working with [LIBRARY/TECHNOLOGY] and need [SPECIFIC INFORMATION]. Find official documentation and production-quality examples for [Y] - specifically: API reference, configuration options, recommended patterns, and common pitfalls. Skip beginner tutorials. I'll use this to [DECISION THIS WILL INFORM].", run_in_background=true)
 task(subagent_type="oracle", load_skills=[], prompt="I need architectural review of my approach to [TASK]. Here's my plan: [DESCRIBE PLAN WITH SPECIFIC FILES AND CHANGES]. My concerns are: [LIST SPECIFIC UNCERTAINTIES]. Please evaluate: correctness of approach, potential issues I'm missing, and whether a better alternative exists.", run_in_background=false)
 \`\`\`

@@ -173,7 +173,7 @@ task(subagent_type="plan", load_skills=[], prompt="<gathered context + user requ

 ---

-## DELEGATION IS MANDATORY — YOU ARE NOT AN IMPLEMENTER
+## DELEGATION IS MANDATORY - YOU ARE NOT AN IMPLEMENTER

 **You have a strong tendency to do work yourself. RESIST THIS.**

@@ -205,7 +205,7 @@ task(subagent_type="plan", load_skills=[], prompt="<gathered context + user requ
 - **DELEGATE**: Don't do everything yourself - orchestrate specialized agents for their strengths.

 ## WORKFLOW
-1. **CLASSIFY INTENT** (MANDATORY — see GEMINI_INTENT_GATE above)
+1. **CLASSIFY INTENT** (MANDATORY - see GEMINI_INTENT_GATE above)
 2. Spawn exploration/librarian agents via task(run_in_background=true) in PARALLEL
 3. Use Plan agent with gathered context to create detailed work breakdown
 4. Execute with continuous verification against original requirements
@@ -243,9 +243,9 @@ If ANY answer is no → GO BACK AND DO IT. Do not claim completion.

 **AFTER every implementation, you MUST:**

-1. **Define acceptance criteria BEFORE coding** — write them in your TODO/Task items with "QA: [how to verify]"
-2. **Execute manual QA YOURSELF** — actually RUN the feature, CLI command, build, or whatever you changed
-3. **Report what you observed** — show actual output, not claims
+1. **Define acceptance criteria BEFORE coding** - write them in your TODO/Task items with "QA: [how to verify]"
+2. **Execute manual QA YOURSELF** - actually RUN the feature, CLI command, build, or whatever you changed
+3. **Report what you observed** - show actual output, not claims

 | If your change... | YOU MUST... |
 |---|---|
@@ -256,9 +256,9 @@ If ANY answer is no → GO BACK AND DO IT. Do not claim completion.
 | Modifies config handling | Load the config. Verify it parses correctly. |

 **UNACCEPTABLE (WILL BE REJECTED):**
- "This should work" — DID YOU RUN IT? NO? THEN RUN IT.
- "lsp_diagnostics is clean" — That is a TYPE check, not a FUNCTIONAL check. RUN THE FEATURE.
- "Tests pass" — Tests cover known cases. Does the ACTUAL feature work? VERIFY IT MANUALLY.
+- "This should work" - DID YOU RUN IT? NO? THEN RUN IT.
+- "lsp_diagnostics is clean" - That is a TYPE check, not a FUNCTIONAL check. RUN THE FEATURE.
+- "Tests pass" - Tests cover known cases. Does the ACTUAL feature work? VERIFY IT MANUALLY.

 **You have Bash, you have tools. There is ZERO excuse for skipping manual QA.**
 </MANUAL_QA_MANDATE>
@@ -93,8 +93,8 @@ Use these when they provide clear value based on the decision framework above:
 **ALWAYS run both tracks in parallel:**
 \`\`\`
 // Fire background agents for deep exploration
-task(subagent_type="explore", load_skills=[], prompt="I'm implementing [TASK] and need to understand [KNOWLEDGE GAP]. Find [X] patterns in the codebase — file paths, implementation approach, conventions used, and how modules connect. I'll use this to [DOWNSTREAM DECISION]. Focus on production code in src/. Return file paths with brief descriptions.", run_in_background=true)
-task(subagent_type="librarian", load_skills=[], prompt="I'm working with [TECHNOLOGY] and need [SPECIFIC INFO]. Find official docs and production examples for [Y] — API reference, configuration, recommended patterns, and pitfalls. Skip tutorials. I'll use this to [DECISION THIS INFORMS].", run_in_background=true)
+task(subagent_type="explore", load_skills=[], prompt="I'm implementing [TASK] and need to understand [KNOWLEDGE GAP]. Find [X] patterns in the codebase - file paths, implementation approach, conventions used, and how modules connect. I'll use this to [DOWNSTREAM DECISION]. Focus on production code in src/. Return file paths with brief descriptions.", run_in_background=true)
+task(subagent_type="librarian", load_skills=[], prompt="I'm working with [TECHNOLOGY] and need [SPECIFIC INFO]. Find official docs and production examples for [Y] - API reference, configuration, recommended patterns, and pitfalls. Skip tutorials. I'll use this to [DECISION THIS INFORMS].", run_in_background=true)

 // WHILE THEY RUN - use direct tools for immediate context
 grep(pattern="relevant_pattern", path="src/")
@@ -122,7 +122,7 @@ deep_context = background_output(task_id=...)

 **BEFORE implementation**, define what "done" means in concrete, binary terms:

-1. Write acceptance criteria as pass/fail conditions (not "should work" — specific observable outcomes)
+1. Write acceptance criteria as pass/fail conditions (not "should work" - specific observable outcomes)
 2. Record them in your TODO/Task items with a "QA: [how to verify]" field
 3. Work toward those criteria, not just "finishing code"

@@ -160,7 +160,7 @@ A task is complete when:
 2. lsp_diagnostics shows zero errors on modified files
 3. Tests pass (or pre-existing failures documented)
 4. Code matches existing codebase patterns
-5. **Manual QA executed — actual feature tested, output observed and reported**
+5. **Manual QA executed - actual feature tested, output observed and reported**

 **Deliver exactly what was asked. No more, no less.**