fix(skills): pull upstream skill runtime resolution to stop event-loop starvation

The fork's listRuntimeSkillEntries rematerialized every skill's files from the DB on every heartbeat run dispatch — fs.rm + fs.mkdir + per-file readFile/writeFile, sequentially per skill. With 24 configured skills and 5 concurrent agents, this saturated the Node event loop badly enough that executeRun continuations couldn't reach activeRunExecutions.add() within the orphan-reaper's 5-min threshold, causing reaper to false-positive runs as "process_lost". Upstream's listRuntimeSkillEntries calls resolveRuntimeSkillSource, which checks if the materialized directory already exists on disk and short- circuits when it does. Fixes the symptom at the root. Replaces these files with upstream/master content: - server/src/services/company-skills.ts - server/src/services/heartbeat.ts - server/src/services/workspace-runtime.ts - server/src/services/company-portability.ts - server/src/routes/company-skills.ts - server/src/routes/agents.ts - packages/adapter-utils/src/server-utils.ts Pulls in supporting upstream files: - server/src/services/catalog-provenance.ts - server/src/services/skills-catalog.ts - server/src/services/github-fetch.ts - server/src/services/portable-path.ts - packages/skills-catalog/ (new package) - packages/db document_annotation_* schema + migration 0091 - packages/shared document-annotation types/validators Drops fork features (to be re-evaluated later): - Gitea/Forgejo git skill sources (server/src/services/git-source.ts deleted) - PAT support for private skill repos - Fork-specific secret-export portability extensions Adds agentId: null to acquireRunLease test-probe call in routes/agents.ts to satisfy the fork's environment-runtime agentId requirement (kept). Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-05-29 09:26:51 -04:00
parent 562693197a
commit 548d958f18
52 changed files with 24613 additions and 2036 deletions
@@ -0,0 +1,93 @@
+---
+name: qa-acceptance
+description: Produce QA acceptance criteria and a manual validation plan for a feature change — golden path, edge cases, error states, performance limits, and explicit pass/fail evidence.
+key: paperclipai/bundled/quality/qa-acceptance
+recommendedForRoles:
+  - qa
+  - engineer
+  - product
+tags:
+  - qa
+  - acceptance
+  - validation
+  - testing
+---
+
+# QA Acceptance
+
+Write acceptance criteria that a reviewer can run against the running app and decide pass or fail without asking the author. The criteria are the contract — automated tests cover correctness, QA covers feature-level behavior.
+
+## When to use
+
+- A feature change is heading to QA and needs a written validation plan.
+- A reviewer is asked to verify a PR that touches user-visible behavior.
+- An incident postmortem requires a regression check before reopen-prevention.
+- A release candidate needs a pre-cut smoke pass.
+
+## When not to use
+
+- The change is unit-test-only (utility refactor, internal naming). Acceptance criteria are unnecessary churn.
+- You are asked to write tests against API contracts. Use contract testing, not feature QA.
+
+## Acceptance criteria format
+
+Each criterion is a single, independently-verifiable statement:
+
+```md
+- **Given** <starting state>, **when** <action>, **then** <observable outcome>.
+```
+
+Example:
+
+```md
+- **Given** a CSV export with 0 rows, **when** the user clicks Export, **then** the file downloads with only the header row and the UI shows "Exported 0 rows".
+```
+
+Avoid criteria that combine multiple `when`s or `then`s. Split them.
+
+## What every plan must cover
+
+1. **Golden path.** The most common successful flow, end to end.
+2. **Empty and minimum states.** Zero items, one item, missing optional inputs.
+3. **Boundary inputs.** Max length strings, max numeric values, unicode, RTL text where applicable.
+4. **Error states.** Network failure, permission denied, validation failures, conflict (409), not found (404).
+5. **Concurrency and ordering.** Two users acting at once, race against background jobs, refresh during mutation.
+6. **Performance envelope.** The largest realistic input the change must handle without UI hangs or timeouts.
+7. **Backward compatibility.** Existing data, existing URLs, persisted user preferences continue to work.
+8. **Telemetry and audit.** Events, logs, or activity entries the change is supposed to emit.
+
+If a section is genuinely not applicable, write "N/A: <why>" — do not silently omit.
+
+## Evidence
+
+Each criterion needs evidence on the verification pass:
+
+- Screenshot or short clip for UI behavior.
+- Copied console / network output for API behavior.
+- Log snippet or activity row for telemetry.
+- Timing measurement for performance criteria.
+
+"Looks good to me" without evidence is not a pass.
+
+## Quarantine and follow-up
+
+- A failing criterion blocks acceptance unless explicitly waived by the owner with a tracked follow-up issue.
+- "Known issue" without a linked follow-up is not a waiver.
+- If you add a new criterion mid-pass, restart the pass — partial coverage hides regressions.
+
+## Handoff back to the author
+
+Return the validation plan with three sections:
+
+- **Pass.** Criteria that passed, with one-line evidence summaries.
+- **Fail.** Criteria that failed, with the exact reproduction.
+- **Blocked.** Criteria you could not run, with why.
+
+The author owns turning failures into either fixes or accepted deferrals.
+
+## Anti-patterns
+
+- Acceptance phrased as test plan ("write a Cypress test for X"). Acceptance is what is true after the change ships; tests are how you check.
+- Criteria that depend on inspecting implementation details (selectors, query plans). Stay observable.
+- Long checklists with no priority. Mark must-pass criteria distinctly from nice-to-have.
+- Validation reports that say "passed" with no evidence. Reviewers cannot audit those.