Octo code

octo-code

Turn an octo chat coding request into a reviewed PR, end to end, without the user opening Claude Code. The engine is Claude Code headless mode (claude -p); the standard being followed is octo-spec (the repo this skill ships in).

Layering. This is an integration adapter, not part of octo-spec core. octo-spec stays spec-only (sync / lint / learning-reflow, no runtime engine). This skill only orchestrates: it routes intent, launches the external engine, and checks completion. The 4-phase reasoning is the engine's job.

Shared procedures (preflight, engine call, completion check, onboarding, cleanup) live in ../shared/octo-code-core.md — read it; this file is the entry flow that sequences those pieces.

Install & setup (one message, then a doctor)

A team member installs octo-code by sending the bot one message ("install octo-code" / "安装 octo-code"). Be honest about the two halves (shared/octo-code-core.md §F):

1. Skill files install in one message — they are just files; the bot fetches integrations/octo/skills/octo-code/ + shared/ into its skills dir and auto-discovery picks them up.
2. The host engine cannot be installed by a chat message. claude -p needs the claude CLI installed + non-interactively authenticated, plus git / gh / jq on the bot host. So right after install, run the doctor and report the gaps instead of pretending the environment is ready:

   <skill-dir>/shared/octo-code-doctor.sh             # human ✅/⚠️/❌ report
   <skill-dir>/shared/octo-code-doctor.sh --json      # machine-readable
   <skill-dir>/shared/octo-code-doctor.sh --repo <p>   # + repo onboarding check
   

   The doctor is read-only and exits 0 only when every required precondition passes. Relay its output back to the thread so the operator sees exactly what host setup remains. When it is all-green, the user can just say "use octo-code to add X to repo Y".

When to use

Trigger when an octo message is a coding request against a known repo: "add <feature> to <repo>", "fix <bug> in <repo>", "implement <X>". Not for questions, discussions, or product decisions.

Flow

1. Parse intent. Extract: target repo, task description, task slug. If repo is ambiguous or not on the allowlist, ask — do not guess a path.

   • 🔴 The slug is untrusted chat-derived input. It is interpolated into filesystem paths, a branch name, and shell command strings, so it MUST be validated before any such use: require it to match ^[a-z0-9][a-z0-9-]*$ (lowercase alphanumeric + hyphens, no leading hyphen). Reject anything with /, .., whitespace, or shell metacharacters — a crafted slug is a path-traversal and command-injection surface. If the derived slug fails the pattern, slugify it deterministically or ask; never pass it through raw. See shared/octo-code-core.md §0.

2. Preflight gate (shared/octo-code-core.md §A). Engine auth smoke + repo allowlist/cwd + octo-spec onboarded + per-task worktree. Stop on the first failure and report it. If not onboarded, run onboarding (§D) as an explicit step first.

3. Build the task prompt. Instruct the engine to:

   • read CLAUDE.md and follow the octo-spec standard;
   • run the full 4-phase loop: Plan (write .octospec/tasks/<slug>/brief.md) → Implement → Verify (pytest/repo gate green) → Finish incl. learning reflow (journal entry; if the task produced a reusable learning, land it in .octospec/rules/<id>.md + rules/_index.yaml in this same PR, not stranded in learnings/pending/);
   • create branch <type>/<slug>, conventional commit (git author = the configured bot identity), push, open a PR filling the PR template (Linked Spec + COMPREHENSION for load-bearing changes).

4. Run the engine (shared/octo-code-core.md §B): claude -p with --output-format json, scoped --allowedTools, --permission-mode acceptEdits, --max-turns, cwd = the worktree. Capture run.json.

5. Completion check + resume (shared/octo-code-core.md §C). Parse the JSON (session_id, terminal_reason, total_cost_usd), then verify the artifact checklist (branch pushed, tests green, rule+index landed if applicable, journal written, OKF lint OK, PR opened). If anything is missing, --resume <session_id> with a focused prompt naming the gaps. Cap resumes; open the PR directly as a fallback. Never trust a bare "done."

6. Report back in the originating octo thread: PR URL, test result, cost (total_cost_usd), and (if a rule was reflowed) which rule landed. Then clean up the worktree (shared/octo-code-core.md §E).

Why headless, not ACP

claude -p --output-format json gives a structured completion signal (terminal_reason, permission_denials), native resume (--resume), and per-run cost — the three things unattended multi-phase work needs. The ACP runtime path reported false "done" on multi-phase tasks and could not resume a finished one-shot session. Headless is the vendor-recommended programmatic entry point and is the engine of record here.

Team-deployment guardrail checklist

Every bot host that runs octo-code must have these set before rollout — they are environment preconditions, not things the skill can fix at request time:

1. Engine auth — ANTHROPIC_* in ~/.claude/settings.json env (native + wrapper inherit it). Verify with the §A smoke (or shared/octo-code-doctor.sh, which runs it for you). Stale OAuth → 401.
2. Permission posture — scoped --allowedTools (preferred) or permissions.defaultMode in settings.json; unattended runs cannot answer a permission prompt.
3. Completion verification — always artifact-check; a headless run can stop early. (§C)
4. Resume on gaps — --resume <session_id>, capped, before escalating.
5. PR-open fallback — the orchestrator opens the PR if the engine left it undone.
6. Repo allowlist + cwd mapping — no arbitrary paths from chat.
7. Per-task worktree — concurrency isolation for same-repo parallel requests.
8. Cost + turn caps — --max-turns, and track total_cost_usd; set a per- request / per-user budget.
9. Identity — commit author / PR author = the configured bot identity, so CODEOWNERS / branch protection stay meaningful for multi-user dispatch.

Run shared/octo-code-doctor.sh before rollout to verify the host prerequisites this checklist depends on: item 1 (engine auth, via the live §A smoke), the git / gh / jq tools the flow shells out to, and — with --repo <path> — item 6's repo onboarding (.octospec/ pin). The runtime-only items (2 permission posture, 3–5 completion/resume/PR-fallback, 7 worktree, 8 caps, 9 identity) are exercised during a real run, not by the doctor.

How a team member uses it

No commands to memorize — plain language in the octo thread:

"use octo-code to add a rate-limit middleware to octo-server" "octo-code: fix the null-pointer in octo-web's login flow"

The bot parses intent + repo, runs the flow above, and replies in-thread with the PR URL, test result, and cost. The user only reviews/approves the PR.

Validation

This flow was validated end-to-end against the sandbox repo yujiawei/octo-code-e2e (kept as the regression fixture):

• onboarding (sync + OKF lint green);
• feature task → PR;
• bug-fix task → learning reflowed into a load-bearing rule (input-validation)
  • _index.yaml + journal;
• injection closure: a later task touching the same paths had that reflowed rule injected and applied (guarded an empty-input case it wasn't told about).

The guardrail checklist above is exactly the set of gaps that validation surfaced.