| name | no-mistakes |
| description | Validate your code changes through the no-mistakes pipeline - automated code review, tests, lint, docs, push, PR, and CI - before they reach upstream. Use when the user asks to run no-mistakes, gate or ship or validate their changes, push safely, asks you to do a task and then validate it, or invokes /no-mistakes. |
| user-invocable | true |
no-mistakes
no-mistakes is a local gate that validates your code changes through a pipeline
(intent, rebase, review, test, document, lint, push, PR, CI) before they reach
upstream. You drive it through the no-mistakes axi command family, which prints
machine-readable TOON to stdout and progress to stderr.
When the user invokes /no-mistakes, report the outcome at the end. If the user
asks for something specific, translate that request into the matching axi run
flags yourself - for example, "skip the lint step" becomes --skip=lint. Run
no-mistakes axi run --help to see the available flags.
Two ways to invoke
/no-mistakes works in two modes, depending on whether the user hands you a
task along with the command:
- Validate-only - bare
/no-mistakes (optionally with flag-style requests
like "skip the lint step"). The user's code changes are already committed;
validate them and report the outcome.
- Task-first -
/no-mistakes <task>, e.g.
/no-mistakes add a --json flag to the status command. First carry out the
task yourself, then validate the result through the pipeline:
- Check scope. Inspect
git status before you change or commit anything.
Preserve unrelated pre-existing uncommitted changes, and when you commit,
commit only the changes that belong to the user's task.
- Do the work. Make the changes the task describes, then commit them on
a feature branch. If the user is on the repository's default branch,
create a feature branch first - the gate validates committed history on a
non-default branch, so the work must land there before you run.
- Then validate, passing the user's task as your
--intent. The task
text is exactly what the user set out to accomplish, in their own words, so
it is the intent - pass it through, enriched with the decisions and
tradeoffs you made while doing the work (see
Intent is required).
Everything below - preconditions, intent, the validate-and-decide loop - applies
the same way once the work is committed on a feature branch.
Before you start
- The work you want validated must be committed on a branch. The gate
validates committed history, not your uncommitted working tree.
- You must be on a feature branch, not the repository's default branch.
- The repository must already be initialized with
no-mistakes init.
If any of these is not met, axi run returns an error: with the exact command
to fix it - read it and act on it (commit your work, or create a branch). If the
repository is not initialized, run no-mistakes init first; if the no-mistakes
command itself is missing or misbehaving, no-mistakes doctor reports what is
wrong. Before starting, a quick no-mistakes axi (home view) shows whether a
run is already active - resume or axi abort it rather than starting a second
run on top of it.
Intent is required
When you start a run you must pass --intent: what the user set out to
accomplish - the goal or request behind this work, in their terms. This is not
a description of the diff or the files you changed; it is the objective the
change is meant to achieve. You know it from the conversation, so pass it
directly - no-mistakes uses it verbatim instead of inferring it from local agent
transcripts (slower and flakier).
Err on the side of completeness, not brevity. The review step uses --intent
to tell a deliberate decision apart from a mistake, so a thin one-line summary
makes it flag things the user already chose. Capture the nuance: the user's
goal, the specific decisions and tradeoffs they made along the way, any
constraints or approaches they ruled in or out, and anything they explicitly
asked for that might otherwise look surprising in the diff. A few sentences to a
short paragraph is normal - write down what you learned from the conversation
that a reviewer reading only the diff would not know.
Validate and decide
Run the pipeline and decide on its findings as they come up:
-
Start the run. It blocks until the first decision point or the end:
no-mistakes axi run --intent "<what the user set out to accomplish>"
axi run and every axi respond block synchronously - the review, test,
and CI steps can each take several minutes, so a single call may not
return for a while. That is normal; allow a long timeout and do not cancel
or re-issue the command because it seems slow. To check progress without
disturbing the run, use no-mistakes axi status from a separate call.
-
If the output contains a gate: object, the pipeline is waiting on you.
Read its findings table. Each finding has an id, severity,
file, description, and an action that tells you how the
pipeline classified it:
auto-fix - mechanical and low-risk; you can authorize the fix on
your own judgment by responding with --action fix.no-op - informational only; nothing to do.ask-user - the finding challenges the user's deliberate intent or
touches product behavior. This is a call only the user can make - see
Escalate ask-user findings below.
Choose one response:
no-mistakes axi respond --action approve
no-mistakes axi respond --action fix --findings <id1,id2> --instructions "<optional guidance>"
no-mistakes axi respond --action skip
While a run is active, never fix findings by editing the code yourself -
the pipeline owns both the findings and the fixes. Your job at a gate is to
decide and respond; --action fix has the pipeline apply the fix and
re-review the result.
Each respond blocks until the next gate:, checks-passed decision point, or final outcome.
Two extra flags are available on respond when you need them:
--add-finding '<json>' (with --action fix) folds a finding you
spotted yourself - one the pipeline did not surface - into the fix round,
as a JSON finding object. Use it for a problem you noticed that is not in
the gate's own findings table.--step <name> responds to a specific step instead of the one currently
awaiting approval. You rarely need this; omit it to answer the active gate.
-
Repeat step 2 until the output has an outcome: instead of a gate:. The
outcomes are:
checks-passed - the change is validated and CI is green, but the PR is
not merged yet. You are done driving the pipeline. Do not wait for the
merge: tell the user the PR is ready and ask them to review and merge it
(the PR link is in the help line). no-mistakes keeps monitoring the PR
in the background, so a human can watch it in the TUI.passed - the changes cleared the gate and the PR was merged or closed.failed or cancelled - they did not; read the output and address it.
Fix whatever the output points at (a failing test, a lint error, a finding
you skipped), commit the fix on the same feature branch, then drive the
pipeline again - no-mistakes axi run --intent "..." starts a fresh run,
or no-mistakes rerun re-runs the pipeline for the current branch. Do not
leave the user at a failed outcome without either retrying or explaining
what blocks it.
The CI step deliberately watches the PR until it is merged or closed, so
axi run returns checks-passed the moment checks are green rather than
blocking on the human merge. Never poll or re-run waiting for the merge yourself.
Escalate ask-user findings
A gate whose findings are all auto-fix or no-op is safe to drive on your
own judgment: respond with --action fix or --action approve as
appropriate. But a finding marked
ask-user is a decision that belongs to the user, not you - the pipeline
flagged it because it challenges their deliberate intent or changes product
behavior. Do not approve, fix, or skip it on your own. Instead, stop and bring
it to the user before you respond:
- Relay each
ask-user finding to them as the pipeline wrote it - its
id, file, and full description verbatim. Do not paraphrase,
summarize away the detail, or pre-judge the answer.
- Ask how they want to proceed, then translate their decision into the matching
respond call: --action fix (pass their guidance through
--instructions), --action approve, or --action skip.
The one exception is --yes (below): it is the user's standing consent to
drive every gate unattended, so under --yes you resolve ask-user
findings automatically instead of stopping to ask.
If you have clear consent to drive the run automatically, pass --yes to axi run
or axi respond. It treats every actionable finding - auto-fix and
ask-user alike - as consent to fix it, selects every current finding for one
fix round, accepts the resulting fix review, and approves gates with only
no-op findings. Only use it when the user has asked you to drive the whole
run without checking back.
Inspecting state
no-mistakes axi
no-mistakes axi status
no-mistakes axi logs --step <name> --full
no-mistakes axi abort
Reading the output
- Output is TOON:
key: value pairs, name[N]{cols}: tables, and help[N]: hints.
- The
help list at the bottom of most responses tells you the next commands to run.
- Errors are printed as
error: ... on stdout with a help list; act on the suggestion.
- Exit codes:
0 success, no-op, or normal decision gates, 1 failed or cancelled final outcomes, 2 bad usage.
A gate: waiting on you looks roughly like this - a gate: line naming the
step, a findings[N]{...}: table with one row per finding, and a help[N]:
list of next commands:
gate: review
findings[2]{id,severity,file,description,action}:
r1,medium,internal/pipeline/executor.go,Error from os.Remove is ignored,auto-fix
r2,high,cmd/no-mistakes/main.go,New --force flag bypasses the confirm prompt,ask-user
help[2]:
no-mistakes axi respond --action fix --findings r1
no-mistakes axi respond --action approve
Read the action column per row: decide r1 (auto-fix) on your own
judgment - respond --action fix --findings r1 hands it to the pipeline to
fix - but stop and escalate r2 (ask-user) to the user before responding. A
final state
instead shows outcome: <checks-passed|passed|failed|cancelled> with no
findings table. Field names and exact columns can vary by step and version,
so read the actual findings header rather than assuming this layout.
