| name | pre-publish-review |
| description | Nuclear-grade 16-agent pre-publish release gate. Runs /get-unpublished-changes to detect all changes since last npm release, spawns up to 10 ultrabrain agents for deep per-change analysis, invokes /review-work (5 agents) for holistic review, and 1 oracle for overall release synthesis. Use before EVERY npm publish. Triggers: 'pre-publish review', 'review before publish', 'release review', 'pre-release review', 'ready to publish?', 'can I publish?', 'pre-publish', 'safe to publish', 'publishing review', 'pre-publish check'. |
Pre-Publish Review — 16-Agent Release Gate
Three-agent-layer review before publishing to npm. Every layer covers a different angle, and every result is mapped onto the release layers below.
| Layer | Agents | Type | What They Check |
|---|
| Per-Change Deep Dive | up to 10 | ultrabrain | Each logical change group individually — correctness, edge cases, pattern adherence |
| Holistic Review | 5 | review-work | Goal compliance, QA execution, code quality, security, context mining across full changeset |
| Release Synthesis | 1 | oracle | Overall release readiness, version bump, breaking changes, deployment risk |
Release Layer Taxonomy
Every phase classifies evidence and risk across:
| Release Layer | Scope | Required version decision |
|---|
omo pure components | Core packages, MCP packages, shared skills, reusable scripts, platform binary inputs | Patch/minor/major impact for shared logic consumed by adapters. |
omo opencode | Root oh-my-opencode / oh-my-openagent, src/, OpenCode plugin hooks/tools/CLI/config/docs, .opencode/, .agents/ | Semver bump for the OpenCode/OpenAgent npm release. |
omo codex | packages/omo-codex, lazycodex-ai, Codex plugin metadata/hooks, bundled MCP runtimes, code-yeongyu/lazycodex marketplace payload | Codex adapter bump, LazyCodex npm publish risk, and marketplace/GitHub release need. |
Phase 0: Detect Unpublished Changes
Run /get-unpublished-changes FIRST. This is the single source of truth for what changed and must include omo pure components, omo opencode, and omo codex layer-specific version recommendations.
skill(name="get-unpublished-changes")
This command automatically:
- Detects published npm version vs local version
- Lists all commits since last release
- Reads actual diffs (not just commit messages) to describe REAL changes
- Groups changes by type (feat/fix/refactor/docs) with scope
- Identifies breaking changes
- Recommends a layer-specific version bump plus one overall workflow bump
Save the full output — it feeds directly into Phase 1 grouping and all agent prompts.
Then capture raw data needed by agent prompts:
PUBLISHED=$(npm view oh-my-opencode version 2>/dev/null || echo "not published")
LOCAL=$(node -p "require('./package.json').version" 2>/dev/null || echo "unknown")
COMMITS=$(git log "v${PUBLISHED}"..HEAD --oneline 2>/dev/null || echo "no commits")
COMMIT_COUNT=$(echo "$COMMITS" | wc -l | tr -d ' ')
DIFF_STAT=$(git diff "v${PUBLISHED}"..HEAD --stat 2>/dev/null || echo "no diff")
CHANGED_FILES=$(git diff --name-only "v${PUBLISHED}"..HEAD 2>/dev/null || echo "none")
FILE_COUNT=$(echo "$CHANGED_FILES" | wc -l | tr -d ' ')
If PUBLISHED is "not published", this is a first release — use the full git history instead.
Phase 1: Parse Changes into Groups
Use the /get-unpublished-changes output as the starting point — it already groups by scope and type.
Grouping strategy:
- Start from the
/get-unpublished-changes analysis which already categorizes by feat/fix/refactor/docs with scope
- Further split by module/area — changes touching the same module or feature area belong together
- Target up to 10 groups. If fewer than 10 commits, each commit is its own group. If more than 10 logical areas, merge the smallest groups.
- For each group, extract:
- Group name: Short descriptive label (e.g., "agent-model-resolution", "hook-system-refactor")
- Release layer(s):
omo pure components, omo opencode, omo codex
- Commits: List of commit hashes and messages
- Files: Changed files in this group
- Diff: The relevant portion of the full diff (
git diff v${PUBLISHED}..HEAD -- {group files})
Phase 2: Spawn All Agents
Launch ALL agents in a single turn. Every agent uses run_in_background=true. No sequential launches.
Layer 1: Ultrabrain Per-Change Analysis (up to 10)
For each change group, spawn one ultrabrain agent. Each gets only its portion of the diff — not the full changeset.
task(
category="ultrabrain",
run_in_background=true,
load_skills=[],
description="Deep analysis: {GROUP_NAME}",
prompt="""
<review_type>PER-CHANGE DEEP ANALYSIS</review_type>
<change_group>{GROUP_NAME}</change_group>
<project>oh-my-opencode (npm package)</project>
<published_version>{PUBLISHED}</published_version>
<target_version>{LOCAL}</target_version>
<commits>
{GROUP_COMMITS — hash and message for each commit in this group}
</commits>
<changed_files>
{GROUP_FILES — files changed in this group}
</changed_files>
<diff>
{GROUP_DIFF — only the diff for this group's files}
</diff>
<file_contents>
{Read and include full content of each changed file in this group}
</file_contents>
You are reviewing a specific subset of changes heading into an npm release. Focus exclusively on THIS change group. Other groups are reviewed by parallel agents.
ANALYSIS CHECKLIST:
1. **Intent Clarity**: What is this change trying to do? Is the intent clear from the code and commit messages? If you have to guess, that's a finding.
2. **Correctness**: Trace through the logic for 3+ scenarios. Does the code actually do what it claims? Off-by-one errors, null handling, async edge cases, resource cleanup.
3. **Breaking Changes**: Does this change alter any public API, config format, CLI behavior, or hook contract? If yes, is it backward compatible? Would existing users be surprised?
4. **Pattern Adherence**: Does the new code follow the established patterns visible in the existing file contents? New patterns where old ones exist = finding.
5. **Edge Cases**: What inputs or conditions would break this? Empty arrays, undefined values, concurrent calls, very large inputs, missing config fields.
6. **Error Handling**: Are errors properly caught and propagated? No empty catch blocks? No swallowed promises?
7. **Type Safety**: Any `as any`, `@ts-ignore`, `@ts-expect-error`? Loose typing where strict is possible?
8. **Test Coverage**: Are the behavioral changes covered by tests? Are the tests meaningful or just coverage padding?
9. **Side Effects**: Could this change break something in a different module? Check imports and exports — who depends on what changed?
10. **Release Risk**: On a scale of SAFE / CAUTION / RISKY — how confident are you this change won't cause issues in production?
OUTPUT FORMAT:
<group_name>{GROUP_NAME}</group_name>
<verdict>PASS or FAIL</verdict>
<risk>SAFE / CAUTION / RISKY</risk>
<summary>2-3 sentence assessment of this change group</summary>
<has_breaking_changes>YES or NO</has_breaking_changes>
<breaking_change_details>If YES, describe what breaks and for whom</breaking_change_details>
<findings>
For each finding:
- [CRITICAL/MAJOR/MINOR] Category: Description
- File: path (line range)
- Evidence: specific code reference
- Suggestion: how to fix
</findings>
<blocking_issues>Issues that MUST be fixed before publish. Empty if PASS.</blocking_issues>
""")
Layer 2: Holistic Review via /review-work (5 agents)
Spawn a sub-agent that loads the /review-work skill. The review-work skill internally launches 5 parallel agents: Oracle (goal verification), unspecified-high (QA execution), Oracle (code quality), Oracle (security), unspecified-high (context mining). All 5 must pass for the review to pass.
task(
category="unspecified-high",
run_in_background=true,
load_skills=["review-work"],
description="Run /review-work on all unpublished changes",
prompt="""
Run /review-work on the unpublished changes between v{PUBLISHED} and HEAD.
GOAL: Review all changes heading into npm publish of oh-my-opencode. These changes span {COMMIT_COUNT} commits across {FILE_COUNT} files.
CONSTRAINTS:
- This is a plugin published to npm — public API stability matters
- TypeScript strict mode, Bun runtime
- No `as any`, `@ts-ignore`, `@ts-expect-error`
- Factory pattern (createXXX) for tools, hooks, agents
- kebab-case files, barrel exports, no catch-all files
BACKGROUND: Pre-publish review of oh-my-opencode, an OpenCode plugin with 1268 TypeScript files, 160k LOC. Changes since v{PUBLISHED} are about to be published.
The diff base is: git diff v{PUBLISHED}..HEAD
Follow the /review-work skill flow exactly — launch all 5 review agents and collect results. Do NOT skip any of the 5 agents.
""")
Layer 3: Oracle Release Synthesis (1 agent)
The oracle gets the full picture — all commits, full diff stat, and changed file list. It provides the final release readiness assessment.
task(
subagent_type="oracle",
run_in_background=true,
load_skills=[],
description="Oracle: overall release synthesis and version bump recommendation",
prompt="""
<review_type>RELEASE SYNTHESIS — OVERALL ASSESSMENT</review_type>
<project>oh-my-opencode (npm package)</project>
<published_version>{PUBLISHED}</published_version>
<local_version>{LOCAL}</local_version>
<all_commits>
{ALL COMMITS since published version — hash, message, author, date}
</all_commits>
<diff_stat>
{DIFF_STAT — files changed, insertions, deletions}
</diff_stat>
<changed_files>
{CHANGED_FILES — full list of modified file paths}
</changed_files>
<full_diff>
{FULL_DIFF — the complete git diff between published version and HEAD}
</full_diff>
<file_contents>
{Read and include full content of KEY changed files — focus on public API surfaces, config schemas, agent definitions, hook registrations, tool registrations}
</file_contents>
You are the final gate before an npm publish. 10 ultrabrain agents are reviewing individual changes and 5 review-work agents are doing holistic review. Your job is the bird's-eye view that those focused reviews might miss.
SYNTHESIS CHECKLIST:
1. **Release Coherence**: Do these changes tell a coherent story? Or is this a grab-bag of unrelated changes that should be split into multiple releases?
2. **Version Bump**: Based on semver:
- PATCH: Bug fixes only, no behavior changes
- MINOR: New features, backward-compatible changes
- MAJOR: Breaking changes to public API, config format, or behavior
Recommend the correct bump for each release layer and the overall workflow with specific justification.
3. **Breaking Changes Audit**: Exhaustively list every change that could break existing users. Check:
- Config schema changes (new required fields, removed fields, renamed fields)
- Agent behavior changes (different prompts, different model routing)
- Hook contract changes (new parameters, removed hooks, renamed hooks)
- Tool interface changes (new required params, different return types)
- CLI changes (new commands, changed flags, different output)
- Skill format changes (SKILL.md schema changes)
4. **Migration Requirements**: If there are breaking changes, what migration steps do users need? Is there auto-migration in place?
5. **Dependency Changes**: New dependencies added? Dependencies removed? Version bumps? Any supply chain risk?
6. **Changelog Draft**: Write a draft changelog entry grouped by:
- feat: New features
- fix: Bug fixes
- refactor: Internal changes (no user impact)
- breaking: Breaking changes with migration instructions
- docs: Documentation changes
7. **Deployment Risk Assessment**:
- SAFE: Routine changes, well-tested, low risk
- CAUTION: Significant changes but manageable risk
- RISKY: Large surface area changes, insufficient testing, or breaking changes without migration
- BLOCK: Critical issues found, do NOT publish
8. **Post-Publish Monitoring**: What should be monitored after publish? Error rates, specific features, user feedback channels.
OUTPUT FORMAT:
<verdict>SAFE / CAUTION / RISKY / BLOCK</verdict>
<recommended_version_bump>PATCH / MINOR / MAJOR</recommended_version_bump>
<layer_specific_version_bump>omo pure components: PATCH/MINOR/MAJOR; omo opencode: PATCH/MINOR/MAJOR; omo codex: PATCH/MINOR/MAJOR</layer_specific_version_bump>
<version_bump_justification>Why this bump level</version_bump_justification>
<release_coherence>Assessment of whether changes belong in one release</release_coherence>
<breaking_changes>
Exhaustive list, or "None" if none.
For each:
- What changed
- Who is affected
- Migration steps
</breaking_changes>
<changelog_draft>
Ready-to-use changelog entry
</changelog_draft>
<deployment_risk>
Overall risk assessment with specific concerns
</deployment_risk>
<monitoring_recommendations>
What to watch after publish
</monitoring_recommendations>
<blocking_issues>Issues that MUST be fixed before publish. Empty if SAFE.</blocking_issues>
""")
Phase 3: Collect Results
As agents complete (system notifications), collect via background_output(task_id="...").
Track completion in a table:
| # | Agent | Type | Status | Verdict |
|---|
| 1-10 | Ultrabrain: {group_name} | ultrabrain | pending | — |
| 11 | Review-Work Coordinator | unspecified-high | pending | — |
| 12 | Release Synthesis Oracle | oracle | pending | — |
Do NOT deliver the final report until ALL agents have completed.
Phase 4: Final Verdict
<verdict_logic>
BLOCK if:
- Oracle verdict is BLOCK
- Any ultrabrain found CRITICAL blocking issues
- Review-work failed on any MAIN agent
RISKY if:
- Oracle verdict is RISKY
- Multiple ultrabrains returned CAUTION or FAIL
- Review-work passed but with significant findings
CAUTION if:
- Oracle verdict is CAUTION
- A few ultrabrains flagged minor issues
- Review-work passed cleanly
SAFE if:
- Oracle verdict is SAFE
- All ultrabrains passed
- Review-work passed
</verdict_logic>
Compile the final report:
# Pre-Publish Review — oh-my-opencode
## Release: v{PUBLISHED} -> v{LOCAL}
**Commits:** {COMMIT_COUNT} | **Files Changed:** {FILE_COUNT} | **Agents:** {AGENT_COUNT}
---
## Overall Verdict: SAFE / CAUTION / RISKY / BLOCK
## Recommended Version Bump: PATCH / MINOR / MAJOR
{Justification from Oracle}
## Layer-specific Version Recommendation
| Layer | Recommendation | Reason |
|---|---|---|
| omo pure components | PATCH/MINOR/MAJOR | ... |
| omo opencode | PATCH/MINOR/MAJOR | ... |
| omo codex | PATCH/MINOR/MAJOR | ... |
---
## Per-Change Analysis (Ultrabrains)
| # | Change Group | Verdict | Risk | Breaking? | Blocking Issues |
|---|-------------|---------|------|-----------|-----------------|
| 1 | {name} | PASS/FAIL | SAFE/CAUTION/RISKY | YES/NO | {count or "none"} |
| ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... |
### Blocking Issues from Per-Change Analysis
{Aggregated from all ultrabrains — deduplicated}
---
## Holistic Review (Review-Work)
| # | Review Area | Verdict | Confidence |
|---|------------|---------|------------|
| 1 | Goal & Constraint Verification | PASS/FAIL | HIGH/MED/LOW |
| 2 | QA Execution | PASS/FAIL | HIGH/MED/LOW |
| 3 | Code Quality | PASS/FAIL | HIGH/MED/LOW |
| 4 | Security | PASS/FAIL | Severity |
| 5 | Context Mining | PASS/FAIL | HIGH/MED/LOW |
### Blocking Issues from Holistic Review
{Aggregated from review-work}
---
## Release Synthesis (Oracle)
### Breaking Changes
{From Oracle — exhaustive list or "None"}
### Changelog Draft
{From Oracle — ready to use}
### Deployment Risk
{From Oracle — specific concerns}
### Post-Publish Monitoring
{From Oracle — what to watch}
---
## All Blocking Issues (Prioritized)
{Deduplicated, merged from all three layers, ordered by severity}
## Recommendations
{If BLOCK/RISKY: exactly what to fix, in priority order}
{If CAUTION: suggestions worth considering before publish}
{If SAFE: non-blocking improvements for future}
Anti-Patterns
| Violation | Severity |
|---|
| Publishing without waiting for all agents | CRITICAL |
| Spawning ultrabrains sequentially instead of in parallel | CRITICAL |
Using run_in_background=false for any agent | CRITICAL |
| Skipping the Oracle synthesis | HIGH |
| Not reading file contents for Oracle (it cannot read files) | HIGH |
| Grouping all changes into 1-2 ultrabrains instead of distributing | HIGH |
| Delivering verdict before all agents complete | HIGH |
| Not including diff in ultrabrain prompts | MAJOR |
