| name | magic:start |
| description | This skill should be used when the user mentions a ticket ID like "PROJ-123", "#456", says "start", "commencer", "travailler sur", "je vais bosser sur", "begin work on", "work on ticket", "work on issue", "démarre", "démarrer", or indicates they want to start working on a specific task. |
| argument-hint | <TICKET-ID> |
| allowed-tools | Bash(*), Read, Write, Edit, Glob, Grep, Agent, AskUserQuestion, mcp__atlassian__*, mcp__github__* |
magic-slash v0.48.0 - /start
You are an assistant that helps start a development task from a Jira ticket or a GitHub issue.
Follow each step in order. Each step builds on the previous one.
References
references/messages.md — All bilingual messages (MSG_*). Read relevant sections as needed (not the whole file at once).references/node-setup.md — Node.js version manager detection. Read before installing dependencies (Step 4.3).references/plan-template-{type}-{lang}.md — Implementation plan template. Read the matching file (single/fullstack + en/fr) in Step 5.2.references/glossary.md — EN/FR terminology for git concepts. When communicating in French, use the FR terms from this glossary for consistency.references/api.md — Magic Slash Desktop API reference (endpoints /metadata and /repositories).
Step 0: Configuration
0.1: Check config file exists
CONFIG_FILE=~/.config/magic-slash/config.json
[ ! -f "$CONFIG_FILE" ] && echo "MISSING" || echo "OK"
If missing, display MSG_CONFIG_ERROR and stop.
0.2: Determine language
Once the repo is identified (step 3), read .repositories.<name>.languages.discussion from config. Default: "en". Until the repo is identified, use English for all messages.
0.3: Check Atlassian integration
Read integrations.atlassian from config. Default: true (backward compatibility).
jq -r '.integrations.atlassian // true' "$CONFIG_FILE"
Store the result as $ATLASSIAN_ENABLED. If false, only GitHub issue format (#123) is accepted in Step 1.
0.4: Determine development branch (execute after repo is identified in step 3)
Read .repositories.<name>.branches.development from config.
- If configured: Use
AskUserQuestion with the configured branch as default option and a free-text alternative. Display MSG_BRANCH_CONFIRM as the question text.
- If not configured: Use
AskUserQuestion to ask. Display MSG_BRANCH_ASK as the question text.
Store the result as $DEV_BRANCH.
Step 1: Detect ticket type
Analyze $ARGUMENTS:
- Jira: Alphabetic prefix + hyphen + digits (regex:
^[A-Za-z]+-\d+$, normalize to uppercase) → Step 2A
- GitHub: Number with optional
# (regex: ^#?\d+$) → Step 2B
- Unrecognized: Ask user to clarify.
Step 2A: Retrieve the Jira ticket
Use mcp__atlassian__getJiraIssue to retrieve ticket details. If you don't know the cloudId, use mcp__atlassian__getAccessibleAtlassianResources first.
If the MCP call fails (timeout, auth error), retry once. If it fails again, ask the user to provide the ticket title and description manually so the workflow can continue.
→ Continue to Step 2.5, then Step 2.6, then Step 2.7.
Step 2B: Retrieve the GitHub issue
2B.1: Read repos configuration
Read ~/.config/magic-slash/config.json to get the list of configured repos.
2B.2: Identify GitHub repos
For each configured repo, get owner/repo from the remote URL:
cd {REPO_PATH} && git remote get-url origin
Parse owner/repo from either git@github.com:owner/repo.git or https://github.com/owner/repo.git.
2B.3: Search for the issue
Use mcp__github__get_issue for each repo — launch all calls in parallel for speed. Collect all found issues. If an MCP call fails, retry once; if still failing, skip that repo and continue with the others.
2B.4: Resolution
- No issue found: Display
MSG_NO_ISSUE_FOUND.
- Single issue: Use it. Scope = that repo.
- Multiple issues: Use
AskUserQuestion with the list of issues as options. Display MSG_GITHUB_MULTI_ISSUE as the question text.
→ Continue to Step 2.5, then Step 2.6, then Step 2.7.
Step 2.5: Update Magic Slash Desktop metadata
This step updates the Magic Slash Desktop sidebar so the user sees their task context at a glance. Without it, the UI shows a blank/stale entry.
2.5.1: Generate ticket description
Generate a concise description (2-3 sentences max) in the configured language, based on the ticket title, description, and acceptance criteria.
2.5.2: Send metadata
[ -n "$MAGIC_SLASH_PORT" ] && [ -n "$MAGIC_SLASH_TERMINAL_ID" ] && curl -s "http://127.0.0.1:$MAGIC_SLASH_PORT/metadata?id=$MAGIC_SLASH_TERMINAL_ID&title=$(echo -n '{TICKET_ID}: {TICKET_TITLE}' | jq -sRr @uri)&ticketId={TICKET_ID}&description=$(echo -n '{DESCRIPTION}' | jq -sRr @uri)&status=in%20progress&baseBranch={DEV_BRANCH}" > /dev/null 2>&1 || true
Replace {TICKET_ID}, {TICKET_TITLE} (max 30 chars), {DESCRIPTION}, {DEV_BRANCH}.
Step 2.6: Update ticket status to "In Progress"
This step never blocks the process. On failure, display a warning and continue.
2.6A: Jira ticket
- Retrieve transitions with
mcp__atlassian__getTransitionsForJiraIssue
- Look for: "In Progress", "En cours", "In Development", "Started", "In Work"
- Apply with
mcp__atlassian__transitionJiraIssue
- On failure: Display
MSG_TRANSITION_FAILED
2.6B: GitHub issue
- Check if a progress label exists: "in-progress", "wip", "in progress", "working"
- If found: Add via
mcp__github__update_issue (keep existing labels)
- If not found: Continue without modification (do not create a label)
- On failure: Display
MSG_LABEL_FAILED
Step 2.7: Generate branch slug
Generate a short, human-readable slug from the ticket title to append to the branch name.
SLUG=$(echo "$TICKET_TITLE" | \
tr '[:upper:]' '[:lower:]' | \
sed 's/[^a-z0-9]/-/g; s/--*/-/g; s/^-//; s/-$//' | \
cut -d'-' -f1-5 | cut -c1-30 | sed 's/-$//')
If $SLUG is empty after processing (e.g., title with only special characters), skip the slug — the branch name falls back to the ticket ID alone.
Step 3: Analyze ticket scope (smart repo selection)
Short-circuit: If only one repo is configured, use it directly — skip scoring (steps 3.2-3.4).
3.1: Read configuration (if not already done)
3.2: Extract ticket information
Jira: labels, components, title, description.
GitHub: labels, title, description.
3.3: Calculate relevance score for each repo
For each configured repo, calculate a score based on its keywords. All matching is case-insensitive and supports common variants (with/without hyphens, e.g. "backend" matches "back-end"):
| Match source | Points |
|---|
| Jira label/component or GitHub label matching a keyword | +10 |
| Keyword found in title | +5 |
| Keyword found in description | +2 |
Example: Ticket "Add an API endpoint for users", labels: ["backend"]
- api (keywords: ["backend", "api", "server"]) → 10 (label "backend") + 5 (title "API") = 15
- web (keywords: ["frontend", "ui", "react"]) → 0
3.4: Scope resolution
- Single repo with score > 0: Use it directly.
- Multiple repos with scores > 0: Use
AskUserQuestion with the repos as numbered options (include scores and matched keywords). Display MSG_SCOPE_MULTIPLE as the question text.
- No match (all scores = 0): Use
AskUserQuestion listing all repos. Display MSG_SCOPE_NONE as the question text.
- GitHub special case: If the issue was found in a single repo (step 2B), scope is automatic.
Step 4: Create worktrees
4.0: Check if worktree already exists
WORKTREE_PATH="../${REPO_NAME}-$TICKET_ID"
[ -d "$WORKTREE_PATH" ] && echo "EXISTS" || echo "NEW"
If it exists, use AskUserQuestion with MSG_WORKTREE_EXISTS options:
- Option 1:
cd into existing worktree, continue to step 4.2
- Option 2:
git worktree remove --force {path} then recreate
- Option 3: Stop
4.1: Create the worktree
For each selected repo:
cd {REPO_PATH}
REPO_NAME=$(basename "$PWD")
git fetch origin
If git fetch fails (network issue), display MSG_FETCH_FAILED and continue with local state.
git checkout $DEV_BRANCH
git pull --rebase origin $DEV_BRANCH
If git pull --rebase fails with conflicts, use AskUserQuestion with MSG_REBASE_CONFLICT options.
Create the worktree:
BRANCH_NAME="feature/$TICKET_ID"
[ -n "$SLUG" ] && BRANCH_NAME="feature/$TICKET_ID-$SLUG"
git worktree add -b "$BRANCH_NAME" ../${REPO_NAME}-$TICKET_ID $DEV_BRANCH
If this fails because the branch already exists, use AskUserQuestion with MSG_BRANCH_ALREADY_EXISTS options:
- Option 1:
git worktree add ../${REPO_NAME}-$TICKET_ID $BRANCH_NAME (use existing branch)
- Option 2:
git branch -D $BRANCH_NAME then retry creation
- Option 3: Stop
Branch naming:
- Jira:
feature/PROJ-1234-implement-stripe-refunds
- GitHub:
feature/repo-name-123-add-user-profile (prefix with repo name to avoid conflicts)
- If the slug is empty, falls back to
feature/$TICKET_ID (no trailing hyphen)
Change to the worktree — the rest of the skill operates from inside the worktree, so all subsequent file operations and commands target the right directory:
cd ../${REPO_NAME}-$TICKET_ID
Attach the worktree to the agent — this tells the Desktop sidebar which project this terminal belongs to, so the user sees it grouped correctly:
[ -n "$MAGIC_SLASH_PORT" ] && [ -n "$MAGIC_SLASH_TERMINAL_ID" ] && curl -s "http://127.0.0.1:$MAGIC_SLASH_PORT/repositories?id=$MAGIC_SLASH_TERMINAL_ID&repos=$(echo -n '["'$(pwd)'"]' | jq -sRr @uri)" > /dev/null 2>&1 || true
4.2: Copy worktree files
Check if the repo has worktreeFiles configured (.repositories.<name>.worktreeFiles).
Case A: worktreeFiles is configured
Copy each file from the main repo to the worktree. Only copy files that exist; silently skip missing ones. Display MSG_WORKTREE_FILES_COPIED.
Case B: Not configured — auto-detect
Scan for common untracked files in the main repo:
MAIN_REPO="{REPO_PATH}"
CANDIDATES=(.env .env.local .env.development .env.development.local .env.test .env.test.local .env.production.local .npmrc .yarnrc .yarnrc.yml .python-version .tool-versions)
for f in "${CANDIDATES[@]}"; do
[ -f "$MAIN_REPO/$f" ] && ! git -C "$MAIN_REPO" ls-files --error-unmatch "$f" > /dev/null 2>&1 && echo "$f"
done
If files detected: Use AskUserQuestion with MSG_WORKTREE_FILES_DETECTED (y/n). If user says yes, save to config via jq:
jq --arg repo "{REPO_NAME}" --argjson files '["file1", "file2"]' \
'.repositories[$repo].worktreeFiles = $files' "$CONFIG_FILE" > "$CONFIG_FILE.tmp" && mv "$CONFIG_FILE.tmp" "$CONFIG_FILE"
Then copy the files either way. If no files detected, skip silently.
4.3: Install dependencies
Read references/node-setup.md to detect the Node.js version manager and set $NODE_PREFIX.
Detect package manager — check lock files in worktree root, first match wins (stop at first detected):
| Priority | Lock file | Package manager | Install command |
|---|
| 1 | bun.lockb or bun.lock | bun | bun install |
| 2 | yarn.lock | yarn | yarn install |
| 3 | pnpm-lock.yaml | pnpm | pnpm install |
| 4 | package-lock.json | npm | npm install |
| 5 | requirements.txt | pip | pip install -r requirements.txt |
| 6 | pyproject.toml + poetry.lock | poetry | poetry install |
| 7 | Cargo.toml | cargo | cargo build |
| 8 | go.mod | go | go mod download |
| 9 | Gemfile.lock | bundler | bundle install |
| 10 | composer.lock | composer | composer install |
If no lock file but package.json exists, default to npm install.
If no recognizable project file exists, skip this step.
Monorepo note: If the project uses a monorepo structure (e.g. pnpm-workspace.yaml, "workspaces" in package.json, or lerna.json), install from the worktree root — the package manager will handle workspace packages automatically.
For Node.js projects, prepend $NODE_PREFIX to the install command.
Display MSG_INSTALLING_DEPS. On failure, display MSG_INSTALL_FAILED and continue.
Step 4.5: Report context (multi-repo only)
If multiple worktrees were created:
- Send full-stack metadata — links all worktrees together in the Desktop UI so the user sees them as one task:
[ -n "$MAGIC_SLASH_PORT" ] && [ -n "$MAGIC_SLASH_TERMINAL_ID" ] && curl -s "http://127.0.0.1:$MAGIC_SLASH_PORT/metadata?id=$MAGIC_SLASH_TERMINAL_ID&fullStackTaskId={TICKET_ID}&relatedWorktrees=$(echo -n '["{PATH_1}","{PATH_2}"]' | jq -sRr @uri)" > /dev/null 2>&1 || true
- Attach all worktrees:
[ -n "$MAGIC_SLASH_PORT" ] && [ -n "$MAGIC_SLASH_TERMINAL_ID" ] && curl -s "http://127.0.0.1:$MAGIC_SLASH_PORT/repositories?id=$MAGIC_SLASH_TERMINAL_ID&repos=$(echo -n '["{PATH_1}","{PATH_2}"]' | jq -sRr @uri)" > /dev/null 2>&1 || true
Step 4.6: Create full-stack context file (multi-repo only)
Create a CLAUDE.local.md in each worktree using MSG_MULTI_REPO_CONTEXT from messages. Then cd into the first worktree.
Step 5: Planning and implementation
Display MSG_TASK_SUMMARY (or MSG_TASK_SUMMARY_FULLSTACK for multi-repo).
5.1: Codebase exploration (conditional)
Evaluate whether codebase exploration is needed before launching a sub-agent.
Skip exploration when ALL of these are true:
- The ticket specifies exact files or components to modify
- The acceptance criteria are precise and self-contained (no ambiguity about what to change)
- The change is localized (e.g., update a string, add a field, tweak a config)
Require exploration when ANY of these is true:
- The ticket is high-level or vague (e.g., "improve performance", "add a new feature for X")
- You need to discover existing patterns, conventions, or architecture before implementing
- The ticket references components whose location or structure you don't know
- The change spans multiple modules or layers
- It's a full-stack task (multi-repo)
If exploration is needed: Launch an Agent (subagent_type=Explore) to explore the codebase. Request a structured summary: (1) project structure & framework, (2) config & stack, (3) existing patterns with file paths, (4) impacted files with current state, (5) cross-repo interactions if full-stack. Target 5-15 files, return summary only — not raw file contents. Use the sub-agent's returned summary to create the implementation plan in step 5.2.
If exploration is skipped: Proceed directly to step 5.2, building the implementation plan from the ticket information alone.
5.2: Create implementation plan
Read the matching plan template from references/plan-template-{type}-{lang}.md:
{type}: single or fullstack{lang}: value of languages.discussion (en or fr)
Keep the plan focused: aim for 3-7 implementation steps, each with 2-3 concrete actions. A plan that's too detailed wastes context; too vague and the implementation drifts.
5.2.3: Plan review (via sub-agent)
Launch an Agent to review the implementation plan. Provide: ticket summary (ID, title, description, acceptance criteria), codebase exploration summary (from step 5.1), and the full proposed plan.
The agent reviews the plan on these axes:
- Completeness: Does the plan cover all acceptance criteria?
- Step ordering: Are dependencies between steps respected?
- Missing files: Are there impacted files forgotten (tests, types, migrations, configs)?
- Over-engineering: Does the plan do more than what the ticket asks for?
The agent returns a short list of actionable suggestions, or explicitly states the plan looks good.
Integrate pertinent suggestions into the plan before proceeding. Do not blindly apply all suggestions — use judgment to filter out noise.
5.2.5: Dispatcher (execution strategy)
Analyze the plan to choose between Solo and Multi-agent:
Decision rules (in order of priority):
- Multi-agent if: Multiple repos are involved (strong signal — each repo gets its own agent)
- Multi-agent if: Single repo with > 8 files to modify/create AND steps are parallelizable (no dependency between them)
- Solo otherwise: Steps are sequential, few files, or tightly coupled changes
Display MSG_STRATEGY_SOLO or MSG_STRATEGY_MULTI as part of the plan output.
5.3: Request approval
Use AskUserQuestion with MSG_APPROVAL as the question text and the following options:
- Option 1: Approve and start implementation
- Option 2: Request modifications to the plan
- Option 3: Reject and stop
Never start implementation without explicit user approval.
- Approve → Step 5.4
- Modifications → Adjust plan based on feedback, present again, re-request approval
- Reject → Stop
5.4: Implementation
5.4A: Solo mode (via sub-agent)
Display MSG_PROGRESS_SOLO (with step 1/1 since the sub-agent handles all steps).
Launch an Agent with: ticket summary (ID, title, 2-3 sentence goal), acceptance criteria, full plan (verbatim), worktree path, constraints (no commits, use Edit/Write, follow patterns). For full-stack: list all paths, implement backend first. Review sub-agent output after completion.
5.4B: Multi-agent mode
Display MSG_PROGRESS_MULTI. Use the Agent tool to launch subagents in parallel.
Each subagent prompt includes (keep it concise — summary, not the full ticket dump):
- Ticket summary: ID, title, and a 2-3 sentence description of what to achieve
- Acceptance criteria (if any)
- Assigned plan steps (copy the relevant steps verbatim from the plan)
- Worktree path to work in
- Constraints: no commits, follow project patterns, use
Edit/Write
- Note: subagents have access to Bash, Read, Write, Edit, Glob, Grep only (no MCP tools)
After all subagents complete:
- Review changes from each subagent
- Check for conflicts/inconsistencies
- Fix integration issues if needed
5.4.5: Simplify pass (via sub-agent)
After implementation completes (step 5.4), run a simplification pass only on the files changed during this task.
- Collect the list of changed files:
cd {WORKTREE_PATH}
git diff --name-only HEAD
git ls-files --others --exclude-standard
- If no files changed, skip this step silently.
- Display
MSG_SIMPLIFY.
- Launch an
Agent with: worktree path, changed files list (only these modifiable), instruction to invoke /simplify (may explore full codebase but modify only changed files).
- If no issues found, continue silently.
5.5: Confidence assessment and final summary
This step runs as an iterative loop: evaluate confidence, auto-fix if needed, then display the final summary.
5.5.1: How to test
Generate 2-5 concrete manual testing steps based on:
- The acceptance criteria from the ticket
- The actual changes made (new routes, UI components, modified logic)
- Any setup required (env vars, seed data, running a specific service)
Each step must be actionable: describe what the user should do and what they should expect to see. Include specific URLs, commands, or UI paths when possible.
5.5.2: Confidence evaluation loop
The confidence evaluation is performed by an independent critic agent — a separate sub-agent that has no knowledge of the implementation plan, the implementation conversation, or the decisions made along the way. This prevents self-serving bias: the agent that wrote the code must not be the one grading it.
What the critic agent receives (and nothing else):
- Ticket summary: ID, title, description, acceptance criteria
- The diff: output of
git diff HEAD in the worktree + list of untracked files
- The rubric below (axes, calibration, scoring formula)
- The worktree path (so it can read files for context — but it must not modify any file)
What the critic agent does NOT receive:
- The implementation plan
- The codebase exploration summary
- Any prior conversation context or implementation decisions
Evaluation rubric (passed verbatim to the critic agent)
Evaluation axes — evaluate every axis, mark N/A only when genuinely inapplicable (e.g., test coverage when the project has no test suite):
- Acceptance criteria coverage: Were all acceptance criteria from the ticket addressed?
- Pattern consistency: Do the changes follow existing codebase conventions?
- Test coverage: Were tests added/updated when the project has a test suite?
- Edge cases: Were error handling and boundary conditions considered?
- Scope adherence: Did the implementation stay within the ticket scope?
For each axis, assign one of: MET | PARTIALLY MET | NOT MET | N/A
Calibration examples (one sentence per axis to anchor MET vs PARTIALLY MET):
- Acceptance criteria coverage: MET = every acceptance criterion from the ticket is addressed in the implementation; PARTIALLY MET = most criteria addressed but one minor criterion is deferred or incomplete.
- Pattern consistency: MET = changes follow all observed codebase conventions (naming, structure, error handling style); PARTIALLY MET = mostly follows conventions with minor deviations (e.g., slightly different naming in one file).
- Test coverage: MET = tests added or updated covering the main paths and at least one edge case; PARTIALLY MET = tests cover the happy path but miss edge cases or error scenarios.
- Edge cases: MET = error handling and boundary conditions are explicitly handled (null checks, empty states, limits); PARTIALLY MET = common errors handled but some boundary conditions left unguarded.
- Scope adherence: MET = implementation stays strictly within the ticket scope with no unrelated changes; PARTIALLY MET = minor tangential cleanup included alongside the scoped work.
Minimum axis rule: if fewer than 3 axes are non-N/A, cap the maximum score at 8 — too few axes provide insufficient signal for a perfect score.
Score determination (apply to non-N/A axes only, follow top-to-bottom and stop at the first match):
| # | Condition | Score |
|---|
| 1 | All axes MET | 10 |
| 2 | All axes MET except exactly one PARTIALLY MET | 9 |
| 3 | All axes at least PARTIALLY MET, with exactly two PARTIALLY MET | 7 |
| 4 | All axes at least PARTIALLY MET, with three or more PARTIALLY MET | 6 |
| 5 | Exactly one axis NOT MET, rest MET or PARTIALLY MET | 5 |
| 6 | Exactly two axes NOT MET | 3 |
| 7 | Three or more axes NOT MET | 1 |
After selecting the base score from the table, apply one adjustment: if the majority of remaining axes (excluding the NOT MET ones) are MET rather than PARTIALLY MET, add +1 to the score (max 10). Note: the minimum axis rule cap is applied after this adjustment.
Critic mindset: approach the evaluation as an external code reviewer who has never seen this code before. A score of 6 with clear attention points is more useful than an inflated 9. When in doubt between two ratings for an axis, choose the lower one.
Expected output format from the critic agent (structured text, not JSON):
AXIS RESULTS:
- Acceptance criteria coverage: {MET|PARTIALLY MET|NOT MET|N/A} — {one-sentence justification}
- Pattern consistency: {MET|PARTIALLY MET|NOT MET|N/A} — {one-sentence justification}
- Test coverage: {MET|PARTIALLY MET|NOT MET|N/A} — {one-sentence justification}
- Edge cases: {MET|PARTIALLY MET|NOT MET|N/A} — {one-sentence justification}
- Scope adherence: {MET|PARTIALLY MET|NOT MET|N/A} — {one-sentence justification}
SCORE: {number}/10
POSITIVE POINTS:
- {point}
ATTENTION POINTS:
- {point}
Auto-fix loop (max 3 iterations)
iteration = 0
prev_axis_states = {}
regressed_axes_history = set()
LOOP:
1. Collect the diff for the critic:
git diff HEAD (in the worktree)
git ls-files --others --exclude-standard (untracked files)
2. Launch a critic Agent with:
- Ticket summary: ID, title, description, acceptance criteria (from step 2)
- The diff collected in step 1
- The full evaluation rubric above (axes, calibration, scoring, output format)
- The worktree path (read-only access for context)
- Instruction: "You are an independent code reviewer. You have NOT seen the implementation
plan or any prior conversation. Evaluate the diff against the ticket requirements using
ONLY the rubric provided. Do not modify any file."
Parse the agent's response → score, axis_results, positive_points, attention_points
3. IF score >= 8 → EXIT loop
4. IF iteration >= 3 → EXIT loop (display summary with current score)
5. Regression check (skip when iteration == 0):
Compare axis_results to prev_axis_states.
For each axis, detect any worsening transition:
MET → PARTIALLY MET, MET → NOT MET, or PARTIALLY MET → NOT MET.
For each regressed axis:
→ Flag it as a REGRESSION in the displayed summary.
→ Prepend it to attention_points so the regression is prioritized for the next fix.
→ Add the axis name to regressed_axes_history.
Oscillation guard: if any axis already existed in regressed_axes_history before this iteration
(i.e., the same axis regresses a second time), EXIT loop immediately with a warning:
"Axis '<name>' has regressed twice — exiting auto-fix to avoid oscillation."
6. Save current state: prev_axis_states = copy(axis_results)
7. Identify the single most critical attention point using this priority:
a. Any regressed axis (worsened since previous iteration) — regressions first
b. Acceptance criteria gaps (a ticket requirement is functionally unmet)
c. NOT MET axes by severity (fewest positive signals first)
d. PARTIALLY MET axes by severity (fewest positive signals first)
Pick the first match; ties are broken by the axis order above.
8. Display MSG_AUTOFIX with:
- The current score
- The selected attention point (from step 7)
- The user-facing iteration number: iteration + 1 (1-indexed for display; internal counter is 0-indexed)
9. Launch a fix Agent with:
- The worktree path
- The list of modifiable files (only files changed during implementation)
- A precise description of the selected attention point to fix
- Instruction: "Do no harm — fix only the described issue; do not alter unrelated code or degrade any axis that currently passes"
10. Wait for the fix agent to complete
11. iteration += 1
12. GOTO LOOP
5.5.3: Display final summary
Display MSG_FINAL_SUMMARY (or MSG_FINAL_SUMMARY_FULLSTACK for multi-repo). Populate all placeholders using the sources below.
Data generated in step 5.5:
{confidence_score} — final score from the evaluation loop (5.5.2){test_steps} — manual testing steps generated in 5.5.1{positive_points} — strengths identified during confidence evaluation (5.5.2){attention_points} — remaining concerns after auto-fix iterations (5.5.2)
Data available from prior steps / context:
{TICKET-ID} — ticket identifier (available since step 1){modified_files} — list files changed during implementation (git diff --name-only HEAD in the worktree, from step 5.4.5){created_files} — list untracked files added during implementation (git ls-files --others --exclude-standard in the worktree, from step 5.4.5){summary} — concise description of what was implemented (synthesize from the plan and actual changes){decisions} — key implementation decisions made during planning and implementation (e.g., library choices, architectural trade-offs, deviations from the original plan)
Fullstack-only placeholders (for MSG_FINAL_SUMMARY_FULLSTACK):
{backend_path}, {frontend_path} — worktree paths (available since step 4){backend_modified}, {backend_created} — same as {modified_files}/{created_files} but scoped to the backend worktree{frontend_modified}, {frontend_created} — same but scoped to the frontend worktree{interaction} — summary of how the backend and frontend changes interact (e.g., new API endpoints consumed by the frontend); derive from the cross-repo interactions noted in the step 5.1 exploration and the actual changes made
For the Magic Slash Desktop API reference (endpoints /metadata and /repositories), see references/api.md.
