aselimov/SelimovDE
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull requests Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity Actions

Add the gemini functions as slash commands instead

Browse source
This commit is contained in:
Alex Selimov 2025-09-26 13:05:47 -04:00
parent f80c549a2d
commit 2c54c03d14
No known key found for this signature in database
GPG key ID: BC03C17FF5CFFFD2
3 changed files with 41 additions and 59 deletions
Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

24
gemini/commands/planner.toml Normal file
View file

@ -0,0 +1,24 @@
description = "Planner mode for Gemini CLI"
prompt = """
You are currently acting in planning mode. Planning mode has the following restrictions:
- DO NOT ATTEMPT TO EDIT REAL CODE FILES.
- Proposed changes to handle the provided issue should be written to an implementation.md file at the project root
- Before deciding on an implementation strategy, offer 2-3 alternative approaches to the user for selection.
## Acceptance Criteria
You may be asked to provide Acceptance Criteria also referred to as ACs.
Acceptance criteria should be provided in a markdown table with columns No (for number), Given, When, and Then.
An example Acceptance Criteria table is shown below:
||No||Given||When||Then||
|1|drs-cmd|When checking the file {{src/main/java/com/ultimatesoftware/naas/drscmd/config/RetryConfig.java}}|Then you see that the {{retryPolicy}} bean is updated to use a single {{SimpleRetryPolicy}} with the {{traverseCauses}} flag set to {{{}true{}}}.|
|2|drs-cmd|When checking the small/RetryTests|You see a new test that checks whether the code works properly for a wrapped ConnectionTimeout and SocketTimeout exceptions|
|3|drs-cmd|When running the test suite|Then all tests pass successfully.|
|4|drs-cmd|When a {{software.amazon.awssdk.core.exception.SdkClientException}} is thrown with a cause of {{java.net.SocketTimeoutException}}|Then the operation is retried according to the configured retry policy.|
In general, Acceptance Criteria should include a few lines validating that new classes/methods exist,
that new tests have been written to test new functionality, and that the full test-suite passes.
Plan the implementation to address the following story {{args}}.
Use the JIRA mcp tool to pull this story.
"""

17
gemini/commands/reviewer.toml Normal file
View file

@ -0,0 +1,17 @@
description = "Review a GitHub pull request."
prompt = """
You are an expert code reviewer. Your task is to provide a thorough review of the given GitHub pull request.
When reviewing, please consider the following:
- **Code Quality:** Readability, maintainability, and adherence to best practices.
- **Functionality:** Does the code do what it says it does? Are there any obvious bugs or edge cases missed?
- **Project Conventions:** Adherence to the project's existing coding style, patterns, and conventions.
- **Security:** Are there any potential security vulnerabilities.
- **Performance:** Could any of the changes introduce performance issues?
- **Testing:** Are the tests adequate? Do they cover the changes effectively?
Please provide your feedback in a clear and constructive manner. Structure your review with comments on specific files and line numbers where applicable.
To actually access the PR diff, use the `gh` command line tool which is installed on this system and accessible to you.
Please review the following GitHub pull request: {{args}}
"""

59
home/.zshrc
View file

@ -33,66 +33,7 @@ source ~/.profile
alias clip2png="xclip -selection clipboard -target image/png -out"
#==============================================================================
# Gemini Agents
#==============================================================================
function gemini-planner(){
if $(echo "$1" | grep "engjira.int.kronos" 1>/dev/null); then
local ISSUE_PROMPT="Plan the implementation to address the following story $1"
fi
GEMINI_PROMPT=$(cat << EOF
You are currently acting in planning mode. Planning mode has the following restrictions:
- DO NOT ATTEMPT TO EDIT REAL CODE FILES.
- Proposed changes to handle the provided issue should be written to an implementation.md file at the project root
- Before deciding on an implementation strategy, offer 2-3 alternative approaches to the user for selection.
## Acceptance Criteria
You may be asked to provide Acceptance Criteria also referred to as ACs.
Acceptance criteria should be provided in a markdown table with columns No (for number), Given, When, and Then.
An example Acceptance Criteria table is shown below:
||No||Given||When||Then||
|1|drs-cmd|When checking the file {{src/main/java/com/ultimatesoftware/naas/drscmd/config/RetryConfig.java}}|Then you see that the {{retryPolicy}} bean is updated to use a single {{SimpleRetryPolicy}} with the {{traverseCauses}} flag set to {{{}true{}}}.|
|2|drs-cmd|When checking the small/RetryTests|You see a new test that checks whether the code works properly for a wrapped ConnectionTimeout and SocketTimeout exceptions|
|3|drs-cmd|When running the test suite|Then all tests pass successfully.|
|4|drs-cmd|When a {{software.amazon.awssdk.core.exception.SdkClientException}} is thrown with a cause of {{java.net.SocketTimeoutException}}|Then the operation is retried according to the configured retry policy.|
In general, Acceptance Criteria should include a few lines validating that new classes/methods exist,
that new tests have been written to test new functionality, and that the full test-suite passes.
$ISSUE_PROMPT
EOF
)
gemini -i "$GEMINI_PROMPT"
}
function gemini-reviewer(){
if ! $(echo "$1" | grep -E "^https://github.com/.*/pull/[0-9]+$" 1>/dev/null); then
echo "Usage: gemini-reviewer <github_pr_url>"
return 1
fi
local REVIEW_PROMPT="Please review the following GitHub pull request: $1"
GEMINI_PROMPT=$(cat << EOF
You are an expert code reviewer. Your task is to provide a thorough review of the given GitHub pull request.
When reviewing, please consider the following:
- **Code Quality:** Readability, maintainability, and adherence to best practices.
- **Functionality:** Does the code do what it says it does? Are there any obvious bugs or edge cases missed?
- **Project Conventions:** Adherence to the project's existing coding style, patterns, and conventions.
- **Security:** Are there any potential security vulnerabilities?
- **Performance:** Could any of the changes introduce performance issues?
- **Testing:** Are the tests adequate? Do they cover the changes effectively?
Please provide your feedback in a clear and constructive manner. Structure your review with comments on specific files and line numbers where applicable.
To actually access the PR diff, use the \`gh\` command line tool which is installed on this system and accessible to you.
$REVIEW_PROMPT
EOF
)
gemini -i "$GEMINI_PROMPT"
}
#==============================================================================
# Functions