yetone
a7e7fe2b0f
The page already sends one request for a group (agents-some), but its one
change ran a sync that, for every skill given as a copy (every WSL agent,
Windows without the right to link, agents set to copies), hashed the copy
and the library's skill twice, in every agent, on every change, and the
page's read hashed the copies once more. Over a WSL distro's share that is
every file of every skill read through 9P each click.
A copy's mark now keeps the hash of what was copied (markCopy). A copy
whose mark says the library skill's current hash, with nothing in it newer
than the mark, is current without its files being read (copyIsFresh);
takeEdits' walk of a copy is not done a second time in the same sync, and
each library skill is hashed once per change (libHash). Copies with an old
mark, or edited since, are hashed as before. Claude Desktop's copies and
project copies use the same check.
Measured in a sandbox (55 skills x 31 files, copies for 10 agents, a
5-skill group switched on for an 11th): the change went from 1.54s to
0.31s and the page's read from 0.66s to 0.25s on a local SSD; the copies
not touched are no longer read at all, which is the cost over WSL.
TestSyncDoesNotReadUnchangedCopies fails without the change ("codex's
copy of pdf was read and made again"): an unreadable file in an unchanged
copy is left alone now. TestCopyFreshByMark checks a changed library skill
is still copied again, an old mark without a hash still works, and an edit
in a copy is still taken. go test -race ./internal/library ./internal/gui
pass, the new tests pass -race -count=10; vet, gofmt, darwin/linux/windows
builds pass. Not run on Windows or WSL.
Subsystem design references
These pages describe current responsibilities, runtime paths, state, and contracts. Start with the subsystem relevant to your task, then follow its source links to verify the implementation you change.
| Subsystem | Reference |
|---|---|
| Built-in subscriptions moving to plugins | Provider and plugin ownership |
| Plugins that run on the gateway's requests and replies | Gateway middleware |
| Claude subscription turns across Claude Code runs | Claude subscription bridge |
| How the gateway picks a provider, key or account, and falls back | Gateway routing and fallback |
| Connecting an agent's config to the gateway, drift, disconnect, WSL twins | Agent wiring |
| Providers, keys, subscription accounts, refresh and allowance | Providers and accounts |
| Instructions, MCP servers, skills and RTK written into agents | Library |
Tray, panel, window, magpie web and the page's JSON API |
GUI app shell |
A subsystem can span several packages or repositories. Its reference describes the behavior those parts provide together; it does not need to list every function.
Maintain a reference
Update the owning reference in the same PR when a change alters a documented responsibility, interface, state transition, runtime path, compatibility rule, or failure behavior. An internal refactor that preserves these contracts does not require a prose change.
Keep each fact in one reference and link to it from agent instructions or other pages. Link to source files and named symbols rather than copying implementation details that change frequently. Explain field meanings and constraints that signatures alone do not express.
For a new reference, include the responsibilities and boundaries, source of truth, main runtime paths, state transitions, important constraints, and existing verification commands. Include failure and compatibility behavior where relevant. Document current behavior separately from proposed changes; the proposal belongs in its issue or PR.
Describe a PR's semantic changes
For each affected subsystem, explain the observable change with its trigger and before/after behavior. Include changes to interfaces, state, compatibility, and failure behavior when relevant. Link the affected reference, implementation, and verification evidence. State when a refactor preserves the documented behavior.
For example, a change to plugin adoption should explain which migration state and account condition trigger it, which implementation handles requests before and after adoption, and which test exercises that transition.
This is an author-provided explanation that a reviewer verifies against the diff and surrounding code. It is not an automatically proven compatibility verdict.
Review a change
- Identify the affected subsystem and the actual runtime path, including plugin or built-in ownership.
- Compare the claimed before/after behavior with the base and head implementation. Trace relevant callers and state transitions beyond the changed lines.
- Check that changed contracts appear in the owning reference and that source links still resolve.
- Check that the cited tests or runtime evidence exercise the claimed behavior. Report checks that were not run.
A documentation update alone does not prove the implementation. Existing tests and runtime evidence remain necessary for behavior changes.