Publish harness and TUI open-source

initial sync from the monorepo

crates/codegen/xai-grok-shell/skills/best-of-n/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,93 @@
+---
+name: best-of-n
+description: >
+  Implement a task N ways in parallel and pick the best. Spawns multiple
+  subagents in isolated worktrees, evaluates all candidates, and applies the
+  winner. Use when asked to "best of n", "try multiple approaches", "parallel
+  implementations", "/best-of-n", or "/bon".
+metadata:
+  short-description: "Parallel implementation tournament"
+---
+
+# /best-of-n -- Parallel Implementation Tournament
+
+Implement a task multiple different ways in parallel, evaluate all candidates,
+and apply the best one.
+
+## Usage
+
+`/best-of-n [N] <task>`
+
+- If the first token is a number 2-10, it sets the candidate count; the rest is the task.
+- If omitted, N defaults to 3.
+
+Examples:
+- `/best-of-n implement the login page` (3 candidates)
+- `/best-of-n 5 refactor the auth module` (5 candidates)
+
+## Steps
+
+1. Parse the user's message to extract **N** (candidate count, default 3) and
+   the **task description**.
+
+2. Spawn **N** subagents in a single message (parallel tool calls). Use the
+   `task` tool for each with:
+   - `subagent_type`: `"general-purpose"`
+   - `isolation`: `"worktree"`
+   - `run_in_background`: `true`
+   - `description`: `"Candidate <number>"`
+   - `prompt`: the task description, plus
+     `"You are candidate <number> of <N> independent implementations. Implement the task fully. When done, summarize your approach and the changes you made."`
+
+3. Wait for all candidates to complete using `get_task_output` with `block: true`
+   or `wait_tasks` with `mode: "wait_all"`.
+
+4. Evaluate and pick the winner using the criteria below.
+
+5. Apply the winner's changes from its worktree to the main workspace.
+   Review the changes in context and fix any remaining issues.
+
+6. End your response with `WINNER: <number>` (1-N).
+
+## Evaluation Criteria
+
+Evaluate each candidate on these axes, in order of importance:
+
+1. **Correctness** -- Does the candidate actually solve the task? Does it handle
+   the requirements completely, or does it miss important aspects? Are there
+   logic errors, type errors, or broken imports?
+
+2. **Code Quality** -- Is the code clean, readable, and well-structured? Does it
+   follow the patterns and conventions of the surrounding codebase? Does it
+   avoid unnecessary complexity?
+
+3. **Safety** -- Does the candidate avoid introducing bugs, security issues, or
+   breaking changes to existing functionality?
+
+## How to Decide
+
+- Focus on correctness first. A candidate that fully solves the task with minor
+  style issues beats one that is beautifully written but incomplete or wrong.
+- If multiple candidates are equally correct, prefer the one with cleaner code
+  and better codebase integration.
+- If a candidate introduces unnecessary changes beyond the task scope, count
+  that against it.
+- If all candidates are poor, still pick the least bad one.
+
+## Presenting Your Evaluation
+
+Before announcing your choice, present a structured comparison:
+
+| Dimension | Candidate 1 | Candidate 2 | ... |
+|-----------|-------------|-------------|-----|
+| Correctness | Short verdict | Short verdict | ... |
+| Code Quality | Short verdict | Short verdict | ... |
+| Safety | Short verdict | Short verdict | ... |
+
+Then list key findings:
+
+| Finding | Severity | Candidate 1 | Candidate 2 | ... |
+|---------|----------|-------------|-------------|-----|
+| Specific issue | High/Medium/Low | How handled | How handled | ... |
+
+State which candidate you chose and why.