no-mistakes

no-mistakes is a local gate that validates your code changes through a pipeline (intent, rebase, review, test, document, lint, push, PR, CI) before they reach the configured push target. You drive it through the no-mistakes axi command family, which prints machine-readable TOON to stdout and progress to stderr.

When the user invokes /no-mistakes, report the outcome at the end. If the user asks for something specific, translate that request into the matching axi run flags yourself - for example, "skip the lint step" becomes --skip=lint. Run no-mistakes axi run --help to see the available flags.

Two ways to invoke

/no-mistakes works in two modes, depending on whether the user hands you a task along with the command:

• Validate-only - bare /no-mistakes (optionally with flag-style requests like "skip the lint step"). The user's code changes are already committed; validate them and report the outcome.
• Task-first - /no-mistakes <task>, e.g. /no-mistakes add a --json flag to the status command. First carry out the task yourself, then validate the result through the pipeline:
  1. Check scope. Inspect git status before you change or commit anything. Preserve unrelated pre-existing uncommitted changes, and when you commit, commit only the changes that belong to the user's task.
  2. Do the work. Make the changes the task describes, then commit them on a feature branch. If the user is on the repository's default branch, create a feature branch first - the gate validates committed history on a non-default branch, so the work must land there before you run.
  3. Then validate, passing the user's task as your --intent. The task text is exactly what the user set out to accomplish, in their own words, so it is the intent - pass it through, enriched with the decisions and tradeoffs you made while doing the work (see Intent is required).

Everything below - preconditions, intent, the validate-and-decide loop - applies the same way once the work is committed on a feature branch.

Before you start

• The work you want validated must be committed on a branch. The gate validates committed history, not your uncommitted working tree.
• You must be on a feature branch, not the repository's default branch.
• The repository must already be initialized with no-mistakes init.

If any of these is not met, axi run returns an error: with the exact command to fix it - read it and act on it (commit your work, or create a branch). If the repository is not initialized, run no-mistakes init first; if the no-mistakes command itself is missing or misbehaving, no-mistakes doctor reports what is wrong. Before starting, run no-mistakes axi (home view). If it shows an active run on your current branch, inspect it with no-mistakes axi status. If it is parked at a gate, drive it with no-mistakes axi respond. Reattach an in-flight run by re-running no-mistakes axi run when it still matches your current HEAD. Only no-mistakes axi abort it when you mean to discard that run before starting over; aborting is a between-runs action, never a way to take over or bypass a gate while a run is still going (see Validate and decide). If it shows an active run on another branch, leave that run alone and start validation for your current branch with no-mistakes axi run --intent "...".

Intent is required

When you start a run you must pass --intent: what the user set out to accomplish - the goal or request behind this work, in their terms. This is not a description of the diff or the files you changed; it is the objective the change is meant to achieve. You know it from the conversation, so pass it directly - no-mistakes uses it verbatim instead of inferring it from local agent transcripts (slower and flakier).

Err on the side of completeness, not brevity. The review step uses --intent to tell a deliberate decision apart from a mistake, so a thin one-line summary makes it flag things the user already chose. Capture the nuance: the user's goal, the specific decisions and tradeoffs they made along the way, any constraints or approaches they ruled in or out, and anything they explicitly asked for that might otherwise look surprising in the diff. A few sentences to a short paragraph is normal - write down what you learned from the conversation that a reviewer reading only the diff would not know.

Validate and decide

Run the pipeline and decide on its findings as they come up:

1. Start the run. It blocks until the first decision point or the end:

   no-mistakes axi run --intent "<what the user set out to accomplish>"

   axi run and every axi respond block synchronously - the review, test, and CI steps can each take several minutes, so a single call may not return for a while. That is normal; allow a long timeout and do not cancel or re-issue the command because it seems slow. To check progress without disturbing the run, use no-mistakes axi status from a separate call. A long-running call is working, not stalled - background it if your harness needs to, but the run never advances past a gate on its own. Read every return; on a gate:, respond; loop until an outcome:. Never idle-wait for the run to move forward by itself. When that status output includes awaiting_agent: parked <duration> under the run, the run is parked at an approval or fix-review gate and waiting for you to send axi respond. The field is observability only: it does not change gate resolution, auto-resume the run, or make --yes the default.

2. If the output contains a gate: object, the pipeline is waiting on you. Read its findings table. Each finding has an id, severity, file, description, and an action that tells you how the pipeline classified it:

   • auto-fix - mechanical and low-risk; you can authorize the fix on your own judgment by responding with --action fix.
   • no-op - informational only; nothing to do.
   • ask-user - the finding challenges the user's deliberate intent or touches product behavior. This is a call only the user can make - see Escalate ask-user findings below.

   Review auto-fix is disabled by default (auto_fix.review: 0; a repo or global auto_fix.review > 0 override re-enables it), so blocking and ask-user review findings park for your decision rather than being silently self-fixed. (Other steps such as test and lint may auto-fix within the pipeline and re-run before they ever gate.)

   Choose one response:

   # accept the step as-is and continue
   no-mistakes axi respond --action approve
   
   # have the pipeline fix specific findings, then continue
   no-mistakes axi respond --action fix --findings <id1,id2> --instructions "<optional guidance>"
   
   # skip this step
   no-mistakes axi respond --action skip

   While a run is active, never fix findings by editing the code yourself - the pipeline owns both the findings and the fixes. Your job at a gate is to decide and respond; --action fix has the pipeline apply the fix and re-review the result. For the same reason, while a run is active do not abort or rerun to go fix a finding yourself - even a real bug in your own code - because that discards the pipeline's in-flight work and forces a full re-validation. abort and rerun are for between runs (after a failed or cancelled outcome), never to circumvent a gate.

   Each respond blocks until the next gate:, checks-passed decision point, or final outcome.

   Two extra flags are available on respond when you need them:

   • --add-finding '<json>' (with --action fix) folds a finding you spotted yourself - one the pipeline did not surface - into the fix round, as a JSON finding object. Use it for a problem you noticed that is not in the gate's own findings table.
   • --step <name> responds to a specific step instead of the one currently awaiting approval. You rarely need this; omit it to answer the active gate.

3. Repeat step 2 until the output has an outcome: instead of a gate:. The outcomes are:

   • checks-passed - the change is validated and CI is green, but the PR is not merged yet. You are done driving the pipeline. Do not wait for the merge: tell the user the PR is ready and ask them to review and merge it (the PR link is in the help line). no-mistakes keeps monitoring the PR in the background until it is merged, closed, or its configured idle timeout elapses, so a human can watch it in the TUI.
   • passed - the changes cleared the gate and the PR was merged or closed.
   • failed or cancelled - they did not; read the output and address it. Fix whatever the output points at (a failing test, a lint error, a finding you skipped), commit the fix on the same feature branch, then drive the pipeline again - no-mistakes axi run --intent "..." starts a fresh run, or no-mistakes rerun re-runs the pipeline for the current branch. This is the right place to start over: a fresh run or rerun is a between-runs action, correct only after a terminal outcome like this - never mid-run to circumvent a gate. Do not leave the user at a failed outcome without either retrying or explaining what blocks it.

The CI step deliberately keeps watching the PR after checks pass, so axi run returns checks-passed the moment checks are green rather than blocking on the human merge. Never poll or re-run waiting for the merge yourself.

Because that monitor stays live, a PR that falls behind the default branch or hits a merge conflict after checks pass - commonly because another PR merged first - needs no command from you: never hand-rebase. When the CI monitor sees an actual conflict it rebases onto the base, resolves it, and re-pushes the branch itself; a PR that is merely behind but still clean needs nothing either, since the platform merges it. The one exception is when that monitor is no longer running - the PR was closed, the run was aborted or superseded, it idle-timed-out, or its auto-fix attempts were exhausted - in which case recover with no-mistakes rerun, which cancels the stale monitor and re-runs the full pipeline including a deterministic rebase step. Do not reach for no-mistakes axi run to refresh a still-active PR: after checks-passed it reattaches to the running monitor (HEAD unchanged) and returns its output without rebasing.

On a successful outcome (checks-passed or passed), close the loop with the user: summarize what happened during the pipeline in a concise, easily readable format - what was validated and what was found. If the output includes a fixes table, the pipeline fixed findings your original change missed: acknowledge those misses and explicitly list each fix so the user can easily review them.

Escalate ask-user findings

A gate whose findings are all auto-fix or no-op is safe to drive on your own judgment: respond with --action fix or --action approve as appropriate. But a finding marked ask-user is a decision that belongs to the user, not you - the pipeline flagged it because it challenges their deliberate intent or changes product behavior. Do not approve, fix, or skip it on your own. Instead, stop and bring it to the user before you respond:

• Relay each ask-user finding to them as the pipeline wrote it - its id, file, and full description verbatim. Do not paraphrase, summarize away the detail, or pre-judge the answer.
• Ask how they want to proceed, then translate their decision into the matching respond call: --action fix (pass their guidance through --instructions), --action approve, or --action skip.

The one exception is --yes (below): it is the user's standing consent to drive every gate unattended, so under --yes you resolve ask-user findings automatically instead of stopping to ask.

If you have clear consent to drive the run automatically, pass --yes to axi run or axi respond. It treats every actionable finding - auto-fix and ask-user alike - as consent to fix it, selects every current finding for one fix round, accepts the resulting fix review, and approves gates with only no-op findings. Only use it when the user has asked you to drive the whole run without checking back.

Inspecting state

no-mistakes axi               # home view: current branch, active runs, next steps
no-mistakes axi status        # full detail of the resolved run
no-mistakes axi logs --step <name> --full   # full log output of one step
no-mistakes axi abort         # cancel the current-branch active run
no-mistakes axi abort --run <id>   # cancel a specific run by id (works outside its worktree)

Reading the output

• Output is TOON: key: value pairs, name[N]{cols}: tables, and help[N]: hints.
• A non-terminal run object may include awaiting_agent: parked <duration> immediately after status; that means the run is parked at a gate awaiting your axi respond.
• The help list at the bottom of most responses tells you the next commands to run.
• Errors are printed as error: ... on stdout with a help list; act on the suggestion.
• Exit codes: 0 success, no-op, or normal decision gates, 1 failed or cancelled final outcomes, 2 bad usage.

A gate: waiting on you looks roughly like this - a gate: line naming the step, optional step-specific fields such as note, a findings[N]{...}: table with one row per finding, and a help[N]: list of next commands:

gate: review
note: Review auto-fix is disabled by default (auto_fix.review: 0; a repo or global auto_fix.review > 0 override re-enables it), so blocking and ask-user review findings park for your decision rather than being silently self-fixed.
findings[2]{id,severity,file,line,action,description}:
  r1,warning,internal/pipeline/executor.go,,auto-fix,Error from os.Remove is ignored
  r2,error,cmd/no-mistakes/main.go,,ask-user,New --force flag bypasses the confirm prompt
help[3]:
  no-mistakes axi respond --action fix --findings r1
  no-mistakes axi respond --action approve
  A long-running call is working, not stalled - background it if your harness needs to, but the run never advances past a gate on its own. Read every return; on a gate, respond; loop until an outcome.

Read the action column per row: decide r1 (auto-fix) on your own judgment - respond --action fix --findings r1 hands it to the pipeline to fix - but stop and escalate r2 (ask-user) to the user before responding. A final state instead shows outcome: <checks-passed|passed|failed|cancelled> with no findings table. Field names and exact columns can vary by step and version, so read the actual findings header rather than assuming this layout.