[PR #7201] [CLOSED] docs(setup): call FreeBuff setup support shipped, not proposed #7711

Closed
opened 2026-11-03 13:39:49 +00:00 by bsakaguchi · 0 comments
Owner

📋 Pull Request Information

Original PR: https://github.com/morluto/rea/pull/7201
Author: @XiaoBinGan
Created: 10/26/2026
Status: ❌ Closed

Base: main ← Head: docs/freebuff-published-support


📝 Commits (1)

  • e0591cc docs(setup): call FreeBuff setup support shipped, not proposed

📊 Changes

1 file changed (+3 additions, -3 deletions)

View changed files

📝 docs/client-configuration.md (+3 -3)

📄 Description

Summary

The FreeBuff section still calls its setup support "proposed" in three places: "the proposed integration writes mcpServers.rea", "The proposed personal skill location is", and "are proposed integration boundaries". FreeBuff setup support shipped in rea-agents@6.8.0 and main now says so, so a reader is told a shipped client is still under proposal.

Scope note

This PR originally also corrected the release-availability paragraph. That half landed on main independently in 975900f56 (docs(setup): state the FreeBuff minimum release (#7066)), which now reads "FreeBuff setup support requires rea-agents@6.8.0 or later." I dropped my version of it and kept only what main still gets wrong, so this no longer duplicates that commit. Only the three "proposed" wordings change; the release statement, the limitation paragraph, and the installation-guide link are untouched.

Problem and expected behavior

Smallest trigger: read docs/client-configuration.md#freebuff on main (85075fa97).

  • Three statements describe shipped behavior as a proposal: lines 560, 562, and 570.
  • Violated invariant: authored client documentation must not present already-shipped support as proposed, because "proposed" reads as "not available yet" and contradicts the same section's own release statement.
  • Observed: main states "FreeBuff setup support requires rea-agents@6.8.0 or later" and the 6.8.0 registry package accepts rea setup --client freebuff, while the surrounding prose says the integration is proposed.

Expected: the section describes FreeBuff setup support as current and keeps the separate, still-true limitation that native FreeBuff MCP loading and skill discovery are unverified.

Change and scope

Authored documentation only, one section of one file, 3 insertions and 3 deletions — three words removed:

  1. "the proposed integration writes" → "setup writes"
  2. "The proposed personal skill location is" → "The personal skill location is"
  3. "are proposed integration boundaries" → "are integration boundaries"

Intentionally not included: the release-availability sentence (already fixed on main by 975900f56), the native-client limitation paragraph, and the installation-guide link. No runtime, catalogue, skill, or generated file changes.

Follow the contribution scope.
Unresolved scope, authority, side effects, or required verification block
integration. Link the required maintainer scope decision for new providers or
capabilities involving target execution, injection, mutation, or protection
recovery; ordinary fixes within existing boundaries may state "not applicable".
Draft PRs may leave the scope decision pending and the readiness and merge checklists
unchecked. Maintainers can help resolve open questions.

Contract and boundary impact

  • Semantic owner and earliest changed stage:
    Not applicable: authored prose in docs/client-configuration.md only. The behavior it describes is owned by the supported-client definitions in src/application/SupportedClients.ts, which this PR does not touch.
  • Contribution scope fit and linked maintainer decision: Documentation wording correction within an existing client boundary; no new provider, capability, or authority. Maintainer scope decision: not applicable.
  • CLI and MCP/tool-catalog contract: None. --client freebuff, its registration target, and its detection marker are unchanged.
  • Provider, bridge, target-format, or platform compatibility: None.
  • Evidence, artifact, provenance, or reconstruction contract: Not applicable.
  • Target selection, authority, upstream behavior, and cleanup details (if applicable): Not applicable; no target interaction of any kind.
  • Generated metadata (docs/public/product-catalog.json), package, or installation impact (CI generates and validates ignored catalogs and skills/; edit authored instructions in .agents/skills/reverse-engineer-anything/ and never commit build outputs): None. No generator reads docs/client-configuration.md (git grep 'client-configuration' -- scripts/ is empty) and npm run docs:check passes without regenerating tracked files.

Expected effects (check known effects; use documentation-only on its own).
Unchecked items do not establish absence; leave uncertainties visible.

  • Read existing files or captured data.
  • Launch or attach to a process.
  • Inject instrumentation or run scripts/code.
  • Change process memory, registers, files, or configuration.
  • Contact network services.
  • Recover protected code or work around protections.
  • Documentation or usability only; no target interaction.
  • Not sure yet; investigation or maintainer guidance needed.

Evidence and regression coverage

Ran on Node 24.22.1, Windows x64. No target was opened and no configuration was written; registry packages were inspected in disposable prefixes.

  • Tests added or updated: None. This is an authored-documentation wording correction with no executable behavior; the CI documentation job covers it (docs:check and docs:build).
  • Base reproduction or other evidence:
    • main at 85075fa97 states in the same section: "FreeBuff setup support requires rea-agents@6.8.0 or later. Older versions reject rea setup --client freebuff as an unsupported client." (added by 975900f56), while lines 560, 562 and 570 still say "proposed".
    • npm view rea-agents dist-tags.latest → 6.8.0.
    • npm install rea-agents@6.8.0 in an isolated prefix, then rea setup --client freebuff --skill=false --dry-run --json → exit 0, "status":"planned", plannedActions includes configure_client:freebuff targeting ~/.agents/mcp.json.
    • dist/application/SupportedClients.js in the published 6.8.0 tarball contains name: "freebuff", so the client definition itself is published, not only the CLI argument.
    • installation.md's Supported agents table already lists FreeBuff with --client value freebuff and states the 6.8.0 minimum, so it does not use "proposed" either.
  • User-visible CLI/MCP output (if applicable): The 6.8.0 dry-run JSON quoted above is the shipped behavior the section now describes as current.
  • Remaining proof gaps: Native FreeBuff MCP loading and skill discovery remain unverified with an installed FreeBuff client, exactly as the section still states. Verified against the npm registry package only; no live FreeBuff desktop client was exercised.

For boundary fixes, identify the applicable boundary regressions and lifecycle regressions covered by the evidence above, and explain relevant gaps.

Boundary regressions: not applicable. No parser, provider, filesystem, or lifecycle boundary changes; the diff is authored prose and the only runtime contact is reading registry packages during evidence collection. Lifecycle regressions: not applicable for the same reason.

For evidence-bearing changes:

  • Observed, derived, and inferred claims remain distinguishable.
  • Artifact identity, source provenance, and failed attempts remain preserved.
  • Unsupported, incomplete, unavailable, or uncertain outcomes remain visible.

These three are left unchecked because this change produces no evidence records.

Validation performed

  • npm run docs:check — exit 0; 6/6 turbo tasks successful, then tests/conformance/readmeConsistency.test.ts 9 passed (9).
  • node scripts/check-doc-facts.mjs — exit 0.
  • git status --short — M docs/client-configuration.md only.
  • npm view rea-agents dist-tags.latest — 6.8.0.
  • rea setup --client freebuff --skill=false --dry-run --json on the installed 6.8.0 package — exit 0, status: planned, configure_client:freebuff.

Compatibility, safety, and release

  • Breaking changes or migration steps: None. No behavior or configuration changes; only the description of shipped support.
  • Real Hopper/Ghidra, browser, or OS coverage: Not applicable; no analysis provider or target interaction is involved.
  • Package or release metadata impact: None.
  • Security, privacy, process, or containment review: None. The change adds no capability.

Author readiness

Human owner: @XiaoBinGan

  • I reviewed the final diff and relevant existing code, understand the change and its edge cases, and take responsibility for the complete PR, including AI-assisted work.
  • I checked the evidence above, confirmed it supports the current change, and recorded meaningful validation gaps.
  • I declare this PR ready for initial maintainer review.

Before merge

  • This PR addresses a concrete problem or an agreed enhancement.
  • Material scope and authority questions are resolved, and any required maintainer scope decision covers the final diff.
  • The PR has one focused outcome and the title follows type(scope): outcome.
  • Related issue is linked, or the reason for not linking one is stated above.
  • Tests cover changed observable behavior and meaningful failure paths.
  • Owning docs, contracts, and generated metadata are updated where needed.
  • User-visible CLI/MCP changes include representative output.
  • I checked the final diff for secrets, unrelated cleanup, and unsupported claims.

🔄 This issue represents a GitHub Pull Request. It cannot be merged through Gitea due to API limitations.

## 📋 Pull Request Information **Original PR:** https://github.com/morluto/rea/pull/7201 **Author:** [@XiaoBinGan](https://github.com/XiaoBinGan) **Created:** 10/26/2026 **Status:** ❌ Closed **Base:** `main` ← **Head:** `docs/freebuff-published-support` --- ### 📝 Commits (1) - [`e0591cc`](https://github.com/morluto/rea/commit/e0591cc5a95531fea15d0c71ba8d2c982455d671) docs(setup): call FreeBuff setup support shipped, not proposed ### 📊 Changes **1 file changed** (+3 additions, -3 deletions) <details> <summary>View changed files</summary> 📝 `docs/client-configuration.md` (+3 -3) </details> ### 📄 Description ## Summary The FreeBuff section still calls its setup support "proposed" in three places: "the proposed integration writes `mcpServers.rea`", "The proposed personal skill location is", and "are proposed integration boundaries". FreeBuff setup support shipped in `rea-agents@6.8.0` and `main` now says so, so a reader is told a shipped client is still under proposal. ## Scope note This PR originally also corrected the release-availability paragraph. That half landed on `main` independently in `975900f56` (`docs(setup): state the FreeBuff minimum release (#7066)`), which now reads "FreeBuff setup support requires `rea-agents@6.8.0` or later." I dropped my version of it and kept only what `main` still gets wrong, so this no longer duplicates that commit. Only the three "proposed" wordings change; the release statement, the limitation paragraph, and the installation-guide link are untouched. ## Problem and expected behavior Smallest trigger: read `docs/client-configuration.md#freebuff` on `main` (85075fa97). - Three statements describe shipped behavior as a proposal: lines 560, 562, and 570. - Violated invariant: authored client documentation must not present already-shipped support as proposed, because "proposed" reads as "not available yet" and contradicts the same section's own release statement. - Observed: `main` states "FreeBuff setup support requires `rea-agents@6.8.0` or later" and the 6.8.0 registry package accepts `rea setup --client freebuff`, while the surrounding prose says the integration is proposed. Expected: the section describes FreeBuff setup support as current and keeps the separate, still-true limitation that native FreeBuff MCP loading and skill discovery are unverified. ## Change and scope Authored documentation only, one section of one file, 3 insertions and 3 deletions — three words removed: 1. "the proposed integration writes" → "setup writes" 2. "The proposed personal skill location is" → "The personal skill location is" 3. "are proposed integration boundaries" → "are integration boundaries" Intentionally not included: the release-availability sentence (already fixed on `main` by `975900f56`), the native-client limitation paragraph, and the installation-guide link. No runtime, catalogue, skill, or generated file changes. Follow the [contribution scope](https://github.com/morluto/rea/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md#contribution-scope). Unresolved scope, authority, side effects, or required verification block integration. Link the required maintainer scope decision for new providers or capabilities involving target execution, injection, mutation, or protection recovery; ordinary fixes within existing boundaries may state "not applicable". Draft PRs may leave the scope decision pending and the readiness and merge checklists unchecked. Maintainers can help resolve open questions. ## Contract and boundary impact - Semantic owner and earliest changed stage: Not applicable: authored prose in `docs/client-configuration.md` only. The behavior it describes is owned by the supported-client definitions in `src/application/SupportedClients.ts`, which this PR does not touch. - Contribution scope fit and linked maintainer decision: Documentation wording correction within an existing client boundary; no new provider, capability, or authority. Maintainer scope decision: not applicable. - CLI and MCP/tool-catalog contract: None. `--client freebuff`, its registration target, and its detection marker are unchanged. - Provider, bridge, target-format, or platform compatibility: None. - Evidence, artifact, provenance, or reconstruction contract: Not applicable. - Target selection, authority, upstream behavior, and cleanup details (if applicable): Not applicable; no target interaction of any kind. - Generated metadata (`docs/public/product-catalog.json`), package, or installation impact (CI generates and validates ignored catalogs and `skills/`; edit authored instructions in `.agents/skills/reverse-engineer-anything/` and never commit build outputs): None. No generator reads `docs/client-configuration.md` (`git grep 'client-configuration' -- scripts/` is empty) and `npm run docs:check` passes without regenerating tracked files. Expected effects (check known effects; use documentation-only on its own). Unchecked items do not establish absence; leave uncertainties visible. - [ ] Read existing files or captured data. - [ ] Launch or attach to a process. - [ ] Inject instrumentation or run scripts/code. - [ ] Change process memory, registers, files, or configuration. - [ ] Contact network services. - [ ] Recover protected code or work around protections. - [x] Documentation or usability only; no target interaction. - [ ] Not sure yet; investigation or maintainer guidance needed. ## Evidence and regression coverage Ran on Node 24.22.1, Windows x64. No target was opened and no configuration was written; registry packages were inspected in disposable prefixes. - Tests added or updated: None. This is an authored-documentation wording correction with no executable behavior; the CI documentation job covers it (`docs:check` and `docs:build`). - Base reproduction or other evidence: - `main` at `85075fa97` states in the same section: "FreeBuff setup support requires `rea-agents@6.8.0` or later. Older versions reject `rea setup --client freebuff` as an unsupported client." (added by `975900f56`), while lines 560, 562 and 570 still say "proposed". - `npm view rea-agents dist-tags.latest` → `6.8.0`. - `npm install rea-agents@6.8.0` in an isolated prefix, then `rea setup --client freebuff --skill=false --dry-run --json` → exit 0, `"status":"planned"`, `plannedActions` includes `configure_client:freebuff` targeting `~/.agents/mcp.json`. - `dist/application/SupportedClients.js` in the published 6.8.0 tarball contains `name: "freebuff"`, so the client definition itself is published, not only the CLI argument. - `installation.md`'s Supported agents table already lists FreeBuff with `--client` value `freebuff` and states the 6.8.0 minimum, so it does not use "proposed" either. - User-visible CLI/MCP output (if applicable): The 6.8.0 dry-run JSON quoted above is the shipped behavior the section now describes as current. - Remaining proof gaps: Native FreeBuff MCP loading and skill discovery remain unverified with an installed FreeBuff client, exactly as the section still states. Verified against the npm registry package only; no live FreeBuff desktop client was exercised. For boundary fixes, identify the applicable [boundary regressions](https://github.com/morluto/rea/blob/main/docs/testing.md#boundary-regressions) and [lifecycle regressions](https://github.com/morluto/rea/blob/main/docs/testing.md#lifecycle-regressions) covered by the evidence above, and explain relevant gaps. Boundary regressions: not applicable. No parser, provider, filesystem, or lifecycle boundary changes; the diff is authored prose and the only runtime contact is reading registry packages during evidence collection. Lifecycle regressions: not applicable for the same reason. For evidence-bearing changes: - [ ] Observed, derived, and inferred claims remain distinguishable. - [ ] Artifact identity, source provenance, and failed attempts remain preserved. - [ ] Unsupported, incomplete, unavailable, or uncertain outcomes remain visible. These three are left unchecked because this change produces no evidence records. ## Validation performed - `npm run docs:check` — exit 0; 6/6 turbo tasks successful, then `tests/conformance/readmeConsistency.test.ts` 9 passed (9). - `node scripts/check-doc-facts.mjs` — exit 0. - `git status --short` — ` M docs/client-configuration.md` only. - `npm view rea-agents dist-tags.latest` — `6.8.0`. - `rea setup --client freebuff --skill=false --dry-run --json` on the installed 6.8.0 package — exit 0, `status: planned`, `configure_client:freebuff`. ## Compatibility, safety, and release - Breaking changes or migration steps: None. No behavior or configuration changes; only the description of shipped support. - Real Hopper/Ghidra, browser, or OS coverage: Not applicable; no analysis provider or target interaction is involved. - Package or release metadata impact: None. - Security, privacy, process, or containment review: None. The change adds no capability. ## Author readiness Human owner: @XiaoBinGan - [x] I reviewed the final diff and relevant existing code, understand the change and its edge cases, and take responsibility for the complete PR, including AI-assisted work. - [x] I checked the evidence above, confirmed it supports the current change, and recorded meaningful validation gaps. - [x] I declare this PR ready for initial maintainer review. ## Before merge - [x] This PR addresses a concrete problem or an agreed enhancement. - [x] Material scope and authority questions are resolved, and any required maintainer scope decision covers the final diff. - [x] The PR has one focused outcome and the title follows `type(scope): outcome`. - [x] Related issue is linked, or the reason for not linking one is stated above. - [x] Tests cover changed observable behavior and meaningful failure paths. - [x] Owning docs, contracts, and generated metadata are updated where needed. - [x] User-visible CLI/MCP changes include representative output. - [x] I checked the final diff for secrets, unrelated cleanup, and unsupported claims. --- <sub>🔄 This issue represents a GitHub Pull Request. It cannot be merged through Gitea due to API limitations.</sub>
bsakaguchi 2026-11-03 13:39:49 +00:00
Sign in to join this conversation.
No milestone
No project
No assignees
1 participant
Notifications
Due date
The due date is invalid or out of range. Please use the format "yyyy-mm-dd".

No due date set.

Dependencies

No dependencies set.

Reference
morluto/rea#7711
No description provided.