[adelrodriguez]

Stack

1. Stop writing the rules folder AGENTS.md, and point to the skill for authoring guidance #541 Stop writing the rules folder AGENTS.md, and point to the skill for authoring guidance
2. Move the custom rule stub into a template file, and test that it loads in Oxlint #542 Move the custom rule stub into a template file, and test that it loads in Oxlint ← this PR

The rule stub that adamantite rule add writes was a template literal in toCustomRuleStub. Its backticks were escaped, and it was hard to read as the file that the user gets. Now the stub lives in src/lib/workspace/custom-rules/stub.ts.template, and a build-time macro inlines it into the bundle, as the Doctor repair prompt does (#538). toCustomRuleStub fills the one slot, {{name}}.

src/lib/workspace/custom-rules/
  stub.ts.template   the stub, with a {{name}} slot
  stub.macro.ts      inlines the template at build time
  index.ts           toCustomRuleStub fills {{name}}

The template is not a .ts file, so the type check and the lint do not read it. Its adamantite/rules import resolves to the dist types, so a .ts template would fail the type check on a clean checkout. To make up for this, a new test in src/__tests__/presets/custom.test.ts loads the real stub in an Oxlint run and asserts that it reports. Before this PR, only a test that compared toCustomRuleStub with itself covered the stub.

Evidence

• The built CLI's adamantite rule add no-window writes a file that is byte-identical to the stub from main (cmp). The skill's sources list now includes the template.
• New test "load and run the stub that rule add writes" passes: Oxlint reports project(no-debugger-here):error.
• On the stack: pnpm run test (620 tests), fix, format, check, analyze, and build pass. dist/index.js contains the template text.

No changeset: the stub does not change.

Merge danger

• Door: two-way.
• Blast radius: small. Only the rule add stub. A broken template fails the new Oxlint test.

Made with Claude Opus 5.5 in Claude Code, running in T3 Code.

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

---

Note

Low Risk
Scoped to the rule add stub path and build-time inlining; behavior is intended to stay byte-identical, with a new Oxlint test as the guardrail.

Overview
Moves the adamantite rule add stub out of an inline template literal in toCustomRuleStub into stub.ts.template, with {{name}} as the only substitution slot. A build-time macro (stub.macro.ts) inlines that file into the bundle so the CLI does not read the template from disk at runtime—same approach as Doctor repair prompts.

toCustomRuleStub now does stubTemplate.replaceAll("{{name}}", name). The Adamantite skill sources list includes the new template.

Adds an integration test that writes the real stub (via toCustomRuleStub) into .adamantite/rules and asserts Oxlint reports project(no-debugger-here):error, so the generated file is exercised end-to-end instead of only being compared to itself.

^{Reviewed by Cursor Bugbot for commit b55cb0d. Configure here.}

[pullfrog]

No new issues found.

Reviewed changes Reviewed the custom rule template, its build-time macro, and the new Oxlint test.

• Stub template: The rule moves from a template literal to a separate file. The macro embeds it during the build, and toCustomRuleStub fills the rule name without changing the generated content.
• Oxlint test: The new test loads the generated stub through custom() and checks that it reports a debugger statement.
• Verification: pnpm run test passed with 602 tests passed and one Bun test skipped. pnpm run build:verify, pnpm run check, and pnpm run analyze passed. The built CLI also wrote the expected rule with the supplied name.

  ^{｜ View workflow run ｜ Using gpt-6.1-sol ｜ 𝕏}

[adelrodriguez]

@codex review

[adelrodriguez]

@cursor review

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

Codex Review Summary

This comment shows the latest Codex review activity on this pull request.

Review	Status	Commit	Review trigger
📝 Code Review	✅ Completed 2026-10-20T23:51:43.310697Z	b55cb0d	Manual request

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

• Open a pull request for review
• Mark a draft as ready
• Comment "@codex review" or "@codex security review".

Codex reacts with 👀 while any review is running, comments if it has suggestions, and reacts with 👍 once all reviews finish with no findings.

[cursor]

✅ Bugbot reviewed your changes and found no new issues!

Comment @cursor review or bugbot run to trigger another review on this PR

^{Reviewed by Cursor Bugbot for commit b55cb0d. Configure here.}

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

Codex Review: Didn't find any major issues. Hooray!

Reviewed commit: b55cb0d9fc

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

• Open a pull request for review
• Mark a draft as ready
• Comment "@codex review".

If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.

Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".