Added prompt schema

[potofpie]

Summary by CodeRabbit

• Chores
  • Added a JSON Schema that defines the validation structure for prompts configuration, requiring slug, name, and description fields, with mandatory either system or prompt templates and optional evaluations array.

[coderabbitai]

Walkthrough

A new JSON Schema file is added that defines validation rules for Agentuity prompts configuration, specifying required fields (slug, name, description), format constraints for slug using alphanumeric and hyphen characters, and optional system/prompt templates with evaluations array.

Changes

Cohort / File(s)	Summary
JSON Schema definition prompts.schema.json	New file defining structure for prompts configuration with required fields (slug, name, description), slug pattern validation (^[a-z0-9-]+$), conditional requirement for system or prompt fields, and optional evals array.

Estimated code review effort

🎯 1 (Trivial) | ⏱️ ~3 minutes

• Verify JSON syntax and schema validity
• Confirm slug regex pattern matches intended format requirements
• Check that field descriptions are clear and match design intent

Poem

🐰 A schema hops into place,
With structure and grace!
Slugs validated true,
Prompts configured anew—
Configuration finds its embrace!

Pre-merge checks and finishing touches

❌ Failed checks (1 warning)

Check name	Status	Explanation	Resolution
Docstring Coverage	⚠️ Warning	Docstring coverage is 0.00% which is insufficient. The required threshold is 80.00%.	You can run @coderabbitai generate docstrings to improve docstring coverage.

✅ Passed checks (2 passed)

Check name	Status	Explanation
Description Check	✅ Passed	Check skipped - CodeRabbit’s high-level summary is enabled.
Title Check	✅ Passed	The pull request title "Added prompt schema" directly and accurately summarizes the main change in the changeset, which is the addition of a new JSON Schema file (prompts.schema.json) that defines the structure and validation rules for Agentuity prompts configuration. The title is concise, clear, and free of noise like emojis or vague terminology. A teammate reviewing the commit history would immediately understand that this PR introduced a prompt schema file, making the title sufficiently informative for its purpose.

✨ Finishing touches

🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)

• Create PR with unit tests
• Post copyable unit tests in a comment
• Commit unit tests in branch added-prompt-schema

---

_{Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands and usage tips.}

[coderabbitai]

Actionable comments posted: 0

🧹 Nitpick comments (2)

prompts.schema.json (2)

10-65: Add additionalProperties constraint for stricter validation.

The schema currently permits additional properties beyond those explicitly defined, which could allow misconfigured prompts to pass validation silently. For a stricter schema that catches configuration errors, consider adding "additionalProperties": false at the items level (after line 31).

 				],
 				"anyOf": [
 					{
 						"required": [
 							"system"
 						]
 					},
 					{
 						"required": [
 							"prompt"
 						]
 					}
 				],
+				"additionalProperties": false,
 				"properties": {

---

33-37: Consider stricter slug pattern to prevent edge cases.

The current pattern ^[a-z0-9-]+$ allows leading/trailing hyphens and consecutive hyphens (e.g., my--slug or -slug-). For more robust slug validation, consider the pattern ^[a-z0-9]+(?:-[a-z0-9]+)*$ to enforce proper formatting.

 				"slug": {
 					"type": "string",
-					"pattern": "^[a-z0-9-]+$",
+					"pattern": "^[a-z0-9]+(?:-[a-z0-9]+)*$",
 					"description": "A unique identifier for the prompt using lowercase letters, numbers, and hyphens"
 				},

📜 Review details

Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between b15a1e3 and dee8174.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)

• prompts.schema.json (1 hunks)

🔇 Additional comments (2)

prompts.schema.json (2)

20-31: Clarify the exclusivity of system and prompt fields.

The anyOf constraint currently requires at least one of system or prompt to be present, but allows both simultaneously. If the intent is to enforce mutual exclusivity (exactly one), consider using oneOf instead. If allowing both is intentional, this is fine, but it should be clarified in documentation.

---

1-66: Schema looks well-structured overall.

The schema is valid, properly formatted, and provides good descriptions for each field. The required fields and constraint structure are appropriate for a configuration schema.