Fix With Pingfusi

Fix a draft with pingfusi (the review loop)

The draft is the user's CURRENT project (or a directory/URL they name). Any builder's output works — pingfusi runs the loop that closes the last 10%: the draft is reviewed side-by-side with the original, pins come back on what's off, you fix them in the draft's own source, repeat until an approving verdict.

Steps

1. Preflight: pingfusi doctor (surface failures). Identify the ORIGINAL url — ask the user if it isn't obvious from the project (README, comments, git remote).

2. Build the draft: run its production build and identify a self-contained output directory (dist/, build/, out/, or equivalent). A running dev server is useful for editing, but it is not the preferred reviewer URL.

3. Register: pingfusi adopt <name> <original-url> (name = short slug). This is the reviewer-loop-only path — no pixel gates, the review verdict is the check.

4. Publish through Pingfusi hosting by default:

   pingfusi publish <built-dir> --target <name> --name <name>-review

   This records the immutable hosted URL where pingfusi review already looks for it. Rebuild and publish again after each change. Use pingfusi tunnel <name> --url http://localhost:<port> only when the production app genuinely requires a live server (SSR, server actions, API routes, or authentication) and cannot produce a self-contained build. Never choose a tunnel merely because a dev server is already running.

5. The loop: pingfusi review <name> file [--region "…"] [--context "one line: what this site/page is"] [--results 1..20] → tell the user the round is filed with an independent human reviewer on the pingfusi service (the reviewer pins what's wrong + picks a verdict — the user does not review). The filing command automatically chains client-safe wait legs until feedback. If a raw MCP leg returns pending, immediately call pingfusi_wait again; never return pending to the user or file a duplicate. Passive result/verify reads do not renew the lease (a lapse only pulls the round from the feed for new claims; a reviewer mid-review can still finish). On each verdict:

   • Approved → done; report with the round history.
   • Pins → fix each in the DRAFT'S OWN source (its components/styles — match its idioms; derive fixes from the original site's real markup/CSS, never invent), rebuild and publish a new immutable hosted draft (or, for the exceptional live-server path, run pingfusi tunnel <name> --check), refile with --changelog "what changed since your last review"; that refile owns its wait. Repeat — the run is not complete until an approving verdict is recorded. Full rounds default to 1 result; request 5 for a broader read and 15–20 only for complex work or when higher confidence is worth it. Each completed result costs 1 credit; undelivered results are not charged.
   • If a pin is temporal (timing, easing, spring, stagger, scroll/pointer-driven, canvas, or WebGL motion), run pingfusi next <name> and follow its pingfusi motion … machine route (first-draft doctrine: the draft build reproduces animations automatically; motion checks are build receipts and warnings — never gates, never review rounds). Fix with the routed utility — motion pass to re-run the build pass, verify-introspected for the exact engine-declaration diff, or the sampled chain sample → apply-sampled → verify-sampled — then redeploy and refile the page round. Motion never blocks filing or refiling; the reviewer's side-by-side look IS the motion review.

6. Rules: all review contact through pingfusi review <name> … (never any MCP directly); polls one-sided only — a poll is text-only and the reviewer sees no page, so it may only ask what the ORIGINAL site does, described in words; never ask a poll to compare, judge, or look at anything (that is the review round's job); never submit or open a review yourself; screenshots for triage, never as proof of a match. No login? Stop and have the user run pingfusi setup — review rounds require it; there is no offline review path. If anything else blocks a round, stop and tell the user what failed.