Consult Llm MCP

  <Some long explanation of the issue here>

  Consult LLM for assistance, use gemini

⏺ I see the issue! The problem is that the frontend is trying to use the hint for "isn't" but the server generated a hint for "isn't it" (the full phrase). This is a mismatch between how the frontend segments text and how the server generates hints.

  Let me consult the LLM to get assistance on this segmentation mismatch issue.

⏺ Write(hint-segmentation-issue.md)
  ⎿  Wrote 53 lines to hint-segmentation-issue.md
     # Hint Segmentation Mismatch Issue
     ## Problem Description
     There's a mismatch between how the frontend segments text for clickable words and how the backend generates hints. This causes hint unlocking to fail when the segments don't match exactly.
     ## Example Case
     **Original Text**: "Hello! Nice weather, isn't it?"
     … +43 lines (ctrl+r to expand)

⏺ consult-llm:consult_llm (MCP)(model: "gemini-2.5-pro", files: ["/project/hint -segmentation-issue.md","/project/web/src/components/HintsText.tsx","/project/web/src/utils/hints.ts","/project/server/src/routes/public/hints.ts","/project/server/src/llm/hints.ts"])
  ⎿ An excellent analysis of the problem. The root cause has been correctly identified: a race condition within the `handleConfirmGenerateHints` function in `HintsText.tsx`. The component state updates in the background after `await generateHints()`, but the function continues executing with a stale `activeSegment` variable, causing it to request a hint for a smaller text segment ( e.g., "isn't") instead of the full, newly - available hint phrase (e.g., "isn't it").
    … +607 lines (ctrl+r to expand)

⏺ Perfect! The LLM identified the core issue - there's a race condition in handleConfirmGenerateHints where the function uses stale state after async operations. The solution is to re - target the hint key after generation to find the correct matching hint.

  Let me implement this solution:

⏺ Update Todos
  ⎿  ☐ Fix hint segmentation mismatch by implementing smarter hint key targeting in handleConfirmGenerateHints

⏺ Fixed! Added nil checks for both node and child and updated the iter_matches call to handle the newer API properly.

> Still not working:

  E5108: Error executing lua /Users/raine/code/testonly.nvim/lua/testonly.lua:92: attempt to call method 'child' (a nil value)
  stack traceback:
          /Users/raine/code/testonly.nvim/lua/testonly.lua:92: in function 'reset_all_exclusive'
          /Users/raine/code/testonly.nvim/lua/testonly.lua:110: in function 'reset_all_exclusive'
          [string ":lua"]:1: in main chunk

  Ask gemini

⏺ Let me consult with a more powerful AI to understand the current Neovim treesitter API changes:

⏺ consult-llm:consult_llm (MCP)(prompt: "I'm debugging a Neovim plugin that's broken due to treesitter API changes. The error is \"attempt to call method 'child' (a nil value)\" on line 92. The code is trying to access child nodes from treesitter matches but the API seems to have changed in newer Neovim versions.\n\nHere's the problematic code:\n```lua\nfor _, match, _ in parsed_query:iter_matches(root, bufnr, start_row, end_row) do\n    for id, node in pairs(match) do\n        local name = parsed_query.captures[id]\n        if name == \"call\" and node then\n            local child = node:child(0)  -- ERROR HERE\n            if child then\n                local text = vim.treesitter.get_node_text(child, bufnr)\n                -- ... rest of logic\n            end\n        end\n    end\nend\n```\n\nWhat's the correct way to iterate over treesitter query matches and access child nodes in current Neovim versions? What API changes should I be aware of?", files: ["/Users/raine/code/testonly.nvim/lua/testonly.lua"])
  ⎿  Problem
     -------

     … +93 lines (ctrl+r to expand)

⏺ Perfect! The issue is that iter_matches() can return nil nodes in the match table. Let me fix this by switching to the recommended iter_captures() approach:

⏺ Update(lua/testonly.lua)
  ⎿  Updated lua/testonly.lua with 7 additions and 10 removals
       85      local root = parser:parse()[1]:root()
       86      local start_row, _, end_row, _ = root:range()
       87
       88 -    for _, match, _ in parsed_query:iter_matches(root, bufnr, start_row, end_row) do
       89 -      for id, node in pairs(match) do
       90 -        local name = parsed_query.captures[id]
       91 -        if name == "call" and node then
       92 -          local child = node:child(0)
       93 -          if child then
       94 -            local text = vim.treesitter.get_node_text(child, bufnr)
       88 +    for id, node, _ in parsed_query:iter_captures(root, bufnr, start_row, end_row) do
       89 +      if parsed_query.captures[id] == "call" then
       90 +        local first_child = node:named_child(0)
       91 +        if first_child then
       92 +          local text = vim.treesitter.get_node_text(first_child, bufnr)
       93
       94 -            if text == "it.only" or text == "describe.only" then
       95 -              toggle_test_exclusive(child)
       96 -            end
       94 +          if text == "it.only" or text == "describe.only" then
       95 +            toggle_test_exclusive(first_child)
       96            end
       97          end
       98        end

⏺ Fixed! The key changes:

  1. Switched from iter_matches() to iter_captures() which never returns nil nodes.
  2. Used named_child(0) instead of child(0) to get only meaningful syntax nodes (not punctuation).
  3. Simplified the iteration logic since iter_captures() directly gives us the node and capture ID.

  Your <leader>tr mapping should now work properly with the current Neovim treesitter API.

[2025-06-22T20:16:04.673Z] TOOL CALL: consult_llm
Arguments: {
  "files": [
    "refactor-analysis.md",
    "src/main.ts",
    "src/schema.ts",
    "src/config.ts",
    "src/llm.ts",
    "src/llm-cost.ts"
  ],
  "model": "deepseek-reasoner"
}
================================================================================
[2025-06-22T20:16:04.675Z] PROMPT (model: deepseek-reasoner):
## Relevant Files

### File: src/main.ts

...

Please provide specific suggestions for refactoring with example code structure where helpful.
================================================================================
[2025-06-22T20:19:20.632Z] RESPONSE (model: deepseek-reasoner):
Based on the analysis, here are the key refactoring suggestions to improve separation of concerns and maintainability:

...

This refactoring maintains all existing functionality while significantly improving maintainability and separation of concerns. The new structure makes it easier to add features like new LLM providers, additional context sources, or alternative prompt formats.

Tokens: 3440 input, 5880 output | Cost: $0.014769 (input: $0.001892, output: $0.012877)