Gmelius

Build me a focused Gmail collaboration workflow for the personal core of Gmelius. Requirements:

- Use exactly this stack: Tauri 2 + React + TypeScript + SQLite. Model mail accounts, message IDs, threads, folders, and pending actions; keep stable source IDs and timestamps.
- Paid product context: Shared inboxes, sequences, and workflow automation inside Gmail. Build only this DIY scope: Build a local email companion for Gmail collaboration that works on exported mail or one user-authorized IMAP account.
- For Gmail collaboration, connect one user-authorized mailbox or import an exported message set.
- Index message IDs, threading headers, and folders; apply the one requested compose or triage action.
- Show a message list with pending, sent, failed, and synchronized states.
- Use a desktop window with source import, a work list, and result export. Required input or access: IMAP or Gmail OAuth credentials where supported; secure local keychain access. Keep credentials in .env.
- Acceptance: with one labelled sample, show the input, saved intermediate state, and exported result; verify this invariant: A reconnect must not duplicate mail; after an ambiguous send response, retain pending status until the provider confirms it.
- Out of scope: team routing and shared inbox rules; abuse response and security operations. Keep this a personal, inspectable workflow.
- Include a README with setup, a sample input, required keys or permissions, data location, and the supported scope.

# AGENTS.md — Build guide for Gmelius

## Project scope
Build a local email companion for Gmail collaboration that works on exported mail or one user-authorized IMAP account.

Catalogue verdict: no. Do not mistake the interface for the product. Gmelius's durable value is deliverability, security, integration, which a solo one-shot build cannot reproduce responsibly. The prompt therefore builds only the closest honest personal consolation tool.
Use the implementation prompt below to define the deliverable. Complete each phase's acceptance checks before extending the scope.

## Working agreement
- Inspect the repository and its existing instructions before choosing paths, dependencies or commands. Keep one coherent stack and explain changes to the proposed architecture.
- Plan a vertical slice that accepts a real input and produces the useful output described below. Persist only the state the prompt calls for; respect memory-only and upstream-managed workflows. Use fixtures only when they are clearly labelled.
- After scaffolding, document the actual install, development, check and build commands in README and keep them synchronized with the package or project manifest. Do not report commands as successful unless they ran.
- Work in small steps. At handoff, list implemented flows, checks actually performed, remaining blockers, and any credentials or provider setup the owner must supply.
- Do not publish, spend money, contact customers, delete source data or run irreversible migrations without the project owner's authorization.

## Prerequisites
- desktop development machine
- IMAP or Gmail OAuth credentials where supported
- secure local keychain access
- Explicit README warning that this is a consolation build, not a production replacement

## Stack and architecture
- Use exactly this stack: Tauri 2 + React + TypeScript + SQLite.
- Model mail accounts, message IDs, threads, folders, and pending actions; keep stable source IDs and timestamps.
- Interface for this Gmail collaboration workflow: a desktop window with source import, a work list, and result export.

## Security and data integrity
- A reconnect must not duplicate mail; after an ambiguous send response, retain pending status until the provider confirms it.
- Keep API keys and OAuth secrets in .env; redact them from logs, generated files, and error responses.
- State the practical limit: team routing and shared inbox rules.

## Agent implementation rules
- Project rule, data: Model mail accounts, message IDs, threads, folders, and pending actions; keep stable source IDs and timestamps.
- Project rule, behavior: For Gmail collaboration, connect one user-authorized mailbox or import an exported message set.
- Project rule, recovery: A reconnect must not duplicate mail; after an ambiguous send response, retain pending status until the provider confirms it.

## Optional agent skills and references
No installable skill is listed for this guide; use the project rules and the stack documentation.

Read the linked SKILL.md and its dependencies before adding a skill. Select only the skills matching this project's runtime and task; their documentation does not supply API access, credentials or approval to perform external actions. Pin the reviewed revision where the tool supports it. Follow the chosen agent's documented project-level installation mechanism.

## Distribution ideas
These are optional planning notes. Obtain the owner's approval before publishing or contacting anyone.
- Demonstrate this Gmail collaboration operation with sample or user-owned data: For Gmail collaboration, connect one user-authorized mailbox or import an exported message set.
- Show a concrete result or export: Show a message list with pending, sent, failed, and synchronized states.
- State the practical limit: team routing and shared inbox rules.

## Engineering roadmap
1. Phase 1, architecture and data: Use exactly this stack: Tauri 2 + React + TypeScript + SQLite. Model mail accounts, message IDs, threads, folders, and pending actions; keep stable source IDs and timestamps.
2. Phase 2, implement: For Gmail collaboration, connect one user-authorized mailbox or import an exported message set.
3. Phase 3, implement: Index message IDs, threading headers, and folders; apply the one requested compose or triage action.
4. Phase 4, review and output: Show a message list with pending, sent, failed, and synchronized states.
5. Phase 5, recovery and acceptance: Verify this invariant with a saved fixture: A reconnect must not duplicate mail; after an ambiguous send response, retain pending status until the provider confirms it. State the practical limit: team routing and shared inbox rules.

## Paid-product capabilities outside this build
- team routing and shared inbox rules
- abuse response and security operations
- provider-grade deliverability
- push reliability across devices

## Implementation prompt
Build me a focused Gmail collaboration workflow for the personal core of Gmelius. Requirements:

- Use exactly this stack: Tauri 2 + React + TypeScript + SQLite. Model mail accounts, message IDs, threads, folders, and pending actions; keep stable source IDs and timestamps.
- Paid product context: Shared inboxes, sequences, and workflow automation inside Gmail. Build only this DIY scope: Build a local email companion for Gmail collaboration that works on exported mail or one user-authorized IMAP account.
- For Gmail collaboration, connect one user-authorized mailbox or import an exported message set.
- Index message IDs, threading headers, and folders; apply the one requested compose or triage action.
- Show a message list with pending, sent, failed, and synchronized states.
- Use a desktop window with source import, a work list, and result export. Required input or access: IMAP or Gmail OAuth credentials where supported; secure local keychain access. Keep credentials in .env.
- Acceptance: with one labelled sample, show the input, saved intermediate state, and exported result; verify this invariant: A reconnect must not duplicate mail; after an ambiguous send response, retain pending status until the provider confirms it.
- Out of scope: team routing and shared inbox rules; abuse response and security operations. Keep this a personal, inspectable workflow.
- Include a README with setup, a sample input, required keys or permissions, data location, and the supported scope.

## Completion evidence
Demonstrate the prompt's acceptance scenarios against the scoped workflow. Include setup from a clean checkout and failure recovery. Check persistence across restart and export/restore only for the state the prompt says to store; for memory-only tools, confirm that temporary content is discarded as specified. Record actual results and remaining limitations. A detailed plan alone does not establish a working replacement.