fix tree-sitter install on node 24

[qingliaowu]

What

• Adds a pnpm patch for tree-sitter@0.25.0 so its native binding builds with C++20 instead of C++17.
• Records the patched dependency in the lockfile.
• Adds a Node 24 install CI job to cover the reported install regression.

Why

Fixes #7.

Node 24 V8 headers require C++20, but tree-sitter@0.25.0 forces C++17 in binding.gyp. That makes pnpm install fail when the native binding compiles under Node 24.

How

The pnpm patch updates the upstream package build flags for Unix, macOS/Xcode, and Windows/MSVC to C++20. The new CI job runs pnpm install --frozen-lockfile on Node 24 so the install path is checked directly.

Test Plan

• corepack pnpm install --frozen-lockfile on Node v24.10.0 without CXXFLAGS
• corepack pnpm rebuild tree-sitter on Node v24.10.0 without CXXFLAGS
• node --test packages/parser-tree-sitter/bindings/node/*_test.js
• corepack pnpm --filter @agentscript/parser test
• corepack pnpm exec prettier --check .github/workflows/ci.yml package.json pnpm-lock.yaml
• corepack pnpm --filter @agentscript/parser-tree-sitter test (local machine is missing the external tree-sitter CLI; its Node binding subtest passed)

Checklist

• My code follows the project's coding style
• I have reviewed my own diff
• I have added/updated documentation as needed
• This change does not introduce new warnings

[awli]

Hi @qingliaowu, thanks for this contribution!

The lack of default compatibility with C++20 in tree-sitter has bugged me for a while, so thanks for looking at this.

Could you let me know your thoughts about whether it's ok to use patchedDependencies like this in a way that doesn't allow us to use just bare npm? Do you think that will be an issue?

[qingliaowu]

@awli

Hi @qingliaowu, thanks for this contribution!

The lack of default compatibility with C++20 in tree-sitter has bugged me for a while, so thanks for looking at this.

Could you let me know your thoughts about whether it's ok to use patchedDependencies like this in a way that doesn't allow us to use just bare npm? Do you think that will be an issue?

Thanks for raising that. I agree bare npm compatibility is worth thinking about.

I checked whether we could avoid the pnpm-only patch. There is not a newer published tree-sitter npm release yet, but upstream has moved toward conditional C++ standard handling in binding.gyp. I updated this PR’s patch to follow that upstream-style logic instead of forcing C++20 unconditionally.

Given this repo already standardizes on pnpm via packageManager, pnpm-lock.yaml, and CI, I think patchedDependencies is acceptable as a temporary workaround. The tradeoff is that bare npm install will not consume the patch; for npm users the current workaround remains setting CXXFLAGS=-std=c++20 until tree-sitter publishes a fixed release. Once that release is available, we can drop the patch.