diff --git a/.claude/skills/brainstorming/SKILL.md b/.claude/skills/brainstorming/SKILL.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..914d407 --- /dev/null +++ b/.claude/skills/brainstorming/SKILL.md @@ -0,0 +1,161 @@ +--- +name: brainstorming +description: "You MUST use this before any creative work - creating features, building components, adding functionality, or modifying behavior. Explores user intent, requirements and design before implementation." +--- + +# Brainstorming Ideas Into Designs + +Help turn ideas into fully formed designs and specs through natural collaborative dialogue. + +Start by understanding the current project context, then ask questions one at a time to refine the idea. Once you understand what you're building, present the design and get user approval. + + +Do NOT invoke any implementation skill, write any code, scaffold any project, or take any implementation action until you have presented a design and the user has approved it. This applies to EVERY project regardless of perceived simplicity. + + +## Anti-Pattern: "This Is Too Simple To Need A Design" + +Every project goes through this process. A todo list, a single-function utility, a config change — all of them. "Simple" projects are where unexamined assumptions cause the most wasted work. The design can be short (a few sentences for truly simple projects), but you MUST present it and get approval. + +## Checklist + +You MUST create a task for each of these items and complete them in order: + +1. **Explore project context** — check files, docs, recent commits +2. **Offer visual companion** (if topic will involve visual questions) — this is its own message, not combined with a clarifying question. See the Visual Companion section below. +3. **Ask clarifying questions** — one at a time, understand purpose/constraints/success criteria +4. **Propose 2-3 approaches** — with trade-offs and your recommendation +5. **Present design** — in sections scaled to their complexity, get user approval after each section +6. **Write design doc** — save to `docs/superpowers/specs/YYYY-MM-DD--design.md` and commit +7. **Spec self-review** — quick inline check for placeholders, contradictions, ambiguity, scope (see below) +8. **User reviews written spec** — ask user to review the spec file before proceeding +9. **Transition to implementation** — invoke writing-plans skill to create implementation plan + +## Process Flow + +```dot +digraph brainstorming { + "Explore project context" [shape=box]; + "Visual questions ahead?" [shape=diamond]; + "Offer Visual Companion\n(own message, no other content)" [shape=box]; + "Ask clarifying questions" [shape=box]; + "Propose 2-3 approaches" [shape=box]; + "Present design sections" [shape=box]; + "User approves design?" [shape=diamond]; + "Write design doc" [shape=box]; + "Spec self-review\n(fix inline)" [shape=box]; + "User reviews spec?" [shape=diamond]; + "Invoke writing-plans skill" [shape=doublecircle]; + + "Explore project context" -> "Visual questions ahead?"; + "Visual questions ahead?" -> "Offer Visual Companion\n(own message, no other content)" [label="yes"]; + "Visual questions ahead?" -> "Ask clarifying questions" [label="no"]; + "Offer Visual Companion\n(own message, no other content)" -> "Ask clarifying questions"; + "Ask clarifying questions" -> "Propose 2-3 approaches"; + "Propose 2-3 approaches" -> "Present design sections"; + "Present design sections" -> "User approves design?"; + "User approves design?" -> "Present design sections" [label="no, revise"]; + "User approves design?" -> "Write design doc" [label="yes"]; + "Write design doc" -> "Spec self-review\n(fix inline)"; + "Spec self-review\n(fix inline)" -> "User reviews spec?"; + "User reviews spec?" -> "Write design doc" [label="changes requested"]; + "User reviews spec?" -> "Invoke writing-plans skill" [label="approved"]; +} +``` + +**The terminal state is invoking writing-plans.** Do NOT invoke any other implementation skill. The ONLY skill you invoke after brainstorming is writing-plans. + +## The Process + +**Understanding the idea:** + +- Check out the current project state first (files, docs, recent commits) +- Before asking detailed questions, assess scope: if the request describes multiple independent subsystems, flag this immediately. Don't spend questions refining details of a project that needs to be decomposed first. +- If the project is too large for a single spec, help the user decompose into sub-projects: what are the independent pieces, how do they relate, what order should they be built? Then brainstorm the first sub-project through the normal design flow. +- For appropriately-scoped projects, ask questions one at a time to refine the idea +- Prefer multiple choice questions when possible, but open-ended is fine too +- Only one question per message - if a topic needs more exploration, break it into multiple questions +- Focus on understanding: purpose, constraints, success criteria + +**Exploring approaches:** + +- Propose 2-3 different approaches with trade-offs +- Present options conversationally with your recommendation and reasoning +- Lead with your recommended option and explain why + +**Presenting the design:** + +- Once you believe you understand what you're building, present the design +- Scale each section to its complexity: a few sentences if straightforward, up to 200-300 words if nuanced +- Ask after each section whether it looks right so far +- Cover: architecture, components, data flow, error handling, testing +- Be ready to go back and clarify if something doesn't make sense + +**Design for isolation and clarity:** + +- Break the system into smaller units that each have one clear purpose, communicate through well-defined interfaces, and can be understood and tested independently +- For each unit, you should be able to answer: what does it do, how do you use it, and what does it depend on? +- Can someone understand what a unit does without reading its internals? Can you change the internals without breaking consumers? If not, the boundaries need work. +- Smaller, well-bounded units are also easier to work with — reason better about code you can hold in context at once, and edits are more reliable when files are focused. + +**Working in existing codebases:** + +- Explore the current structure before proposing changes. Follow existing patterns. +- Where existing code has problems that affect the work, include targeted improvements as part of the design. +- Don't propose unrelated refactoring. Stay focused on what serves the current goal. + +## After the Design + +**Documentation:** + +- Write the validated design (spec) to `docs/superpowers/specs/YYYY-MM-DD--design.md` + - (User preferences for spec location override this default) +- Commit the design document to git + +**Spec Self-Review:** +After writing the spec document, look at it with fresh eyes: + +1. **Placeholder scan:** Any "TBD", "TODO", incomplete sections, or vague requirements? Fix them. +2. **Internal consistency:** Do any sections contradict each other? Does the architecture match the feature descriptions? +3. **Scope check:** Is this focused enough for a single implementation plan, or does it need decomposition? +4. **Ambiguity check:** Could any requirement be interpreted two different ways? If so, pick one and make it explicit. + +Fix any issues inline. No need to re-review — just fix and move on. + +**User Review Gate:** +After the spec review loop passes, ask the user to review the written spec before proceeding: + +> "Spec written and committed to ``. Please review it and let me know if you want to make any changes before we start writing out the implementation plan." + +Wait for the user's response. If they request changes, make them and re-run the spec review loop. Only proceed once the user approves. + +**Implementation:** + +- Invoke the writing-plans skill to create a detailed implementation plan +- Do NOT invoke any other skill. writing-plans is the next step. + +## Key Principles + +- **One question at a time** - Don't overwhelm with multiple questions +- **Multiple choice preferred** - Easier to answer than open-ended when possible +- **YAGNI ruthlessly** - Remove unnecessary features from all designs +- **Explore alternatives** - Always propose 2-3 approaches before settling +- **Incremental validation** - Present design, get approval before moving on +- **Be flexible** - Go back and clarify when something doesn't make sense + +## Visual Companion + +A browser-based companion for showing mockups, diagrams, and visual options during brainstorming. Available as a tool — not a mode. Accepting the companion means it's available for questions that benefit from visual treatment; it does NOT mean every question goes through the browser. + +**Offering the companion:** When you anticipate that upcoming questions will involve visual content (mockups, layouts, diagrams), offer it once for consent: +> "Some of what we're working on might be easier to explain if I can show it to you in a web browser. I can put together mockups, diagrams, comparisons, and other visuals as we go. This feature is still new and can be token-intensive. Want to try it? (Requires opening a local URL)" + +**This offer MUST be its own message.** Do not combine it with clarifying questions, context summaries, or any other content. Wait for the user's response before continuing. If they decline, proceed with text-only brainstorming. + +**Per-question decision:** Even after the user accepts, decide FOR EACH QUESTION whether to use the browser or the terminal. The test: **would the user understand this better by seeing it than reading it?** + +- **Use the browser** for content that IS visual — mockups, wireframes, layout comparisons, architecture diagrams, side-by-side visual designs +- **Use the terminal** for content that is text — requirements questions, conceptual choices, tradeoff lists, A/B/C/D text options, scope decisions + +If they agree to the companion, read the detailed guide before proceeding: +`skills/brainstorming/visual-companion.md` diff --git a/.claude/skills/brainstorming/spec-document-reviewer-prompt.md b/.claude/skills/brainstorming/spec-document-reviewer-prompt.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..35acbb6 --- /dev/null +++ b/.claude/skills/brainstorming/spec-document-reviewer-prompt.md @@ -0,0 +1,49 @@ +# Spec Document Reviewer Prompt Template + +Use this template when dispatching a spec document reviewer subagent. + +**Purpose:** Verify the spec is complete, consistent, and ready for implementation planning. + +**Dispatch after:** Spec document is written to docs/superpowers/specs/ + +``` +Task tool (general-purpose): + description: "Review spec document" + prompt: | + You are a spec document reviewer. Verify this spec is complete and ready for planning. + + **Spec to review:** [SPEC_FILE_PATH] + + ## What to Check + + | Category | What to Look For | + |----------|------------------| + | Completeness | TODOs, placeholders, "TBD", incomplete sections | + | Consistency | Internal contradictions, conflicting requirements | + | Clarity | Requirements ambiguous enough to cause someone to build the wrong thing | + | Scope | Focused enough for a single plan — not covering multiple independent subsystems | + | YAGNI | Unrequested features, over-engineering | + + ## Calibration + + **Only flag issues that would cause real problems during implementation planning.** + A missing section, a contradiction, or a requirement so ambiguous it could be + interpreted two different ways — those are issues. Minor wording improvements, + stylistic preferences, and "sections less detailed than others" are not. + + Approve unless there are serious gaps that would lead to a flawed plan. + + ## Output Format + + ## Spec Review + + **Status:** Approved | Issues Found + + **Issues (if any):** + - [Section X]: [specific issue] - [why it matters for planning] + + **Recommendations (advisory, do not block approval):** + - [suggestions for improvement] +``` + +**Reviewer returns:** Status, Issues (if any), Recommendations diff --git a/.claude/skills/brainstorming/visual-companion.md b/.claude/skills/brainstorming/visual-companion.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..9910fbb --- /dev/null +++ b/.claude/skills/brainstorming/visual-companion.md @@ -0,0 +1,178 @@ +# Visual Companion Guide + +Browser-based visual brainstorming companion for showing mockups, diagrams, and options. + +## When to Use + +Decide per-question, not per-session. The test: "would the user understand this better by seeing it than reading it?" + +**Use the browser** when the content itself is visual: + +- UI mockups — wireframes, layouts, navigation structures, component designs +- Architecture diagrams — system components, data flow, relationship maps +- Side-by-side visual comparisons — comparing two layouts, two color schemes, two design directions +- Design polish — when the question is about look and feel, spacing, visual hierarchy +- Spatial relationships — state machines, flowcharts, entity relationships rendered as diagrams + +**Use the terminal** when the content is text or tabular: + +- Requirements and scope questions — "what does X mean?", "which features are in scope?" +- Conceptual A/B/C choices — picking between approaches described in words +- Tradeoff lists — pros/cons, comparison tables +- Technical decisions — API design, data modeling, architectural approach selection +- Clarifying questions — anything where the answer is words, not a visual preference + +A question *about* a UI topic is not automatically a visual question. "What kind of wizard do you want?" is conceptual — use the terminal. "Which of these wizard layouts feels right?" is visual — use the browser. + +## How It Works + +The server watches a directory for HTML files and serves the newest one to the browser. You write HTML content to `screen_dir`, the user sees it in their browser and can click to select options. Selections are recorded to `state_dir/events` that you read on your next turn. + +**Content fragments vs full documents:** If your HTML file starts with ` +
+

Continuing in terminal...

+
+ ``` + +6. Repeat until done. + +## Writing Content Fragments + +Write just the content that goes inside the page. The server wraps it automatically. + +**Minimal example:** + +```html +

Which layout works better?

+

Consider readability and visual hierarchy

+ +
+
+
A
+
+

Single Column

+

Clean, focused reading experience

+
+
+
+
B
+
+

Two Column

+

Sidebar navigation with main content

+
+
+
+``` + +## CSS Classes Available + +### Options (A/B/C choices) + +```html +
+
+
A
+

Title

Description

+
+
+``` + +**Multi-select:** Add `data-multiselect` to the container. + +### Cards (visual designs) + +```html +
+
+
+

Name

Description

+
+
+``` + +### Mockup container + +```html +
+
Preview: Dashboard Layout
+
+
+``` + +### Split view (side-by-side) + +```html +
+
+
+
+``` + +### Mock elements (wireframe building blocks) + +```html +
Logo | Home | About | Contact
+
Navigation
+
Main content area
+ + +
Placeholder area
+``` + +## Browser Events Format + +```jsonl +{"type":"click","choice":"a","text":"Option A - Simple Layout","timestamp":1706000101} +``` + +The last `choice` event is typically the final selection. + +## Design Tips + +- **Scale fidelity to the question** — wireframes for layout, polish for polish questions +- **Explain the question on each page** — not just "Pick one" +- **Iterate before advancing** — if feedback changes current screen, write a new version +- **2-4 options max** per screen + +## Cleaning Up + +```bash +scripts/stop-server.sh $SESSION_DIR +``` diff --git a/.claude/skills/dispatching-parallel-agents/SKILL.md b/.claude/skills/dispatching-parallel-agents/SKILL.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..3468d47 --- /dev/null +++ b/.claude/skills/dispatching-parallel-agents/SKILL.md @@ -0,0 +1,129 @@ +--- +name: dispatching-parallel-agents +description: Use when facing 2+ independent tasks that can be worked on without shared state or sequential dependencies +--- + +# Dispatching Parallel Agents + +## Overview + +You delegate tasks to specialized agents with isolated context. By precisely crafting their instructions and context, you ensure they stay focused and succeed at their task. They should never inherit your session's context or history — you construct exactly what they need. This also preserves your own context for coordination work. + +When you have multiple unrelated failures (different test files, different subsystems, different bugs), investigating them sequentially wastes time. Each investigation is independent and can happen in parallel. + +**Core principle:** Dispatch one agent per independent problem domain. Let them work concurrently. + +## When to Use + +**Use when:** +- 3+ test files failing with different root causes +- Multiple subsystems broken independently +- Each problem can be understood without context from others +- No shared state between investigations + +**Don't use when:** +- Failures are related (fix one might fix others) +- Need to understand full system state to diagnose +- Agents would interfere with each other (editing same files) +- Exploratory debugging — you don't know what's broken yet + +## The Pattern + +### 1. Identify Independent Domains + +Group failures by what's broken: +- File A tests: Tool approval flow +- File B tests: Batch completion behavior +- File C tests: Abort functionality + +Each domain is independent — fixing tool approval doesn't affect abort tests. + +### 2. Create Focused Agent Tasks + +Each agent gets: +- **Specific scope:** One test file or subsystem +- **Clear goal:** Make these tests pass +- **Constraints:** Don't change other code +- **Expected output:** Summary of root cause and changes + +### 3. Dispatch in Parallel + +```typescript +// In Claude Code — dispatch all agents in a single message +Task("Fix agent-tool-abort.test.ts failures") +Task("Fix batch-completion-behavior.test.ts failures") +Task("Fix tool-approval-race-conditions.test.ts failures") +// All three run concurrently +``` + +### 4. Review and Integrate + +When agents return: +- Read each summary +- Verify fixes don't conflict +- Run full test suite +- Integrate all changes + +## Agent Prompt Structure + +Good agent prompts are: +1. **Focused** — one clear problem domain +2. **Self-contained** — all context needed is included +3. **Specific about output** — what should the agent return? + +```markdown +Fix the 3 failing tests in src/agents/agent-tool-abort.test.ts: + +1. "should abort tool with partial output capture" — expects 'interrupted at' in message +2. "should handle mixed completed and aborted tools" — fast tool aborted instead of completed +3. "should properly track pendingToolCount" — expects 3 results but gets 0 + +These are timing/race condition issues. Your task: + +1. Read the test file and understand what each test verifies +2. Identify root cause — timing issues or actual bugs? +3. Fix using event-based waiting, not arbitrary timeouts + +Do NOT just increase timeouts — find the real issue. + +Return: Summary of what you found and what you fixed. +``` + +## Common Mistakes + +**❌ Too broad:** "Fix all the tests" — agent gets lost +**✅ Specific:** "Fix agent-tool-abort.test.ts" — focused scope + +**❌ No context:** "Fix the race condition" — agent doesn't know where +**✅ Context:** Paste the error messages and test names + +**❌ No constraints:** Agent might refactor everything +**✅ Constraints:** "Do NOT change production code" or "Fix tests only" + +**❌ Vague output:** "Fix it" +**✅ Specific:** "Return summary of root cause and changes" + +## Verification + +After agents return: +1. **Review each summary** — understand what changed +2. **Check for conflicts** — did agents edit same code? +3. **Run full suite** — verify all fixes work together +4. **Spot check** — agents can make systematic errors + +## Key Benefits + +1. **Parallelization** — multiple investigations happen simultaneously +2. **Focus** — each agent has narrow scope, less context to track +3. **Independence** — agents don't interfere with each other +4. **Speed** — 3 problems solved in time of 1 + +## Real-World Example + +**Scenario:** 6 test failures across 3 files after major refactoring + +- Agent 1 → Fix `agent-tool-abort.test.ts` (timing issues) +- Agent 2 → Fix `batch-completion-behavior.test.ts` (event structure bug) +- Agent 3 → Fix `tool-approval-race-conditions.test.ts` (async execution) + +**Result:** All fixes independent, no conflicts, full suite green. 3 problems solved in parallel. diff --git a/.claude/skills/executing-plans/SKILL.md b/.claude/skills/executing-plans/SKILL.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..da84725 --- /dev/null +++ b/.claude/skills/executing-plans/SKILL.md @@ -0,0 +1,71 @@ +--- +name: executing-plans +description: Use when you have a written implementation plan to execute in a separate session with review checkpoints +--- + +# Executing Plans + +## Overview + +Load plan, review critically, execute all tasks, report when complete. + +**Announce at start:** "I'm using the executing-plans skill to implement this plan." + +**Note:** Superpowers works much better with access to subagents. The quality will be significantly higher if run on a platform with subagent support (such as Claude Code or Codex). If subagents are available, use `superpowers:subagent-driven-development` instead. + +## The Process + +### Step 1: Load and Review Plan + +1. Read plan file +2. Review critically — identify any questions or concerns about the plan +3. If concerns: Raise them with your human partner before starting +4. If no concerns: Create TodoWrite and proceed + +### Step 2: Execute Tasks + +For each task: +1. Mark as in_progress +2. Follow each step exactly (plan has bite-sized steps) +3. Run verifications as specified +4. Mark as completed + +### Step 3: Complete Development + +After all tasks complete and verified: +- Announce: "I'm using the finishing-a-development-branch skill to complete this work." +- **REQUIRED SUB-SKILL:** Use superpowers:finishing-a-development-branch +- Follow that skill to verify tests, present options, execute choice + +## When to Stop and Ask for Help + +**STOP executing immediately when:** +- Hit a blocker (missing dependency, test fails, instruction unclear) +- Plan has critical gaps preventing starting +- You don't understand an instruction +- Verification fails repeatedly + +**Ask for clarification rather than guessing.** + +## When to Revisit Earlier Steps + +**Return to Review (Step 1) when:** +- Partner updates the plan based on your feedback +- Fundamental approach needs rethinking + +**Don't force through blockers** — stop and ask. + +## Remember +- Review plan critically first +- Follow plan steps exactly +- Don't skip verifications +- Reference skills when plan says to +- Stop when blocked, don't guess +- Never start implementation on main/master branch without explicit user consent + +## Integration + +**Required workflow skills:** +- **superpowers:using-git-worktrees** — Ensures isolated workspace +- **superpowers:writing-plans** — Creates the plan this skill executes +- **superpowers:finishing-a-development-branch** — Complete development after all tasks diff --git a/.claude/skills/finishing-a-development-branch/SKILL.md b/.claude/skills/finishing-a-development-branch/SKILL.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..54774b5 --- /dev/null +++ b/.claude/skills/finishing-a-development-branch/SKILL.md @@ -0,0 +1,202 @@ +--- +name: finishing-a-development-branch +description: Use when implementation is complete, all tests pass, and you need to decide how to integrate the work - guides completion of development work by presenting structured options for merge, PR, or cleanup +--- + +# Finishing a Development Branch + +## Overview + +Guide completion of development work by presenting clear options and handling chosen workflow. + +**Core principle:** Verify tests → Detect environment → Present options → Execute choice → Clean up. + +**Announce at start:** "I'm using the finishing-a-development-branch skill to complete this work." + +## The Process + +### Step 1: Verify Tests + +**Before presenting options, verify tests pass:** + +```bash +npm test # or project-appropriate test command +``` + +**If tests fail:** +``` +Tests failing ( failures). Must fix before completing: + +[Show failures] + +Cannot proceed with merge/PR until tests pass. +``` + +Stop. Don't proceed to Step 2. + +**If tests pass:** Continue to Step 2. + +### Step 2: Detect Environment + +**Determine workspace state before presenting options:** + +```bash +GIT_DIR=$(cd "$(git rev-parse --git-dir)" 2>/dev/null && pwd -P) +GIT_COMMON=$(cd "$(git rev-parse --git-common-dir)" 2>/dev/null && pwd -P) +``` + +| State | Menu | Cleanup | +|-------|------|---------| +| `GIT_DIR == GIT_COMMON` (normal repo) | Standard 4 options | No worktree to clean up | +| `GIT_DIR != GIT_COMMON`, named branch | Standard 4 options | Provenance-based | +| `GIT_DIR != GIT_COMMON`, detached HEAD | Reduced 3 options (no merge) | No cleanup (externally managed) | + +### Step 3: Determine Base Branch + +```bash +git merge-base HEAD main 2>/dev/null || git merge-base HEAD master 2>/dev/null +``` + +### Step 4: Present Options + +**Normal repo and named-branch worktree — exactly 4 options:** + +``` +Implementation complete. What would you like to do? + +1. Merge back to locally +2. Push and create a Pull Request +3. Keep the branch as-is (I'll handle it later) +4. Discard this work + +Which option? +``` + +**Detached HEAD — exactly 3 options:** + +``` +Implementation complete. You're on a detached HEAD (externally managed workspace). + +1. Push as new branch and create a Pull Request +2. Keep as-is (I'll handle it later) +3. Discard this work + +Which option? +``` + +### Step 5: Execute Choice + +#### Option 1: Merge Locally + +```bash +MAIN_ROOT=$(git -C "$(git rev-parse --git-common-dir)/.." rev-parse --show-toplevel) +cd "$MAIN_ROOT" + +git checkout +git pull +git merge + +# Verify tests on merged result +npm test +``` + +Then: Cleanup worktree (Step 6), then delete branch: +```bash +git branch -d +``` + +#### Option 2: Push and Create PR + +```bash +git push -u origin + +gh pr create --title "" --body "$(cat <<'EOF' +## Summary +<2-3 bullets of what changed> + +## Test Plan +- [ ] <verification steps> +EOF +)" +``` + +**Do NOT clean up worktree** — user needs it alive to iterate on PR feedback. + +#### Option 3: Keep As-Is + +Report: "Keeping branch `<name>`. Worktree preserved at `<path>`." + +**Don't cleanup worktree.** + +#### Option 4: Discard + +**Confirm first:** +``` +This will permanently delete: +- Branch <name> +- All commits: <commit-list> +- Worktree at <path> + +Type 'discard' to confirm. +``` + +Wait for exact "discard" confirmation before proceeding. + +### Step 6: Cleanup Workspace + +**Only runs for Options 1 and 4.** Options 2 and 3 always preserve the worktree. + +```bash +WORKTREE_PATH=$(git rev-parse --show-toplevel) +``` + +**If `GIT_DIR == GIT_COMMON`:** Normal repo, no worktree to clean up. Done. + +**If worktree path is under `.worktrees/`, `worktrees/`, or `~/.config/superpowers/worktrees/`:** Superpowers created this worktree — we own cleanup. + +```bash +MAIN_ROOT=$(git -C "$(git rev-parse --git-common-dir)/.." rev-parse --show-toplevel) +cd "$MAIN_ROOT" +git worktree remove "$WORKTREE_PATH" +git worktree prune +``` + +**Otherwise:** The host environment owns this workspace. Do NOT remove it. + +## Quick Reference + +| Option | Merge | Push | Keep Worktree | Cleanup Branch | +|--------|-------|------|---------------|----------------| +| 1. Merge locally | yes | - | - | yes | +| 2. Create PR | - | yes | yes | - | +| 3. Keep as-is | - | - | yes | - | +| 4. Discard | - | - | - | yes (force) | + +## Common Mistakes + +- **Skipping test verification** — always verify before offering options +- **Cleaning up worktree for Option 2** — user needs it for PR iteration +- **Deleting branch before removing worktree** — `git branch -d` fails when worktree references it +- **Running `git worktree remove` from inside the worktree** — always `cd` to main repo root first +- **Cleaning up harness-owned worktrees** — only clean up Superpowers-created worktrees +- **No confirmation for discard** — require typed "discard" + +## Red Flags + +**Never:** +- Proceed with failing tests +- Merge without verifying tests on result +- Delete work without typed confirmation +- Force-push without explicit request +- Remove worktree before confirming merge success +- Clean up worktrees you didn't create +- Run `git worktree remove` from inside the worktree + +**Always:** +- Verify tests before offering options +- Detect environment before presenting menu +- Present exactly 4 options (or 3 for detached HEAD) +- Get typed "discard" confirmation for Option 4 +- Clean up worktree for Options 1 & 4 only +- `cd` to main repo root before worktree removal +- Run `git worktree prune` after removal diff --git a/.claude/skills/receiving-code-review/SKILL.md b/.claude/skills/receiving-code-review/SKILL.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..6b9198a --- /dev/null +++ b/.claude/skills/receiving-code-review/SKILL.md @@ -0,0 +1,192 @@ +--- +name: receiving-code-review +description: Use when receiving code review feedback, before implementing suggestions, especially if feedback seems unclear or technically questionable - requires technical rigor and verification, not performative agreement or blind implementation +--- + +# Code Review Reception + +## Overview + +Code review requires technical evaluation, not emotional performance. + +**Core principle:** Verify before implementing. Ask before assuming. Technical correctness over social comfort. + +## The Response Pattern + +``` +WHEN receiving code review feedback: + +1. READ: Complete feedback without reacting +2. UNDERSTAND: Restate requirement in own words (or ask) +3. VERIFY: Check against codebase reality +4. EVALUATE: Technically sound for THIS codebase? +5. RESPOND: Technical acknowledgment or reasoned pushback +6. IMPLEMENT: One item at a time, test each +``` + +## Forbidden Responses + +**NEVER:** +- "You're absolutely right!" (performative agreement) +- "Great point!" / "Excellent feedback!" +- "Let me implement that now" (before verification) + +**INSTEAD:** +- Restate the technical requirement +- Ask clarifying questions +- Push back with technical reasoning if wrong +- Just start working (actions > words) + +## Handling Unclear Feedback + +``` +IF any item is unclear: + STOP - do not implement anything yet + ASK for clarification on unclear items + +WHY: Items may be related. Partial understanding = wrong implementation. +``` + +**Example:** +``` +Partner: "Fix 1-6" +You understand 1,2,3,6. Unclear on 4,5. + +❌ WRONG: Implement 1,2,3,6 now, ask about 4,5 later +✅ RIGHT: "I understand items 1,2,3,6. Need clarification on 4 and 5 before proceeding." +``` + +## Source-Specific Handling + +### From your human partner +- **Trusted** — implement after understanding +- **Still ask** if scope unclear +- **No performative agreement** +- **Skip to action** or technical acknowledgment + +### From External Reviewers +``` +BEFORE implementing: + 1. Check: Technically correct for THIS codebase? + 2. Check: Breaks existing functionality? + 3. Check: Reason for current implementation? + 4. Check: Works on all platforms/versions? + 5. Check: Does reviewer understand full context? + +IF suggestion seems wrong: + Push back with technical reasoning + +IF conflicts with prior decisions: + Stop and discuss with your human partner first +``` + +## YAGNI Check for "Professional" Features + +``` +IF reviewer suggests "implementing properly": + grep codebase for actual usage + + IF unused: "This endpoint isn't called. Remove it (YAGNI)?" + IF used: Then implement properly +``` + +## Implementation Order + +``` +FOR multi-item feedback: + 1. Clarify anything unclear FIRST + 2. Then implement in this order: + - Blocking issues (breaks, security) + - Simple fixes (typos, imports) + - Complex fixes (refactoring, logic) + 3. Test each fix individually + 4. Verify no regressions +``` + +## When To Push Back + +Push back when: +- Suggestion breaks existing functionality +- Reviewer lacks full context +- Violates YAGNI (unused feature) +- Technically incorrect for this stack +- Legacy/compatibility reasons exist +- Conflicts with architectural decisions + +**How to push back:** +- Use technical reasoning, not defensiveness +- Ask specific questions +- Reference working tests/code +- Involve your human partner if architectural + +## Acknowledging Correct Feedback + +When feedback IS correct: +``` +✅ "Fixed. [Brief description of what changed]" +✅ "Good catch - [specific issue]. Fixed in [location]." +✅ [Just fix it and show in the code] + +❌ "You're absolutely right!" +❌ "Great point!" +❌ "Thanks for catching that!" +❌ ANY gratitude expression +``` + +**Why no thanks:** Actions speak. Just fix it. The code itself shows you heard the feedback. + +## Gracefully Correcting Your Pushback + +If you pushed back and were wrong: +``` +✅ "You were right - I checked [X] and it does [Y]. Implementing now." +✅ "Verified this and you're correct. My initial understanding was wrong because [reason]. Fixing." + +❌ Long apology +❌ Defending why you pushed back +``` + +State the correction factually and move on. + +## Common Mistakes + +| Mistake | Fix | +|---------|-----| +| Performative agreement | State requirement or just act | +| Blind implementation | Verify against codebase first | +| Batch without testing | One at a time, test each | +| Assuming reviewer is right | Check if breaks things | +| Avoiding pushback | Technical correctness > comfort | +| Partial implementation | Clarify all items first | + +## Real Examples + +**Performative Agreement (Bad):** +``` +Reviewer: "Remove legacy code" +❌ "You're absolutely right! Let me remove that..." +``` + +**Technical Verification (Good):** +``` +Reviewer: "Remove legacy code" +✅ "Checking... build target is 10.15+, this API needs 13+. Need legacy for backward compat. Current impl has wrong bundle ID - fix it or drop pre-13 support?" +``` + +**YAGNI (Good):** +``` +Reviewer: "Implement proper metrics tracking with database, date filters, CSV export" +✅ "Grepped codebase - nothing calls this endpoint. Remove it (YAGNI)? Or is there usage I'm missing?" +``` + +## GitHub Thread Replies + +When replying to inline review comments on GitHub, reply in the comment thread, not as a top-level PR comment. + +## The Bottom Line + +**External feedback = suggestions to evaluate, not orders to follow.** + +Verify. Question. Then implement. + +No performative agreement. Technical rigor always. diff --git a/.claude/skills/requesting-code-review/SKILL.md b/.claude/skills/requesting-code-review/SKILL.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..21a6944 --- /dev/null +++ b/.claude/skills/requesting-code-review/SKILL.md @@ -0,0 +1,99 @@ +--- +name: requesting-code-review +description: Use when completing tasks, implementing major features, or before merging to verify work meets requirements +--- + +# Requesting Code Review + +Dispatch a code reviewer subagent to catch issues before they cascade. The reviewer gets precisely crafted context for evaluation — never your session's history. This keeps the reviewer focused on the work product, not your thought process, and preserves your own context for continued work. + +**Core principle:** Review early, review often. + +## When to Request Review + +**Mandatory:** +- After each task in subagent-driven development +- After completing major feature +- Before merge to main + +**Optional but valuable:** +- When stuck (fresh perspective) +- Before refactoring (baseline check) +- After fixing complex bug + +## How to Request + +**1. Get git SHAs:** +```bash +BASE_SHA=$(git rev-parse HEAD~1) # or origin/main +HEAD_SHA=$(git rev-parse HEAD) +``` + +**2. Dispatch code reviewer subagent:** + +Use Task tool with `general-purpose` type, fill template at `code-reviewer.md` + +**Placeholders:** +- `{DESCRIPTION}` — Brief summary of what you built +- `{PLAN_OR_REQUIREMENTS}` — What it should do (plan file path, task text, or requirements) +- `{BASE_SHA}` — Starting commit +- `{HEAD_SHA}` — Ending commit + +**3. Act on feedback:** +- Fix Critical issues immediately +- Fix Important issues before proceeding +- Note Minor issues for later +- Push back if reviewer is wrong (with reasoning) + +## Example + +``` +[Just completed Task 2: Add verification function] + +BASE_SHA=$(git log --oneline | grep "Task 1" | head -1 | awk '{print $1}') +HEAD_SHA=$(git rev-parse HEAD) + +[Dispatch code reviewer subagent] + DESCRIPTION: Added verifyIndex() and repairIndex() with 4 issue types + PLAN_OR_REQUIREMENTS: Task 2 from docs/superpowers/plans/deployment-plan.md + BASE_SHA: a7981ec + HEAD_SHA: 3df7661 + +[Subagent returns]: + Strengths: Clean architecture, real tests + Issues: + Important: Missing progress indicators + Minor: Magic number (100) for reporting interval + Assessment: Ready to proceed + +[Fix progress indicators] +[Continue to Task 3] +``` + +## Integration with Workflows + +**Subagent-Driven Development:** +- Review after EACH task +- Catch issues before they compound +- Fix before moving to next task + +**Executing Plans:** +- Review after each task or at natural checkpoints + +**Ad-Hoc Development:** +- Review before merge +- Review when stuck + +## Red Flags + +**Never:** +- Skip review because "it's simple" +- Ignore Critical issues +- Proceed with unfixed Important issues +- Argue with valid technical feedback + +**If reviewer wrong:** +- Push back with technical reasoning +- Show code/tests that prove it works + +See template at: `requesting-code-review/code-reviewer.md` diff --git a/.claude/skills/requesting-code-review/code-reviewer.md b/.claude/skills/requesting-code-review/code-reviewer.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..0fdd519 --- /dev/null +++ b/.claude/skills/requesting-code-review/code-reviewer.md @@ -0,0 +1,168 @@ +# Spec Document Reviewer Prompt Template + +Use this template when dispatching a code reviewer subagent. + +**Purpose:** Review completed work against requirements and code quality standards before it cascades into more work. + +``` +Task tool (general-purpose): + description: "Review code changes" + prompt: | + You are a Senior Code Reviewer with expertise in software architecture, + design patterns, and best practices. Your job is to review completed work + against its plan or requirements and identify issues before they cascade. + + ## What Was Implemented + + {DESCRIPTION} + + ## Requirements / Plan + + {PLAN_OR_REQUIREMENTS} + + ## Git Range to Review + + **Base:** {BASE_SHA} + **Head:** {HEAD_SHA} + + ```bash + git diff --stat {BASE_SHA}..{HEAD_SHA} + git diff {BASE_SHA}..{HEAD_SHA} + ``` + + ## What to Check + + **Plan alignment:** + - Does the implementation match the plan / requirements? + - Are deviations justified improvements, or problematic departures? + - Is all planned functionality present? + + **Code quality:** + - Clean separation of concerns? + - Proper error handling? + - Type safety where applicable? + - DRY without premature abstraction? + - Edge cases handled? + + **Architecture:** + - Sound design decisions? + - Reasonable scalability and performance? + - Security concerns? + - Integrates cleanly with surrounding code? + + **Testing:** + - Tests verify real behavior, not mocks? + - Edge cases covered? + - Integration tests where they matter? + - All tests passing? + + **Production readiness:** + - Migration strategy if schema changed? + - Backward compatibility considered? + - Documentation complete? + - No obvious bugs? + + ## Calibration + + Categorize issues by actual severity. Not everything is Critical. + Acknowledge what was done well before listing issues — accurate praise + helps the implementer trust the rest of the feedback. + + If you find significant deviations from the plan, flag them specifically + so the implementer can confirm whether the deviation was intentional. + If you find issues with the plan itself rather than the implementation, + say so. + + ## Output Format + + ### Strengths + [What's well done? Be specific.] + + ### Issues + + #### Critical (Must Fix) + [Bugs, security issues, data loss risks, broken functionality] + + #### Important (Should Fix) + [Architecture problems, missing features, poor error handling, test gaps] + + #### Minor (Nice to Have) + [Code style, optimization opportunities, documentation polish] + + For each issue: + - File:line reference + - What's wrong + - Why it matters + - How to fix (if not obvious) + + ### Recommendations + [Improvements for code quality, architecture, or process] + + ### Assessment + + **Ready to merge?** [Yes | No | With fixes] + + **Reasoning:** [1-2 sentence technical assessment] + + ## Critical Rules + + **DO:** + - Categorize by actual severity + - Be specific (file:line, not vague) + - Explain WHY each issue matters + - Acknowledge strengths + - Give a clear verdict + + **DON'T:** + - Say "looks good" without checking + - Mark nitpicks as Critical + - Give feedback on code you didn't actually read + - Be vague ("improve error handling") + - Avoid giving a clear verdict +``` + +**Placeholders:** +- `{DESCRIPTION}` — brief summary of what was built +- `{PLAN_OR_REQUIREMENTS}` — what it should do (plan file path, task text, or requirements) +- `{BASE_SHA}` — starting commit +- `{HEAD_SHA}` — ending commit + +**Reviewer returns:** Strengths, Issues (Critical / Important / Minor), Recommendations, Assessment + +## Example Output + +``` +### Strengths +- Clean database schema with proper migrations (db.ts:15-42) +- Comprehensive test coverage (18 tests, all edge cases) +- Good error handling with fallbacks (summarizer.ts:85-92) + +### Issues + +#### Important +1. **Missing help text in CLI wrapper** + - File: index-conversations:1-31 + - Issue: No --help flag, users won't discover --concurrency + - Fix: Add --help case with usage examples + +2. **Date validation missing** + - File: search.ts:25-27 + - Issue: Invalid dates silently return no results + - Fix: Validate ISO format, throw error with example + +#### Minor +1. **Progress indicators** + - File: indexer.ts:130 + - Issue: No "X of Y" counter for long operations + - Impact: Users don't know how long to wait + +### Recommendations +- Add progress reporting for user experience +- Consider config file for excluded projects (portability) + +### Assessment + +**Ready to merge: With fixes** + +**Reasoning:** Core implementation is solid with good architecture and tests. Important issues (help text, date validation) are easily fixed and don't affect core functionality. +``` diff --git a/.claude/skills/subagent-driven-development/SKILL.md b/.claude/skills/subagent-driven-development/SKILL.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..af3d2e6 --- /dev/null +++ b/.claude/skills/subagent-driven-development/SKILL.md @@ -0,0 +1,143 @@ +--- +name: subagent-driven-development +description: Use when executing implementation plans with independent tasks in the current session +--- + +# Subagent-Driven Development + +Execute plan by dispatching fresh subagent per task, with two-stage review after each: spec compliance review first, then code quality review. + +**Why subagents:** You delegate tasks to specialized agents with isolated context. By precisely crafting their instructions and context, you ensure they stay focused and succeed at their task. They should never inherit your session's context or history — you construct exactly what they need. This also preserves your own context for coordination work. + +**Core principle:** Fresh subagent per task + two-stage review (spec then quality) = high quality, fast iteration + +**Continuous execution:** Do not pause to check in with your human partner between tasks. Execute all tasks from the plan without stopping. The only reasons to stop are: BLOCKED status you cannot resolve, ambiguity that genuinely prevents progress, or all tasks complete. "Should I continue?" prompts and progress summaries waste their time — they asked you to execute the plan, so execute it. + +## When to Use + +**vs. Executing Plans (parallel session):** +- Same session (no context switch) +- Fresh subagent per task (no context pollution) +- Two-stage review after each task: spec compliance first, then code quality +- Faster iteration (no human-in-loop between tasks) + +## The Process + +### Per Task: + +1. **Dispatch implementer subagent** with full task text + context +2. **If implementer asks questions:** Answer completely before they proceed +3. **Implementer completes:** implements, tests, commits, self-reviews +4. **Dispatch spec reviewer subagent:** confirms code matches spec +5. **If spec issues:** implementer fixes, re-review until spec compliant +6. **Dispatch code quality reviewer subagent** +7. **If quality issues:** implementer fixes, re-review until approved +8. **Mark task complete in TodoWrite** + +### After All Tasks: + +1. Dispatch final code reviewer subagent for entire implementation +2. Use `superpowers:finishing-a-development-branch` + +## Setup + +``` +Read plan, extract ALL tasks with full text, note context, create TodoWrite +``` + +Extract all tasks upfront — don't re-read plan file for each task. Controller curates exactly what context each subagent needs. + +## Model Selection + +Use the least powerful model that can handle each role to conserve cost and increase speed. + +**Mechanical implementation tasks** (isolated functions, clear specs, 1-2 files): use a fast, cheap model. + +**Integration and judgment tasks** (multi-file coordination, pattern matching, debugging): use a standard model. + +**Architecture, design, and review tasks**: use the most capable available model. + +## Handling Implementer Status + +| Status | Action | +|--------|--------| +| DONE | Proceed to spec compliance review | +| DONE_WITH_CONCERNS | Read concerns, address correctness issues, then review | +| NEEDS_CONTEXT | Provide missing context, re-dispatch | +| BLOCKED | Assess blocker: provide context, upgrade model, break task, or escalate | + +**Never** ignore an escalation or force the same model to retry without changes. + +## Example Workflow + +``` +You: I'm using Subagent-Driven Development to execute this plan. + +[Read plan file once] +[Extract all 5 tasks with full text and context] +[Create TodoWrite with all tasks] + +Task 1: Hook installation script + +[Dispatch implementation subagent with full task text + context] + +Implementer: "Before I begin - should the hook be installed at user or system level?" + +You: "User level (~/.config/superpowers/hooks/)" + +Implementer: [Implements, tests, commits, self-reviews] +Status: DONE + +[Dispatch spec compliance reviewer] +Spec reviewer: ✅ Spec compliant - all requirements met + +[Get git SHAs, dispatch code quality reviewer] +Code reviewer: ✅ Approved + +[Mark Task 1 complete] + +Task 2: Recovery modes + +[Dispatch implementation subagent] +Implementer: [Implements] +Status: DONE + +[Dispatch spec compliance reviewer] +Spec reviewer: ❌ Issues: + - Missing: Progress reporting (spec says "report every 100 items") + - Extra: Added --json flag (not requested) + +[Implementer fixes issues] +[Spec reviewer reviews again: ✅] + +[Dispatch code quality reviewer] +Code reviewer: Issues (Important): Magic number (100) + +[Implementer fixes] +[Code reviewer reviews again: ✅] + +[Mark Task 2 complete] +... +``` + +## Red Flags + +**Never:** +- Start implementation on main/master branch without explicit user consent +- Skip reviews (spec compliance OR code quality) +- Proceed with unfixed issues +- Dispatch multiple implementation subagents in parallel (conflicts) +- Make subagent read plan file (provide full text instead) +- Accept "close enough" on spec compliance +- **Start code quality review before spec compliance is ✅** (wrong order) + +## Integration + +**Required workflow skills:** +- **superpowers:using-git-worktrees** — Ensures isolated workspace +- **superpowers:writing-plans** — Creates the plan this skill executes +- **superpowers:requesting-code-review** — Code review template for reviewer subagents +- **superpowers:finishing-a-development-branch** — Complete development after all tasks + +**Subagents should use:** +- **superpowers:test-driven-development** — For each implementation task diff --git a/.claude/skills/systematic-debugging/SKILL.md b/.claude/skills/systematic-debugging/SKILL.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..02bd6bb --- /dev/null +++ b/.claude/skills/systematic-debugging/SKILL.md @@ -0,0 +1,287 @@ +--- +name: systematic-debugging +description: Use when encountering any bug, test failure, or unexpected behavior, before proposing fixes +--- + +# Systematic Debugging + +## Overview + +Random fixes waste time and create new bugs. Quick patches mask underlying issues. + +**Core principle:** ALWAYS find root cause before attempting fixes. Symptom fixes are failure. + +**Violating the letter of this process is violating the spirit of debugging.** + +## The Iron Law + +``` +NO FIXES WITHOUT ROOT CAUSE INVESTIGATION FIRST +``` + +If you haven't completed Phase 1, you cannot propose fixes. + +## When to Use + +Use for ANY technical issue: +- Test failures +- Bugs in production +- Unexpected behavior +- Performance problems +- Build failures +- Integration issues + +**Use this ESPECIALLY when:** +- Under time pressure (emergencies make guessing tempting) +- "Just one quick fix" seems obvious +- You've already tried multiple fixes +- Previous fix didn't work +- You don't fully understand the issue + +**Don't skip when:** +- Issue seems simple (simple bugs have root causes too) +- You're in a hurry (rushing guarantees rework) +- Manager wants it fixed NOW (systematic is faster than thrashing) + +## The Four Phases + +You MUST complete each phase before proceeding to the next. + +### Phase 1: Root Cause Investigation + +**BEFORE attempting ANY fix:** + +1. **Read Error Messages Carefully** + - Don't skip past errors or warnings + - They often contain the exact solution + - Read stack traces completely + - Note line numbers, file paths, error codes + +2. **Reproduce Consistently** + - Can you trigger it reliably? + - What are the exact steps? + - Does it happen every time? + - If not reproducible → gather more data, don't guess + +3. **Check Recent Changes** + - What changed that could cause this? + - Git diff, recent commits + - New dependencies, config changes + - Environmental differences + +4. **Gather Evidence in Multi-Component Systems** + + **WHEN system has multiple components (CI → build → signing, API → service → database):** + + **BEFORE proposing fixes, add diagnostic instrumentation:** + ``` + For EACH component boundary: + - Log what data enters component + - Log what data exits component + - Verify environment/config propagation + - Check state at each layer + + Run once to gather evidence showing WHERE it breaks + THEN analyze evidence to identify failing component + THEN investigate that specific component + ``` + + **Example (multi-layer system):** + ```bash + # Layer 1: Workflow + echo "=== Secrets available in workflow: ===" + echo "IDENTITY: ${IDENTITY:+SET}${IDENTITY:-UNSET}" + + # Layer 2: Build script + echo "=== Env vars in build script: ===" + env | grep IDENTITY || echo "IDENTITY not in environment" + + # Layer 3: Signing script + echo "=== Keychain state: ===" + security list-keychains + security find-identity -v + + # Layer 4: Actual signing + codesign --sign "$IDENTITY" --verbose=4 "$APP" + ``` + + **This reveals:** Which layer fails (secrets → workflow ✓, workflow → build ✗) + +5. **Trace Data Flow** + + **WHEN error is deep in call stack:** + + Quick version: + - Where does bad value originate? + - What called this with bad value? + - Keep tracing up until you find the source + - Fix at source, not at symptom + +### Phase 2: Pattern Analysis + +**Find the pattern before fixing:** + +1. **Find Working Examples** + - Locate similar working code in same codebase + - What works that's similar to what's broken? + +2. **Compare Against References** + - If implementing pattern, read reference implementation COMPLETELY + - Don't skim - read every line + - Understand the pattern fully before applying + +3. **Identify Differences** + - What's different between working and broken? + - List every difference, however small + - Don't assume "that can't matter" + +4. **Understand Dependencies** + - What other components does this need? + - What settings, config, environment? + - What assumptions does it make? + +### Phase 3: Hypothesis and Testing + +**Scientific method:** + +1. **Form Single Hypothesis** + - State clearly: "I think X is the root cause because Y" + - Write it down + - Be specific, not vague + +2. **Test Minimally** + - Make the SMALLEST possible change to test hypothesis + - One variable at a time + - Don't fix multiple things at once + +3. **Verify Before Continuing** + - Did it work? Yes → Phase 4 + - Didn't work? Form NEW hypothesis + - DON'T add more fixes on top + +4. **When You Don't Know** + - Say "I don't understand X" + - Don't pretend to know + - Ask for help + - Research more + +### Phase 4: Implementation + +**Fix the root cause, not the symptom:** + +1. **Create Failing Test Case** + - Simplest possible reproduction + - Automated test if possible + - One-off test script if no framework + - MUST have before fixing + - Use the `superpowers:test-driven-development` skill for writing proper failing tests + +2. **Implement Single Fix** + - Address the root cause identified + - ONE change at a time + - No "while I'm here" improvements + - No bundled refactoring + +3. **Verify Fix** + - Test passes now? + - No other tests broken? + - Issue actually resolved? + +4. **If Fix Doesn't Work** + - STOP + - Count: How many fixes have you tried? + - If < 3: Return to Phase 1, re-analyze with new information + - **If ≥ 3: STOP and question the architecture (step 5 below)** + - DON'T attempt Fix #4 without architectural discussion + +5. **If 3+ Fixes Failed: Question Architecture** + + **Pattern indicating architectural problem:** + - Each fix reveals new shared state/coupling/problem in different place + - Fixes require "massive refactoring" to implement + - Each fix creates new symptoms elsewhere + + **STOP and question fundamentals:** + - Is this pattern fundamentally sound? + - Are we "sticking with it through sheer inertia"? + - Should we refactor architecture vs. continue fixing symptoms? + + **Discuss with your human partner before attempting more fixes** + + This is NOT a failed hypothesis - this is a wrong architecture. + +## Red Flags - STOP and Follow Process + +If you catch yourself thinking: +- "Quick fix for now, investigate later" +- "Just try changing X and see if it works" +- "Add multiple changes, run tests" +- "Skip the test, I'll manually verify" +- "It's probably X, let me fix that" +- "I don't fully understand but this might work" +- "Pattern says X but I'll adapt it differently" +- "Here are the main problems: [lists fixes without investigation]" +- Proposing solutions before tracing data flow +- **"One more fix attempt" (when already tried 2+)** +- **Each fix reveals new problem in different place** + +**ALL of these mean: STOP. Return to Phase 1.** + +**If 3+ fixes failed:** Question the architecture (see Phase 4.5) + +## Your Human Partner's Signals You're Doing It Wrong + +**Watch for these redirections:** +- "Is that not happening?" - You assumed without verifying +- "Will it show us...?" - You should have added evidence gathering +- "Stop guessing" - You're proposing fixes without understanding +- "Ultrathink this" - Question fundamentals, not just symptoms +- "We're stuck?" (frustrated) - Your approach isn't working + +**When you see these:** STOP. Return to Phase 1. + +## Common Rationalizations + +| Excuse | Reality | +|--------|---------| +| "Issue is simple, don't need process" | Simple issues have root causes too. Process is fast for simple bugs. | +| "Emergency, no time for process" | Systematic debugging is FASTER than guess-and-check thrashing. | +| "Just try this first, then investigate" | First fix sets the pattern. Do it right from the start. | +| "I'll write test after confirming fix works" | Untested fixes don't stick. Test first proves it. | +| "Multiple fixes at once saves time" | Can't isolate what worked. Causes new bugs. | +| "Reference too long, I'll adapt the pattern" | Partial understanding guarantees bugs. Read it completely. | +| "I see the problem, let me fix it" | Seeing symptoms ≠ understanding root cause. | +| "One more fix attempt" (after 2+ failures) | 3+ failures = architectural problem. Question pattern, don't fix again. | + +## Quick Reference + +| Phase | Key Activities | Success Criteria | +|-------|---------------|------------------| +| **1. Root Cause** | Read errors, reproduce, check changes, gather evidence | Understand WHAT and WHY | +| **2. Pattern** | Find working examples, compare | Identify differences | +| **3. Hypothesis** | Form theory, test minimally | Confirmed or new hypothesis | +| **4. Implementation** | Create test, fix, verify | Bug resolved, tests pass | + +## When Process Reveals "No Root Cause" + +If systematic investigation reveals issue is truly environmental, timing-dependent, or external: + +1. You've completed the process +2. Document what you investigated +3. Implement appropriate handling (retry, timeout, error message) +4. Add monitoring/logging for future investigation + +**But:** 95% of "no root cause" cases are incomplete investigation. + +## Related Skills + +- **superpowers:test-driven-development** — For creating failing test case (Phase 4, Step 1) +- **superpowers:verification-before-completion** — Verify fix worked before claiming success + +## Real-World Impact + +From debugging sessions: +- Systematic approach: 15-30 minutes to fix +- Random fixes approach: 2-3 hours of thrashing +- First-time fix rate: 95% vs 40% +- New bugs introduced: Near zero vs common diff --git a/.claude/skills/test-driven-development/SKILL.md b/.claude/skills/test-driven-development/SKILL.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..862c881 --- /dev/null +++ b/.claude/skills/test-driven-development/SKILL.md @@ -0,0 +1,367 @@ +--- +name: test-driven-development +description: Use when implementing any feature or bugfix, before writing implementation code +--- + +# Test-Driven Development (TDD) + +## Overview + +Write the test first. Watch it fail. Write minimal code to pass. + +**Core principle:** If you didn't watch the test fail, you don't know if it tests the right thing. + +**Violating the letter of the rules is violating the spirit of the rules.** + +## When to Use + +**Always:** +- New features +- Bug fixes +- Refactoring +- Behavior changes + +**Exceptions (ask your human partner):** +- Throwaway prototypes +- Generated code +- Configuration files + +Thinking "skip TDD just this once"? Stop. That's rationalization. + +## The Iron Law + +``` +NO PRODUCTION CODE WITHOUT A FAILING TEST FIRST +``` + +Write code before the test? Delete it. Start over. + +**No exceptions:** +- Don't keep it as "reference" +- Don't "adapt" it while writing tests +- Don't look at it +- Delete means delete + +Implement fresh from tests. Period. + +## Red-Green-Refactor + +```dot +digraph tdd_cycle { + rankdir=LR; + red [label="RED\nWrite failing test", shape=box, style=filled, fillcolor="#ffcccc"]; + verify_red [label="Verify fails\ncorrectly", shape=diamond]; + green [label="GREEN\nMinimal code", shape=box, style=filled, fillcolor="#ccffcc"]; + verify_green [label="Verify passes\nAll green", shape=diamond]; + refactor [label="REFACTOR\nClean up", shape=box, style=filled, fillcolor="#ccccff"]; + next [label="Next", shape=ellipse]; + + red -> verify_red; + verify_red -> green [label="yes"]; + verify_red -> red [label="wrong\nfailure"]; + green -> verify_green; + verify_green -> refactor [label="yes"]; + verify_green -> green [label="no"]; + refactor -> verify_green [label="stay\ngreen"]; + verify_green -> next; + next -> red; +} +``` + +### RED - Write Failing Test + +Write one minimal test showing what should happen. + +<Good> +```typescript +test('retries failed operations 3 times', async () => { + let attempts = 0; + const operation = () => { + attempts++; + if (attempts < 3) throw new Error('fail'); + return 'success'; + }; + + const result = await retryOperation(operation); + + expect(result).toBe('success'); + expect(attempts).toBe(3); +}); +``` +Clear name, tests real behavior, one thing +</Good> + +<Bad> +```typescript +test('retry works', async () => { + const mock = jest.fn() + .mockRejectedValueOnce(new Error()) + .mockRejectedValueOnce(new Error()) + .mockResolvedValueOnce('success'); + await retryOperation(mock); + expect(mock).toHaveBeenCalledTimes(3); +}); +``` +Vague name, tests mock not code +</Bad> + +**Requirements:** +- One behavior +- Clear name +- Real code (no mocks unless unavoidable) + +### Verify RED - Watch It Fail + +**MANDATORY. Never skip.** + +```bash +npm test path/to/test.test.ts +``` + +Confirm: +- Test fails (not errors) +- Failure message is expected +- Fails because feature missing (not typos) + +**Test passes?** You're testing existing behavior. Fix test. + +**Test errors?** Fix error, re-run until it fails correctly. + +### GREEN - Minimal Code + +Write simplest code to pass the test. + +<Good> +```typescript +async function retryOperation<T>(fn: () => Promise<T>): Promise<T> { + for (let i = 0; i < 3; i++) { + try { + return await fn(); + } catch (e) { + if (i === 2) throw e; + } + } + throw new Error('unreachable'); +} +``` +Just enough to pass +</Good> + +<Bad> +```typescript +async function retryOperation<T>( + fn: () => Promise<T>, + options?: { + maxRetries?: number; + backoff?: 'linear' | 'exponential'; + onRetry?: (attempt: number) => void; + } +): Promise<T> { + // YAGNI +} +``` +Over-engineered +</Bad> + +Don't add features, refactor other code, or "improve" beyond the test. + +### Verify GREEN - Watch It Pass + +**MANDATORY.** + +```bash +npm test path/to/test.test.ts +``` + +Confirm: +- Test passes +- Other tests still pass +- Output pristine (no errors, warnings) + +**Test fails?** Fix code, not test. + +**Other tests fail?** Fix now. + +### REFACTOR - Clean Up + +After green only: +- Remove duplication +- Improve names +- Extract helpers + +Keep tests green. Don't add behavior. + +### Repeat + +Next failing test for next feature. + +## Good Tests + +| Quality | Good | Bad | +|---------|------|-----| +| **Minimal** | One thing. "and" in name? Split it. | `test('validates email and domain and whitespace')` | +| **Clear** | Name describes behavior | `test('test1')` | +| **Shows intent** | Demonstrates desired API | Obscures what code should do | + +## Why Order Matters + +**"I'll write tests after to verify it works"** + +Tests written after code pass immediately. Passing immediately proves nothing: +- Might test wrong thing +- Might test implementation, not behavior +- Might miss edge cases you forgot +- You never saw it catch the bug + +Test-first forces you to see the test fail, proving it actually tests something. + +**"I already manually tested all the edge cases"** + +Manual testing is ad-hoc. You think you tested everything but: +- No record of what you tested +- Can't re-run when code changes +- Easy to forget cases under pressure +- "It worked when I tried it" ≠ comprehensive + +Automated tests are systematic. They run the same way every time. + +**"Deleting X hours of work is wasteful"** + +Sunk cost fallacy. The time is already gone. Your choice now: +- Delete and rewrite with TDD (X more hours, high confidence) +- Keep it and add tests after (30 min, low confidence, likely bugs) + +The "waste" is keeping code you can't trust. Working code without real tests is technical debt. + +**"TDD is dogmatic, being pragmatic means adapting"** + +TDD IS pragmatic: +- Finds bugs before commit (faster than debugging after) +- Prevents regressions (tests catch breaks immediately) +- Documents behavior (tests show how to use code) +- Enables refactoring (change freely, tests catch breaks) + +**"Tests after achieve the same goals - it's spirit not ritual"** + +No. Tests-after answer "What does this do?" Tests-first answer "What should this do?" + +Tests-after are biased by your implementation. You test what you built, not what's required. You verify remembered edge cases, not discovered ones. + +Tests-first force edge case discovery before implementing. Tests-after verify you remembered everything (you didn't). + +## Common Rationalizations + +| Excuse | Reality | +|--------|---------| +| "Too simple to test" | Simple code breaks. Test takes 30 seconds. | +| "I'll test after" | Tests passing immediately prove nothing. | +| "Tests after achieve same goals" | Tests-after = "what does this do?" Tests-first = "what should this do?" | +| "Already manually tested" | Ad-hoc ≠ systematic. No record, can't re-run. | +| "Deleting X hours is wasteful" | Sunk cost fallacy. Keeping unverified code is technical debt. | +| "Keep as reference, write tests first" | You'll adapt it. That's testing after. Delete means delete. | +| "Need to explore first" | Fine. Throw away exploration, start with TDD. | +| "Test hard = design unclear" | Listen to test. Hard to test = hard to use. | +| "TDD will slow me down" | TDD faster than debugging. Pragmatic = test-first. | +| "Manual test faster" | Manual doesn't prove edge cases. You'll re-test every change. | +| "Existing code has no tests" | You're improving it. Add tests for existing code. | + +## Red Flags - STOP and Start Over + +- Code before test +- Test after implementation +- Test passes immediately +- Can't explain why test failed +- Tests added "later" +- Rationalizing "just this once" +- "I already manually tested it" +- "Tests after achieve the same purpose" +- "It's about spirit not ritual" +- "Keep as reference" or "adapt existing code" +- "Already spent X hours, deleting is wasteful" +- "TDD is dogmatic, I'm being pragmatic" +- "This is different because..." + +**All of these mean: Delete code. Start over with TDD.** + +## Example: Bug Fix + +**Bug:** Empty email accepted + +**RED** +```typescript +test('rejects empty email', async () => { + const result = await submitForm({ email: '' }); + expect(result.error).toBe('Email required'); +}); +``` + +**Verify RED** +```bash +$ npm test +FAIL: expected 'Email required', got undefined +``` + +**GREEN** +```typescript +function submitForm(data: FormData) { + if (!data.email?.trim()) { + return { error: 'Email required' }; + } + // ... +} +``` + +**Verify GREEN** +```bash +$ npm test +PASS +``` + +**REFACTOR** +Extract validation for multiple fields if needed. + +## Verification Checklist + +Before marking work complete: + +- [ ] Every new function/method has a test +- [ ] Watched each test fail before implementing +- [ ] Each test failed for expected reason (feature missing, not typo) +- [ ] Wrote minimal code to pass each test +- [ ] All tests pass +- [ ] Output pristine (no errors, warnings) +- [ ] Tests use real code (mocks only if unavoidable) +- [ ] Edge cases and errors covered + +Can't check all boxes? You skipped TDD. Start over. + +## When Stuck + +| Problem | Solution | +|---------|----------| +| Don't know how to test | Write wished-for API. Write assertion first. Ask your human partner. | +| Test too complicated | Design too complicated. Simplify interface. | +| Must mock everything | Code too coupled. Use dependency injection. | +| Test setup huge | Extract helpers. Still complex? Simplify design. | + +## Debugging Integration + +Bug found? Write failing test reproducing it. Follow TDD cycle. Test proves fix and prevents regression. + +Never fix bugs without a test. + +## Testing Anti-Patterns + +When adding mocks or test utilities, read `testing-anti-patterns.md` to avoid common pitfalls: +- Testing mock behavior instead of real behavior +- Adding test-only methods to production classes +- Mocking without understanding dependencies + +## Final Rule + +``` +Production code → test exists and failed first +Otherwise → not TDD +``` + +No exceptions without your human partner's permission. diff --git a/.claude/skills/test-driven-development/testing-anti-patterns.md b/.claude/skills/test-driven-development/testing-anti-patterns.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..8f3450f --- /dev/null +++ b/.claude/skills/test-driven-development/testing-anti-patterns.md @@ -0,0 +1,295 @@ +# Testing Anti-Patterns + +**Load this reference when:** writing or changing tests, adding mocks, or tempted to add test-only methods to production code. + +## Overview + +Tests must verify real behavior, not mock behavior. Mocks are a means to isolate, not the thing being tested. + +**Core principle:** Test what the code does, not what the mocks do. + +**Following strict TDD prevents these anti-patterns.** + +## The Iron Laws + +``` +1. NEVER test mock behavior +2. NEVER add test-only methods to production classes +3. NEVER mock without understanding dependencies +``` + +## Anti-Pattern 1: Testing Mock Behavior + +**The violation:** +```typescript +// ❌ BAD: Testing that the mock exists +test('renders sidebar', () => { + render(<Page />); + expect(screen.getByTestId('sidebar-mock')).toBeInTheDocument(); +}); +``` + +**Why this is wrong:** +- You're verifying the mock works, not that the component works +- Test passes when mock is present, fails when it's not +- Tells you nothing about real behavior + +**The fix:** +```typescript +// ✅ GOOD: Test real component or don't mock it +test('renders sidebar', () => { + render(<Page />); // Don't mock sidebar + expect(screen.getByRole('navigation')).toBeInTheDocument(); +}); + +// OR if sidebar must be mocked for isolation: +// Don't assert on the mock - test Page's behavior with sidebar present +``` + +### Gate Function + +``` +BEFORE asserting on any mock element: + Ask: "Am I testing real component behavior or just mock existence?" + + IF testing mock existence: + STOP - Delete the assertion or unmock the component + + Test real behavior instead +``` + +## Anti-Pattern 2: Test-Only Methods in Production + +**The violation:** +```typescript +// ❌ BAD: destroy() only used in tests +class Session { + async destroy() { // Looks like production API! + await this._workspaceManager?.destroyWorkspace(this.id); + // ... cleanup + } +} + +// In tests +afterEach(() => session.destroy()); +``` + +**Why this is wrong:** +- Production class polluted with test-only code +- Dangerous if accidentally called in production +- Violates YAGNI and separation of concerns +- Confuses object lifecycle with entity lifecycle + +**The fix:** +```typescript +// ✅ GOOD: Test utilities handle test cleanup +// Session has no destroy() - it's stateless in production + +// In test-utils/ +export async function cleanupSession(session: Session) { + const workspace = session.getWorkspaceInfo(); + if (workspace) { + await workspaceManager.destroyWorkspace(workspace.id); + } +} + +// In tests +afterEach(() => cleanupSession(session)); +``` + +### Gate Function + +``` +BEFORE adding any method to production class: + Ask: "Is this only used by tests?" + + IF yes: + STOP - Don't add it + Put it in test utilities instead + + Ask: "Does this class own this resource's lifecycle?" + + IF no: + STOP - Wrong class for this method +``` + +## Anti-Pattern 3: Mocking Without Understanding + +**The violation:** +```typescript +// ❌ BAD: Mock breaks test logic +test('detects duplicate server', () => { + // Mock prevents config write that test depends on! + vi.mock('ToolCatalog', () => ({ + discoverAndCacheTools: vi.fn().mockResolvedValue(undefined) + })); + + await addServer(config); + await addServer(config); // Should throw - but won't! +}); +``` + +**Why this is wrong:** +- Mocked method had side effect test depended on (writing config) +- Over-mocking to "be safe" breaks actual behavior +- Test passes for wrong reason or fails mysteriously + +**The fix:** +```typescript +// ✅ GOOD: Mock at correct level +test('detects duplicate server', () => { + // Mock the slow part, preserve behavior test needs + vi.mock('MCPServerManager'); // Just mock slow server startup + + await addServer(config); // Config written + await addServer(config); // Duplicate detected ✓ +}); +``` + +### Gate Function + +``` +BEFORE mocking any method: + STOP - Don't mock yet + + 1. Ask: "What side effects does the real method have?" + 2. Ask: "Does this test depend on any of those side effects?" + 3. Ask: "Do I fully understand what this test needs?" + + IF depends on side effects: + Mock at lower level (the actual slow/external operation) + OR use test doubles that preserve necessary behavior + NOT the high-level method the test depends on + + IF unsure what test depends on: + Run test with real implementation FIRST + Observe what actually needs to happen + THEN add minimal mocking at the right level + + Red flags: + - "I'll mock this to be safe" + - "This might be slow, better mock it" + - Mocking without understanding the dependency chain +``` + +## Anti-Pattern 4: Incomplete Mocks + +**The violation:** +```typescript +// ❌ BAD: Partial mock - only fields you think you need +const mockResponse = { + status: 'success', + data: { userId: '123', name: 'Alice' } + // Missing: metadata that downstream code uses +}; + +// Later: breaks when code accesses response.metadata.requestId +``` + +**Why this is wrong:** +- **Partial mocks hide structural assumptions** - You only mocked fields you know about +- **Downstream code may depend on fields you didn't include** - Silent failures +- **Tests pass but integration fails** - Mock incomplete, real API complete +- **False confidence** - Test proves nothing about real behavior + +**The Iron Rule:** Mock the COMPLETE data structure as it exists in reality, not just fields your immediate test uses. + +**The fix:** +```typescript +// ✅ GOOD: Mirror real API completeness +const mockResponse = { + status: 'success', + data: { userId: '123', name: 'Alice' }, + metadata: { requestId: 'req-789', timestamp: 1234567890 } + // All fields real API returns +}; +``` + +### Gate Function + +``` +BEFORE creating mock responses: + Check: "What fields does the real API response contain?" + + Actions: + 1. Examine actual API response from docs/examples + 2. Include ALL fields system might consume downstream + 3. Verify mock matches real response schema completely + + Critical: + If you're creating a mock, you must understand the ENTIRE structure + Partial mocks fail silently when code depends on omitted fields + + If uncertain: Include all documented fields +``` + +## Anti-Pattern 5: Integration Tests as Afterthought + +**The violation:** +``` +✅ Implementation complete +❌ No tests written +"Ready for testing" +``` + +**Why this is wrong:** +- Testing is part of implementation, not optional follow-up +- TDD would have caught this +- Can't claim complete without tests + +**The fix:** +``` +TDD cycle: +1. Write failing test +2. Implement to pass +3. Refactor +4. THEN claim complete +``` + +## When Mocks Become Too Complex + +**Warning signs:** +- Mock setup longer than test logic +- Mocking everything to make test pass +- Mocks missing methods real components have +- Test breaks when mock changes + +**Consider:** Integration tests with real components often simpler than complex mocks + +## TDD Prevents These Anti-Patterns + +**Why TDD helps:** +1. **Write test first** → Forces you to think about what you're actually testing +2. **Watch it fail** → Confirms test tests real behavior, not mocks +3. **Minimal implementation** → No test-only methods creep in +4. **Real dependencies** → You see what the test actually needs before mocking + +**If you're testing mock behavior, you violated TDD** - you added mocks without watching test fail against real code first. + +## Quick Reference + +| Anti-Pattern | Fix | +|--------------|-----| +| Assert on mock elements | Test real component or unmock it | +| Test-only methods in production | Move to test utilities | +| Mock without understanding | Understand dependencies first, mock minimally | +| Incomplete mocks | Mirror real API completely | +| Tests as afterthought | TDD - tests first | +| Over-complex mocks | Consider integration tests | + +## Red Flags + +- Assertion checks for `*-mock` test IDs +- Methods only called in test files +- Mock setup is >50% of test +- Test fails when you remove mock +- Can't explain why mock is needed +- Mocking "just to be safe" + +## The Bottom Line + +**Mocks are tools to isolate, not things to test.** + +If TDD reveals you're testing mock behavior, you've gone wrong. + +Fix: Test real behavior or question why you're mocking at all. diff --git a/.claude/skills/using-git-worktrees/SKILL.md b/.claude/skills/using-git-worktrees/SKILL.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..93174e8 --- /dev/null +++ b/.claude/skills/using-git-worktrees/SKILL.md @@ -0,0 +1,175 @@ +--- +name: using-git-worktrees +description: Use when starting feature work that needs isolation from current workspace or before executing implementation plans - ensures an isolated workspace exists via native tools or git worktree fallback +--- + +# Using Git Worktrees + +## Overview + +Ensure work happens in an isolated workspace. Prefer your platform's native worktree tools. Fall back to manual git worktrees only when no native tool is available. + +**Core principle:** Detect existing isolation first. Then use native tools. Then fall back to git. Never fight the harness. + +**Announce at start:** "I'm using the using-git-worktrees skill to set up an isolated workspace." + +## Step 0: Detect Existing Isolation + +**Before creating anything, check if you are already in an isolated workspace.** + +```bash +GIT_DIR=$(cd "$(git rev-parse --git-dir)" 2>/dev/null && pwd -P) +GIT_COMMON=$(cd "$(git rev-parse --git-common-dir)" 2>/dev/null && pwd -P) +BRANCH=$(git branch --show-current) +``` + +**Submodule guard:** `GIT_DIR != GIT_COMMON` is also true inside git submodules. Before concluding "already in a worktree," verify you are not in a submodule: + +```bash +# If this returns a path, you're in a submodule, not a worktree — treat as normal repo +git rev-parse --show-superproject-working-tree 2>/dev/null +``` + +**If `GIT_DIR != GIT_COMMON` (and not a submodule):** You are already in a linked worktree. Skip to Step 3 (Project Setup). Do NOT create another worktree. + +Report with branch state: +- On a branch: "Already in isolated workspace at `<path>` on branch `<name>`." +- Detached HEAD: "Already in isolated workspace at `<path>` (detached HEAD, externally managed). Branch creation needed at finish time." + +**If `GIT_DIR == GIT_COMMON` (or in a submodule):** You are in a normal repo checkout. + +Has the user already indicated their worktree preference in your instructions? If not, ask for consent before creating a worktree: + +> "Would you like me to set up an isolated worktree? It protects your current branch from changes." + +Honor any existing declared preference without asking. If the user declines consent, work in place and skip to Step 3. + +## Step 1: Create Isolated Workspace + +**You have two mechanisms. Try them in this order.** + +### 1a. Native Worktree Tools (preferred) + +Check if your environment provides native worktree creation — a tool named `EnterWorktree`, `WorktreeCreate`, a `/worktree` command, or a `--worktree` flag. If you have one, use it and skip to Step 3. + +Native tools handle directory placement, branch creation, and cleanup automatically. Using `git worktree add` when you have a native tool creates phantom state your harness can't see or manage. + +Only proceed to Step 1b if you have no native worktree tool available. + +### 1b. Git Worktree Fallback + +**Only use this if Step 1a does not apply.** + +#### Directory Selection (Priority Order) + +1. **Check your instructions for a declared worktree directory preference.** If the user has already specified one, use it without asking. + +2. **Check for an existing project-local worktree directory:** + ```bash + ls -d .worktrees 2>/dev/null # Preferred (hidden) + ls -d worktrees 2>/dev/null # Alternative + ``` + If found, use it. If both exist, `.worktrees` wins. + +3. **Check for an existing global directory:** + ```bash + project=$(basename "$(git rev-parse --show-toplevel)") + ls -d ~/.config/superpowers/worktrees/$project 2>/dev/null + ``` + If found, use it. + +4. **If there is no other guidance available**, default to `.worktrees/` at the project root. + +#### Safety Verification (project-local directories only) + +**MUST verify directory is ignored before creating worktree:** + +```bash +git check-ignore -q .worktrees 2>/dev/null || git check-ignore -q worktrees 2>/dev/null +``` + +**If NOT ignored:** Add to .gitignore, commit the change, then proceed. + +#### Create the Worktree + +```bash +project=$(basename "$(git rev-parse --show-toplevel)") +git worktree add "$path" -b "$BRANCH_NAME" +cd "$path" +``` + +**Sandbox fallback:** If `git worktree add` fails with a permission error, tell the user and work in place instead. + +## Step 3: Project Setup + +Auto-detect and run appropriate setup: + +```bash +# Node.js +if [ -f package.json ]; then npm install; fi + +# Rust +if [ -f Cargo.toml ]; then cargo build; fi + +# Python +if [ -f requirements.txt ]; then pip install -r requirements.txt; fi +if [ -f pyproject.toml ]; then poetry install; fi + +# Go +if [ -f go.mod ]; then go mod download; fi +``` + +## Step 4: Verify Clean Baseline + +```bash +npm test # or project-appropriate command +``` + +**If tests fail:** Report failures, ask whether to proceed or investigate. + +**If tests pass:** Report ready. + +``` +Worktree ready at <full-path> +Tests passing (<N> tests, 0 failures) +Ready to implement <feature-name> +``` + +## Quick Reference + +| Situation | Action | +|-----------|--------| +| Already in linked worktree | Skip creation (Step 0) | +| In a submodule | Treat as normal repo | +| Native worktree tool available | Use it (Step 1a) | +| No native tool | Git worktree fallback (Step 1b) | +| `.worktrees/` exists | Use it (verify ignored) | +| Directory not ignored | Add to .gitignore + commit | +| Permission error on create | Sandbox fallback, work in place | +| Tests fail during baseline | Report failures + ask | + +## Common Mistakes + +- **Fighting the harness** — using git worktrees when native isolation tools exist +- **Skipping detection** — creating a nested worktree inside an existing one +- **Skipping ignore verification** — worktree contents get tracked +- **Proceeding with failing tests** — can't distinguish new bugs from pre-existing + +## Red Flags + +**Never:** +- Create a worktree when Step 0 detects existing isolation +- Use `git worktree add` when you have a native worktree tool +- Create worktree without verifying it's ignored (project-local) +- Skip baseline test verification +- Proceed with failing tests without asking + +## Cleanup + +Only clean up worktrees YOU created. Never remove harness-owned worktrees. + +```bash +# From main repo root (NOT from inside worktree) +git worktree remove "$WORKTREE_PATH" +git worktree prune +``` diff --git a/.claude/skills/using-superpowers/SKILL.md b/.claude/skills/using-superpowers/SKILL.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..c8a8570 --- /dev/null +++ b/.claude/skills/using-superpowers/SKILL.md @@ -0,0 +1,117 @@ +--- +name: using-superpowers +description: Use when starting any conversation - establishes how to find and use skills, requiring Skill tool invocation before ANY response including clarifying questions +--- + +<SUBAGENT-STOP> +If you were dispatched as a subagent to execute a specific task, skip this skill. +</SUBAGENT-STOP> + +<EXTREMELY-IMPORTANT> +If you think there is even a 1% chance a skill might apply to what you are doing, you ABSOLUTELY MUST invoke the skill. + +IF A SKILL APPLIES TO YOUR TASK, YOU DO NOT HAVE A CHOICE. YOU MUST USE IT. + +This is not negotiable. This is not optional. You cannot rationalize your way out of this. +</EXTREMELY-IMPORTANT> + +## Instruction Priority + +Superpowers skills override default system prompt behavior, but **user instructions always take precedence**: + +1. **User's explicit instructions** (CLAUDE.md, GEMINI.md, AGENTS.md, direct requests) — highest priority +2. **Superpowers skills** — override default system behavior where they conflict +3. **Default system prompt** — lowest priority + +If CLAUDE.md, GEMINI.md, or AGENTS.md says "don't use TDD" and a skill says "always use TDD," follow the user's instructions. The user is in control. + +## How to Access Skills + +**In Claude Code:** Use the `Skill` tool. When you invoke a skill, its content is loaded and presented to you—follow it directly. Never use the Read tool on skill files. + +**In Copilot CLI:** Use the `skill` tool. Skills are auto-discovered from installed plugins. The `skill` tool works the same as Claude Code's `Skill` tool. + +**In Gemini CLI:** Skills activate via the `activate_skill` tool. Gemini loads skill metadata at session start and activates the full content on demand. + +**In other environments:** Check your platform's documentation for how skills are loaded. + +## Platform Adaptation + +Skills use Claude Code tool names. Non-CC platforms: see `references/copilot-tools.md` (Copilot CLI), `references/codex-tools.md` (Codex) for tool equivalents. Gemini CLI users get the tool mapping loaded automatically via GEMINI.md. + +# Using Skills + +## The Rule + +**Invoke relevant or requested skills BEFORE any response or action.** Even a 1% chance a skill might apply means that you should invoke the skill to check. If an invoked skill turns out to be wrong for the situation, you don't need to use it. + +```dot +digraph skill_flow { + "User message received" [shape=doublecircle]; + "About to EnterPlanMode?" [shape=doublecircle]; + "Already brainstormed?" [shape=diamond]; + "Invoke brainstorming skill" [shape=box]; + "Might any skill apply?" [shape=diamond]; + "Invoke Skill tool" [shape=box]; + "Announce: 'Using [skill] to [purpose]'" [shape=box]; + "Has checklist?" [shape=diamond]; + "Create TodoWrite todo per item" [shape=box]; + "Follow skill exactly" [shape=box]; + "Respond (including clarifications)" [shape=doublecircle]; + + "About to EnterPlanMode?" -> "Already brainstormed?"; + "Already brainstormed?" -> "Invoke brainstorming skill" [label="no"]; + "Already brainstormed?" -> "Might any skill apply?" [label="yes"]; + "Invoke brainstorming skill" -> "Might any skill apply?"; + + "User message received" -> "Might any skill apply?"; + "Might any skill apply?" -> "Invoke Skill tool" [label="yes, even 1%"]; + "Might any skill apply?" -> "Respond (including clarifications)" [label="definitely not"]; + "Invoke Skill tool" -> "Announce: 'Using [skill] to [purpose]'"; + "Announce: 'Using [skill] to [purpose]'" -> "Has checklist?"; + "Has checklist?" -> "Create TodoWrite todo per item" [label="yes"]; + "Has checklist?" -> "Follow skill exactly" [label="no"]; + "Create TodoWrite todo per item" -> "Follow skill exactly"; +} +``` + +## Red Flags + +These thoughts mean STOP—you're rationalizing: + +| Thought | Reality | +|---------|---------| +| "This is just a simple question" | Questions are tasks. Check for skills. | +| "I need more context first" | Skill check comes BEFORE clarifying questions. | +| "Let me explore the codebase first" | Skills tell you HOW to explore. Check first. | +| "I can check git/files quickly" | Files lack conversation context. Check for skills. | +| "Let me gather information first" | Skills tell you HOW to gather information. | +| "This doesn't need a formal skill" | If a skill exists, use it. | +| "I remember this skill" | Skills evolve. Read current version. | +| "This doesn't count as a task" | Action = task. Check for skills. | +| "The skill is overkill" | Simple things become complex. Use it. | +| "I'll just do this one thing first" | Check BEFORE doing anything. | +| "This feels productive" | Undisciplined action wastes time. Skills prevent this. | +| "I know what that means" | Knowing the concept ≠ using the skill. Invoke it. | + +## Skill Priority + +When multiple skills could apply, use this order: + +1. **Process skills first** (brainstorming, debugging) - these determine HOW to approach the task +2. **Implementation skills second** (frontend-design, mcp-builder) - these guide execution + +"Let's build X" → brainstorming first, then implementation skills. +"Fix this bug" → debugging first, then domain-specific skills. + +## Skill Types + +**Rigid** (TDD, debugging): Follow exactly. Don't adapt away discipline. + +**Flexible** (patterns): Adapt principles to context. + +The skill itself tells you which. + +## User Instructions + +Instructions say WHAT, not HOW. "Add X" or "Fix Y" doesn't mean skip workflows. diff --git a/.claude/skills/verification-before-completion/SKILL.md b/.claude/skills/verification-before-completion/SKILL.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..9920f5f --- /dev/null +++ b/.claude/skills/verification-before-completion/SKILL.md @@ -0,0 +1,137 @@ +--- +name: verification-before-completion +description: Use when about to claim work is complete, fixed, or passing, before committing or creating PRs - requires running verification commands and confirming output before making any success claims; evidence before assertions always +--- + +# Verification Before Completion + +## Overview + +Claiming work is complete without verification is dishonesty, not efficiency. + +**Core principle:** Evidence before claims, always. + +**Violating the letter of this rule is violating the spirit of this rule.** + +## The Iron Law + +``` +NO COMPLETION CLAIMS WITHOUT FRESH VERIFICATION EVIDENCE +``` + +If you haven't run the verification command in this message, you cannot claim it passes. + +## The Gate Function + +``` +BEFORE claiming any status or expressing satisfaction: + +1. IDENTIFY: What command proves this claim? +2. RUN: Execute the FULL command (fresh, complete) +3. READ: Full output, check exit code, count failures +4. VERIFY: Does output confirm the claim? + - If NO: State actual status with evidence + - If YES: State claim WITH evidence +5. ONLY THEN: Make the claim + +Skip any step = lying, not verifying +``` + +## Common Failures + +| Claim | Requires | Not Sufficient | +|-------|----------|----------------| +| Tests pass | Test command output: 0 failures | Previous run, "should pass" | +| Linter clean | Linter output: 0 errors | Partial check, extrapolation | +| Build succeeds | Build command: exit 0 | Linter passing, logs look good | +| Bug fixed | Test original symptom: passes | Code changed, assumed fixed | +| Regression test works | Red-green cycle verified | Test passes once | +| Agent completed | VCS diff shows changes | Agent reports "success" | +| Requirements met | Line-by-line checklist | Tests passing | + +## Red Flags - STOP + +- Using "should", "probably", "seems to" +- Expressing satisfaction before verification ("Great!", "Perfect!", "Done!", etc.) +- About to commit/push/PR without verification +- Trusting agent success reports +- Relying on partial verification +- Thinking "just this once" +- Tired and wanting work over +- **ANY wording implying success without having run verification** + +## Rationalization Prevention + +| Excuse | Reality | +|--------|---------| +| "Should work now" | RUN the verification | +| "I'm confident" | Confidence ≠ evidence | +| "Just this once" | No exceptions | +| "Linter passed" | Linter ≠ compiler | +| "Agent said success" | Verify independently | +| "I'm tired" | Exhaustion ≠ excuse | +| "Partial check is enough" | Partial proves nothing | +| "Different words so rule doesn't apply" | Spirit over letter | + +## Key Patterns + +**Tests:** +``` +✅ [Run test command] [See: 34/34 pass] "All tests pass" +❌ "Should pass now" / "Looks correct" +``` + +**Regression tests (TDD Red-Green):** +``` +✅ Write → Run (pass) → Revert fix → Run (MUST FAIL) → Restore → Run (pass) +❌ "I've written a regression test" (without red-green verification) +``` + +**Build:** +``` +✅ [Run build] [See: exit 0] "Build passes" +❌ "Linter passed" (linter doesn't check compilation) +``` + +**Requirements:** +``` +✅ Re-read plan → Create checklist → Verify each → Report gaps or completion +❌ "Tests pass, phase complete" +``` + +**Agent delegation:** +``` +✅ Agent reports success → Check VCS diff → Verify changes → Report actual state +❌ Trust agent report +``` + +## Why This Matters + +- Trust broken when claims prove false +- Undefined functions shipped — would crash +- Missing requirements shipped — incomplete features +- Time wasted on false completion → redirect → rework + +## When To Apply + +**ALWAYS before:** +- ANY variation of success/completion claims +- ANY expression of satisfaction +- ANY positive statement about work state +- Committing, PR creation, task completion +- Moving to next task +- Delegating to agents + +**Rule applies to:** +- Exact phrases +- Paraphrases and synonyms +- Implications of success +- ANY communication suggesting completion/correctness + +## The Bottom Line + +**No shortcuts for verification.** + +Run the command. Read the output. THEN claim the result. + +This is non-negotiable. diff --git a/.claude/skills/writing-plans/SKILL.md b/.claude/skills/writing-plans/SKILL.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..09961fd --- /dev/null +++ b/.claude/skills/writing-plans/SKILL.md @@ -0,0 +1,147 @@ +--- +name: writing-plans +description: Use when you have a spec or requirements for a multi-step task, before touching code +--- + +# Writing Plans + +## Overview + +Write comprehensive implementation plans assuming the engineer has zero context for our codebase and questionable taste. Document everything they need to know: which files to touch for each task, code, testing, docs they might need to check, how to test it. Give them the whole plan as bite-sized tasks. DRY. YAGNI. TDD. Frequent commits. + +Assume they are a skilled developer, but know almost nothing about our toolset or problem domain. Assume they don't know good test design very well. + +**Announce at start:** "I'm using the writing-plans skill to create the implementation plan." + +**Save plans to:** `docs/superpowers/plans/YYYY-MM-DD-<feature-name>.md` +- (User preferences for plan location override this default) + +## Scope Check + +If the spec covers multiple independent subsystems, it should have been broken into sub-project specs during brainstorming. If it wasn't, suggest breaking this into separate plans — one per subsystem. + +## File Structure + +Before defining tasks, map out which files will be created or modified and what each one is responsible for. + +- Design units with clear boundaries and well-defined interfaces. Each file should have one clear responsibility. +- Files that change together should live together. Split by responsibility, not by technical layer. +- In existing codebases, follow established patterns. + +## Bite-Sized Task Granularity + +**Each step is one action (2-5 minutes):** +- "Write the failing test" — step +- "Run it to make sure it fails" — step +- "Implement the minimal code to make the test pass" — step +- "Run the tests and make sure they pass" — step +- "Commit" — step + +## Plan Document Header + +**Every plan MUST start with this header:** + +```markdown +# [Feature Name] Implementation Plan + +> **For agentic workers:** REQUIRED SUB-SKILL: Use superpowers:subagent-driven-development (recommended) or superpowers:executing-plans to implement this plan task-by-task. Steps use checkbox (`- [ ]`) syntax for tracking. + +**Goal:** [One sentence describing what this builds] + +**Architecture:** [2-3 sentences about approach] + +**Tech Stack:** [Key technologies/libraries] + +--- +``` + +## Task Structure + +````markdown +### Task N: [Component Name] + +**Files:** +- Create: `exact/path/to/file.ts` +- Modify: `exact/path/to/existing.ts:123-145` +- Test: `test/exact/path/to/test.ts` + +- [ ] **Step 1: Write the failing test** + +```typescript +test('specific behavior', async () => { + const result = await function(input); + expect(result).toBe(expected); +}); +``` + +- [ ] **Step 2: Run test to verify it fails** + +Run: `npm test path/to/test.test.ts` +Expected: FAIL with "function not defined" + +- [ ] **Step 3: Write minimal implementation** + +```typescript +export async function function(input: string): Promise<string> { + return expected; +} +``` + +- [ ] **Step 4: Run test to verify it passes** + +Run: `npm test path/to/test.test.ts` +Expected: PASS + +- [ ] **Step 5: Commit** + +```bash +git add test/path/test.test.ts src/path/file.ts +git commit -m "feat: add specific feature" +``` +```` + +## No Placeholders + +Every step must contain the actual content an engineer needs. These are **plan failures** — never write them: +- "TBD", "TODO", "implement later", "fill in details" +- "Add appropriate error handling" / "add validation" / "handle edge cases" +- "Write tests for the above" (without actual test code) +- "Similar to Task N" (repeat the code — engineer may read tasks out of order) +- Steps that describe what to do without showing how (code blocks required) +- References to types, functions, or methods not defined in any task + +## Remember +- Exact file paths always +- Complete code in every step — if a step changes code, show the code +- Exact commands with expected output +- DRY, YAGNI, TDD, frequent commits + +## Self-Review + +After writing the complete plan, check it against the spec: + +**1. Spec coverage:** Can you point to a task for each requirement? List any gaps. + +**2. Placeholder scan:** Search for any patterns from the "No Placeholders" section above. Fix them. + +**3. Type consistency:** Do types, method signatures, and property names match across tasks? A function called `clearLayers()` in Task 3 but `clearFullLayers()` in Task 7 is a bug. + +Fix issues inline. If you find a spec requirement with no task, add the task. + +## Execution Handoff + +After saving the plan, offer execution choice: + +**"Plan complete and saved to `docs/superpowers/plans/<filename>.md`. Two execution options:** + +**1. Subagent-Driven (recommended)** — Fresh subagent per task, two-stage review, fast iteration + +**2. Inline Execution** — Execute tasks in this session using executing-plans + +**Which approach?"** + +**If Subagent-Driven chosen:** +- **REQUIRED SUB-SKILL:** Use superpowers:subagent-driven-development + +**If Inline Execution chosen:** +- **REQUIRED SUB-SKILL:** Use superpowers:executing-plans diff --git a/.claude/skills/writing-skills/SKILL.md b/.claude/skills/writing-skills/SKILL.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..febb217 --- /dev/null +++ b/.claude/skills/writing-skills/SKILL.md @@ -0,0 +1,159 @@ +--- +name: writing-skills +description: Use when creating new skills, editing existing skills, or verifying skills work before deployment +--- + +# Writing Skills + +## Overview + +**Writing skills IS Test-Driven Development applied to process documentation.** + +You write test cases (pressure scenarios with subagents), watch them fail (baseline behavior), write the skill (documentation), watch tests pass (agents comply), and refactor (close loopholes). + +**Core principle:** If you didn't watch an agent fail without the skill, you don't know if the skill teaches the right thing. + +**REQUIRED BACKGROUND:** You MUST understand `superpowers:test-driven-development` before using this skill. Same principles apply to documentation. + +## What is a Skill? + +A **skill** is a reference guide for proven techniques, patterns, or tools. Skills help future Claude instances find and apply effective approaches. + +**Skills are:** Reusable techniques, patterns, tools, reference guides + +**Skills are NOT:** Narratives about how you solved a problem once + +## TDD Mapping for Skills + +| TDD Concept | Skill Creation | +|-------------|----------------| +| **Test case** | Pressure scenario with subagent | +| **Production code** | Skill document (SKILL.md) | +| **Test fails (RED)** | Agent violates rule without skill (baseline) | +| **Test passes (GREEN)** | Agent complies with skill present | +| **Refactor** | Close loopholes while maintaining compliance | +| **Write test first** | Run baseline scenario BEFORE writing skill | +| **Watch it fail** | Document exact rationalizations agent uses | +| **Minimal code** | Write skill addressing those specific violations | + +## When to Create a Skill + +**Create when:** +- Technique wasn't intuitively obvious to you +- You'd reference this again across projects +- Pattern applies broadly (not project-specific) +- Others would benefit + +**Don't create for:** +- One-off solutions +- Standard practices well-documented elsewhere +- Project-specific conventions (put in CLAUDE.md) + +## SKILL.md Structure + +**Frontmatter (YAML):** +- Two required fields: `name` and `description` +- Max 1024 characters total +- `name`: Use letters, numbers, and hyphens only +- `description`: Starts with "Use when..." — describes ONLY triggering conditions, never the workflow + +```markdown +--- +name: Skill-Name-With-Hyphens +description: Use when [specific triggering conditions and symptoms] +--- + +# Skill Name + +## Overview +What is this? Core principle in 1-2 sentences. + +## When to Use +Bullet list with symptoms and use cases + +## Core Pattern +Before/after code comparison + +## Quick Reference +Table or bullets for scanning + +## Common Mistakes +What goes wrong + fixes +``` + +## Claude Search Optimization (CSO) + +**CRITICAL: Description = When to Use, NOT What the Skill Does** + +The description must ONLY describe triggering conditions. Do NOT summarize the skill's process or workflow. + +**Why this matters:** When a description summarizes the skill's workflow, Claude may follow the description instead of reading the full skill content. Descriptions that summarize workflow create a shortcut Claude will take. The skill body becomes documentation Claude skips. + +```yaml +# ❌ BAD: Summarizes workflow +description: Use when executing plans - dispatches subagent per task with code review between tasks + +# ✅ GOOD: Just triggering conditions +description: Use when executing implementation plans with independent tasks in the current session +``` + +**Token Efficiency:** +- Frequently-loaded skills: target <200 words total +- Other skills: <500 words +- Move details to separate reference files for long content + +## The Iron Law (Same as TDD) + +``` +NO SKILL WITHOUT A FAILING TEST FIRST +``` + +Write skill before testing? Delete it. Start over. + +## RED-GREEN-REFACTOR for Skills + +### RED: Write Failing Test (Baseline) +Run pressure scenario with subagent WITHOUT the skill. Document exact rationalizations. + +### GREEN: Write Minimal Skill +Write skill that addresses those specific rationalizations. Verify agents now comply. + +### REFACTOR: Close Loopholes +Find new rationalizations → add explicit counters → re-test until bulletproof. + +## Bulletproofing Discipline Skills + +Skills that enforce discipline need to resist rationalization: + +1. **Close loopholes explicitly** — don't just state the rule, forbid specific workarounds +2. **Address "Spirit vs Letter"** — add "Violating the letter is violating the spirit" +3. **Build rationalization table** — capture every excuse agents use +4. **Create red flags list** — make self-checking easy + +## Anti-Patterns + +- **Narrative examples** — "In session 2025-10-03, we found..." (too specific, not reusable) +- **Multi-language dilution** — 5 language examples instead of 1 excellent one +- **Code in flowcharts** — can't copy-paste +- **Generic labels** — `step1`, `helper2` have no semantic meaning + +## Skill Creation Checklist + +**RED Phase:** +- [ ] Create pressure scenarios (3+ combined pressures for discipline skills) +- [ ] Run scenarios WITHOUT skill — document baseline behavior verbatim + +**GREEN Phase:** +- [ ] Name uses only letters, numbers, hyphens +- [ ] YAML frontmatter with `name` and `description` +- [ ] Description starts with "Use when..." — no workflow summary +- [ ] Addresses specific baseline failures identified in RED +- [ ] Run scenarios WITH skill — verify compliance + +**REFACTOR Phase:** +- [ ] Identify new rationalizations from testing +- [ ] Add explicit counters +- [ ] Build rationalization table +- [ ] Re-test until bulletproof + +**Do NOT create multiple skills in batch without testing each.** diff --git a/CLAUDE.md b/CLAUDE.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..d99a710 --- /dev/null +++ b/CLAUDE.md @@ -0,0 +1,81 @@ +# node-code-sandbox-mcp + +A Node.js MCP server that runs JavaScript code inside isolated Docker containers. + +## Project Overview + +This MCP server provides tools for running JavaScript code in sandboxed Docker environments: + +- **sandbox_initialize** — Start a new Docker container sandbox session +- **sandbox_exec** — Execute shell commands in a running sandbox +- **run_js** — Install npm deps and run JavaScript in a sandbox +- **sandbox_stop** — Terminate and remove a sandbox container +- **run_js_ephemeral** — Run a JS snippet in a temporary container (auto-cleanup) +- **get_dependency_types** — Fetch TypeScript definitions for npm packages +- **ai_generate** — Generate text using Google Gemini + +## Tech Stack + +- **Runtime:** Node.js with TypeScript (ESM) +- **Package Manager:** npm +- **Testing:** Vitest +- **MCP SDK:** `@modelcontextprotocol/sdk` +- **Containerization:** Docker + +## Development Commands + +```bash +npm run build # Compile TypeScript +npm run dev # Watch mode +npm test # Run tests (Vitest) +npm run lint # ESLint +npm run format # Prettier +``` + +## Key Files + +- `src/server.ts` — MCP server entry point, tool registration +- `src/tools/` — Individual tool implementations +- `src/config.ts` — Configuration (container timeouts, etc.) +- `src/dockerUtils.ts` — Docker container management +- `src/containerUtils.ts` — Container lifecycle/scavenger +- `src/runUtils.ts` — Code execution utilities +- `test/` — Vitest test files + +## Environment Variables + +See `.env.sample` for required environment variables including Docker configuration. + +## Superpowers Development Methodology + +This project uses the [Superpowers](https://github.com/obra/superpowers) development methodology. + +When working on this project, **always check for applicable skills before taking any action**. Skills are located in `.claude/skills/`. + +### Available Skills + +| Skill | When to Use | +|-------|-------------| +| `using-superpowers` | Starting any conversation — check this first | +| `brainstorming` | Before creating any new feature or making significant changes | +| `test-driven-development` | Before writing any implementation code | +| `systematic-debugging` | When encountering bugs or unexpected behavior | +| `writing-plans` | When you have requirements for a multi-step task | +| `executing-plans` | When executing a written implementation plan | +| `verification-before-completion` | Before claiming work is complete | +| `using-git-worktrees` | When starting feature work needing isolation | +| `dispatching-parallel-agents` | When facing 2+ independent tasks | +| `subagent-driven-development` | When executing plans with independent tasks | +| `finishing-a-development-branch` | When implementation is complete | +| `requesting-code-review` | After completing tasks, before merging | +| `receiving-code-review` | When receiving code review feedback | +| `writing-skills` | When creating or modifying skill documentation | + +### Key Principles + +1. **Design before implementation** — Use `brainstorming` before writing code +2. **Test-first** — Write failing tests before implementation code +3. **Root cause first** — Use `systematic-debugging` before proposing fixes +4. **Verify before claiming done** — Use `verification-before-completion` +5. **Plan storage:** `docs/superpowers/plans/YYYY-MM-DD-<feature>.md` +6. **Spec storage:** `docs/superpowers/specs/YYYY-MM-DD-<topic>-design.md` diff --git a/tools/kapsamkafe-video-prompt.html b/tools/kapsamkafe-video-prompt.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000..276d298 --- /dev/null +++ b/tools/kapsamkafe-video-prompt.html @@ -0,0 +1,813 @@ +<!DOCTYPE html> +<html lang="tr"> +<head> + <meta charset="UTF-8"> + <meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1.0"> + <title>KapsamKafe · Duvar Yazısı Video Üreteci + + + + +
+
+
+ ☕ +
+

KapsamKafe

+

Duvar Yazısı Video Üreteci

+
+
+ +
+
Cümlenizi girin · Stil seçin · Her seferinde farklı prompt
+
+ +
+
+ + +
+
✍️ Cümlenizi Yazın
+ +
0 / 200 karakter
+
+ + +
🎨 Duvar Stili
+
+ + + + + + +
+ + +
🌡️ Atmosfer
+
+ + + + + +
+ + + + + +
+
+
+
+
+
+ +
+
🇬🇧 English Prompt — AI Video için
+
+ + +
+
+
+ +
+
🇹🇷 Türkçe Prompt
+
+ + +
+
+
+ +
+ Uyumlu: + Runway Gen-3 + Kling AI + Sora + Pika 2.0 +
+ +
+
+ +
+
+ +
KapsamKafe · Duvar Yazısı Video Üreteci · Sadece size özel ☕
+ + + +