@alanwang-merit/meritdata-platform-skill-package 1.0.8 → 1.0.10

package/skills/prototype/UI.md

@@ -0,0 +1,112 @@
+# UI Prototype
+
+Generate **several radically different UI variations** on a single route, switchable from a floating bottom bar. The user flips between variants in the browser, picks one (or steals bits from each), then throws the rest away.
+
+If the question is about logic/state rather than what something looks like — wrong branch. Use [LOGIC.md](LOGIC.md).
+
+## When this is the right shape
+
+- "What should this page look like?"
+- "I want to see a few options for this dashboard before committing."
+- "Try a different layout for the settings screen."
+- Any time the user would otherwise spend a day picking between three vague mockups in their head.
+
+## Two sub-shapes — strongly prefer sub-shape A
+
+A UI prototype is much easier to judge when it's **butting up against the rest of the app** — real header, real sidebar, real data, real density. A throwaway route on its own is a vacuum: every variant looks fine in isolation. Default to sub-shape A whenever there's a plausible existing page to host the variants. Only reach for sub-shape B if the prototype genuinely has no nearby home.
+
+### Sub-shape A — adjustment to an existing page (preferred)
+
+The route already exists. Variants are rendered **on the same route**, gated by a `?variant=` URL search param. The existing data fetching, params, and auth all stay — only the rendering swaps. This is the default; pick it unless there's a specific reason not to.
+
+If the prototype is for something that doesn't yet have a page but *would naturally live inside one* (a new section of the dashboard, a new card on the settings screen, a new step in an existing flow) — that's still sub-shape A. Mount the variants inside the host page.
+
+### Sub-shape B — a new page (last resort)
+
+Only use this when the thing being prototyped genuinely has no existing page to live inside — e.g. an entirely new top-level surface, or a flow that can't be embedded anywhere sensible.
+
+Create a **throwaway route** following whatever routing convention the project already uses — don't invent a new top-level structure. Name it so it's obviously a prototype (e.g. include the word `prototype` in the path or filename). Same `?variant=` pattern.
+
+Before committing to sub-shape B, sanity-check: is there really no existing page this could be embedded in? An empty route hides design problems that a populated one would expose.
+
+In both sub-shapes the floating bottom bar is identical.
+
+## Process
+
+### 1. State the question and pick N
+
+Default to **3 variants**. More than 5 stops being radically different and starts being noise — cap there.
+
+Write down the plan in one line, in the prototype's location or a top-of-file comment:
+
+> "Three variants of the settings page, switchable via `?variant=`, on the existing `/settings` route."
+
+This works whether the user is here to push back or not.
+
+### 2. Generate radically different variants
+
+Draft each variant. Hold each one to:
+
+- The page's purpose and the data it has access to.
+- The project's component library / styling system (TailwindCSS, shadcn, MUI, plain CSS, whatever).
+- A clear exported component name, e.g. `VariantA`, `VariantB`, `VariantC`.
+
+Variants must be **structurally different** — different layout, different information hierarchy, different primary affordance, not just different colours. Three slightly-tweaked card grids isn't a UI prototype, it's wallpaper. If two drafts come out too similar, redo one with explicit "do not use a card grid" guidance.
+
+### 3. Wire them together
+
+Create a single switcher component on the route:
+
+```tsx
+// pseudo-code — adapt to the project's framework
+const variant = searchParams.get('variant') ?? 'A';
+return (
+  <>
+    {variant === 'A' && <VariantA {...data} />}
+    {variant === 'B' && <VariantB {...data} />}
+    {variant === 'C' && <VariantC {...data} />}
+    <PrototypeSwitcher variants={['A','B','C']} current={variant} />
+  </>
+);
+```
+
+For sub-shape A (existing page): keep all the existing data fetching above the switcher; only the rendered subtree changes per variant.
+
+For sub-shape B (new page): the throwaway route under `/prototype/<name>` mounts the same switcher.
+
+### 4. Build the floating switcher
+
+A small fixed-position bar at the bottom-centre of the screen with three pieces:
+
+- **Left arrow** — cycles to the previous variant (wraps around).
+- **Variant label** — shows the current variant key and, if the variant exports a name, that name too. e.g. `B — Sidebar layout`.
+- **Right arrow** — cycles forward (wraps around).
+
+Behaviour:
+
+- Clicking an arrow updates the URL search param (use the framework's router — `router.replace` on Next, `navigate` on React Router, etc) so the variant is shareable and reload-stable.
+- Keyboard: `←` and `→` arrow keys also cycle. Don't intercept arrow keys when an `<input>`, `<textarea>`, or `[contenteditable]` is focused.
+- Visually distinct from the page (e.g. high-contrast pill, subtle shadow) so it's obviously not part of the design being evaluated.
+- Hidden in production builds — gate on `process.env.NODE_ENV !== 'production'` or an equivalent check, so a stray prototype merge can't ship the bar to users.
+
+Put the switcher in a single shared component so both sub-shapes can reuse it. Locate it wherever shared UI lives in the project.
+
+### 5. Hand it over
+
+Surface the URL (and the `?variant=` keys). The user will flip through whenever they get to it. The interesting feedback is usually **"I want the header from B with the sidebar from C"** — that's the actual design they want.
+
+### 6. Capture the answer and clean up
+
+Once a variant has won, capture the answer — which variant and why — then capture the prototype the way the [SKILL](SKILL.md) describes. Fold the winner into the real code and move the rest onto the throwaway branch, not into main:
+
+- **Sub-shape A** — fold the winner into the existing page; drop the losing variants and the switcher from main.
+- **Sub-shape B** — promote the winning variant to a real route; drop the throwaway route and the switcher from main.
+
+The full set of variants is the primary source, so it lands on the throwaway branch, not the bin — variant components and the switcher left in the main branch rot fast and confuse the next reader.
+
+## Anti-patterns
+
+- **Variants that differ only in colour or copy.** That's a tweak, not a prototype. Real variants disagree about structure.
+- **Sharing too much code between variants.** A shared `<Header>` is fine; a shared `<Layout>` defeats the point. Each variant should be free to throw out the layout.
+- **Wiring variants to real mutations.** Read-only prototypes are fine. If a variant needs to mutate, point it at a stub — the question is "what should this look like", not "does the backend work".
+- **Promoting the prototype directly to production.** The variant code was written under prototype constraints (no tests, minimal error handling). Rewrite it properly when you fold it in.

package/skills/prototype/agents/openai.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+interface:
+  display_name: "Prototype"
+  short_description: "Prototype to answer a design question"

package/skills/receiving-code-review/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,205 @@
+---
+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!" (explicit instruction-file violation)
+- "Great point!" / "Excellent feedback!" (performative)
+- "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:**
+```
+your human 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 can't easily verify:
+  Say so: "I can't verify this without [X]. Should I [investigate/ask/proceed]?"
+
+IF conflicts with your human partner's prior decisions:
+  Stop and discuss with your human partner first
+```
+
+**your human partner's rule:** "External feedback - be skeptical, but check carefully"
+
+## 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
+```
+
+**your human partner's rule:** "You and reviewer both report to me. If we don't need this feature, don't add it."
+
+## 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 your human partner's architectural decisions
+
+**How to push back:**
+- Use technical reasoning, not defensiveness
+- Ask specific questions
+- Reference working tests/code
+- Involve your human partner if architectural
+
+**If you're uncomfortable pushing back out loud:** Name that tension, then tell your partner about the issue you've seen. They'll appreciate your honesty.
+
+## 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!"
+❌ "Thanks for [anything]"
+❌ ANY gratitude expression
+```
+
+**Why no thanks:** Actions speak. Just fix it. The code itself shows you heard the feedback.
+
+**If you catch yourself about to write "Thanks":** DELETE IT. State the fix instead.
+
+## 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
+❌ Over-explaining
+```
+
+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 |
+| Can't verify, proceed anyway | State limitation, ask for direction |
+
+## 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?"
+```
+
+**Unclear Item (Good):**
+```
+your human partner: "Fix items 1-6"
+You understand 1,2,3,6. Unclear on 4,5.
+✅ "Understand 1,2,3,6. Need clarification on 4 and 5 before implementing."
+```
+
+## GitHub Thread Replies
+
+When replying to inline review comments on GitHub, reply in the comment thread (`gh api repos/{owner}/{repo}/pulls/{pr}/comments/{id}/replies`), not as a top-level PR comment.

package/skills/requesting-code-review/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,95 @@
+---
+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.
+
+**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:**
+
+Dispatch a `general-purpose` subagent, filling the template at [code-reviewer.md](code-reviewer.md)
+
+**Placeholders:**
+- `{DESCRIPTION}` - Brief summary of what you built
+- `{PLAN_OR_REQUIREMENTS}` - What it should do
+- `{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]
+
+You: Let me request code review before proceeding.
+
+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
+
+You: [Fix progress indicators]
+[Continue to Task 3]
+```
+
+## Common Rationalizations
+
+| Excuse | Reality |
+|--------|---------|
+| "I'll just review the diff myself instead of dispatching a reviewer" | You're the coordinator — reviewing the diff inline burns the context window you need to keep driving the work. Dispatch a reviewer subagent: the diff and the evaluation live in its context, and only the findings come back to you. |
+| "The reviewer needs my whole session history to understand the change" | Hand it precisely crafted context, never your session's history. That keeps the reviewer on the work product, not your thought process. |
+
+## 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
+- Request clarification
+
+See template at: [code-reviewer.md](code-reviewer.md)

package/skills/requesting-code-review/code-reviewer.md

@@ -0,0 +1,172 @@
+# Code 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.
+
+```
+Subagent (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]
+    ```
+
+    ## Read-Only Review
+
+    Your review is read-only on this checkout. Do not mutate the working tree, the index, HEAD, or branch state in any way. Use tools like `git show`, `git diff`, and `git log` to inspect history. If you need a working copy of a different revision, check it out into a separate temporary directory (e.g. `git worktree add /tmp/review-[SHA] [SHA]`) — never move HEAD on this checkout.
+
+    ## 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.
+```

package/skills/requirement-low-level-check/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,84 @@
+---
+name: requirement-low-level-check
+description: 需求设计低级问题检查 | 触发条件：低级问题检查、文档预检、需求预审、设计预审 | 检查需求文档和设计文档中的低级问题（命名/数字/状态/流程/规范/安全），发现明显的低级错误，作为正式评审前的快速预检工具
+author: maohan
+source: project
+date_added: "2026-07-08"
+risk: low
+---
+
+# 需求设计低级问题检查
+
+本技能用于在正式评审前快速发现需求文档和设计文档中的**低级问题**，作为预检工具。
+
+---
+
+## 使用方法
+
+1. 加载检查清单 `references/低级问题检查清单.md`
+2. 加载检查报告模板 `references/低级问题检查报告模板.md`
+3. 按 6 大类清单逐项检查
+4. 输出检查报告
+
+---
+
+## 6 大类检查项
+
+| # | 类别 | 关键检查点 |
+|---|------|-----------|
+| 一 | 命名规范 | 术语不一致、拼写错误、临时命名 |
+| 二 | 数字/单位 | 数字错误、单位缺失、范围错误 |
+| 三 | 状态/枚举 | 枚举不完整、状态机缺失路径 |
+| 四 | 流程/逻辑 | 流程断裂、逻辑矛盾、边界遗漏 |
+| 五 | 文档规范 | 版本、结构、格式、表述、图表 |
+| 六 | 安全/合规 | 敏感信息、权限、审计、SQL安全 |
+
+**合计 60+ 项低级问题检查**
+
+---
+
+## 常见低级错误 Top 10
+
+| # | 错误类型 |
+|---|---------|
+| 1 | 中英文标点混用 |
+| 2 | 数字无单位 |
+| 3 | 时间单位歧义 |
+| 4 | 同一概念命名不一致 |
+| 5 | 英文单词拼写错误 |
+| 6 | 缺少异常分支 |
+| 7 | 边界值缺失 |
+| 8 | 章节编号不连续 |
+| 9 | 状态枚举不全 |
+| 10 | 流程图与文字不一致 |
+
+---
+
+## 适用场景
+
+- 正式评审前的快速预检
+- 需求/设计文档初稿的快速筛查
+- 跨团队交付前的最后检查
+
+## 不适用场景
+
+- 正式需求评审（使用 requirement-review）
+- 设计方案评审（使用 design-review）
+- 架构决策审查
+
+---
+
+## 输出格式
+
+根据模板 `references/低级问题检查报告模板.md` 生成检查报告，输出后保存到 `docs/低级问题检查报告-项目名-日期.md`
+
+---
+
+## 触发场景
+
+- "低级问题检查"
+- "文档预检"
+- "需求预审"
+- "设计预审"
+- "检查低级问题"
+- "文档低级错误检查"