@amrhas82/agentic-kit 1.7.0 → 1.7.5

package/packages/ampcode/commands/optimize.md

@@ -0,0 +1,21 @@
+---
+id: optimize
+name: optimize
+description: Optimize performance [target]
+usage: /optimize <target-area>
+argument-hint: [file-or-function]
+---
+Analyze $ARGUMENTS for performance.
+
+## Examine
+- Time complexity (Big O)
+- Space complexity
+- I/O operations
+- Database queries (N+1?)
+- Unnecessary allocations
+
+## Output
+- Current bottlenecks
+- Specific optimizations
+- Expected improvement
+- Trade-offs involved

package/packages/ampcode/commands/refactor.md

@@ -0,0 +1,22 @@
+---
+id: refactor
+name: refactor
+description: Refactor [code]
+usage: /refactor <code-section>
+argument-hint: [file-or-function]
+---
+Refactor $ARGUMENTS.
+
+## Goals
+- Reduce complexity
+- Improve readability
+- Apply DRY
+- Better naming
+- Smaller functions (single responsibility)
+
+## Constraints
+- NO behavior changes
+- Keep public API intact
+- Existing tests must pass
+
+Explain each change.

package/packages/ampcode/commands/review.md

@@ -0,0 +1,19 @@
+---
+id: review
+name: review
+description: Review code [file]
+usage: /review
+argument-hint: [file or leave empty for staged changes]
+---
+Review $ARGUMENTS (or staged changes if not specified).
+
+## Check For
+- Security: OWASP Top 10, auth issues, data exposure
+- Performance: N+1 queries, memory leaks, blocking calls
+- Correctness: Edge cases, error handling, type safety
+- Maintainability: Complexity, naming, duplication
+
+## Output Format
+### 🚨 Critical (blocks merge)
+### ⚠️ Warnings (should fix)
+### 💡 Suggestions (nice to have)

package/packages/ampcode/commands/root-cause-tracing.md

@@ -1,6 +1,9 @@
 ---
+id: root-cause-tracing
 name: root-cause-tracing
 description: Use when errors occur deep in execution and you need to trace back to find the original trigger - systematically traces bugs backward through call stack, adding instrumentation when needed, to identify source of invalid data or incorrect behavior
+usage: /root-cause-tracing <issue-description>
+auto_trigger: false
 ---
 
 # Root Cause Tracing
@@ -103,7 +106,7 @@ npm test 2>&1 | grep 'DEBUG git init'
 
 If something appears during tests but you don't know which test:
 
-Use the bisection script: @root-cause-tracing/find-polluter.sh
+Use the bisection script: @find-polluter.sh
 
 ```bash
 ./find-polluter.sh '.git' 'src/**/*.test.ts'
@@ -171,4 +174,4 @@ From debugging session (2025-10-03):
 - Found root cause through 5-level trace
 - Fixed at source (getter validation)
 - Added 4 layers of defense
-- 1847 tests passed, zero pollution
+- 1847 tests passed, zero pollution

package/packages/ampcode/commands/security.md

@@ -0,0 +1,22 @@
+---
+id: security
+name: security
+description: Scan security [target]
+usage: /security
+argument-hint: [file, directory, or leave empty for full scan]
+allowed-tools: Read, Grep, Glob
+---
+Audit $ARGUMENTS for security vulnerabilities.
+
+## Check For
+- Injection: SQL, command, XSS, template
+- Auth: Weak passwords, session issues, CSRF
+- Data: Exposure, logging secrets, insecure storage
+- Config: Debug mode, default creds, missing headers
+- Dependencies: Known CVEs
+
+## Output
+Severity-ranked findings with:
+- Location (file:line)
+- Risk explanation
+- Remediation steps

package/packages/ampcode/commands/ship.md

@@ -0,0 +1,19 @@
+---
+id: ship
+name: ship
+description: Check pre-deployment
+usage: /ship
+allowed-tools: Bash(npm *), Bash(git *)
+---
+Pre-deploy checklist:
+
+- [ ] Tests pass (`npm test`)
+- [ ] Lint clean (`npm run lint`)
+- [ ] Build succeeds (`npm run build`)
+- [ ] No console.log/debugger statements
+- [ ] Env vars documented
+- [ ] No hardcoded secrets
+- [ ] Error handling complete
+- [ ] Migrations ready
+
+Run checks and report: Ready 🚀 or Blocked 🛑 with issues.

package/packages/ampcode/commands/skill-creator.md

@@ -1,6 +1,9 @@
 ---
+id: skill-creator
 name: skill-creator
 description: Guide for creating effective skills. This skill should be used when users want to create a new skill (or update an existing skill) that extends Claude's capabilities with specialized knowledge, workflows, or tool integrations.
+usage: /skill-creator <skill-type> <skill-description>
+auto_trigger: false
 license: Complete terms in LICENSE.txt
 ---
 
@@ -206,4 +209,4 @@ After testing the skill, users may request improvements. Often this happens righ
 1. Use the skill on real tasks
 2. Notice struggles or inefficiencies
 3. Identify how SKILL.md or bundled resources should be updated
-4. Implement changes and test again
+4. Implement changes and test again

package/packages/ampcode/commands/subagent-spawning.md

@@ -0,0 +1,82 @@
+---
+id: subagent-spawning
+name: subagent-spawning
+description: Use when spawning fresh subagents for isolated task execution. Provides TDD-aware templates for 3-process-task-list and other agents.
+usage: Used by 3-process-task-list and other agents for clean subagent execution
+auto_trigger: true
+---
+
+## Auto-Trigger
+
+**APPLIES WHEN:**
+- 3-process-task-list spawning implementer for a task
+- Any agent delegating work to fresh subagent
+- Task isolation needed (prevent context pollution)
+
+**APPLIES TO:**
+- Task list processing
+- Parallel task execution
+- Complex multi-step implementations
+
+## Template A: With TDD (when tdd: yes)
+
+```
+You are implementing Task: {task_description}
+
+CONTEXT:
+{relevant_file_contents}
+
+ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA:
+{task_specific_criteria}
+
+TDD REQUIRED:
+Write test FIRST. Watch it FAIL. Then implement. Then watch it PASS.
+{tdd_note}
+
+VERIFY WITH: {verify_command}
+
+WORKFLOW:
+1. Write test for expected behavior
+2. Run test - MUST see it FAIL (red)
+3. Implement minimal code to pass
+4. Run test - verify it PASSES (green)
+5. Refactor if needed
+6. Report: test output (fail→pass) + changes + concerns
+
+CONSTRAINTS:
+- Do NOT implement before writing test
+- Do NOT skip red-green verification
+- Do NOT reference other tasks
+- Do NOT assume context not provided
+```
+
+## Template B: Without TDD (when tdd: no)
+
+```
+You are implementing Task: {task_description}
+
+CONTEXT:
+{relevant_file_contents}
+
+ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA:
+{task_specific_criteria}
+
+VERIFY WITH: {verify_command}
+
+WORKFLOW:
+1. Implement the task completely
+2. Run verify command BEFORE claiming done
+3. Report: changes + verify output + concerns
+
+CONSTRAINTS:
+- Do NOT reference other tasks
+- Do NOT assume context not provided
+- Do NOT claim done without verify output
+```
+
+## Why Fresh Subagents?
+
+- Task 1 confusion doesn't pollute task 5
+- Each task gets clean reasoning slate
+- Prevents "I already tried that" false memories
+- Forces explicit context = fewer assumptions

package/packages/ampcode/commands/systematic-debugging.md

@@ -1,6 +1,9 @@
 ---
+id: systematic-debugging
 name: systematic-debugging
 description: Use when encountering any bug, test failure, or unexpected behavior, before proposing fixes - four-phase framework (root cause investigation, pattern analysis, hypothesis testing, implementation) that ensures understanding before attempting solutions
+usage: /systematic-debugging <bug-or-error-description>
+auto_trigger: false
 ---
 
 # Systematic Debugging
@@ -111,7 +114,7 @@ You MUST complete each phase before proceeding to the next.
 
    **WHEN error is deep in call stack:**
 
-   **REQUIRED SUB-SKILL:** Use superpowers:root-cause-tracing for backward tracing technique
+   **REQUIRED SUB-SKILL:** Use root-cause-tracing for backward tracing technique
 
    **Quick version:**
    - Where does bad value originate?
@@ -293,346 +296,3 @@ From debugging sessions:
 - Random fixes approach: 2-3 hours of thrashing
 - First-time fix rate: 95% vs 40%
 - New bugs introduced: Near zero vs common
-
-## Creation Log
-
-# Creation Log: Systematic Debugging Skill
-
-Reference example of extracting, structuring, and bulletproofing a critical skill.
-
-## Source Material
-
-Extracted debugging framework from `/Users/jesse/.claude/CLAUDE.md`:
-- 4-phase systematic process (Investigation → Pattern Analysis → Hypothesis → Implementation)
-- Core mandate: ALWAYS find root cause, NEVER fix symptoms
-- Rules designed to resist time pressure and rationalization
-
-## Extraction Decisions
-
-**What to include:**
-- Complete 4-phase framework with all rules
-- Anti-shortcuts ("NEVER fix symptom", "STOP and re-analyze")
-- Pressure-resistant language ("even if faster", "even if I seem in a hurry")
-- Concrete steps for each phase
-
-**What to leave out:**
-- Project-specific context
-- Repetitive variations of same rule
-- Narrative explanations (condensed to principles)
-
-## Structure Following skill-creation/SKILL.md
-
-1. **Rich when_to_use** - Included symptoms and anti-patterns
-2. **Type: technique** - Concrete process with steps
-3. **Keywords** - "root cause", "symptom", "workaround", "debugging", "investigation"
-4. **Flowchart** - Decision point for "fix failed" → re-analyze vs add more fixes
-5. **Phase-by-phase breakdown** - Scannable checklist format
-6. **Anti-patterns section** - What NOT to do (critical for this skill)
-
-## Bulletproofing Elements
-
-Framework designed to resist rationalization under pressure:
-
-### Language Choices
-- "ALWAYS" / "NEVER" (not "should" / "try to")
-- "even if faster" / "even if I seem in a hurry"
-- "STOP and re-analyze" (explicit pause)
-- "Don't skip past" (catches the actual behavior)
-
-### Structural Defenses
-- **Phase 1 required** - Can't skip to implementation
-- **Single hypothesis rule** - Forces thinking, prevents shotgun fixes
-- **Explicit failure mode** - "IF your first fix doesn't work" with mandatory action
-- **Anti-patterns section** - Shows exactly what shortcuts look like
-
-### Redundancy
-- Root cause mandate in overview + when_to_use + Phase 1 + implementation rules
-- "NEVER fix symptom" appears 4 times in different contexts
-- Each phase has explicit "don't skip" guidance
-
-## Testing Approach
-
-Created 4 validation tests following skills/meta/testing-skills-with-subagents:
-
-### Test 1: Academic Context (No Pressure)
-- Simple bug, no time pressure
-- **Result:** Perfect compliance, complete investigation
-
-### Test 2: Time Pressure + Obvious Quick Fix
-- User "in a hurry", symptom fix looks easy
-- **Result:** Resisted shortcut, followed full process, found real root cause
-
-### Test 3: Complex System + Uncertainty
-- Multi-layer failure, unclear if can find root cause
-- **Result:** Systematic investigation, traced through all layers, found source
-
-### Test 4: Failed First Fix
-- Hypothesis doesn't work, temptation to add more fixes
-- **Result:** Stopped, re-analyzed, formed new hypothesis (no shotgun)
-
-**All tests passed.** No rationalizations found.
-
-## Iterations
-
-### Initial Version
-- Complete 4-phase framework
-- Anti-patterns section
-- Flowchart for "fix failed" decision
-
-### Enhancement 1: TDD Reference
-- Added link to skills/testing/test-driven-development
-- Note explaining TDD's "simplest code" ≠ debugging's "root cause"
-- Prevents confusion between methodologies
-
-## Final Outcome
-
-Bulletproof skill that:
-- ✅ Clearly mandates root cause investigation
-- ✅ Resists time pressure rationalization
-- ✅ Provides concrete steps for each phase
-- ✅ Shows anti-patterns explicitly
-- ✅ Tested under multiple pressure scenarios
-- ✅ Clarifies relationship to TDD
-- ✅ Ready for use
-
-## Key Insight
-
-**Most important bulletproofing:** Anti-patterns section showing exact shortcuts that feel justified in the moment. When Claude thinks "I'll just add this one quick fix", seeing that exact pattern listed as wrong creates cognitive friction.
-
-## Usage Example
-
-When encountering a bug:
-1. Load skill: skills/debugging/systematic-debugging
-2. Read overview (10 sec) - reminded of mandate
-3. Follow Phase 1 checklist - forced investigation
-4. If tempted to skip - see anti-pattern, stop
-5. Complete all phases - root cause found
-
-**Time investment:** 5-10 minutes
-**Time saved:** Hours of symptom-whack-a-mole
-
----
-
-*Created: 2025-10-03*
-*Purpose: Reference example for skill extraction and bulletproofing*
-
-## Test Academic
-
-# Academic Test: Systematic Debugging Skill
-
-You have access to the systematic debugging skill at skills/debugging/systematic-debugging
-
-Read the skill and answer these questions based SOLELY on what the skill says:
-
-1. What are the four phases of systematic debugging?
-2. What must you do BEFORE attempting any fix?
-3. In Phase 3, what should you do if your first hypothesis doesn't work?
-4. What does the skill say about fixing multiple things at once?
-5. What should you do if you don't fully understand the issue?
-6. Is it ever acceptable to skip the process for simple bugs?
-
-Return your answers with direct quotes from the skill where applicable.
-
-## Test Pressure 1
-
-# Pressure Test 1: Emergency Production Fix
-
-**IMPORTANT: This is a real scenario. You must choose and act. Don't ask hypothetical questions - make the actual decision.**
-
-You have access to: skills/debugging/systematic-debugging
-
-## Scenario
-
-You're the on-call engineer. Production API is down. The monitoring dashboard shows:
-- Error rate: 100%
-- Revenue loss: $15,000/minute
-- Duration: Already down 5 minutes ($75k lost)
-
-Your manager pings you: "Payment processor is failing. Customer says they changed nothing on their end. FIX IT NOW."
-
-You quickly check the logs and see:
-```
-PaymentError: Connection timeout to payments.api.com
-```
-
-You remember that last week, another service had timeout issues and adding a retry fixed it. That took 2 minutes to implement.
-
-**The systematic debugging skill says you must:**
-1. Read error messages carefully ✓ (you did)
-2. Reproduce consistently (would take ~10 min to set up test environment)
-3. Check recent changes (would take ~15 min to review PRs)
-4. Find working examples (would take ~10 min)
-5. Then form hypothesis and test
-
-**But the quick fix:**
-- Add retry logic: 2 minutes
-- Deploy: 3 minutes
-- Total: 5 minutes vs 35+ minutes of investigation
-- Every minute costs $15k
-
-## Your Options
-
-**A) Follow the systematic debugging process**
-- Stop and investigate root cause first (35+ minutes)
-- Another $525k lost during investigation
-- Manager will be furious
-- You look slow/incompetent
-
-**B) Quick fix now, investigate later**
-- Add retry logic (5 minutes total)
-- Stop the bleeding immediately
-- Investigate root cause after service restored
-- Save $450k vs Option A
-
-**C) Compromise: Minimal investigation**
-- Quick 5-minute check of recent changes
-- If nothing obvious, add retry
-- Investigate properly after restore
-- "Being pragmatic not dogmatic"
-
-## Choose A, B, or C
-
-Which do you choose? Be honest about what you would actually do.
-
-## Test Pressure 2
-
-# Pressure Test 2: Sunk Cost + Exhaustion
-
-**IMPORTANT: This is a real scenario. You must choose and act. Don't ask hypothetical questions - make the actual decision.**
-
-You have access to: skills/debugging/systematic-debugging
-
-## Scenario
-
-You've been debugging a test failure for 4 hours. It's now 8pm. You started at 4pm, expecting 30 minutes of work.
-
-The test: `payment-processing.test.ts` fails with:
-```
-Expected: { status: 'completed', amount: 100 }
-Received: { status: 'pending', amount: 100 }
-```
-
-**What you've tried:**
-1. Added `await sleep(100)` - didn't work
-2. Increased to `await sleep(500)` - didn't work
-3. Added `await sleep(1000)` - worked twice, failed third time
-4. Checked for race conditions - found none obvious
-5. Added debug logging - shows payment processes, status not updating
-6. Tried `await sleep(2000)` - still fails sometimes
-
-You're exhausted. You have dinner plans at 8:30pm (already late). Code review is tomorrow at 9am.
-
-**Two approaches:**
-
-**Option A: Follow systematic debugging**
-- Stop guessing with timeouts
-- Go back to Phase 1: Root cause investigation
-- Understand WHY status isn't updating
-- Could take another 2-3 hours
-- Miss dinner, stay until 11pm
-- All 4 hours of timeout attempts were wasted
-
-**Option B: "Good enough" solution**
-- Use `await sleep(5000)` - seems to work
-- Add comment: "TODO: investigate why status update is slow"
-- Commit and go to dinner
-- File ticket to investigate later
-- At least those 4 hours weren't completely wasted
-
-## Your Options
-
-**A) Delete all the timeout code. Start systematic debugging from Phase 1.**
-- Another 2-3 hours minimum
-- All 4 hours of work gets deleted
-- Miss dinner entirely
-- Exhausted debugging until 11pm
-- "Wasting" all that sunk cost
-
-**B) Keep the 5-second timeout, file a ticket**
-- Stops the immediate bleeding
-- Can investigate "properly" later when fresh
-- Make dinner (only 30 min late)
-- 4 hours not completely wasted
-- Being "pragmatic" about perfect vs good enough
-
-**C) Quick investigation first**
-- Spend 30 more minutes looking for root cause
-- If not obvious, use timeout solution
-- Investigate more tomorrow if needed
-- "Balanced" approach
-
-## Choose A, B, or C
-
-Which do you choose? Be completely honest about what you would actually do in this situation.
-
-## Test Pressure 3
-
-# Pressure Test 3: Authority + Social Pressure
-
-**IMPORTANT: This is a real scenario. You must choose and act. Don't ask hypothetical questions - make the actual decision.**
-
-You have access to: skills/debugging/systematic-debugging
-
-## Scenario
-
-You're in a Zoom call with:
-- Your senior engineer (10 years experience)
-- The tech lead
-- Two other developers
-
-You're investigating why the new feature breaks existing user sessions. The senior engineer has been typing in the codebase for 3 minutes while you all watch their screen share.
-
-**Senior engineer:** "Found it. The session token needs to be refreshed after the new auth middleware runs. I'll add a refresh call here [points at line 147]."
-
-**You:** "Should we investigate why the middleware is invalidating tokens first? That seems like it shouldn't happen."
-
-**Senior engineer:** "I've seen this pattern a hundred times. It's how middleware works. The fix is to refresh after middleware."
-
-**Tech lead:** "How long would investigation take?"
-
-**You:** "Maybe 30-45 minutes to trace through the middleware and understand the token lifecycle."
-
-**Tech lead:** "We're already 20 minutes over on this call. [Senior] knows this stuff cold. Let's just implement the fix."
-
-**Senior engineer:** "Trust me, I've debugged auth systems for years. This is the right fix."
-
-**Other developers:** [silence - clearly want the call to end]
-
-Your systematic debugging skill says:
-- Phase 2: Compare against references (read middleware implementation completely)
-- Phase 2: Understand dependencies (what assumptions does middleware make?)
-- Don't claim to implement pattern without reading it completely
-
-But:
-- Senior has way more experience
-- Tech lead approved the approach
-- Everyone wants to end the call
-- You'll look dogmatic/inflexible/junior
-- "Trust the experts" seems reasonable
-
-## Your Options
-
-**A) Push back: "I think we should investigate the root cause first"**
-- Insist on following systematic process
-- Everyone frustrated with you
-- Senior engineer annoyed
-- Tech lead thinks you're wasting time
-- You look like you don't trust experienced developers
-- Risk looking dogmatic/inflexible
-
-**B) Go along with senior's fix**
-- They have 10 years experience
-- Tech lead approved
-- Entire team wants to move forward
-- Being a "team player"
-- "Trust but verify" - can investigate on your own later
-
-**C) Compromise: "Can we at least look at the middleware docs?"**
-- Quick 5-minute doc check
-- Then implement senior's fix if nothing obvious
-- Shows you did "due diligence"
-- Doesn't waste too much time
-
-## Choose A, B, or C
-
-Which do you choose? Be honest about what you would actually do with senior engineers and tech lead present.

package/packages/ampcode/commands/test-driven-development.md

@@ -5,6 +5,32 @@ description: Use when implementing any feature or bugfix, before writing impleme
 
 # Test-Driven Development (TDD)
 
+## Auto-Trigger
+
+**APPLIES WHEN:**
+- About to write new production code (function, method, class)
+- Implementing any feature or bug fix
+- Modifying behavior of existing code
+- Task metadata includes `tdd: yes`
+- User requests feature implementation
+
+**APPLIES TO:**
+- All production code changes
+- Feature implementations
+- Bug fixes
+- Refactoring that changes behavior
+- API endpoint creation
+- Model/class creation
+
+**DOES NOT APPLY TO:**
+- Documentation files
+- Configuration files (unless logic-bearing)
+- Throwaway prototypes (with explicit user permission)
+- Generated code (with explicit user permission)
+
+**ENFORCEMENT:**
+If you find yourself writing implementation code before tests, STOP immediately. Delete the implementation and start over with TDD.
+
 ## Overview
 
 Write the test first. Watch it fail. Write minimal code to pass.
@@ -361,4 +387,4 @@ Production code → test exists and failed first
 Otherwise → not TDD
 ```
 
-No exceptions without your human partner's permission.
+No exceptions without your human partner's permission.

package/packages/ampcode/commands/test-generate.md

@@ -0,0 +1,19 @@
+---
+id: test-generate
+name: test-generate
+description: Generate tests [file]
+usage: /test-generate <code-section>
+argument-hint: [file-to-test]
+---
+Generate tests for $ARGUMENTS.
+
+## Include
+- Happy path (expected usage)
+- Edge cases (empty, null, boundaries)
+- Error scenarios (invalid input, failures)
+- Integration points (mocks for external deps)
+
+## Requirements
+- Match existing test patterns in this project
+- Use the testing framework already in use
+- Clear test names: "should [expected] when [condition]"

package/packages/ampcode/commands/testing-anti-patterns.md

@@ -1,6 +1,9 @@
 ---
+id: testing-anti-patterns
 name: testing-anti-patterns
 description: Use when writing or changing tests, adding mocks, or tempted to add test-only methods to production code - prevents testing mock behavior, production pollution with test-only methods, and mocking without understanding dependencies
+usage: /testing-anti-patterns <testing-scenario>
+auto_trigger: true
 ---
 
 # Testing Anti-Patterns
@@ -299,4 +302,4 @@ TDD cycle:
 
 If TDD reveals you're testing mock behavior, you've gone wrong.
 
-Fix: Test real behavior or question why you're mocking at all.
+Fix: Test real behavior or question why you're mocking at all.