@bastani/atomic 0.6.5 → 0.6.6-0

package/.agents/skills/{critique/SKILL.md → impeccable/reference/critique.md}

@@ -1,24 +1,12 @@
----
-name: critique
-description: Evaluate design from a UX perspective, assessing visual hierarchy, information architecture, emotional resonance, cognitive load, and overall quality with quantitative scoring, persona-based testing, automated anti-pattern detection, and actionable feedback. Use when the user asks to review, critique, evaluate, or give feedback on a design or component.
-version: 2.1.1
-user-invocable: true
-argument-hint: "[area (feature, page, component...)]"
----
+> **Additional context needed**: what the interface is trying to accomplish.
 
-## STEPS
+### Gather Assessments
 
-### Step 1: Preparation
+Launch two independent assessments. **Neither may see the other's output** — this isolation is what makes the combined score honest. Running both in one head silently anchors them to each other; do not shortcut it for cost, speed, or context-size reasons.
 
-Invoke /impeccable, which contains design principles, anti-patterns, and the **Context Gathering Protocol**. Follow the protocol before proceeding. If no design context exists yet, you MUST run /impeccable teach first. Additionally gather: what the interface is trying to accomplish.
+Delegate each assessment to a separate sub-agent (Claude Code's `Agent` tool, Codex's subagent spawning, etc.). Each returns structured findings as text. Do NOT output findings to the user yet.
 
-### Step 2: Gather Assessments
-
-Launch two independent assessments. **Neither must see the other's output** to avoid bias.
-
-You SHOULD delegate each assessment to a separate sub-agent for independence. Use your environment's agent spawning mechanism (e.g., Claude Code's `Agent` tool, or Codex's subagent spawning). Sub-agents should return their findings as structured text. Do NOT output findings to the user yet.
-
-If sub-agents are not available in the current environment, complete each assessment sequentially, writing findings to internal notes before proceeding.
+Fall back to sequential in-head work only if the environment genuinely cannot spawn sub-agents.
 
 **Tab isolation**: When browser automation is available, each assessment MUST create its own new tab. Never reuse an existing tab, even if one is already open at the correct URL. This prevents the two assessments from interfering with each other's page state.
 
@@ -30,11 +18,11 @@ document.title = '[LLM] ' + document.title;
 ```
 Think like a design director. Evaluate:
 
-**AI Slop Detection (CRITICAL)**: Does this look like every other AI-generated interface? Review against ALL **DON'T** guidelines in the impeccable skill. Check for AI color palette, gradient text, dark glows, glassmorphism, hero metric layouts, identical card grids, generic fonts, and all other tells. **The test**: If someone said "AI made this," would you believe them immediately?
+**AI Slop Detection (CRITICAL)**: Does this look like every other AI-generated interface? Review against ALL **DON'T** guidelines from the parent impeccable skill (already loaded in this context). Check for AI color palette, gradient text, dark glows, glassmorphism, hero metric layouts, identical card grids, generic fonts, and all other tells. **The test**: If someone said "AI made this," would you believe them immediately?
 
 **Holistic Design Review**: visual hierarchy (eye flow, primary action clarity), information architecture (structure, grouping, cognitive load), emotional resonance (does it match brand and audience?), discoverability (are interactive elements obvious?), composition (balance, whitespace, rhythm), typography (hierarchy, readability, font choices), color (purposeful use, cohesion, accessibility), states & edge cases (empty, loading, error, success), microcopy (clarity, tone, helpfulness).
 
-**Cognitive Load** (consult [cognitive-load](reference/cognitive-load.md)):
+**Cognitive Load** (consult [cognitive-load](cognitive-load.md)):
 - Run the 8-item cognitive load checklist. Report failure count: 0-1 = low (good), 2-3 = moderate, 4+ = critical.
 - Count visible options at each decision point. If >4, flag it.
 - Check for progressive disclosure: is complexity revealed only when needed?
@@ -44,7 +32,7 @@ Think like a design director. Evaluate:
 - **Peak-end rule**: Is the most intense moment positive? Does the experience end well?
 - **Emotional valleys**: Check for anxiety spikes at high-stakes moments (payment, delete, commit). Are there design interventions (progress indicators, reassurance copy, undo options)?
 
-**Nielsen's Heuristics** (consult [heuristics-scoring](reference/heuristics-scoring.md)):
+**Nielsen's Heuristics** (consult [heuristics-scoring](heuristics-scoring.md)):
 Score each of the 10 heuristics 0-4. This scoring will be presented in the report.
 
 Return structured findings covering: AI slop verdict, heuristic scores, cognitive load assessment, what's working (2-3 items), priority issues (3-5 with what/why/fix), minor observations, and provocative questions.
@@ -64,7 +52,7 @@ npx impeccable --json [--fast] [target]
 - For 500+ files, narrow scope or ask the user
 - Exit code 0 = clean, 2 = findings
 
-**Browser visualization** (when browser automation tools are available AND the target is a viewable page):
+**Browser visualization** — **required** when browser automation tools are available AND the target is a viewable page. The `[Human]` overlay tab is the user-facing deliverable; the critique is incomplete without it. Skip only if the target is not a viewable page (CSS-only file, non-browser target).
 
 The overlay is a **visual aid for the user**. It highlights issues directly in their browser. Do NOT scroll through the page to screenshot overlays. Instead, read the console output to get the results programmatically.
 
@@ -94,14 +82,14 @@ For multi-view targets, inject on 3-5 representative pages. If injection fails,
 
 Return: CLI findings (JSON), browser console findings (if applicable), and any false positives noted.
 
-### Step 3: Generate Combined Critique Report
+### Generate Combined Critique Report
 
 Synthesize both assessments into a single report. Do NOT simply concatenate. Weave the findings together, noting where the LLM review and detector agree, where the detector caught issues the LLM missed, and where detector findings are false positives.
 
 Structure your feedback as a design director would:
 
 #### Design Health Score
-> *Consult [heuristics-scoring](reference/heuristics-scoring.md)*
+> *Consult [heuristics-scoring](heuristics-scoring.md)*
 
 Present the Nielsen's 10 heuristics scores as a table:
 
@@ -140,16 +128,16 @@ Highlight 2-3 things done well. Be specific about why they work.
 #### Priority Issues
 The 3-5 most impactful design problems, ordered by importance.
 
-For each issue, tag with **P0-P3 severity** (consult [heuristics-scoring](reference/heuristics-scoring.md) for severity definitions):
+For each issue, tag with **P0-P3 severity** (consult [heuristics-scoring](heuristics-scoring.md) for severity definitions):
 - **[P?] What**: Name the problem clearly
 - **Why it matters**: How this hurts users or undermines goals
 - **Fix**: What to do about it (be concrete)
-- **Suggested command**: Which command could address this (from: /animate, /quieter, /shape, /optimize, /adapt, /clarify, /layout, /distill, /delight, /audit, /harden, /polish, /bolder, /typeset, /critique, /colorize, /overdrive)
+- **Suggested command**: Which command could address this (from: $impeccable adapt, $impeccable animate, $impeccable audit, $impeccable bolder, $impeccable clarify, $impeccable colorize, $impeccable critique, $impeccable delight, $impeccable distill, $impeccable document, $impeccable harden, $impeccable layout, $impeccable onboard, $impeccable optimize, $impeccable overdrive, $impeccable polish, $impeccable quieter, $impeccable shape, $impeccable typeset)
 
 #### Persona Red Flags
-> *Consult [personas](reference/personas.md)*
+> *Consult [personas](personas.md)*
 
-Auto-select 2-3 personas most relevant to this interface type (use the selection table in the reference). If `.github/copilot-instructions.md` contains a `## Design Context` section from `impeccable teach`, also generate 1-2 project-specific personas from the audience/brand info.
+Auto-select 2-3 personas most relevant to this interface type (use the selection table in the reference). If `AGENTS.md` contains a `## Design Context` section from `impeccable teach`, also generate 1-2 project-specific personas from the audience/brand info.
 
 For each selected persona, walk through the primary user action and list specific red flags found:
 
@@ -176,9 +164,9 @@ Provocative questions that might unlock better solutions:
 - Prioritize ruthlessly. If everything is important, nothing is.
 - Don't soften criticism. Developers need honest feedback to ship great design.
 
-### Step 4: Ask the User
+### Ask the User
 
-**After presenting findings**, use targeted questions based on what was actually found. ask the user directly to clarify what you cannot infer. These answers will shape the action plan.
+**After presenting findings**, use targeted questions based on what was actually found. STOP and use Codex's structured user-input/question tool when available; if unavailable, ask directly in chat to clarify what you cannot infer. These answers will shape the action plan.
 
 Ask questions along these lines (adapt to the specific findings; do NOT ask generic questions):
 
@@ -194,32 +182,32 @@ Ask questions along these lines (adapt to the specific findings; do NOT ask gene
 - Every question must reference specific findings from the report. Never ask generic "who is your audience?" questions.
 - Keep it to 2-4 questions maximum. Respect the user's time.
 - Offer concrete options, not open-ended prompts.
-- If findings are straightforward (e.g., only 1-2 clear issues), skip questions and go directly to Step 5.
+- If findings are straightforward (e.g., only 1-2 clear issues), skip questions and go directly to Recommended Actions.
 
-### Step 5: Recommended Actions
+### Recommended Actions
 
-**After receiving the user's answers**, present a prioritized action summary reflecting the user's priorities and scope from Step 4.
+**After receiving the user's answers**, present a prioritized action summary reflecting the user's priorities and scope from Ask the User.
 
 #### Action Summary
 
 List recommended commands in priority order, based on the user's answers:
 
-1. **`/command-name`**: Brief description of what to fix (specific context from critique findings)
-2. **`/command-name`**: Brief description (specific context)
+1. **`$command-name`**: Brief description of what to fix (specific context from critique findings)
+2. **`$command-name`**: Brief description (specific context)
 ...
 
 **Rules for recommendations**:
-- Only recommend commands from: /animate, /quieter, /shape, /optimize, /adapt, /clarify, /layout, /distill, /delight, /audit, /harden, /polish, /bolder, /typeset, /critique, /colorize, /overdrive
+- Only recommend commands from: $impeccable adapt, $impeccable animate, $impeccable audit, $impeccable bolder, $impeccable clarify, $impeccable colorize, $impeccable critique, $impeccable delight, $impeccable distill, $impeccable document, $impeccable harden, $impeccable layout, $impeccable onboard, $impeccable optimize, $impeccable overdrive, $impeccable polish, $impeccable quieter, $impeccable shape, $impeccable typeset
 - Order by the user's stated priorities first, then by impact
 - Each item's description should carry enough context that the command knows what to focus on
 - Map each Priority Issue to the appropriate command
 - Skip commands that would address zero issues
 - If the user chose a limited scope, only include items within that scope
 - If the user marked areas as off-limits, exclude commands that would touch those areas
-- End with `/polish` as the final step if any fixes were recommended
+- End with `$impeccable polish` as the final step if any fixes were recommended
 
 After presenting the summary, tell the user:
 
 > You can ask me to run these one at a time, all at once, or in any order you prefer.
 >
-> Re-run `/critique` after fixes to see your score improve.
+> Re-run `$impeccable critique` after fixes to see your score improve.

package/.agents/skills/{delight/SKILL.md → impeccable/reference/delight.md}

@@ -1,16 +1,14 @@
----
-name: delight
-description: Add moments of joy, personality, and unexpected touches that make interfaces memorable and enjoyable to use. Elevates functional to delightful. Use when the user asks to add polish, personality, animations, micro-interactions, delight, or make an interface feel fun or memorable.
-version: 2.1.1
-user-invocable: true
-argument-hint: "[target]"
----
+> **Additional context needed**: what's appropriate for the domain (playful vs professional vs quirky vs elegant).
 
 Identify opportunities to add moments of joy, personality, and unexpected polish that transform functional interfaces into delightful experiences.
 
-## MANDATORY PREPARATION
+---
+
+## Register
+
+Brand: delight can be distributed — copy voice, section transitions, discovery rewards, seasonal touches, personality across the whole surface.
 
-Invoke /impeccable — it contains design principles, anti-patterns, and the **Context Gathering Protocol**. Follow the protocol before proceeding — if no design context exists yet, you MUST run /impeccable teach first. Additionally gather: what's appropriate for the domain (playful vs professional vs quirky vs elegant).
+Product: delight at specific moments, not pages. Completion, first-time actions, error recovery, milestone crossings. Reliability and consistency carry the rest of the experience; delight pushed everywhere reads as noise.
 
 ---
 
@@ -39,7 +37,7 @@ Identify where delight would enhance (not distract from) the experience:
    - **Helpful surprises**: Anticipating needs before users ask (productivity tools)
    - **Sensory richness**: Satisfying sounds, smooth animations (creative tools)
 
-If any of these are unclear from the codebase, ask the user directly to clarify what you cannot infer.
+If any of these are unclear from the codebase, STOP and use Codex's structured user-input/question tool when available; if unavailable, ask directly in chat to clarify what you cannot infer.
 
 **CRITICAL**: Delight should enhance usability, never obscure it. If users notice the delight more than accomplishing their goal, you've gone too far.
 
@@ -301,4 +299,4 @@ Test that delight actually delights:
 - **Appropriate**: Matches brand and context
 - **Accessible**: Works with reduced motion, screen readers
 
-Remember: Delight is the difference between a tool and an experience. Add personality, surprise users positively, and create moments worth sharing. But always respect usability - delight should enhance, never obstruct.
+Remember: Delight is the difference between a tool and an experience. Add personality, surprise users positively, and create moments worth sharing. But always respect usability - delight should enhance, never obstruct.

package/.agents/skills/{distill/SKILL.md → impeccable/reference/distill.md}

@@ -1,16 +1,5 @@
----
-name: distill
-description: Strip designs to their essence by removing unnecessary complexity. Great design is simple, powerful, and clean. Use when the user asks to simplify, declutter, reduce noise, remove elements, or make a UI cleaner and more focused.
-version: 2.1.1
-user-invocable: true
-argument-hint: "[target]"
----
-
 Remove unnecessary complexity from designs, revealing the essential elements and creating clarity through ruthless simplification.
 
-## MANDATORY PREPARATION
-
-Invoke /impeccable — it contains design principles, anti-patterns, and the **Context Gathering Protocol**. Follow the protocol before proceeding — if no design context exists yet, you MUST run /impeccable teach first.
 
 ---
 
@@ -32,7 +21,7 @@ Analyze what makes the design feel complex or cluttered:
    - What can be removed, hidden, or combined?
    - What's the 20% that delivers 80% of value?
 
-If any of these are unclear from the codebase, ask the user directly to clarify what you cannot infer.
+If any of these are unclear from the codebase, STOP and use Codex's structured user-input/question tool when available; if unavailable, ask directly in chat to clarify what you cannot infer.
 
 **CRITICAL**: Simplicity is not about removing features - it's about removing obstacles between users and their goals. Every element should justify its existence.
 
@@ -119,4 +108,4 @@ If you removed features or options:
 - Consider if they need alternative access points
 - Note any user feedback to monitor
 
-Remember: You have great taste and judgment. Simplification is an act of confidence - knowing what to keep and courage to remove the rest. As Antoine de Saint-Exupéry said: "Perfection is achieved not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away."
+Remember: You have great taste and judgment. Simplification is an act of confidence - knowing what to keep and courage to remove the rest. As Antoine de Saint-Exupéry said: "Perfection is achieved not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away."