@boyingliu01/xp-gate 0.8.6 → 0.8.9

package/plugins/opencode/skills/test-driven-development/testing-anti-patterns.md

@@ -0,0 +1,299 @@
+# 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
+
+**your human partner's correction:** "Are we testing the behavior of a mock?"
+
+**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
+
+**your human partner's question:** "Do we need to be using a mock here?"
+
+**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.

package/plugins/opencode/skills/test-specification-alignment/AGENTS.md

@@ -1,9 +1,9 @@
 # SKILLS/TEST-SPECIFICATION-ALIGNMENT KNOWLEDGE BASE
 
-**Generated:** 2026-05-30
-**Commit:** 4517f2b
+**Generated:** 2026-06-11
+**Commit:** c18f82b
 **Branch:** main
-**Version:** v0.8.1
+**Version:** 0.8.9.0
 
 ## OVERVIEW
 Test-Specification Alignment Engine — two-stage validation ensuring tests accurately reflect requirements and design specs.

package/plugins/qoder/plugin.json

@@ -0,0 +1,20 @@
+{
+  "name": "xp-gate",
+  "version": "0.8.8",
+  "displayName": "XP-Gate",
+  "description": "Extreme Programming quality gates + AI workflow skills for Qoder. Includes 10 quality gates (Gate 0-9), Sprint Flow (11 phases), and Delphi multi-expert review (>=91% consensus).",
+  "author": {
+    "name": "boyingliu01"
+  },
+  "homepage": "https://github.com/boyingliu01/xp-gate",
+  "repository": "https://github.com/boyingliu01/xp-gate",
+  "license": "MIT",
+  "keywords": [
+    "quality-gates",
+    "sprint-flow",
+    "delphi-review",
+    "xp",
+    "ai-development"
+  ],
+  "skills": "./skills/"
+}

package/plugins/qoder/skills/delphi-review/AGENTS.md

@@ -1,9 +1,9 @@
 # SKILLS/DELPHI-REVIEW KNOWLEDGE BASE
 
-**Generated:** 2026-05-30
-**Commit:** 4517f2b
+**Generated:** 2026-06-11
+**Commit:** c18f82b
 **Branch:** main
-**Version:** v0.8.1
+**Version:** 0.8.9.0
 
 ## OVERVIEW
 Delphi Consensus Review — multi-round anonymous expert review (≥91% threshold, 3 experts from ≥2 providers, domestic models only). Supports design + code-walkthrough modes.

package/plugins/qoder/skills/sprint-flow/AGENTS.md

@@ -1,68 +1,115 @@
 # SKILLS/SPRINT-FLOW KNOWLEDGE BASE
 
-**Generated:** 2026-05-30
-**Version:** v0.8.1
+**Generated:** 2026-06-11
+**Commit:** c18f82b
+**Branch:** main
+**Version:** 0.8.9.0
 
 ## OVERVIEW
-7-phase development pipeline: THINK→PLAN→BUILD→REVIEW→USER ACCEPT→FEEDBACK→SHIP, with ralph-loop default build mode.
+**11-phase** development pipeline: ISOLATE → AUTO-ESTIMATE → THINK → PLAN → BUILD → REVIEW → USER ACCEPTANCE → FEEDBACK → SHIP → LAND → CLEANUP. Phase 2 default build mode is **ralph-loop** (REQ-level iteration, 40-67% token savings vs parallel). HARD-GATE in Phase 1: design must pass Delphi review (≥91% consensus) before any coding.
+
+> **Doc drift**: README/CAPABILITIES still describe a "7-phase" pipeline. The canonical 11-phase model lives in `SKILL.md` and is what actually executes. See root `AGENTS.md` → "Known Drift" #4.
 
 ## STRUCTURE
 ```
 skills/sprint-flow/
-├── SKILL.md              # 7-phase pipeline definition
+├── SKILL.md              # 11-phase pipeline definition (canonical)
+├── AGENTS.md             # This file (mirrored to 7 other locations — DO NOT edit mirrors)
 ├── evals/                # Evaluation test cases
-├── evolution-history.json # Skill evolution tracking
-├── evolution-log.md      # Change history
-├── references/           # Phase reference docs
-│   ├── phase-0-think.md  # THINK phase guidelines
-│   └── ...               # Other phase docs
-└── templates/            # Sprint templates
+├── evolution-history.json
+├── evolution-log.md
+├── references/
+│   ├── phase-minus-0-5-auto-estimate.md  # Phase -0.5: AUTO-ESTIMATE
+│   ├── phase-0-think.md                   # Phase 0: brainstorming → CONTEXT.md + ADR
+│   ├── phase-1-plan.md                    # Phase 1: autoplan + delphi-review (HARD-GATE)
+│   ├── phase-2-build.md                   # Phase 2: ralph-loop default + TDD + test-align
+│   ├── phase-3-review.md                  # Phase 3: code-walkthrough + QA + benchmark
+│   ├── phase-4-uat.md                     # Phase 4: USER ACCEPTANCE
+│   ├── phase-5-feedback.md                # Phase 5: retro + debugging + learn
+│   ├── phase-6-ship.md                    # Phase 6: finishing-dev-branch + PR
+│   ├── phase-7-land.md                    # Phase 7: land + deploy
+│   ├── phase-8-cleanup.md                 # Phase 8: sprint branch cleanup
+│   ├── force-levels.md                    # Phase forcing rules
+│   └── components/                        # Reusable phase building blocks
+└── templates/
+    ├── auto-estimate-output-template.md
+    ├── auto-estimate-learning-log.md
+    ├── pain-document-template.md
+    ├── sprint-progress-template.md
+    ├── sprint-summary-template.md
+    └── emergent-issues-template.md
 ```
 
 ## WHERE TO LOOK
 | Task | Location | Notes |
 |------|----------|-------|
-| Pipeline def | SKILL.md | 7 phases with hard gates |
+| Pipeline definition | SKILL.md | 11 phases with HARD-GATE between Phase 1 and Phase 2 |
+| Auto-estimate phase | references/phase-minus-0-5-auto-estimate.md | Sizing pass before THINK |
 | THINK phase | references/phase-0-think.md | brainstorming → CONTEXT.md + ADR |
-| Build mode | SKILL.md | ralph-loop (default) vs parallel |
+| PLAN phase + HARD-GATE | references/phase-1-plan.md | autoplan → delphi-review → specification.yaml |
+| BUILD phase | references/phase-2-build.md | ralph-loop (default) vs parallel |
+| Force-level rules | references/force-levels.md | Defines when each phase becomes mandatory |
+| Templates | templates/ | Auto-estimate, sprint progress/summary, pain doc, emergent issues |
+
+## THE 11 PHASES
 
-## 7 PHASES
 | Phase | Name | Key Action | Hard Gate |
 |-------|------|-----------|-----------|
-| 0 | THINK | brainstorming, CONTEXT.md, ADR | — |
-| 1 | PLAN | autoplan → delphi-review → specification.yaml | HARD-GATE: design must pass |
-| 2 | BUILD | ralph-loop (REQ-level iteration) + TDD + test-align | — |
+| -1 | ISOLATE | Isolate working tree / worktree creation | — |
+| -0.5 | AUTO-ESTIMATE | Sizing pass; emits estimate template | — |
+| 0 | THINK | brainstorming → CONTEXT.md + ADR | — |
+| 1 | PLAN | autoplan → delphi-review → specification.yaml | **HARD-GATE**: design must reach ≥91% Delphi consensus |
+| 2 | BUILD | ralph-loop (REQ-level, default) + TDD + test-spec-alignment | — |
 | 3 | REVIEW | code-walkthrough + QA + benchmark | — |
-| 4 | USER ACCEPT | Manual verification | — |
-| 5 | FEEDBACK | Retro + debugging + learn | — |
-| 6 | SHIP | finishing-dev-branch + PR/merge | — |
+| 4 | USER ACCEPTANCE | Manual verification | — |
+| 5 | FEEDBACK | retro + debugging + `learn` (Sprint-level) | — |
+| 6 | SHIP | finishing-a-development-branch → PR | — |
+| 7 | LAND | land + deploy + canary | — |
+| 8 | CLEANUP | Sprint branch cleanup (per `docs/plans/2026-06-06-sprint-branch-cleanup-design.md`) | — |
 
 ## CONVENTIONS
-- ralph-loop is Phase 2 **default** mode (saves 40-67% tokens vs parallel)
-- delphi-review HARD-GATE in Phase 1: design unapproved → BLOCK coding
-- Each REQ in ralph-loop gets clean context (no linear accumulation)
-- `learn` called at Phase 5 + each REQ completion
+- **ralph-loop is Phase 2 default**. Each REQ runs in a clean context (no linear accumulation), saving 40-67% tokens vs parallel mode.
+- **delphi-review HARD-GATE in Phase 1**: design must reach ≥91% consensus across ≥2 model providers, domestic models only. Unapproved → BLOCK coding.
+- **`learn` is called twice**: once per REQ in Phase 2 (ralph-loop internal, `progress.log` permanent/contextual classification) and once in Phase 5 (Sprint-level retro).
+- **Phase isolation**: each phase has explicit entry/exit criteria documented in its `references/phase-*.md` file.
+- **Emergent Requirements** discovered in Phase 4 (USER ACCEPTANCE) are explicitly captured via `templates/emergent-issues-template.md` — never silently merged.
+- **Auto-detection**: Phase 0 uses `src/npm-package/lib/ui-detector.ts` to pick the right tech-stack templates.
 
 ## ANTI-PATTERNS (THIS PROJECT)
-- Do NOT skip delphi-review in Phase 1 — HARD-GATE blocks implementation
-- Do NOT use parallel build mode unless explicitly requested
-- Do NOT enter Phase 1 (PLAN) without completing THINK phase
-- DO NOT implement before design approval
+- Do NOT skip `delphi-review` in Phase 1 — HARD-GATE blocks implementation.
+- Do NOT use parallel build mode unless explicitly requested. Ralph-loop is the default for a reason.
+- Do NOT enter Phase 1 (PLAN) without completing Phase 0 (THINK).
+- Do NOT implement before design is APPROVED — Phase 1 must reach Delphi consensus first.
+- Do NOT merge an Emergent Requirement into the original Sprint silently — capture it via the template.
+- Do NOT terminate Delphi review before ≥91% consensus or 5 rounds, whichever first.
 
 ## UNIQUE STYLES
-- Auto-detects UI framework (ui-detector.ts in npm-package/lib/)
-- Supports --type and --lang flags for tech stack selection
-- Phase isolation: each phase has specific entry/exit criteria
-- Emergent Requirements acknowledged: user acceptance phase built in
+- **11 phases** including negative-numbered pre-phases (-1, -0.5) — intentional, captures the work that happens before "real" coding starts.
+- **HARD-GATE** between PLAN and BUILD is enforced both in the SKILL.md instructions and in the Claude Code plugin's PreToolUse hook (`plugins/claude-code/bin/delphi-review-guard.sh`).
+- **Per-REQ clean context in ralph-loop** = the core efficiency mechanism. Sprint-flow specifically chooses this over parallel mode.
+- **Tech-stack auto-detection** via `--type` and `--lang` flags or `ui-detector.ts`.
 
 ## COMMANDS
 ```bash
+/sprint-flow "开发用户登录"                                     # Full 11-phase pipeline
+/sprint-flow "开发用户登录" --type web-nextjs --lang typescript # Pin tech stack
+/sprint-flow "开发用户登录" --phase build-only                  # Skip planning (advanced)
+/sprint-flow "开发用户登录" --mode parallel                     # Legacy all-at-once (NOT default)
 /delphi-review "开发用户登录" --type web-nextjs --lang typescript
-/sprint-flow "开发用户登录" --phase build-only
-/sprint-flow "开发用户登录" --mode parallel  # Legacy all-at-once
 ```
 
 ## NOTES
-- Integrates brainstorming, autoplan, delphi-review, TDD, test-specification-alignment
-- ralph-loop internal learnings via progress.log (permanent/contextual classification)
-- Phase 5 calls gstack/learn for Sprint-level retrospective
+- Integrates: brainstorming, autoplan, delphi-review, TDD, test-specification-alignment, qa, design-review, benchmark, systematic-debugging, retro, learn, finishing-a-development-branch.
+- ralph-loop's internal learnings are persisted via `progress.log` (permanent vs contextual classification).
+- Phase 5 calls `gstack/learn` for Sprint-level retrospective.
+- Phase 8 cleanup behavior is governed by `docs/plans/2026-06-06-sprint-branch-cleanup-design.md`.
+- This `AGENTS.md` is the canonical version. **7 byte-identical mirrors** exist at:
+  - `plugins/claude-code/skills/sprint-flow/AGENTS.md`
+  - `plugins/opencode/skills/sprint-flow/AGENTS.md`
+  - `plugins/qoder/skills/sprint-flow/AGENTS.md`
+  - `src/npm-package/skills/sprint-flow/AGENTS.md`
+  - `src/npm-package/plugins/claude-code/skills/sprint-flow/AGENTS.md`
+  - `src/npm-package/plugins/opencode/skills/sprint-flow/AGENTS.md`
+  - `src/npm-package/plugins/qoder/skills/sprint-flow/AGENTS.md`
+  Mirrors are updated by `scripts/copy-skills.sh`. Do NOT edit them by hand.
+