@caddis/cli 0.1.0 → 0.2.0

package/bundles/antigravity-plugin-extras/skills/content-research-writer/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,539 @@
+---
+name: content-research-writer
+context: fork
+description: Assists in writing high-quality content by conducting research, adding citations, improving hooks, iterating on outlines, and providing real-time feedback on each section. Transforms your writing process from solo effort to collaborative partnership.
+---
+
+# Content Research Writer
+
+This skill acts as your writing partner, helping you research, outline, draft, and refine content while maintaining your unique voice and style.
+
+## When to Use This Skill
+
+- Writing blog posts, articles, or newsletters
+- Creating educational content or tutorials
+- Drafting thought leadership pieces
+- Researching and writing case studies
+- Producing technical documentation with sources
+- Writing with proper citations and references
+- Improving hooks and introductions
+- Getting section-by-section feedback while writing
+
+## What This Skill Does
+
+1. **Collaborative Outlining**: Helps you structure ideas into coherent outlines
+2. **Research Assistance**: Finds relevant information and adds citations
+3. **Hook Improvement**: Strengthens your opening to capture attention
+4. **Section Feedback**: Reviews each section as you write
+5. **Voice Preservation**: Maintains your writing style and tone
+6. **Citation Management**: Adds and formats references properly
+7. **Iterative Refinement**: Helps you improve through multiple drafts
+
+## How to Use
+
+### Setup Your Writing Environment
+
+Create a dedicated folder for your article:
+```
+mkdir ~/writing/my-article-title
+cd ~/writing/my-article-title
+```
+
+Create your draft file:
+```
+touch article-draft.md
+```
+
+Open Claude Code from this directory and start writing.
+
+### Basic Workflow
+
+1. **Start with an outline**:
+```
+Help me create an outline for an article about [topic]
+```
+
+2. **Research and add citations**:
+```
+Research [specific topic] and add citations to my outline
+```
+
+3. **Improve the hook**:
+```
+Here's my introduction. Help me make the hook more compelling.
+```
+
+4. **Get section feedback**:
+```
+I just finished the "Why This Matters" section. Review it and give feedback.
+```
+
+5. **Refine and polish**:
+```
+Review the full draft for flow, clarity, and consistency.
+```
+
+## Instructions
+
+When a user requests writing assistance:
+
+1. **Understand the Writing Project**
+   
+   Ask clarifying questions:
+   - What's the topic and main argument?
+   - Who's the target audience?
+   - What's the desired length/format?
+   - What's your goal? (educate, persuade, entertain, explain)
+   - Any existing research or sources to include?
+   - What's your writing style? (formal, conversational, technical)
+
+2. **Collaborative Outlining**
+   
+   Help structure the content:
+   
+   ```markdown
+   # Article Outline: [Title]
+   
+   ## Hook
+   - [Opening line/story/statistic]
+   - [Why reader should care]
+   
+   ## Introduction
+   - Context and background
+   - Problem statement
+   - What this article covers
+   
+   ## Main Sections
+   
+   ### Section 1: [Title]
+   - Key point A
+   - Key point B
+   - Example/evidence
+   - [Research needed: specific topic]
+   
+   ### Section 2: [Title]
+   - Key point C
+   - Key point D
+   - Data/citation needed
+   
+   ### Section 3: [Title]
+   - Key point E
+   - Counter-arguments
+   - Resolution
+   
+   ## Conclusion
+   - Summary of main points
+   - Call to action
+   - Final thought
+   
+   ## Research To-Do
+   - [ ] Find data on [topic]
+   - [ ] Get examples of [concept]
+   - [ ] Source citation for [claim]
+   ```
+   
+   **Iterate on outline**:
+   - Adjust based on feedback
+   - Ensure logical flow
+   - Identify research gaps
+   - Mark sections for deep dives
+
+3. **Conduct Research**
+   
+   When user requests research on a topic:
+   
+   - Search for relevant information
+   - Find credible sources
+   - Extract key facts, quotes, and data
+   - Add citations in requested format
+   
+   Example output:
+   ```markdown
+   ## Research: AI Impact on Productivity
+   
+   Key Findings:
+   
+   1. **Productivity Gains**: Studies show 40% time savings for 
+      content creation tasks [1]
+   
+   2. **Adoption Rates**: 67% of knowledge workers use AI tools 
+      weekly [2]
+   
+   3. **Expert Quote**: "AI augments rather than replaces human 
+      creativity" - Dr. Jane Smith, MIT [3]
+   
+   Citations:
+   [1] McKinsey Global Institute. (2024). "The Economic Potential 
+       of Generative AI"
+   [2] Stack Overflow Developer Survey (2024)
+   [3] Smith, J. (2024). MIT Technology Review interview
+   
+   Added to outline under Section 2.
+   ```
+
+4. **Improve Hooks**
+   
+   When user shares an introduction, analyze and strengthen:
+   
+   **Current Hook Analysis**:
+   - What works: [positive elements]
+   - What could be stronger: [areas for improvement]
+   - Emotional impact: [current vs. potential]
+   
+   **Suggested Alternatives**:
+   
+   Option 1: [Bold statement]
+   > [Example]
+   *Why it works: [explanation]*
+   
+   Option 2: [Personal story]
+   > [Example]
+   *Why it works: [explanation]*
+   
+   Option 3: [Surprising data]
+   > [Example]
+   *Why it works: [explanation]*
+   
+   **Questions to hook**:
+   - Does it create curiosity?
+   - Does it promise value?
+   - Is it specific enough?
+   - Does it match the audience?
+
+5. **Provide Section-by-Section Feedback**
+   
+   As user writes each section, review for:
+   
+   ```markdown
+   # Feedback: [Section Name]
+   
+   ## What Works Well ✓
+   - [Strength 1]
+   - [Strength 2]
+   - [Strength 3]
+   
+   ## Suggestions for Improvement
+   
+   ### Clarity
+   - [Specific issue] → [Suggested fix]
+   - [Complex sentence] → [Simpler alternative]
+   
+   ### Flow
+   - [Transition issue] → [Better connection]
+   - [Paragraph order] → [Suggested reordering]
+   
+   ### Evidence
+   - [Claim needing support] → [Add citation or example]
+   - [Generic statement] → [Make more specific]
+   
+   ### Style
+   - [Tone inconsistency] → [Match your voice better]
+   - [Word choice] → [Stronger alternative]
+   
+   ## Specific Line Edits
+   
+   Original:
+   > [Exact quote from draft]
+   
+   Suggested:
+   > [Improved version]
+   
+   Why: [Explanation]
+   
+   ## Questions to Consider
+   - [Thought-provoking question 1]
+   - [Thought-provoking question 2]
+   
+   Ready to move to next section!
+   ```
+
+6. **Preserve Writer's Voice**
+   
+   Important principles:
+   
+   - **Learn their style**: Read existing writing samples
+   - **Suggest, don't replace**: Offer options, not directives
+   - **Match tone**: Formal, casual, technical, friendly
+   - **Respect choices**: If they prefer their version, support it
+   - **Enhance, don't override**: Make their writing better, not different
+   
+   Ask periodically:
+   - "Does this sound like you?"
+   - "Is this the right tone?"
+   - "Should I be more/less [formal/casual/technical]?"
+
+7. **Citation Management**
+   
+   Handle references based on user preference:
+   
+   **Inline Citations**:
+   ```markdown
+   Studies show 40% productivity improvement (McKinsey, 2024).
+   ```
+   
+   **Numbered References**:
+   ```markdown
+   Studies show 40% productivity improvement [1].
+   
+   [1] McKinsey Global Institute. (2024)...
+   ```
+   
+   **Footnote Style**:
+   ```markdown
+   Studies show 40% productivity improvement^1
+   
+   ^1: McKinsey Global Institute. (2024)...
+   ```
+   
+   Maintain a running citations list:
+   ```markdown
+   ## References
+   
+   1. Author. (Year). "Title". Publication.
+   2. Author. (Year). "Title". Publication.
+   ...
+   ```
+
+8. **Final Review and Polish**
+   
+   When draft is complete, provide comprehensive feedback:
+   
+   ```markdown
+   # Full Draft Review
+   
+   ## Overall Assessment
+   
+   **Strengths**:
+   - [Major strength 1]
+   - [Major strength 2]
+   - [Major strength 3]
+   
+   **Impact**: [Overall effectiveness assessment]
+   
+   ## Structure & Flow
+   - [Comments on organization]
+   - [Transition quality]
+   - [Pacing assessment]
+   
+   ## Content Quality
+   - [Argument strength]
+   - [Evidence sufficiency]
+   - [Example effectiveness]
+   
+   ## Technical Quality
+   - Grammar and mechanics: [assessment]
+   - Consistency: [assessment]
+   - Citations: [completeness check]
+   
+   ## Readability
+   - Clarity score: [evaluation]
+   - Sentence variety: [evaluation]
+   - Paragraph length: [evaluation]
+   
+   ## Final Polish Suggestions
+   
+   1. **Introduction**: [Specific improvements]
+   2. **Body**: [Specific improvements]
+   3. **Conclusion**: [Specific improvements]
+   4. **Title**: [Options if needed]
+   
+   ## Pre-Publish Checklist
+   - [ ] All claims sourced
+   - [ ] Citations formatted
+   - [ ] Examples clear
+   - [ ] Transitions smooth
+   - [ ] Call to action present
+   - [ ] Proofread for typos
+   
+   Ready to publish! 🚀
+   ```
+
+## Examples
+
+### Example 1: Teresa Torres's Workflow
+
+**User**: "I'm writing an article about continuous discovery. Help me create an outline."
+
+**Process**:
+1. Collaborates on outline structure
+2. Identifies research needs
+3. User starts writing introduction
+4. Reviews and improves the hook
+5. User writes each section
+6. Provides feedback after each section
+7. Conducts research and adds citations
+8. Final review of complete draft
+9. Polish and prep for publishing
+
+**Result**: Well-researched, properly cited article written in Teresa's voice with strong structure and flow.
+
+### Example 2: Research-Heavy Article
+
+**User**: "I'm writing about AI's impact on product management. Help me find current data and examples."
+
+**Output**:
+```markdown
+## Research Compiled
+
+### Recent Data
+- Gartner: 80% of PMs will use AI tools by 2025 [1]
+- Survey: 45% report faster feature shipping [2]
+- Case study: Airbnb's AI-assisted prioritization [3]
+
+### Expert Quotes
+- "AI amplifies PM judgment, not replaces it" - Marty Cagan
+- [Additional quotes with citations]
+
+### Real Examples
+1. **Company A**: Used AI for user research synthesis
+   - Result: 60% time savings
+   - Source: [citation]
+
+2. **Company B**: AI-powered roadmap analysis
+   - Result: Better stakeholder alignment
+   - Source: [citation]
+
+All added to your outline with proper citations.
+```
+
+### Example 3: Hook Improvement
+
+**User's Original Hook**:
+> "Product management is changing because of AI. In this article, I'll discuss some ways AI affects product managers."
+
+**Improved Options**:
+
+**Option 1 (Data-driven)**:
+> "Last month, I asked AI to analyze 500 customer interviews. It took 30 minutes instead of 3 weeks. Product management will never be the same."
+
+**Option 2 (Question)**:
+> "What if you could talk to every customer, read every review, and analyze every support ticket—all before your morning coffee?"
+
+**Option 3 (Story)**:
+> "Sarah spent two weeks building the wrong feature. Not because she didn't understand her users, but because she couldn't process the hundreds of interviews fast enough to spot the pattern."
+
+### Example 4: Section Feedback
+
+**User**: "Just finished my 'Common Mistakes' section. Thoughts?"
+
+**Response**:
+```markdown
+# Feedback: Common Mistakes Section
+
+## What Works Well ✓
+- Strong examples (the Slack notification story)
+- Clear structure (3 mistakes, clean layout)
+- Practical advice for each mistake
+
+## Suggestions
+
+### Make It More Specific
+Your second point says "Bad prioritization" but could be stronger:
+
+Current:
+> "Many teams prioritize badly by focusing on features instead of outcomes."
+
+Suggested:
+> "I've watched teams ship 14 features in a quarter yet move none of their key metrics. They prioritized activity over progress."
+
+### Add Data
+The third mistake would benefit from evidence:
+> "[Add citation]: Studies show teams without regular user contact are 3x more likely to build unused features [needs source]"
+
+### Flow Improvement
+Consider reordering: Mistake 3 → Mistake 2 → Mistake 1
+This builds from small to big impact.
+
+Ready for the next section!
+```
+
+## Writing Workflows
+
+### Blog Post Workflow
+1. Outline together
+2. Research key points
+3. Write introduction → get feedback
+4. Write body sections → feedback each
+5. Write conclusion → final review
+6. Polish and edit
+
+### Newsletter Workflow
+1. Discuss hook ideas
+2. Quick outline (shorter format)
+3. Draft in one session
+4. Review for clarity and links
+5. Quick polish
+
+### Technical Tutorial Workflow
+1. Outline steps
+2. Write code examples
+3. Add explanations
+4. Test instructions
+5. Add troubleshooting section
+6. Final review for accuracy
+
+### Thought Leadership Workflow
+1. Brainstorm unique angle
+2. Research existing perspectives
+3. Develop your thesis
+4. Write with strong POV
+5. Add supporting evidence
+6. Craft compelling conclusion
+
+## Pro Tips
+
+1. **Work in VS Code**: Better than web Claude for long-form writing
+2. **One section at a time**: Get feedback incrementally
+3. **Save research separately**: Keep a research.md file
+4. **Version your drafts**: article-v1.md, article-v2.md, etc.
+5. **Read aloud**: Use feedback to identify clunky sentences
+6. **Set deadlines**: "I want to finish the draft today"
+7. **Take breaks**: Write, get feedback, pause, revise
+
+## File Organization
+
+Recommended structure for writing projects:
+
+```
+~/writing/article-name/
+├── outline.md          # Your outline
+├── research.md         # All research and citations
+├── draft-v1.md         # First draft
+├── draft-v2.md         # Revised draft
+├── final.md            # Publication-ready
+├── feedback.md         # Collected feedback
+└── sources/            # Reference materials
+    ├── study1.pdf
+    └── article2.md
+```
+
+## Best Practices
+
+### For Research
+- Verify sources before citing
+- Use recent data when possible
+- Balance different perspectives
+- Link to original sources
+
+### For Feedback
+- Be specific about what you want: "Is this too technical?"
+- Share your concerns: "I'm worried this section drags"
+- Ask questions: "Does this flow logically?"
+- Request alternatives: "What's another way to explain this?"
+
+### For Voice
+- Share examples of your writing
+- Specify tone preferences
+- Point out good matches: "That sounds like me!"
+- Flag mismatches: "Too formal for my style"
+
+## Related Use Cases
+
+- Creating social media posts from articles
+- Adapting content for different audiences
+- Writing email newsletters
+- Drafting technical documentation
+- Creating presentation content
+- Writing case studies
+- Developing course outlines
+

package/bundles/antigravity-plugin-extras/skills/cross-review/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,51 @@
+---
+name: cross-review
+description: Cross-vendor code review — have a different vendor's model (DeepSeek/GLM/any OpenAI-compatible endpoint) review the current diff to catch bugs a same-vendor reviewer misses. Use after a phase is green and before commit/merge, or for a second opinion on a risky diff.
+---
+
+# Cross-Review — a second-vendor set of eyes on your diff
+
+A different vendor's model has different blind spots. Claude reviewing Claude's diff shares those
+blind spots; a **DeepSeek** (or GLM, or any OpenAI-compatible) reviewer catches a different class of
+issue. This skill runs that second reviewer over the current changes and acts on its verdict.
+
+## When to use
+- After a phase is green, **before** you commit or merge.
+- On a risky diff (auth, crypto, data-touching, concurrency) where a second opinion is cheap insurance.
+- NOT a replacement for the in-repo `/caddis:code-review` — this is the *cross-vendor* complement.
+
+## Prerequisites (one-time)
+Only the key is mandatory — the tool ships **provider presets** (default `deepseek`, the cheapest + most
+architecturally distinct-from-Claude option; a review costs well under a cent):
+```
+REVIEW_API_KEY   = <your provider key>     # REQUIRED (exit 3 without it)
+REVIEW_PROVIDER  = deepseek                 # optional: deepseek | glm | openrouter (default deepseek)
+REVIEW_BASE_URL  = ...                      # optional: overrides the preset's URL
+REVIEW_MODEL     = ...                      # optional: overrides the preset's model id
+```
+Switch provider with one flag: `--provider glm` (or `REVIEW_PROVIDER=glm`). **Future-proofing:** model ids
+churn — the preset table in `oss_review.py` is the one place to edit a rename, and `REVIEW_MODEL` /
+`REVIEW_BASE_URL` always win, so you can point at any new id without touching code.
+
+## How to run
+From the repo root (the tool ships at `.github/tools/oss_review.py`):
+```
+python .github/tools/oss_review.py                       # review the working tree (staged+unstaged)
+python .github/tools/oss_review.py --range origin/main..HEAD   # review a branch's commits
+```
+Optional flags: `--cwd <repo>`, `--base-url <url>`, `--model <id>` (override the env).
+
+## Interpret the exit code
+- **0 — REVIEW: CLEAN** → no blocking issues. Proceed.
+- **1 — REVIEW: BLOCKING** → the reviewer found blocking issues. **Read the printed findings, then FIX
+  each blocking item** (or, if you judge one a false positive, state explicitly why it's safe to ignore).
+  Re-run until CLEAN.
+- **2 — error** → no verdict parsed, a git failure, or an endpoint/parse failure. Read stderr; do not
+  treat this as CLEAN — investigate.
+- **3 — misconfigured** → `REVIEW_API_KEY` is unset. Set it (see Prerequisites) and re-run.
+
+## Rules
+- This is a **read-only second opinion** — the tool never edits, commits, or pushes. YOU apply fixes in
+  the main thread after reading the findings.
+- Treat exit 2/3 as blocking-unknown, never as approval (the tool is fail-closed by design).
+- Different vendor ⇒ different style; weigh its findings on merit, don't cargo-cult them.

package/bundles/antigravity-plugin-extras/skills/data-analysis/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,111 @@
+---
+name: data-analysis
+context: fork
+description: Analyze datasets and generate insights with a systematic 5-phase workflow. Use when user provides data for analysis, asks about patterns, or needs visualizations.
+---
+
+# Data Analysis Skill
+
+Systematically analyze datasets to extract insights, identify patterns, and create visualizations.
+
+## When to Use
+
+- User provides a dataset for analysis
+- User asks "analyze this data"
+- User wants insights from a CSV, DataFrame, or database table
+- User asks about data quality or patterns
+
+---
+
+## Phase 1: Data Discovery
+
+```python
+import pandas as pd
+
+df = pd.read_csv("data.csv")
+print(f"Shape: {df.shape}")
+print(f"Columns:\n{df.dtypes}")
+print(f"First rows:\n{df.head()}")
+
+# Data quality
+missing = df.isnull().sum()
+duplicates = df.duplicated().sum()
+```
+
+**Output**: Data Discovery Report (shape, types, quality, initial observations)
+
+## Phase 2: Exploratory Analysis
+
+```python
+import plotly.express as px
+
+# Distributions, time series, correlations, outliers
+for col in numeric_cols:
+    fig = px.histogram(df, x=col, title=f"Distribution of {col}")
+    fig.show()
+
+corr = df[numeric_cols].corr()
+fig = px.imshow(corr, text_auto=True, title="Correlation Matrix")
+fig.show()
+```
+
+## Phase 3: Deep Analysis
+
+- Segmentation by category
+- Comparative analysis (box plots)
+- Statistical tests if needed
+- Trend decomposition for time series
+
+## Phase 4: Insight Generation
+
+For each insight:
+1. **Finding**: What the data shows
+2. **Evidence**: Supporting numbers/charts
+3. **Implication**: What this means for the business
+4. **Recommendation**: What action to take
+
+## Phase 5: Report
+
+```markdown
+# Data Analysis Report
+
+## Executive Summary
+## Dataset Overview
+## Key Insights
+## Recommendations
+## Appendix (methodology, data quality notes)
+```
+
+---
+
+## Branded Charts
+
+```python
+CHART_COLORS = ["<BRAND_PRIMARY>", "<BRAND_DARK>", "#6B7280", "#9CA3AF"]
+
+fig.update_layout(
+    template="plotly_white",
+    font_family="Inter, sans-serif",
+    color_discrete_sequence=CHART_COLORS
+)
+```
+
+---
+
+## Checklist
+
+- [ ] Data loaded and validated
+- [ ] Missing values addressed
+- [ ] Distributions analyzed
+- [ ] Trends identified
+- [ ] Correlations checked
+- [ ] Outliers investigated
+- [ ] Insights are actionable
+- [ ] Visualizations are clear
+- [ ] Report is well-structured
+
+### Cross-Source Join Safety (when analysis involves merging data from multiple sources)
+
+- [ ] **Join key type compatibility**: Document column types of join keys in each source. Flag type mismatches (e.g., `INT` vs `VARCHAR`) and document required CAST/conversion.
+- [ ] **Row cardinality**: Verify whether join keys are unique per source. If 1:N, document deduplication strategy.
+- [ ] **Sample merge validation**: Test-merge on sample data, verify output row count matches expectations.