@caddis/cli 0.2.6 → 0.4.0

package/bundles/codex/.codex/skills/workflow/preflight/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,440 @@
+---
+name: preflight
+context: fork
+description: "Plan-vs-codebase validation — verifies API contracts, type names, field accuracy, dependencies, and paths before implementation begins"
+---
+
+# Preflight — Plan Validation Skill
+
+Validate an implementation plan against the actual codebase before agents begin coding. Catches wrong endpoints, missing types, incorrect field names, stale assumptions, and dependency gaps that would otherwise waste entire agent sessions.
+
+## When to Use
+
+- Before starting implementation of any plan (pipeline gate or standalone)
+- After significant plan revisions to re-validate
+- Mid-implementation to check remaining phases against evolved codebase
+- When onboarding agents to an existing codebase with a pre-written plan
+
+## Who Loads This Skill
+
+| Consumer | Context |
+|----------|---------|
+| `@Preflight` agent | Primary — standalone or pipeline invocation |
+| `@Orchestrator` | At the `plan_validated` gate before routing to Implement |
+| `@Planner` | Optional self-check before declaring plan complete |
+| Any agent | Ad-hoc validation when plan accuracy is in doubt |
+
+---
+
+## Inputs
+
+The skill requires two things:
+
+1. **Plan document** — a markdown file containing implementation phases with code snippets, file paths, type references, API endpoints, and data binding tables
+2. **Codebase access** — read access to the project's source files, package manifests, and data samples
+
+Optional:
+
+3. **Scope restriction** — e.g., "validate only phases 6-13 while assuming phases 1-5 are already implemented" (for mid-implementation re-validation)
+4. **Tech stack hint** — if the plan doesn't state the stack, the agent should detect it from the codebase (look for `package.json`, `pyproject.toml`, `go.mod`, `Cargo.toml`, `*.csproj`, etc.)
+
+---
+
+## Validation Methodology — 8 Check Categories (run in 3 passes)
+
+To reduce execution load, run categories in this order: Pass 1 (1-3), Pass 2 (4-6), Pass 3 (7-8), recording findings after each pass before continuing.
+
+Execute all 8 categories in order. Each produces findings classified as:
+
+| Severity | Meaning | Action |
+|----------|---------|--------|
+| `CRITICAL` | Plan contradicts codebase — will cause runtime failure | Must fix before implementation |
+| `SIGNIFICANT` | Plan partially wrong — will cause incorrect behavior | Should fix before implementation |
+| `MINOR` | Cosmetic or documentation gap — won't break functionality | Fix if convenient |
+| `WARN` | Cannot verify — source of truth missing or ambiguous | Flag for human decision |
+
+### Category 1: API Contract Validation
+
+**What:** Verify that every API endpoint referenced in the plan (URL, HTTP method, parameter style) matches an actual backend route.
+
+**How:**
+
+1. **Find route definitions** — Search for route decorators/registrations in the codebase:
+   - Python/FastAPI: `@router.get`, `@router.post`, `@app.get`, etc.
+   - Express/Node: `router.get(`, `app.post(`, etc.
+   - Go: `r.HandleFunc(`, `e.GET(`, etc.
+   - .NET: `[HttpGet(`, `[Route(`, `MapGet(`, etc.
+
+2. **Extract plan endpoints** — Find every URL pattern in the plan (look for `/api/`, `GET `, `POST `, `fetch(`, `axios.get(`, service function definitions with URL strings).
+
+3. **Compare:**
+   - Does the URL exist in the backend? (exact match or parameterized equivalent)
+   - Does the HTTP method match?
+   - Are parameters passed correctly? (path params vs. query params vs. request body)
+   - Is the response shape assumption correct?
+
+4. **Common failure patterns:**
+   - Plan uses path params (`/resource/{id}`) but backend uses query params (`/resource?id=X`)
+   - Plan uses a convenience endpoint that doesn't exist (e.g., `/latest` when only `/list` exists)
+   - Plan assumes REST resource endpoints but backend uses RPC-style endpoints
+
+### Category 2: Type Identity Validation
+
+**What:** Verify that every type/interface/class name referenced in the plan exists in the codebase.
+
+**How:**
+
+1. **Extract type references from the plan** — Find all capitalized type names used in:
+   - TypeScript: `interface X`, `type X`, `: X`, `X[]`, `X | Y`
+   - Python: class definitions, type hints, Pydantic models
+   - Import statements referencing types
+
+2. **Search the codebase** for each type name:
+   - Check the exact file the plan says it's in (if specified)
+   - If not found there, search broadly — the type may exist under a different name or path
+
+3. **Common failure patterns:**
+   - Plan references a type that was renamed during development
+   - Plan references a type from an old version of a spec
+   - Plan invents a plausible type name that was never created (e.g., `NpsPeriodData` when actual is `NpsData`)
+
+### Category 3: Field Accuracy Validation
+
+**What:** Verify that field names, casing, and nesting paths referenced in the plan match the actual data structures.
+
+**How:**
+
+1. **Extract field references from the plan** — Find data binding expressions:
+   - Dot-notation paths: `data.surveys.broadband.topDetractorThemes`
+   - Object destructuring: `const { themeName, currentNps } = item`
+   - Table/chart data mappings: "bind X-axis to `fieldName`"
+
+2. **Verify against source of truth** — Check each field reference against:
+   - TypeScript interfaces/types (for frontend plans)
+   - Pydantic models / SQLAlchemy models (for backend plans)
+   - Actual JSON/API response samples (if available)
+   - Database schema (if referenced)
+
+3. **Check casing consistency:**
+   - Does the plan assume camelCase but the source returns snake_case?
+   - Does the plan instruct a blanket case transform, but the API already handles it via serialization aliases?
+   - Are there mixed-case situations? (e.g., top-level fields are camelCase via aliases, but nested objects are snake_case)
+
+4. **Common failure patterns:**
+   - Plan says `topDetractorThemes` but actual field is `detractorThemes`
+   - Plan says `currentNps` but actual is `currentNPS` (capitalization difference)
+   - Plan says `target` and `minimum` but actual is `short_term` and `medium_term`
+   - Plan instructs `transformKeys(snakeToCamel)` but API already returns camelCase — transform would double-convert
+
+### Category 4: Dependency Availability Validation
+
+**What:** Verify that every external package/library referenced in the plan is installed or listed in the project's dependency manifest.
+
+**How:**
+
+1. **Extract dependency references from the plan** — Find:
+   - Import statements: `import X from 'Y'`, `from X import Y`
+   - Package references: "install recharts", "add framer-motion"
+   - Version-specific references: "requires React 18+"
+
+2. **Check against manifests:**
+   - `package.json` (dependencies + devDependencies) for JS/TS
+   - `pyproject.toml` / `requirements.txt` for Python
+   - `go.mod` for Go
+   - `Cargo.toml` for Rust
+
+3. **Classify:**
+   - Listed in manifest → `PASS`
+   - Not listed but plan says "install in Phase N" → `PASS` (with note)
+   - Not listed and plan doesn't mention installation → `SIGNIFICANT` (will fail on import)
+
+### Category 5: Path Existence Validation
+
+**What:** Verify that every file/directory path referenced in the plan exists or is explicitly marked for creation.
+
+**How:**
+
+1. **Extract path references from the plan** — Find:
+   - `CREATE file: src/components/Dashboard.tsx`
+   - `UPDATE file: src/api/client.ts`
+   - Import paths: `from '../services/nps'`
+   - Config references: `tailwind.config.js`, `.env`
+
+2. **Classify each path:**
+   - `CREATE` + path doesn't exist → `PASS` (expected)
+   - `CREATE` + path already exists → `WARN` (will overwrite — intentional?)
+   - `UPDATE` + path exists → `PASS`
+   - `UPDATE` + path doesn't exist → `CRITICAL` (can't update what doesn't exist)
+   - Referenced in imports but neither CREATE nor UPDATE → check existence
+
+3. **Verify directory structure matches plan assumptions:**
+   - Does `src/components/ui/` exist if the plan puts files there?
+   - Does the plan's assumed project structure match reality?
+
+### Category 6: Data Shape Validation
+
+**What:** Verify that the plan's assumptions about API response shapes (nesting, array vs. object, optional vs. required) match the actual response structure.
+
+**How:**
+
+1. **Find data shape assumptions in the plan** — Look for:
+   - Response type annotations: `Promise<NpsData>`
+   - Data access patterns: `response.data.surveys.broadband.nps`
+   - Conditional checks: `if (data.periodType === 'monthly')`
+   - Mapping operations: `data.themes.map(t => t.name)`
+
+2. **Verify against the actual response:**
+   - Read serialization models (Pydantic, Zod, JSON Schema)
+   - If available, read sample response data (JSON files, test fixtures)
+   - Check: Is the field always present or sometimes missing?
+   - Check: Is it an array or an object? Does the plan treat it correctly?
+
+3. **Common failure patterns:**
+   - Plan assumes a field exists that is only present conditionally
+   - Plan assumes an array but actual is an object (or vice versa)
+   - Plan references `data.combined.trend` but combined has no trend data
+   - Plan assumes a flattened structure but actual is nested
+
+### Category 7: Transform Correctness Validation
+
+**What:** Verify that any data transformation instructions in the plan (case conversion, normalization, derived calculations) are actually needed and correctly specified.
+
+**How:**
+
+1. **Find transform instructions in the plan** — Look for:
+   - "Apply camelCase transform to API responses"
+   - "Normalize snake_case fields"
+   - "Calculate combined NPS as weighted average of products"
+   - "Derive percentage from raw counts"
+
+2. **Check if the transform is necessary:**
+   - Does the API already apply the transform via serialization (Pydantic aliases, Jackson annotations)?
+   - Does the ORM already handle the conversion?
+   - Would the transform break other data that's already in the correct format?
+
+3. **Check if the transform is correct:**
+   - Is the formula right? (e.g., weighted average vs. simple average)
+   - Are required source fields available?
+   - Does the transform handle edge cases? (division by zero, null values)
+
+### Category 8: Output Decay Detection
+
+**What:** Detect structural shortcuts, abbreviation patterns, and placeholder content that indicate the plan-generating agent suffered output decay (attention fatigue in later sections).
+
+**How:**
+
+1. **Scan the plan for decay signals** — Search for these patterns, especially in the last 40% of the document:
+
+   | Signal | Regex pattern | Example |
+   |--------|--------------|---------|
+   | Ellipsis placeholders | `\.{3,}` | `// ... similar tests for each function` |
+   | Same-pattern shortcuts | `same pattern` | `same pattern × 3 rows` |
+   | As-above references | `as above` | `as above for remaining endpoints` |
+   | Etc. in task lines | `\betc\b\.?` | `deriveDeltas, deriveYtd, etc.` |
+   | Pseudo-code bodies | `\{ ?\.\.\. ?\}` | `expect(result).toBe({ ... })` |
+   | Phase cross-references | `similar to (Phase\|Step\|Section)` | `similar to Phase 2` |
+   | Collapsed lists | `and \d+ more\|and others\|and the rest` | `and 3 more` |
+   | Implied continuation | `repeat for\|do the same for` | `repeat for remaining products` |
+   | Compressed enumerations | listing 2-3 items then trailing with `, ...` or `etc.` instead of the full list | `deriveDeltas, deriveYtd, etc.` (when there are 9 items) |
+
+2. **Measure depth uniformity:**
+   - Count task lines per phase across the entire plan
+   - If the last 3 phases average < 50% of the first 3 phases' task-line count, flag as `SIGNIFICANT` depth decay
+   - If any single phase has ≤ 2 task lines when comparable phases have 10+, flag as `CRITICAL` depth decay
+
+3. **Check for incomplete examples:**
+   - Does the plan show one fully specified example (e.g., for "Broadband") and then shortcut the remaining items (e.g., "Mobile", "TV", "Bundle")?
+   - Are test bodies fully written or do they contain `{ ... }` pseudo-code?
+   - Are ID/attribute lists complete or do they trail off with "etc."?
+
+4. **Common failure patterns:**
+   - Plan writes full component spec for first product, then says "same pattern × 3 rows" for the rest
+   - Test descriptions list one test fully, then say "similar tests for each function"
+   - Data binding tables show one row completely, then reference "id=X etc." for remaining
+   - Lists that should enumerate all items (function names, field names, route paths) stop after 2-3 with ", etc."
+
+5. **Classification:**
+   - Any unexpanded shortcut that hides specific details (names, paths, logic) → `SIGNIFICANT` with type `MECHANICAL` (the full content must be written out)
+   - Depth decay across phases → `SIGNIFICANT` with type `MECHANICAL` (later phases must be expanded to match earlier phases)
+   - Ambiguous abbreviation where the intended expansion is unclear → `CRITICAL` with type `DECISION_REQUIRED`
+
+---
+
+## Execution Protocol
+
+### Step 1: Plan Ingestion
+
+Read the plan document end-to-end. Extract:
+- Total number of phases
+- Technology stack references
+- All technical claims (endpoints, types, fields, paths, transforms)
+
+### Step 2: Codebase Discovery
+
+Identify the sources of truth in the codebase:
+- Backend route files (for API contract)
+- Type definition files (for type identity)
+- Serialization/DTO models (for field accuracy and transforms)
+- Package manifests (for dependencies)
+- Sample data or test fixtures (for data shapes)
+
+### Step 3: Systematic Cross-Reference
+
+Run all 8 check categories against the plan. For each finding:
+- Record the **plan location** (phase number, section, line context)
+- Record the **codebase evidence** (file path, line number, actual value)
+- Classify severity
+- For `CRITICAL` and `SIGNIFICANT`: determine if this is a **mechanical fix** (one correct answer) or a **decision required** (multiple valid options)
+
+### Step 4: Decision Surfacing
+
+For findings classified as **decision required**:
+- Present numbered options (A, B, C) with pros/cons
+- Wait for user input (in standalone mode) or flag as blockers (in autopilot)
+- Record the chosen resolution alongside the finding
+
+### Step 5: Report Generation
+
+Produce a structured report (see Output Format below).
+
+---
+
+## Output Format
+
+The report is written to the path specified by the invoking agent. Default: `.github/agent-docs/preflight-report.md`
+
+Apply `.github/instructions/document-frontmatter.instructions.md` when creating or updating the report. The YAML frontmatter block must be the first content in the file. New reports require `Original Author`, `Creation Date`, and `Creating Model`; revised reports must preserve those fields and add or update `Last Author`, `Last Updated`, and `Last Model Used`.
+
+```markdown
+---
+type: preflight-report
+plan: <path-to-plan-file>
+scope: <"full" or "phases N-M">
+timestamp: <ISO-8601>
+result: <PASS | FAIL>
+counts:
+  critical: <N>
+  significant: <N>
+  minor: <N>
+  warn: <N>
+decisions_pending: <N>
+Original Author: <active author or agent name>
+Creation Date: <YYYY-MM-DDTHH:MM:SSZ>
+Creating Model: <exact runtime model identifier or display name>
+---
+
+# Preflight Validation Report
+
+**Plan:** `<path>`
+**Validated against:** `<project-name>` codebase
+**Scope:** <full | phases N-M>
+**Result:** <PASS ✅ | FAIL ❌>
+
+## Summary
+
+| Category | Checks | Pass | Fail | Warn |
+|----------|--------|------|------|------|
+| API Contract | N | N | N | N |
+| Type Identity | N | N | N | N |
+| Field Accuracy | N | N | N | N |
+| Dependencies | N | N | N | N |
+| Path Existence | N | N | N | N |
+| Data Shape | N | N | N | N |
+| Transform Correctness | N | N | N | N |
+| Output Decay | N | N | N | N |
+| **Total** | **N** | **N** | **N** | **N** |
+
+## Critical Findings
+
+### C1: <title>
+- **Category:** <which of the 8>
+- **Plan says:** <what the plan claims> (Phase N, section X)
+- **Codebase says:** <what actually exists> (`path/to/file:line`)
+- **Type:** Mechanical fix
+- **Fix:** <exact correction>
+
+### C2: <title>
+- **Category:** <which of the 8>
+- **Plan says:** <what the plan claims>
+- **Codebase says:** <what actually exists>
+- **Type:** Decision required
+- **Options:**
+  - A: <option and consequence>
+  - B: <option and consequence>
+  - C: <option and consequence>
+- **Resolution:** <PENDING | chosen option with rationale>
+
+## Significant Findings
+<same structure as critical>
+
+## Minor Findings
+<same structure>
+
+## Warnings
+<same structure>
+
+## Decisions
+
+| ID | Finding | Options | Resolution |
+|----|---------|---------|------------|
+| D1 | <finding ref> | A / B / C | <PENDING or chosen> |
+| D2 | ... | ... | ... |
+```
+
+If you revise an existing report file, preserve the original metadata fields and add or update `Last Author`, `Last Updated`, and `Last Model Used` using full ISO 8601 UTC timestamps.
+
+---
+
+## Pass / Fail Criteria
+
+| Result | Condition |
+|--------|-----------|
+| `PASS` | Zero CRITICAL findings AND zero pending decisions |
+| `FAIL` | Any CRITICAL finding exists OR any decision is PENDING |
+
+**Then, as the very last line of your output (nothing after it), emit the machine verdict:**
+`PREFLIGHT: PASS` (zero CRITICAL findings and zero pending decisions) or `PREFLIGHT: FAIL` (one or
+more CRITICAL findings, or any decision pending). Automated runners read only this line; it must
+exactly match one of those two forms.
+
+`SIGNIFICANT` and `MINOR` findings do not block a PASS — they are advisory. However, they should be included in the report for the Planner to address.
+
+---
+
+## Scope Restriction (Partial Validation)
+
+When invoked with a scope like "validate phases 6-13 only":
+
+1. Only extract technical claims from phases 6-13 of the plan
+2. Validate against the **current** codebase (which includes work from phases 1-5)
+3. Report findings only for the scoped phases
+4. Note in the report header: `Scope: phases 6-13 (phases 1-5 assumed implemented)`
+
+This is useful for mid-implementation re-validation where the codebase has evolved beyond what the plan originally assumed.
+
+---
+
+## Project-Agnostic Design
+
+This skill does not assume any specific technology stack. The 7 check categories are universal — they apply to:
+
+- Python + FastAPI + React (current validated use case)
+- Node.js + Express + Vue/Angular
+- Go + gRPC + React
+- .NET + Blazor/React
+- Any backend + any frontend combination
+
+The agent loading this skill must adapt the "how to find routes" and "how to find types" steps to the actual stack detected in the project. The methodology (what to check and how to classify findings) is stack-agnostic.
+
+---
+
+## Anti-Patterns to Avoid
+
+| Anti-Pattern | Why It's Wrong | Correct Approach |
+|---|---|---|
+| Validate only Phase 1 | Later phases have higher drift risk | Validate all phases with equal depth |
+| Trust plan's stated types without searching | Types get renamed during development | Search codebase for each type name |
+| Assume blanket transforms are correct | APIs often handle serialization already | Check serialization layer before recommending transforms |
+| Skip data shape validation | "The types look right" ≠ "the data matches" | Read actual response samples or DTO definitions |
+| Auto-resolve decisions | Product choices need human input | Surface options and wait |
+| Report only failures | Context of what passed builds confidence | Include summary table with pass counts |

package/bundles/codex/.codex/skills/workflow/skill-creator/LICENSE.txt

@@ -0,0 +1,202 @@
+
+                                 Apache License
+                           Version 2.0, January 2004
+                        http://www.apache.org/licenses/
+
+   TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR USE, REPRODUCTION, AND DISTRIBUTION
+
+   1. Definitions.
+
+      "License" shall mean the terms and conditions for use, reproduction,
+      and distribution as defined by Sections 1 through 9 of this document.
+
+      "Licensor" shall mean the copyright owner or entity authorized by
+      the copyright owner that is granting the License.
+
+      "Legal Entity" shall mean the union of the acting entity and all
+      other entities that control, are controlled by, or are under common
+      control with that entity. For the purposes of this definition,
+      "control" means (i) the power, direct or indirect, to cause the
+      direction or management of such entity, whether by contract or
+      otherwise, or (ii) ownership of fifty percent (50%) or more of the
+      outstanding shares, or (iii) beneficial ownership of such entity.
+
+      "You" (or "Your") shall mean an individual or Legal Entity
+      exercising permissions granted by this License.
+
+      "Source" form shall mean the preferred form for making modifications,
+      including but not limited to software source code, documentation
+      source, and configuration files.
+
+      "Object" form shall mean any form resulting from mechanical
+      transformation or translation of a Source form, including but
+      not limited to compiled object code, generated documentation,
+      and conversions to other media types.
+
+      "Work" shall mean the work of authorship, whether in Source or
+      Object form, made available under the License, as indicated by a
+      copyright notice that is included in or attached to the work
+      (an example is provided in the Appendix below).
+
+      "Derivative Works" shall mean any work, whether in Source or Object
+      form, that is based on (or derived from) the Work and for which the
+      editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications
+      represent, as a whole, an original work of authorship. For the purposes
+      of this License, Derivative Works shall not include works that remain
+      separable from, or merely link (or bind by name) to the interfaces of,
+      the Work and Derivative Works thereof.
+
+      "Contribution" shall mean any work of authorship, including
+      the original version of the Work and any modifications or additions
+      to that Work or Derivative Works thereof, that is intentionally
+      submitted to Licensor for inclusion in the Work by the copyright owner
+      or by an individual or Legal Entity authorized to submit on behalf of
+      the copyright owner. For the purposes of this definition, "submitted"
+      means any form of electronic, verbal, or written communication sent
+      to the Licensor or its representatives, including but not limited to
+      communication on electronic mailing lists, source code control systems,
+      and issue tracking systems that are managed by, or on behalf of, the
+      Licensor for the purpose of discussing and improving the Work, but
+      excluding communication that is conspicuously marked or otherwise
+      designated in writing by the copyright owner as "Not a Contribution."
+
+      "Contributor" shall mean Licensor and any individual or Legal Entity
+      on behalf of whom a Contribution has been received by Licensor and
+      subsequently incorporated within the Work.
+
+   2. Grant of Copyright License. Subject to the terms and conditions of
+      this License, each Contributor hereby grants to You a perpetual,
+      worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable
+      copyright license to reproduce, prepare Derivative Works of,
+      publicly display, publicly perform, sublicense, and distribute the
+      Work and such Derivative Works in Source or Object form.
+
+   3. Grant of Patent License. Subject to the terms and conditions of
+      this License, each Contributor hereby grants to You a perpetual,
+      worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable
+      (except as stated in this section) patent license to make, have made,
+      use, offer to sell, sell, import, and otherwise transfer the Work,
+      where such license applies only to those patent claims licensable
+      by such Contributor that are necessarily infringed by their
+      Contribution(s) alone or by combination of their Contribution(s)
+      with the Work to which such Contribution(s) was submitted. If You
+      institute patent litigation against any entity (including a
+      cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit) alleging that the Work
+      or a Contribution incorporated within the Work constitutes direct
+      or contributory patent infringement, then any patent licenses
+      granted to You under this License for that Work shall terminate
+      as of the date such litigation is filed.
+
+   4. Redistribution. You may reproduce and distribute copies of the
+      Work or Derivative Works thereof in any medium, with or without
+      modifications, and in Source or Object form, provided that You
+      meet the following conditions:
+
+      (a) You must give any other recipients of the Work or
+          Derivative Works a copy of this License; and
+
+      (b) You must cause any modified files to carry prominent notices
+          stating that You changed the files; and
+
+      (c) You must retain, in the Source form of any Derivative Works
+          that You distribute, all copyright, patent, trademark, and
+          attribution notices from the Source form of the Work,
+          excluding those notices that do not pertain to any part of
+          the Derivative Works; and
+
+      (d) If the Work includes a "NOTICE" text file as part of its
+          distribution, then any Derivative Works that You distribute must
+          include a readable copy of the attribution notices contained
+          within such NOTICE file, excluding those notices that do not
+          pertain to any part of the Derivative Works, in at least one
+          of the following places: within a NOTICE text file distributed
+          as part of the Derivative Works; within the Source form or
+          documentation, if provided along with the Derivative Works; or,
+          within a display generated by the Derivative Works, if and
+          wherever such third-party notices normally appear. The contents
+          of the NOTICE file are for informational purposes only and
+          do not modify the License. You may add Your own attribution
+          notices within Derivative Works that You distribute, alongside
+          or as an addendum to the NOTICE text from the Work, provided
+          that such additional attribution notices cannot be construed
+          as modifying the License.
+
+      You may add Your own copyright statement to Your modifications and
+      may provide additional or different license terms and conditions
+      for use, reproduction, or distribution of Your modifications, or
+      for any such Derivative Works as a whole, provided Your use,
+      reproduction, and distribution of the Work otherwise complies with
+      the conditions stated in this License.
+
+   5. Submission of Contributions. Unless You explicitly state otherwise,
+      any Contribution intentionally submitted for inclusion in the Work
+      by You to the Licensor shall be under the terms and conditions of
+      this License, without any additional terms or conditions.
+      Notwithstanding the above, nothing herein shall supersede or modify
+      the terms of any separate license agreement you may have executed
+      with Licensor regarding such Contributions.
+
+   6. Trademarks. This License does not grant permission to use the trade
+      names, trademarks, service marks, or product names of the Licensor,
+      except as required for reasonable and customary use in describing the
+      origin of the Work and reproducing the content of the NOTICE file.
+
+   7. Disclaimer of Warranty. Unless required by applicable law or
+      agreed to in writing, Licensor provides the Work (and each
+      Contributor provides its Contributions) on an "AS IS" BASIS,
+      WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or
+      implied, including, without limitation, any warranties or conditions
+      of TITLE, NON-INFRINGEMENT, MERCHANTABILITY, or FITNESS FOR A
+      PARTICULAR PURPOSE. You are solely responsible for determining the
+      appropriateness of using or redistributing the Work and assume any
+      risks associated with Your exercise of permissions under this License.
+
+   8. Limitation of Liability. In no event and under no legal theory,
+      whether in tort (including negligence), contract, or otherwise,
+      unless required by applicable law (such as deliberate and grossly
+      negligent acts) or agreed to in writing, shall any Contributor be
+      liable to You for damages, including any direct, indirect, special,
+      incidental, or consequential damages of any character arising as a
+      result of this License or out of the use or inability to use the
+      Work (including but not limited to damages for loss of goodwill,
+      work stoppage, computer failure or malfunction, or any and all
+      other commercial damages or losses), even if such Contributor
+      has been advised of the possibility of such damages.
+
+   9. Accepting Warranty or Additional Liability. While redistributing
+      the Work or Derivative Works thereof, You may choose to offer,
+      and charge a fee for, acceptance of support, warranty, indemnity,
+      or other liability obligations and/or rights consistent with this
+      License. However, in accepting such obligations, You may act only
+      on Your own behalf and on Your sole responsibility, not on behalf
+      of any other Contributor, and only if You agree to indemnify,
+      defend, and hold each Contributor harmless for any liability
+      incurred by, or claims asserted against, such Contributor by reason
+      of your accepting any such warranty or additional liability.
+
+   END OF TERMS AND CONDITIONS
+
+   APPENDIX: How to apply the Apache License to your work.
+
+      To apply the Apache License to your work, attach the following
+      boilerplate notice, with the fields enclosed by brackets "[]"
+      replaced with your own identifying information. (Don't include
+      the brackets!)  The text should be enclosed in the appropriate
+      comment syntax for the file format. We also recommend that a
+      file or class name and description of purpose be included on the
+      same "printed page" as the copyright notice for easier
+      identification within third-party archives.
+
+   Copyright [yyyy] [name of copyright owner]
+
+   Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the "License");
+   you may not use this file except in compliance with the License.
+   You may obtain a copy of the License at
+
+       http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0
+
+   Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, software
+   distributed under the License is distributed on an "AS IS" BASIS,
+   WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or implied.
+   See the License for the specific language governing permissions and
+   limitations under the License.