@dzhechkov/p-replicator 1.0.0

package/templates/.claude/skills/brutal-honesty-review/README.md

@@ -0,0 +1,218 @@
+# Brutal Honesty Review Skill
+
+## Overview
+
+A QE skill that delivers unvarnished technical criticism combining three legendary personas:
+- **Linus Torvalds**: Surgical technical precision
+- **Gordon Ramsay**: Standards-driven quality assessment
+- **James Bach**: BS detection in testing practices
+
+## Purpose
+
+Unlike diplomatic reviews, this skill eliminates ambiguity about technical standards. It **dissects why something is wrong, explains the correct approach, and has zero patience for repeated mistakes or sloppy thinking**.
+
+## When to Use
+
+✅ **Appropriate**:
+- Senior engineers wanting unfiltered feedback
+- Repeated architectural mistakes
+- Critical bugs requiring immediate attention
+- Evaluating vendor claims/certifications
+- Teams explicitly requesting no-BS feedback
+
+❌ **Inappropriate**:
+- Junior developers' first contributions
+- Demoralized teams
+- Public forums (avoid humiliation)
+- When psychological safety is low
+
+## Three Modes
+
+### 1. Linus Mode (Technical Precision)
+Focus on code correctness, performance, concurrency, and architecture.
+
+**Example**:
+> "This is completely broken. You're holding the lock during I/O, which means every thread serializes. Did you even test under load? The correct approach is..."
+
+### 2. Ramsay Mode (Standards-Driven Quality)
+Compare reality against clear excellence model using concrete metrics.
+
+**Example**:
+> "Look at this! 12 tests and 10 are just checking if variables exist. Where's the business logic coverage? This is RAW. Don't merge it."
+
+### 3. Bach Mode (BS Detection)
+Question certifications, best practices, and vendor hype.
+
+**Example**:
+> "This certification teaches scripts, not thinking. Does it help testers find bugs faster? No. It helps the cert body make money."
+
+## Quick Start
+
+### Using the Skill
+
+Invoke the skill when you need brutal honesty:
+
+```markdown
+Use brutal-honesty-review skill in Linus mode to review this code:
+[paste code]
+```
+
+### Using Assessment Scripts
+
+```bash
+# Assess code quality (Linus Mode)
+./scripts/assess-code.sh src/myfile.js
+
+# Assess test quality (Ramsay Mode)
+./scripts/assess-tests.sh tests/
+```
+
+## Files Included
+
+```
+brutal-honesty-review/
+├── SKILL.md                          # Main skill instructions
+├── README.md                         # This file
+├── resources/
+│   ├── review-template.md            # Template for structured reviews
+│   └── assessment-rubrics.md         # Scoring rubrics for all modes
+└── scripts/
+    ├── assess-code.sh                # Automated code quality check
+    └── assess-tests.sh               # Automated test quality check
+```
+
+## Assessment Rubrics
+
+### Code Quality (Linus Mode)
+
+| Criteria | Failing | Passing | Excellent |
+|----------|---------|---------|-----------|
+| Correctness | Wrong logic | Works in tested cases | Proven across edge cases |
+| Performance | O(n²) where O(n) exists | Acceptable | Optimal + profiled |
+| Error Handling | Crashes | Returns errors | Graceful degradation |
+| Concurrency | Race conditions | Thread-safe | Lock-free/proven |
+| Testability | Can't unit test | Mockable | Self-testing |
+| Maintainability | "Clever" code | Clear | Self-documenting |
+
+**Threshold**: Minimum "Passing" on ALL to merge.
+
+### Test Quality (Ramsay Mode)
+
+| Criteria | Raw | Acceptable | Michelin Star |
+|----------|-----|------------|---------------|
+| Coverage | <50% | 80%+ | 95%+ + mutation |
+| Edge Cases | Happy path only | Common failures | Boundary analysis |
+| Clarity | Unclear names | Clear names | Self-documenting |
+| Speed | Minutes | <10s | <1s, parallel |
+| Stability | Flaky (>1%) | Stable | Deterministic |
+| Isolation | Dependent | Independent | Pure, stateless |
+
+**Threshold**: Minimum "Acceptable" on ALL to merge.
+
+### BS Detection (Bach Mode)
+
+Red flags:
+- Cargo cult practices (no context)
+- Certification theater (filters thinkers)
+- Vendor lock-in (solves own problem)
+- False automation (still needs humans)
+- Checkbox quality (compliance, not outcomes)
+- Hype cycle (10x claims without proof)
+
+**Green flag test**: "Does this help testers/developers do better work in THIS context?"
+
+## Examples
+
+### Example 1: Linus Mode - Concurrency Bug
+
+**Problem**: Holding DB connection during HTTP call
+
+**Brutal Honesty**:
+> "This is completely broken. You're holding a database connection open while waiting for an HTTP request. Under load, you'll exhaust the connection pool in seconds. Did you test with >1 user? The correct approach: 1) Fetch data, 2) Close connection, 3) Make HTTP call."
+
+### Example 2: Ramsay Mode - Weak Tests
+
+**Problem**: 15 tests, all happy path
+
+**Brutal Honesty**:
+> "Look at this test suite. 15 tests, 14 are happy path. Where's validation? Where are edge cases? This is RAW. You're testing if code runs, not if it's correct. You have 35% coverage. Production needs 80%+. Don't merge this."
+
+### Example 3: Bach Mode - Certification Theater
+
+**Problem**: Required ISTQB certification
+
+**Brutal Honesty**:
+> "ISTQB tests if you memorized terminology, not if you can test software. Real skills: finding bugs, designing strategies, communicating risk. ISTQB tests: definitions, model names, checkbox thinking. If it helped, ISTQB-certified teams would ship higher quality. They don't."
+
+## Calibration Guide
+
+### Harshness Levels
+
+**Level 1 - Direct**: For experienced engineers
+> "This approach is flawed because..."
+
+**Level 2 - Harsh**: For repeated mistakes
+> "We've discussed this pattern three times. Why is it back?"
+
+**Level 3 - Brutal**: For critical issues or willful ignorance
+> "This is negligent. You're exposing user data because..."
+
+### Context Matters
+
+Before being brutal, verify:
+1. **Audience maturity**: Can they handle directness?
+2. **Relationship capital**: Have you earned harsh feedback rights?
+3. **Actionability**: Can they actually fix this?
+4. **Intent**: Helping or venting?
+
+## Philosophy
+
+### Why Brutal Honesty Works
+
+1. **Eliminates Ambiguity**: No confusion about technical standards
+2. **Scales Teaching**: Public technical breakdown teaches entire team
+3. **Cuts Through BS**: Exposes cargo cult practices and vendor hype
+
+### The Costs
+
+1. **Relationship Damage**: Harsh criticism without trust destroys collaboration
+2. **Chills Participation**: Fear stops newcomers from contributing
+3. **Burnout**: Constant harshness is exhausting
+
+### The Contract
+
+Before using brutal honesty, establish explicit contract:
+
+> "I'm going to give unfiltered technical feedback. This will be direct, possibly harsh. Goal is clarity, not cruelty. I'll explain: 1) What's wrong, 2) Why, 3) What correct looks like, 4) How to fix. Want diplomatic instead?"
+
+**Get explicit consent first.**
+
+## Integration with Agentic QE Fleet
+
+This skill extends the QE skill set:
+
+- **Complements**: `code-review-quality`, `context-driven-testing`
+- **Contrasts with**: Diplomatic, constructive review approaches
+- **Use when**: Technical precision and BS-cutting are priorities
+- **Avoid when**: Building confidence or psychological safety
+
+## Related Skills
+
+- `code-review-quality` - Diplomatic code review
+- `context-driven-testing` - Foundation for BS detection
+- `tdd-london-chicago` - Systematic quality approach
+- `exploratory-testing-advanced` - Critical thinking in testing
+
+## License
+
+MIT - Part of Agentic QE Fleet
+
+## Contributing
+
+Found this too harsh? Good. Found this too soft? You're Linus Torvalds.
+
+Submit issues if the skill produces ineffective criticism (not actionable, personal attacks, wrong context).
+
+---
+
+**Remember**: Brutal honesty is a tool, not a personality. Use it when it helps, not when it harms.

package/templates/.claude/skills/brutal-honesty-review/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,225 @@
+---
+name: brutal-honesty-review
+description: Unvarnished technical criticism combining Linus Torvalds precision, Gordon Ramsay standards, and James Bach BS-detection. Use when code or tests need harsh reality checks, certification schemes smell fishy, or technical decisions lack rigor. No sugar-coating, just surgical truth about what is broken and why.
+---
+
+# Brutal Honesty Review
+
+<default_to_action>
+When brutal honesty is needed:
+1. CHOOSE MODE: Linus (technical), Ramsay (standards), Bach (BS detection)
+2. VERIFY CONTEXT: Senior engineer? Repeated mistake? Critical bug? Explicit request?
+3. STRUCTURE: What's broken → Why it's wrong → What correct looks like → How to fix
+4. ATTACK THE WORK, not the worker
+5. ALWAYS provide actionable path forward
+
+**Quick Mode Selection:**
+- **Linus**: Code is technically wrong, inefficient, misunderstands fundamentals
+- **Ramsay**: Quality is subpar compared to clear excellence model
+- **Bach**: Certifications, best practices, or vendor hype need reality check
+
+**Calibration:**
+- Level 1 (Direct): "This approach is fundamentally flawed because..."
+- Level 2 (Harsh): "We've discussed this three times. Why is it back?"
+- Level 3 (Brutal): "This is negligent. You're exposing user data because..."
+
+**DO NOT USE FOR:** Junior devs' first PRs, demoralized teams, public forums, low psychological safety
+</default_to_action>
+
+## Quick Reference Card
+
+### When to Use
+| Context | Appropriate? | Why |
+|---------|-------------|-----|
+| Senior engineer code review | ✅ Yes | Can handle directness, respects precision |
+| Repeated architectural mistakes | ✅ Yes | Gentle approaches failed |
+| Security vulnerabilities | ✅ Yes | Stakes too high for sugar-coating |
+| Evaluating vendor claims | ✅ Yes | BS detection prevents expensive mistakes |
+| Junior dev's first PR | ❌ No | Use constructive mentoring |
+| Demoralized team | ❌ No | Will break, not motivate |
+| Public forum | ❌ No | Public humiliation destroys trust |
+
+### Three Modes
+
+| Mode | When | Example Output |
+|------|------|----------------|
+| **Linus** | Code technically wrong | "You're holding the lock for the entire I/O. Did you test under load?" |
+| **Ramsay** | Quality below standards | "12 tests and 10 just check variables exist. Where's the business logic?" |
+| **Bach** | BS detection needed | "This cert tests memorization, not bug-finding. Who actually benefits?" |
+
+---
+
+## The Criticism Structure
+
+```markdown
+## What's Broken
+[Surgical description - specific, technical]
+
+## Why It's Wrong
+[Technical explanation, not opinion]
+
+## What Correct Looks Like
+[Clear model of excellence]
+
+## How to Fix It
+[Actionable steps, specific to context]
+
+## Why This Matters
+[Impact if not fixed]
+```
+
+---
+
+## Mode Examples
+
+### Linus Mode: Technical Precision
+
+```markdown
+**Problem**: Holding database connection during HTTP call
+
+"This is completely broken. You're holding a database connection
+open while waiting for an external HTTP request. Under load, you'll
+exhaust the connection pool in seconds.
+
+Did you even test this with more than one concurrent user?
+
+The correct approach is:
+1. Fetch data from DB
+2. Close connection
+3. Make HTTP call
+4. Open new connection if needed
+
+This is Connection Management 101. Why wasn't this caught in review?"
+```
+
+### Ramsay Mode: Standards-Driven Quality
+
+```markdown
+**Problem**: Tests only verify happy path
+
+"Look at this test suite. 15 tests, 14 happy path scenarios.
+Where's the validation testing? Edge cases? Failure modes?
+
+This is RAW. You're testing if code runs, not if it's correct.
+
+Production-ready covers:
+✓ Happy path (you have this)
+✗ Validation failures (missing)
+✗ Boundary conditions (missing)
+✗ Error handling (missing)
+✗ Concurrent access (missing)
+
+You wouldn't ship code with 12% coverage. Don't merge tests
+with 12% scenario coverage."
+```
+
+### Bach Mode: BS Detection
+
+```markdown
+**Problem**: ISTQB certification required for QE roles
+
+"ISTQB tests if you memorized terminology, not if you can test software.
+
+Real testing skills:
+- Finding bugs others miss
+- Designing effective strategies for context
+- Communicating risk to stakeholders
+
+ISTQB tests:
+- Definitions of 'alpha' vs 'beta' testing
+- Names of techniques you'll never use
+- V-model terminology
+
+If ISTQB helped testers, companies with certified teams would ship
+higher quality. They don't."
+```
+
+---
+
+## Assessment Rubrics
+
+### Code Quality (Linus Mode)
+
+| Criteria | Failing | Passing | Excellent |
+|----------|---------|---------|-----------|
+| Correctness | Wrong algorithm | Works in tested cases | Proven across edge cases |
+| Performance | Naive O(n²) | Acceptable complexity | Optimal + profiled |
+| Error Handling | Crashes on invalid | Returns error codes | Graceful degradation |
+| Testability | Impossible to test | Can mock | Self-testing design |
+
+### Test Quality (Ramsay Mode)
+
+| Criteria | Raw | Acceptable | Michelin Star |
+|----------|-----|------------|---------------|
+| Coverage | <50% branch | 80%+ branch | 95%+ mutation tested |
+| Edge Cases | Only happy path | Common failures | Boundary analysis complete |
+| Stability | Flaky (>1% failure) | Stable but slow | Deterministic + fast |
+
+### BS Detection (Bach Mode)
+
+| Red Flag | Evidence | Impact |
+|----------|----------|--------|
+| Cargo Cult Practice | "Best practice" with no context | Wasted effort |
+| Certification Theater | Required cert unrelated to skills | Filters out thinkers |
+| Vendor Lock-In | Tool solves problem it created | Expensive dependency |
+
+---
+
+## Agent Integration
+
+```typescript
+// Brutal honesty code review
+await Task("Code Review", {
+  code: pullRequestDiff,
+  mode: 'linus',  // or 'ramsay', 'bach'
+  calibration: 'direct',  // or 'harsh', 'brutal'
+  requireActionable: true
+}, "qe-code-reviewer");
+
+// BS detection for vendor claims
+await Task("Vendor Evaluation", {
+  claims: vendorMarketingClaims,
+  mode: 'bach',
+  requireEvidence: true
+}, "qe-quality-gate");
+```
+
+---
+
+## Agent Coordination Hints
+
+### Memory Namespace
+```
+aqe/brutal-honesty/
+├── code-reviews/*     - Technical review findings
+├── bs-detection/*     - Vendor/cert evaluations
+└── calibration/*      - Context-appropriate levels
+```
+
+### Fleet Coordination
+```typescript
+const reviewFleet = await FleetManager.coordinate({
+  strategy: 'brutal-review',
+  agents: [
+    'qe-code-reviewer',    // Technical precision
+    'qe-security-auditor', // Security brutality
+    'qe-quality-gate'      // Standards enforcement
+  ],
+  topology: 'parallel'
+});
+```
+
+---
+
+## Related Skills
+- [code-review-quality](../code-review-quality/) - Diplomatic version
+- [context-driven-testing](../context-driven-testing/) - Foundation for Bach mode
+- [sherlock-review](../sherlock-review/) - Evidence-based investigation
+
+---
+
+## Remember
+
+**Brutal honesty eliminates ambiguity but has costs.** Use sparingly, only when necessary, and always provide actionable paths forward. Attack the work, never the worker.
+
+**The Brutal Honesty Contract**: Get explicit consent. "I'm going to give unfiltered technical feedback. This will be direct, possibly harsh. The goal is clarity, not cruelty."