@ggailabs/cli-context 0.5.6 → 1.0.1

package/dist/.context/eng/skills/tdd.md

@@ -0,0 +1,421 @@
+---
+name: ring:test-driven-development
+description: |
+  RED-GREEN-REFACTOR implementation methodology - write failing test first,
+  minimal implementation to pass, then refactor. Ensures tests verify behavior.
+
+trigger: |
+  - Starting implementation of new feature
+  - Starting implementation of bugfix
+  - Writing new production code
+
+skip_when: |
+  - Reviewing/modifying existing tests → use testing-anti-patterns
+  - Code already exists without tests → add tests first, then TDD for new code
+  - Exploratory/spike work → consider brainstorming first
+
+related:
+  complementary: [testing-anti-patterns, verification-before-completion]
+
+compliance_rules:
+  - id: "test_file_exists"
+    description: "Test file must exist before implementation file"
+    check_type: "file_exists"
+    pattern: "**/*.test.{ts,js,go,py}"
+    severity: "blocking"
+    failure_message: "No test file found. Write test first (RED phase)."
+
+  - id: "test_must_fail_first"
+    description: "Test must produce failure output before implementation"
+    check_type: "command_output_contains"
+    command: "npm test 2>&1 || pytest 2>&1 || go test ./... 2>&1"
+    pattern: "FAIL|Error|failed"
+    severity: "blocking"
+    failure_message: "Test does not fail. Write a failing test first (RED phase)."
+prerequisites:
+  - name: "test_framework_installed"
+    check: "npm list jest 2>/dev/null || npm list vitest 2>/dev/null || which pytest 2>/dev/null || go list ./... 2>&1 | grep -q testing"
+    failure_message: "No test framework found. Install jest/vitest (JS), pytest (Python), or use Go's built-in testing."
+    severity: "blocking"
+
+  - name: "can_run_tests"
+    check: "npm test -- --version 2>/dev/null || pytest --version 2>/dev/null || go test -v 2>&1 | grep -q 'testing:'"
+    failure_message: "Cannot run tests. Fix test configuration."
+    severity: "warning"
+composition:
+  works_well_with:
+    - skill: "ring:systematic-debugging"
+      when: "test reveals unexpected behavior or bug"
+      transition: "Pause TDD at current phase, use systematic-debugging to find root cause, return to TDD after fix"
+
+    - skill: "ring:verification-before-completion"
+      when: "before marking test suite or feature complete"
+      transition: "Run verification to ensure all tests pass, return to TDD if issues found"
+
+    - skill: "ring:requesting-code-review"
+      when: "after completing RED-GREEN-REFACTOR cycle for feature"
+      transition: "Request review before merging, address feedback, mark complete"
+
+  conflicts_with: []
+
+  typical_workflow: |
+    1. Write failing test (RED)
+    2. If test reveals unexpected behavior → switch to systematic-debugging
+    3. Fix root cause
+    4. Return to TDD: minimal implementation (GREEN)
+    5. Refactor (REFACTOR)
+    6. Run verification-before-completion
+    7. Request code review
+---
+
+# Test-Driven Development (TDD)
+
+## Overview
+
+Write the test first. Watch it fail. Write minimal code to pass.
+
+**Core principle:** If you didn't watch the test fail, you don't know if it tests the right thing.
+
+**Violating the letter of the rules is violating the spirit of the rules.**
+
+## When to Use
+
+**Always:**
+- New features
+- Bug fixes
+- Refactoring
+- Behavior changes
+
+**Exceptions (ask your human partner):**
+- Throwaway prototypes
+- Generated code
+- Configuration files
+
+Thinking "skip TDD just this once"? Stop. That's rationalization.
+
+## The Iron Law
+
+```
+NO PRODUCTION CODE WITHOUT A FAILING TEST FIRST
+```
+
+Write code before the test? You have ONLY two options:
+
+## Violation Handling (Mandatory)
+
+**If you wrote code before test:**
+
+### DELETE IT. IMMEDIATELY.
+
+```bash
+rm [files]  # or git reset --hard
+```
+
+**Not tomorrow. Not after asking. NOW.**
+
+**Delete means DELETE:**
+- `rm -rf the_file.py` ✓
+- `git reset --hard` ✓
+- Physically delete ✓
+
+**These are NOT deleting (violations):**
+- `git stash` - That's hiding, not deleting
+- `mv file.py file.py.bak` - That's keeping
+- Copy to clipboard - That's keeping
+- Comment out - That's keeping
+- "Mental note" - That's keeping
+- Asking permission - That's delaying
+
+Delete means gone forever. No recovery possible.
+
+Then start over with TDD.
+
+### NO ASKING. NO PERMISSION. NO EXCEPTIONS.
+
+**You CANNOT:**
+- ❌ Ask "should I delete this?"
+- ❌ Ask "may I proceed with tests-after?"
+- ❌ Request permission due to [any reason]
+- ❌ Explain why deleting is hard
+- ❌ Decide "I'll be pragmatic and test after"
+- ❌ Claim "spirit not letter"
+- ❌ Rationalize "damage already done"
+- ❌ Argue "skill is guide not suicide pact"
+- ❌ Create "pragmatic compliance" category
+- ❌ Mention sunk cost, time pressure, personal plans
+- ❌ Commit anything
+
+**If you think you have a legitimate reason to skip deletion:**
+- You don't.
+- Delete it.
+- Every excuse is rationalization.
+- Anniversary? Delete code, go to dinner, start fresh tomorrow.
+- Deadline? Delete code, communicate delay, do it right.
+- 4 hours of work? Sunk cost fallacy. Delete it.
+- Manager pressure? Delete it, explain TDD prevents bugs.
+- "But this is different because..." No. Delete it.
+
+**The rule has ZERO exceptions. ZERO.**
+
+### Consequences of NOT Deleting
+
+Untested code WILL cause production incidents. These are CERTAINTIES:
+
+- **Trust:** Partner loses confidence permanently. PRs rejected. Assigned bug duty.
+- **Production:** Incident within 30 days. Worst timing (holiday, 3am). Postmortem responsibility.
+- **Career:** Reputation as "cuts corners" follows you. Promotion blocked.
+- **Personal:** Anniversary debugging. Technical debt haunts for years.
+
+❌ "This time is different" → Every developer who thought this experienced these consequences.
+
+### The ONLY Acceptable Action
+
+**DELETE THE CODE. NOW.**
+
+```bash
+rm /tmp/auth-feature/src/auth.ts
+rm /tmp/auth-feature/src/middleware.ts
+rm /tmp/auth-feature/src/utils.ts
+# or: git reset --hard
+```
+
+**Then:**
+- Go to anniversary dinner
+- Sleep well
+- Tomorrow morning: Start fresh with TDD
+- Implement in 2-3 hours with tests (faster second time)
+- Code review passes
+- No production incidents
+- Career intact
+
+**ZERO exceptions. Anniversary, deadline, manager pressure, sunk cost - NONE of these override deletion.**
+
+### Prohibited Rationalizations
+
+**You CANNOT create alternatives:**
+- ❌ "Commit with WIP message" - NO. Delete.
+- ❌ "Commit with 'NO TESTS' warning" - NO. Delete.
+- ❌ "Mark as technical debt" - NO. Delete.
+- ❌ "Email team about violation" - NO. Delete first, communicate after.
+- ❌ "Come early tomorrow to decide" - NO. Delete now, decide nothing.
+- ❌ "Let team decide" - NO. You decide: Delete.
+- ❌ "Write tests tonight after dinner" - NO. Delete, start fresh tomorrow with TDD.
+- ❌ "Commit honestly labeled code" - NO. Honesty is deleting it.
+- ❌ "Present options to partner" - NO. Only one option: Delete.
+
+**The skill doesn't offer choices. It commands: DELETE.**
+
+**If you create ANY alternative to deletion, you violated the skill.**
+
+**DELETE IT. NOW. NO ALTERNATIVES.**
+
+## Red-Green-Refactor
+
+**Cycle:** RED (write failing test) → verify fails → GREEN (minimal code) → verify passes → REFACTOR (clean up) → verify still green → repeat
+
+### RED - Write Failing Test
+
+Write one minimal test showing what should happen.
+
+**GOOD:** `test('retries failed operations 3 times', ...)` - clear name, tests real behavior, one thing.
+
+**BAD:** `test('retry works', ...)` with mocks - vague name, tests mock not code.
+
+**Time limit:** <5 minutes. Complex mocks → testing wrong thing. Lots of setup → design too complex. Multiple assertions → split tests.
+
+**Requirements:**
+- One behavior
+- Clear name
+- Real code (no mocks unless unavoidable)
+
+### Verify RED - Watch It Fail
+
+**MANDATORY. Never skip.**
+
+```bash
+npm test path/to/test.test.ts
+```
+
+**Paste the ACTUAL failure output in your response:**
+```
+[PASTE EXACT OUTPUT HERE]
+[NO OUTPUT = VIOLATION]
+```
+
+If you can't paste output, you didn't run the test.
+
+### Required Failure Patterns
+
+| Test Type | Must See This Failure | Wrong Failure = Wrong Test |
+|-----------|----------------------|---------------------------|
+| New feature | `NameError: function not defined` or `AttributeError` | Test passing = testing existing behavior |
+| Bug fix | Actual wrong output/behavior | Test passing = not testing the bug |
+| Refactor | Tests pass before and after | Tests fail after = broke something |
+
+**No failure output = didn't run = violation**
+
+Confirm:
+- Test fails (not errors)
+- Failure message is expected
+- Fails because feature missing (not typos)
+
+**Test passes?** You're testing existing behavior. Fix test.
+
+**Test errors?** Fix error, re-run until it fails correctly.
+
+### GREEN - Minimal Code
+
+Write simplest code to pass the test.
+
+**GOOD:** Simple loop with try/catch, just enough to pass. **BAD:** Adding options, backoff, callbacks (YAGNI).
+
+Don't add features, refactor other code, or "improve" beyond the test.
+
+### Verify GREEN - Watch It Pass
+
+**MANDATORY.**
+
+```bash
+npm test path/to/test.test.ts
+```
+
+Confirm:
+- Test passes
+- Other tests still pass
+- Output pristine (no errors, warnings)
+
+**Test fails?** Fix code, not test.
+
+**Other tests fail?** Fix now.
+
+### REFACTOR - Clean Up
+
+After green only:
+- Remove duplication
+- Improve names
+- Extract helpers
+
+Keep tests green. Don't add behavior.
+
+### Repeat
+
+Next failing test for next feature.
+
+## Good Tests
+
+| Quality | Good | Bad |
+|---------|------|-----|
+| **Minimal** | One thing. "and" in name? Split it. | `test('validates email and domain and whitespace')` |
+| **Clear** | Name describes behavior | `test('test1')` |
+| **Shows intent** | Demonstrates desired API | Obscures what code should do |
+
+## Why Order Matters
+
+| Argument | Reality |
+|----------|---------|
+| "Tests after verify it works" | Tests-after pass immediately → proves nothing. Test-first forces failure → proves test works. |
+| "Already manually tested" | Ad-hoc ≠ systematic. No record, can't re-run, easy to forget under pressure. |
+| "Deleting X hours is wasteful" | Sunk cost fallacy. Keeping unverified code = tech debt. Delete → rewrite with confidence. |
+| "TDD is dogmatic" | TDD IS pragmatic: catches bugs pre-commit, prevents regressions, documents behavior, enables refactoring. |
+| "Spirit not ritual" | Tests-after = "what does this do?" Tests-first = "what should this do?" Different questions. |
+
+## Common Rationalizations
+
+| Excuse | Reality |
+|--------|---------|
+| "Too simple to test" | Simple code breaks. Test takes 30 seconds. |
+| "I'll test after" | Tests passing immediately prove nothing. |
+| "Tests after achieve same goals" | Tests-after = "what does this do?" Tests-first = "what should this do?" |
+| "Already manually tested" | Ad-hoc ≠ systematic. No record, can't re-run. |
+| "Deleting X hours is wasteful" | Sunk cost fallacy. Keeping unverified code is technical debt. |
+| "Keep as reference, write tests first" | You'll adapt it. That's testing after. Delete means delete. |
+| "Need to explore first" | Fine. Throw away exploration, start with TDD. |
+| "Test hard = design unclear" | Listen to test. Hard to test = hard to use. |
+| "TDD will slow me down" | TDD faster than debugging. Pragmatic = test-first. |
+| "Manual test faster" | Manual doesn't prove edge cases. You'll re-test every change. |
+| "Existing code has no tests" | You're improving it. Add tests for existing code. |
+
+## Red Flags - STOP and Start Over
+
+- Code before test
+- Test after implementation
+- Test passes immediately
+- Can't explain why test failed
+- Tests added "later"
+- Rationalizing "just this once"
+- "I already manually tested it"
+- "Tests after achieve the same purpose"
+- "It's about spirit not ritual"
+- "Keep as reference" or "adapt existing code"
+- "Already spent X hours, deleting is wasteful"
+- "TDD is dogmatic, I'm being pragmatic"
+- "This is different because..."
+
+**All of these mean: Delete code. Start over with TDD.**
+
+## Example: Bug Fix
+
+**Bug:** Empty email accepted → **RED:** `test('rejects empty email', ...)` → **Verify RED:** `FAIL: expected 'Email required', got undefined` → **GREEN:** Add `if (!data.email?.trim()) return { error: 'Email required' }` → **Verify GREEN:** `PASS` → **REFACTOR:** Extract validation if needed.
+
+## Verification Checklist
+
+Before marking work complete:
+
+- [ ] Every new function/method has a test
+- [ ] Watched each test fail before implementing
+- [ ] Each test failed for expected reason (feature missing, not typo)
+- [ ] Wrote minimal code to pass each test
+- [ ] All tests pass
+- [ ] Output pristine (no errors, warnings)
+- [ ] Tests use real code (mocks only if unavoidable)
+- [ ] Edge cases and errors covered
+
+Can't check all boxes? You skipped TDD. Start over.
+
+## When Stuck
+
+| Problem | Solution |
+|---------|----------|
+| Don't know how to test | Write wished-for API. Write assertion first. Ask your human partner. |
+| Test too complicated | Design too complicated. Simplify interface. |
+| Must mock everything | Code too coupled. Use dependency injection. |
+| Test setup huge | Extract helpers. Still complex? Simplify design. |
+
+## Debugging Integration
+
+Bug found? Write failing test reproducing it. Follow TDD cycle. Test proves fix and prevents regression.
+
+Never fix bugs without a test.
+
+## Required Patterns
+
+This skill uses these universal patterns:
+- **State Tracking:** See `skills/shared-patterns/state-tracking.md`
+- **Failure Recovery:** See `skills/shared-patterns/failure-recovery.md`
+- **Exit Criteria:** See `skills/shared-patterns/exit-criteria.md`
+- **TodoWrite:** See `skills/shared-patterns/todowrite-integration.md`
+
+Apply ALL patterns when using this skill.
+
+---
+
+## Violation Recovery Quick Reference
+
+| Violation | Detection | Recovery |
+|-----------|-----------|----------|
+| **Code before test** | Implementation exists, no test file | DELETE code (`rm`), write test, verify RED, reimplement |
+| **FALSE GREEN** | Test passes immediately, no implementation | Test is broken - make stricter until it fails correctly |
+| **Kept "reference"** | Stash/backup/clipboard exists | Delete permanently (`git stash drop`, `rm`), start fresh |
+
+**Why recovery matters:** Test must fail first to prove it tests something. Keeping code means you'll adapt it instead of implementing from tests.
+
+---
+
+## Final Rule
+
+```
+Production code → test exists and failed first
+Otherwise → not TDD
+```
+
+No exceptions without your human partner's permission.

package/dist/.context/eng/skills/writing_plans.md

@@ -0,0 +1,105 @@
+---
+name: ring:writing-plans
+description: |
+  Creates comprehensive implementation plans with exact file paths, complete code
+  examples, and verification steps for engineers with zero codebase context.
+
+trigger: |
+  - Design phase complete (brainstorming/PRD/TRD validated)
+  - Need to create executable task breakdown
+  - Creating work for other engineers or AI agents
+
+skip_when: |
+  - Design not validated → use brainstorming first
+  - Requirements still unclear → use ring:pre-dev-prd-creation first
+  - Already have a plan → use ring:executing-plans
+
+sequence:
+  after: [brainstorming, ring:pre-dev-trd-creation]
+  before: [ring:executing-plans, ring:subagent-driven-development]
+
+related:
+  similar: [brainstorming]
+---
+
+# Writing Plans
+
+## Overview
+
+This skill dispatches a specialized agent to write comprehensive implementation plans for engineers with zero codebase context.
+
+**Announce at start:** "I'm using the ring:writing-plans skill to create the implementation plan."
+
+**Context:** This should be run in a dedicated worktree (created by ring:brainstorming skill).
+
+## The Process
+
+**Step 1: Dispatch Write-Plan Agent**
+
+Dispatch via `Task(subagent_type: "ring:write-plan", model: "opus")` with:
+- Instructions to create bite-sized tasks (2-5 min each)
+- Include exact file paths, complete code, verification steps
+- Save to `docs/plans/YYYY-MM-DD-<feature-name>.md`
+
+**Step 2: Validate Plan**
+
+After the plan is saved, validate it:
+
+```bash
+python3 default/lib/validate-plan-precedent.py docs/plans/YYYY-MM-DD-<feature>.md
+```
+
+**Interpretation:**
+- `PASS` → Plan is safe to execute
+- `WARNING` → Plan has issues to address
+  - Review the warnings in the output
+  - Update plan to address the issues
+  - Re-run validation until PASS
+
+**Step 3: Ask User About Execution**
+
+Ask via `AskUserQuestion`: "Execute now?" Options:
+1. Execute now → `ring:subagent-driven-development`
+2. Parallel session → user opens new session with `ring:executing-plans`
+3. Save for later → report location and end
+
+## Why Use an Agent?
+
+**Context preservation** (reading many files keeps supervisor clean) | **Model power** (Opus for comprehensive planning) | **Separation of concerns** (supervisor orchestrates, agent plans)
+
+## What the Agent Does
+
+Explore codebase → identify files → break into bite-sized tasks (2-5 min) → write complete code → include exact commands → add review checkpoints → verify Zero-Context Test → save to `docs/plans/YYYY-MM-DD-<feature>.md` → report back
+
+## Requirements for Plans
+
+Every plan: Header (goal, architecture, tech stack) | Verification commands with expected output | Exact file paths (never "somewhere in src") | Complete code (never "add validation here") | Bite-sized steps with verification | Failure recovery | Review checkpoints | Zero-Context Test | **Recommended agents per task**
+
+## Agent Selection
+
+| Task Type | Agent |
+|-----------|-------|
+| Backend API/services | `backend-engineer-{golang,typescript}` |
+| Frontend/BFF | `frontend-bff-engineer-typescript` |
+| Infra/CI/CD | `ring:devops-engineer` |
+| Testing | `ring:qa-analyst` |
+| Reliability | `ring:sre` |
+| Fallback | `general-purpose` (built-in, no prefix) |
+
+## Execution Options Reference
+
+| Option | Description |
+|--------|-------------|
+| **Execute now** | Fresh subagent per task, code review between tasks → `ring:subagent-driven-development` |
+| **Parallel session** | User opens new session, batch execution with human review → `ring:executing-plans` |
+| **Save for later** | Plan at `docs/plans/YYYY-MM-DD-<feature>.md`, manual review before execution |
+
+## Required Patterns
+
+This skill uses these universal patterns:
+- **State Tracking:** See `skills/shared-patterns/state-tracking.md`
+- **Failure Recovery:** See `skills/shared-patterns/failure-recovery.md`
+- **Exit Criteria:** See `skills/shared-patterns/exit-criteria.md`
+- **TodoWrite:** See `skills/shared-patterns/todowrite-integration.md`
+
+Apply ALL patterns when using this skill.

package/dist/.context/pt-br/agents/architect.md

@@ -0,0 +1,69 @@
+---
+name: genesis:architect
+version: 1.0.0
+description: Lead Framework Architect for Genesis Grid AI Labs. Responsible for high-level architecture, modular monolith enforcement, and AI-readiness.
+type: architect
+model: opus
+last_updated: 2026-01-23
+author: Guilherme Giorgi (GG)
+---
+
+# 💎 Genesis Grid Lead Architect
+
+Você é o Arquiteto Líder da **Genesis Grid AI Labs**. Sua missão é projetar e manter sistemas que seguem o **GG-Framework**, garantindo que toda base de código seja modular, resiliente e otimizada para colaboração com IA de alta performance.
+
+## Perfil e Tom
+- **Tom:** Técnico, Preciso, Autoritário e Minimalista. Sem gírias ou enrolação.
+- **Lealdade:** Fiel aos princípios de Guilherme Giorgi (GG) e à marca Genesis Grid.
+
+## Responsabilidades Centrais
+
+1.  **Arquitetura Modular Sovereignty:** Garantir Monólitos Modulares com "Acoplamento Horizontal Zero". Módulos devem se comunicar apenas via `bridge.ts`.
+2.  **Gestão Dinâmica de Contexto (Smart Zone):** Manter a janela de contexto rigorosamente abaixo de **40%**. Utilizar Progressive Disclosure e carregar arquivos sob demanda.
+3.  **Aesthetics Enforcement:** Garantir que o Genesis Design System Master (v5.1) seja aplicado com rigor cirúrgico (Modo **FULL**) ou adaptado conforme o contrato de interface do projeto (Modo **MIX/CORE**).
+4.  **Metodologia PREVICE:** Orquestrar o ciclo completo (Planejamento, Revisão, Execução, Validação, Confirmação).
+5.  **Tech Stack Authority:** Garantir o uso mandatório de React 19, Vite, Tailwind CSS e TypeScript (Strict Mode).
+6.  **Operational Transparency:** Manter e auditar o [OPERATIONS_LOG.md](file:///home/guilherme/Documentos/GG.AI/PLATAFORMAS/ggai-context/.context/docs/OPERATIONS_LOG.md) para controle de tempo e FinOps.
+
+## 🏆 Mandato Técnico (Global Engineering Standards)
+- **Framework:** React 19 + TypeScript (strict).
+- **Bundler:** Vite.
+- **Styling:** Tailwind CSS (Merge via `cn()`).
+- **Icons:** Uso exclusivo de `@/components/ui/icon`.
+- **Identity:** Founder: Guilherme Giorgi (GG). Marca: Genesis Grid AI Labs.
+
+## Regras Inegociáveis (HARD GATES)
+
+| Regra | Descrição | Consequência |
+| :--- | :--- | :--- |
+| **Boundaries** | Nenhuma importação direta entre módulos. Uso mandatório de `bridge.ts`. | **REJEITADO** |
+| **Estado Isolado** | Cada módulo gerencia suas próprias tabelas. Sem queries cross-module. | **REJEITADO** |
+| **Smart Zone** | Contextos acima de 40% devem ser limpos ou resumidos em Memória de Longo Prazo. | **REJEITADO** |
+| **Discovery Protocol** | Proibido iniciar plano sem auditar e atomizar o Design Doc/Input. | **REJEITADO** |
+
+## Fluxo Operacional: Protocolo PREVICE (v5.2)
+
+1.  **Fase Zero: Discovery & Audit:** Analisar o Input/Design Doc. Identificar lacunas. Atomizar em fases técnicas.
+2.  **P - Planejamento (Architect Mode):** Selecionar Agente e Modelo High-IQ. Gerar plano em `.context/plans/`. Garantir que o plano inclua comandos de verificação explícitos.
+3.  **R - Revisão:** Aguardar validação do Arquiteto Líder (GG).
+4.  **E - Execução (Builder Mode):** Delegar para um **agente limpo** usando **Modelos High-Speed** para implementação atômica.
+5.  **V - Validação:** Executar TDD e verificar evidências.
+6.  **C - Confirmação:** Registrar entrega e deploy.
+
+## Standards Verification (MANDATORY FIRST SECTION)
+
+Toda resposta sua deve começar com esta seção para provar que você leu o contexto atual:
+
+```markdown
+## Standards Verification
+
+| Check | Status | Details |
+|-------|--------|---------|
+| .context/docs/GENESIS_DESIGN_SYSTEM.md | Loaded | v5.1 Active |
+| Smart Zone (<40%) | Verified | Token density optimized |
+| Discovery Audit | Verified | Input atomized |
+| Modular Boundaries | Verified | Bridge pattern checked |
+```
+
+---
+*Genesis Grid AI Labs - Engineering Excellence.*