@girardmedia/bootspring 1.2.0 → 2.0.3

package/agents/code-review-expert/context.md

@@ -1,365 +0,0 @@
-# Code Review Expert Agent
-
-## Role
-Specialized in code review, best practices, code quality, identifying improvements, and ensuring maintainable, readable code.
-
-## Core Expertise
-
-### Code Review Checklist
-
-#### Functionality
-- [ ] Code does what it's supposed to do
-- [ ] Edge cases handled
-- [ ] Error handling is comprehensive
-- [ ] No regression in existing functionality
-
-#### Security
-- [ ] Input validation present
-- [ ] No SQL injection vulnerabilities
-- [ ] No XSS vulnerabilities
-- [ ] Authentication/authorization checked
-- [ ] Sensitive data not exposed
-
-#### Performance
-- [ ] No N+1 queries
-- [ ] Appropriate indexing considered
-- [ ] No memory leaks
-- [ ] Efficient algorithms used
-
-#### Maintainability
-- [ ] Code is readable
-- [ ] Functions are focused (single responsibility)
-- [ ] No magic numbers/strings
-- [ ] Appropriate comments for complex logic
-
-#### Testing
-- [ ] Unit tests added for new code
-- [ ] Edge cases tested
-- [ ] Tests are meaningful, not just coverage
-
-### Common Issues & Fixes
-
-#### 1. Async/Await Mistakes
-
-```typescript
-// Bad: Sequential when could be parallel
-async function getBothUsers(id1: string, id2: string) {
-  const user1 = await getUser(id1);
-  const user2 = await getUser(id2);
-  return [user1, user2];
-}
-
-// Good: Parallel execution
-async function getBothUsers(id1: string, id2: string) {
-  const [user1, user2] = await Promise.all([
-    getUser(id1),
-    getUser(id2),
-  ]);
-  return [user1, user2];
-}
-
-// Bad: Missing error handling
-async function fetchData() {
-  const data = await fetch('/api/data').then(r => r.json());
-  return data;
-}
-
-// Good: Proper error handling
-async function fetchData() {
-  const response = await fetch('/api/data');
-  if (!response.ok) {
-    throw new Error(`HTTP ${response.status}: ${response.statusText}`);
-  }
-  return response.json();
-}
-```
-
-#### 2. React Anti-patterns
-
-```tsx
-// Bad: useEffect for derived state
-function BadComponent({ items }) {
-  const [count, setCount] = useState(0);
-
-  useEffect(() => {
-    setCount(items.length);
-  }, [items]);
-
-  return <div>Count: {count}</div>;
-}
-
-// Good: Derive directly
-function GoodComponent({ items }) {
-  const count = items.length;
-  return <div>Count: {count}</div>;
-}
-
-// Bad: Object/array in dependency array
-function BadComponent() {
-  const options = { enabled: true };
-
-  useEffect(() => {
-    doSomething(options);
-  }, [options]); // New object every render!
-
-  return null;
-}
-
-// Good: useMemo or extract
-function GoodComponent() {
-  const options = useMemo(() => ({ enabled: true }), []);
-
-  useEffect(() => {
-    doSomething(options);
-  }, [options]);
-
-  return null;
-}
-
-// Bad: Inline function causing re-renders
-function ParentComponent() {
-  return (
-    <ChildComponent onClick={() => console.log('clicked')} />
-  );
-}
-
-// Good: useCallback for stable reference
-function ParentComponent() {
-  const handleClick = useCallback(() => {
-    console.log('clicked');
-  }, []);
-
-  return <ChildComponent onClick={handleClick} />;
-}
-```
-
-#### 3. TypeScript Issues
-
-```typescript
-// Bad: Using 'any'
-function processData(data: any) {
-  return data.value;
-}
-
-// Good: Proper typing
-interface DataItem {
-  value: string;
-  count: number;
-}
-
-function processData(data: DataItem) {
-  return data.value;
-}
-
-// Bad: Non-null assertion abuse
-function getUser(users: User[]) {
-  return users.find(u => u.active)!.name; // Might be undefined!
-}
-
-// Good: Handle the undefined case
-function getUser(users: User[]) {
-  const activeUser = users.find(u => u.active);
-  if (!activeUser) {
-    throw new Error('No active user found');
-  }
-  return activeUser.name;
-}
-
-// Good: Optional chaining with fallback
-function getUserName(users: User[]) {
-  return users.find(u => u.active)?.name ?? 'Unknown';
-}
-```
-
-#### 4. Database Query Issues
-
-```typescript
-// Bad: N+1 query problem
-const posts = await prisma.post.findMany();
-for (const post of posts) {
-  post.author = await prisma.user.findUnique({
-    where: { id: post.authorId }
-  });
-}
-
-// Good: Include related data
-const posts = await prisma.post.findMany({
-  include: { author: true }
-});
-
-// Bad: Selecting all fields
-const users = await prisma.user.findMany();
-
-// Good: Select only needed fields
-const users = await prisma.user.findMany({
-  select: {
-    id: true,
-    name: true,
-    email: true,
-  }
-});
-
-// Bad: Missing transaction for related operations
-await prisma.order.create({ data: orderData });
-await prisma.inventory.update({ data: inventoryData }); // What if this fails?
-
-// Good: Use transaction
-await prisma.$transaction([
-  prisma.order.create({ data: orderData }),
-  prisma.inventory.update({ data: inventoryData }),
-]);
-```
-
-#### 5. Security Issues
-
-```typescript
-// Bad: SQL injection
-const user = await prisma.$queryRaw`
-  SELECT * FROM users WHERE email = '${email}'
-`;
-
-// Good: Parameterized query
-const user = await prisma.$queryRaw`
-  SELECT * FROM users WHERE email = ${email}
-`;
-
-// Bad: Exposing sensitive data
-return NextResponse.json(user); // Includes password hash!
-
-// Good: Select safe fields
-return NextResponse.json({
-  id: user.id,
-  name: user.name,
-  email: user.email,
-});
-
-// Bad: Trusting user input
-const { role } = await request.json();
-await prisma.user.update({
-  where: { id },
-  data: { role } // User can set themselves as admin!
-});
-
-// Good: Validate and restrict
-const { role } = await request.json();
-const allowedRoles = ['user', 'editor'];
-if (!allowedRoles.includes(role)) {
-  return NextResponse.json({ error: 'Invalid role' }, { status: 400 });
-}
-```
-
-### Code Smells to Watch For
-
-```typescript
-// 1. Long functions (> 30 lines)
-// Split into smaller, focused functions
-
-// 2. Deep nesting
-// Bad
-if (user) {
-  if (user.isActive) {
-    if (user.hasPermission) {
-      // do something
-    }
-  }
-}
-
-// Good: Early returns
-if (!user) return;
-if (!user.isActive) return;
-if (!user.hasPermission) return;
-// do something
-
-// 3. Magic numbers
-// Bad
-if (items.length > 50) { /* ... */ }
-
-// Good
-const MAX_ITEMS = 50;
-if (items.length > MAX_ITEMS) { /* ... */ }
-
-// 4. Duplicated code
-// Extract into reusable function or component
-
-// 5. Dead code
-// Remove unused imports, variables, functions
-
-// 6. Inconsistent naming
-// Follow conventions: camelCase for variables, PascalCase for components
-
-// 7. Missing error boundaries
-// Add error handling for async operations
-
-// 8. Hardcoded values
-// Use environment variables or configuration
-```
-
-### Review Feedback Templates
-
-```markdown
-## Approved ✅
-LGTM! Code is clean and well-structured.
-
-## Request Changes 🔄
-### Issue 1: [Brief description]
-**Location:** `file.ts:42`
-**Problem:** [What's wrong]
-**Suggestion:** [How to fix]
-
-```typescript
-// Instead of this:
-// current code
-
-// Consider this:
-// suggested code
-```
-
-### Issue 2: ...
-
-## Questions ❓
-- Could you explain the reasoning behind X?
-- Have you considered Y approach?
-
-## Suggestions 💡
-Not blocking, but consider:
-- [ ] Optional improvement 1
-- [ ] Optional improvement 2
-```
-
-### Performance Review Checklist
-
-```typescript
-// Check for:
-
-// 1. Bundle size impact
-// Did new dependencies increase bundle significantly?
-// Can they be dynamically imported?
-
-// 2. Render performance
-// Any unnecessary re-renders?
-// Are expensive computations memoized?
-
-// 3. Data fetching
-// Are queries optimized?
-// Is caching used appropriately?
-
-// 4. Memory usage
-// Are event listeners cleaned up?
-// Are subscriptions unsubscribed?
-```
-
-## Review Checklist
-
-- [ ] Code compiles without warnings
-- [ ] Tests pass
-- [ ] No console.logs left
-- [ ] Error handling present
-- [ ] Types are correct
-- [ ] No hardcoded secrets
-- [ ] Follows project conventions
-- [ ] Documentation updated if needed
-- [ ] No breaking changes without migration
-- [ ] Accessibility considered
-
-## Trigger Keywords
-review, code review, best practice, improve, refactor, clean code, lint, smell, anti-pattern, quality, convention, standard, tech debt

package/agents/competitive-analysis-expert/context.md

@@ -1,239 +0,0 @@
-# Competitive Analysis Expert Agent
-
-## Role
-Specialized in competitive intelligence, market research, competitor analysis, and strategic positioning.
-
-## Core Expertise
-
-### Competitive Analysis Framework
-
-```markdown
-## Competitive Landscape Map
-
-### Direct Competitors
-Companies solving the same problem for the same customer.
-
-| Competitor | Positioning | Pricing | Strengths | Weaknesses |
-|------------|-------------|---------|-----------|------------|
-| Company A | Enterprise-first | $$$$ | Brand, features | Slow, expensive |
-| Company B | SMB-focused | $$ | Easy to use | Limited features |
-| Company C | Developer tools | $$$ | Technical depth | Poor UX |
-
-### Indirect Competitors
-Alternative solutions or adjacent products.
-
-| Alternative | How They Compete | Our Advantage |
-|-------------|------------------|---------------|
-| Manual process | Status quo | Time savings |
-| Build in-house | DIY approach | Cost, expertise |
-| Different tool | Category substitute | Specialization |
-
-### Potential Competitors
-Future threats from adjacent markets.
-
-- Big tech entering space
-- Well-funded startups
-- International players
-```
-
-### Competitor Deep Dive Template
-
-```markdown
-## Competitor Profile: [Company Name]
-
-### Overview
-- **Founded**: Year
-- **Funding**: $X raised, Stage
-- **Team Size**: X employees
-- **HQ**: Location
-
-### Product
-- **Core Offering**: Description
-- **Key Features**:
-  - Feature 1
-  - Feature 2
-  - Feature 3
-- **Integrations**: List key integrations
-- **Tech Stack**: Known technologies
-
-### Pricing
-| Tier | Price | Features |
-|------|-------|----------|
-| Free | $0 | Limited |
-| Pro | $X/mo | Standard |
-| Enterprise | Custom | Full |
-
-### Go-to-Market
-- **Target Customer**: Description
-- **Sales Motion**: Self-serve / Sales-led
-- **Key Channels**: Where they acquire customers
-
-### Strengths
-- Strength 1
-- Strength 2
-- Strength 3
-
-### Weaknesses
-- Weakness 1
-- Weakness 2
-- Weakness 3
-
-### Recent Moves
-- Product launches
-- Funding rounds
-- Key hires
-- Partnerships
-
-### Sources
-- Website: URL
-- LinkedIn: URL
-- Crunchbase: URL
-- G2/Capterra: URL
-```
-
-### Feature Comparison Matrix
-
-```markdown
-## Feature Comparison
-
-| Feature | Us | Comp A | Comp B | Comp C |
-|---------|-----|--------|--------|--------|
-| **Core Features** |
-| Feature 1 | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ❌ |
-| Feature 2 | ✅ | ✅ | ❌ | ✅ |
-| Feature 3 | ✅ | ❌ | ✅ | ✅ |
-| **Integrations** |
-| Slack | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ❌ |
-| GitHub | ✅ | ❌ | ✅ | ✅ |
-| **Support** |
-| Chat support | ✅ | ✅ | ❌ | ❌ |
-| Phone support | ❌ | ✅ | ❌ | ❌ |
-| **Pricing** |
-| Free tier | ✅ | ❌ | ✅ | ✅ |
-| Starting price | $29 | $99 | $49 | $19 |
-
-### Legend
-- ✅ Full support
-- 🟡 Partial/Beta
-- ❌ Not available
-```
-
-### Win/Loss Analysis
-
-```markdown
-## Win/Loss Analysis Framework
-
-### Data Collection
-For each closed opportunity, capture:
-- Outcome: Won / Lost
-- Competitors involved
-- Key decision factors
-- Pricing comparison
-- Decision maker feedback
-
-### Win Analysis
-| Factor | Frequency | Impact |
-|--------|-----------|--------|
-| Price | 40% | High |
-| Features | 30% | High |
-| UX/Ease of use | 20% | Medium |
-| Brand/Trust | 10% | Low |
-
-### Loss Analysis
-| Reason | Frequency | Competitor |
-|--------|-----------|------------|
-| Missing feature X | 35% | Comp A |
-| Price too high | 25% | Comp B |
-| Existing relationship | 20% | Various |
-| Timing/budget | 20% | N/A |
-
-### Action Items
-Based on analysis:
-- [ ] Prioritize feature X development
-- [ ] Review pricing for SMB segment
-- [ ] Improve competitive positioning
-```
-
-### Monitoring System
-
-```markdown
-## Competitive Intelligence Sources
-
-### Primary Sources
-- **Websites**: Product pages, pricing, changelog
-- **Social Media**: Twitter, LinkedIn, YouTube
-- **Reviews**: G2, Capterra, TrustRadius
-- **Job Postings**: Hiring = investment areas
-
-### Secondary Sources
-- **News**: TechCrunch, product launches
-- **Funding**: Crunchbase, PitchBook
-- **Community**: Reddit, HN, Discord
-- **Events**: Conferences, webinars
-
-### Monitoring Tools
-| Tool | Purpose | Frequency |
-|------|---------|-----------|
-| Google Alerts | News mentions | Real-time |
-| Visualping | Website changes | Daily |
-| BuiltWith | Tech stack | Monthly |
-| SimilarWeb | Traffic trends | Monthly |
-
-### Intelligence Calendar
-- **Weekly**: Social media scan
-- **Monthly**: Website/pricing review
-- **Quarterly**: Deep dive update
-- **Trigger-based**: Funding, launches
-```
-
-### Battle Cards
-
-```markdown
-## Battle Card: vs [Competitor Name]
-
-### Quick Facts
-- **Founded**: Year
-- **Pricing**: $X-$Y/mo
-- **Best For**: [Customer type]
-
-### Their Pitch
-"[How they position themselves]"
-
-### Our Counter
-"[How we position against them]"
-
-### Why We Win
-1. [Advantage 1]
-2. [Advantage 2]
-3. [Advantage 3]
-
-### Why We Lose
-1. [Their advantage 1]
-2. [Their advantage 2]
-
-### Common Objections
-**"They have [feature]"**
-Response: "While they offer [feature], our approach of [alternative] actually provides [benefit] because [reason]..."
-
-**"They're cheaper"**
-Response: "When you factor in [hidden costs/limitations], our total value is actually better because..."
-
-### Trap Questions for Them
-- "How does [their product] handle [our strength]?"
-- "Can you show me [area of weakness]?"
-- "What's the implementation timeline for [complex feature]?"
-```
-
-## Competitive Analysis Checklist
-
-- [ ] Competitor list identified
-- [ ] Deep dives completed
-- [ ] Feature matrix updated
-- [ ] Pricing comparison current
-- [ ] Battle cards created
-- [ ] Win/loss tracking active
-- [ ] Monitoring alerts set up
-- [ ] Regular update cadence
-
-## Trigger Keywords
-competitive, competitor, analysis, market research, battle card, win loss, positioning, differentiation, comparison, market intelligence