@gordon.gan/specflow 1.0.0

package/prompts/build/tdd.md

@@ -0,0 +1,184 @@
+> **HARD GATE**: Test must FAIL before writing implementation. If you write production code before seeing a failing test, delete it and start over. No exceptions.
+
+<!-- SOURCE: skills/test-driven-development/SKILL.md -->
+
+# Test-Driven Development (Build Variant)
+
+Per-task atomic TDD for the build phase. Each task in the plan follows Red-Green-Refactor strictly.
+
+## 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 during build phase tasks:**
+- Each task in the implementation plan
+- Bug fixes discovered during implementation
+- Behavior changes within a task
+
+**Exceptions (ask your human partner):**
+- Throwaway prototypes
+- Generated code
+- Configuration files
+
+## The Iron Law
+
+```
+NO PRODUCTION CODE WITHOUT A FAILING TEST FIRST
+```
+
+Write code before the test? Delete it. Start over.
+
+**No exceptions:**
+- Don't keep it as "reference"
+- Don't "adapt" it while writing tests
+- Don't look at it
+- Delete means delete
+
+Implement fresh from tests. Period.
+
+## Red-Green-Refactor
+
+```dot
+digraph tdd_cycle {
+    rankdir=LR;
+    red [label="RED\nWrite failing test", shape=box, style=filled, fillcolor="#ffcccc"];
+    verify_red [label="Verify fails\ncorrectly", shape=diamond];
+    green [label="GREEN\nMinimal code", shape=box, style=filled, fillcolor="#ccffcc"];
+    verify_green [label="Verify passes\nAll green", shape=diamond];
+    refactor [label="REFACTOR\nClean up", shape=box, style=filled, fillcolor="#ccccff"];
+    next [label="Next", shape=ellipse];
+
+    red -> verify_red;
+    verify_red -> green [label="yes"];
+    verify_red -> red [label="wrong\nfailure"];
+    green -> verify_green;
+    verify_green -> refactor [label="yes"];
+    verify_green -> green [label="no"];
+    refactor -> verify_green [label="stay\ngreen"];
+    verify_green -> next;
+    next -> red;
+}
+```
+
+### RED - Write Failing Test
+
+Write one minimal test showing what should happen.
+
+**Requirements:**
+- One behavior per test
+- Clear, descriptive name
+- Real code (no mocks unless unavoidable)
+
+### Verify RED - Watch It Fail
+
+**MANDATORY. Never skip.**
+
+```bash
+<test-runner> path/to/test
+```
+
+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. Don't add features, refactor other code, or "improve" beyond the test.
+
+### Verify GREEN - Watch It Pass
+
+**MANDATORY.**
+
+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 behavior in the task.
+
+## Per-Task Commit Pattern
+
+Each task in the plan should follow this atomic cycle:
+
+1. Write failing test for first behavior -> verify RED
+2. Write minimal implementation -> verify GREEN
+3. Refactor if needed -> verify still GREEN
+4. Repeat for remaining behaviors in the task
+5. Commit all changes for the task
+
+## 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"
+
+**All of these mean: Delete code. Start over with TDD.**
+
+## Verification Checklist (Per Task)
+
+Before marking a task 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
+
+## Common Rationalizations
+
+| Excuse | Reality |
+|--------|---------|
+| "Too simple to test" | Simple code breaks. Test takes 30 seconds. |
+| "I'll test after" | Tests passing immediately prove nothing. |
+| "Need to explore first" | Fine. Throw away exploration, start with TDD. |
+| "Test hard = design unclear" | Listen to test. Hard to test = hard to use. |
+
+## When Stuck
+
+| Problem | Solution |
+|---------|----------|
+| Don't know how to test | Write wished-for API. Write assertion first. |
+| 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. |
+
+## Final Rule
+
+```
+Production code -> test exists and failed first
+Otherwise -> not TDD
+```
+
+No exceptions without your human partner's permission.

package/prompts/done/branch-finish.md

@@ -0,0 +1,204 @@
+<!-- SOURCE: skills/finishing-a-development-branch/SKILL.md -->
+
+# Finishing a Development Branch
+
+## Overview
+
+Guide completion of development work by presenting clear options and handling chosen workflow.
+
+**Core principle:** Verify tests -> Present options -> Execute choice -> Clean up.
+
+**Announce at start:** "I'm using specflow:done to complete this work."
+
+## The Process
+
+### Step 1: Verify Tests
+
+**Before presenting options, verify tests pass:**
+
+```bash
+# Run project's test suite
+npm test / cargo test / pytest / go test ./...
+```
+
+**If tests fail:**
+```
+Tests failing (<N> failures). Must fix before completing:
+
+[Show failures]
+
+Cannot proceed with merge/PR until tests pass.
+```
+
+Stop. Don't proceed to Step 2.
+
+**If tests pass:** Continue to Step 2.
+
+### Step 2: Determine Base Branch
+
+Detect the repository's default base branch — common names are `main`, `master`, or `trunk`:
+
+```bash
+# Try to detect the default branch from the remote
+git symbolic-ref refs/remotes/origin/HEAD 2>/dev/null | sed 's@^refs/remotes/origin/@@'
+
+# Fallback: check which common base branch exists
+for b in main master trunk; do git rev-parse --verify "$b" >/dev/null 2>&1 && echo "$b" && break; done
+```
+
+Use whichever base branch the detection returns in all subsequent steps and in the option labels. When presenting the options to the user, substitute the actual branch name (e.g., show "Merge back to `master` locally" if master is the base).
+
+If detection fails or returns ambiguous results, ask the user: "What base branch should this merge target? (detected: none — typical choices are main, master, trunk)"
+
+### Step 3: Present Options
+
+Present exactly these 4 options:
+
+```
+Implementation complete. What would you like to do?
+
+1. Merge back to <base-branch> locally
+2. Push and create a Pull Request
+3. Keep the branch as-is (I'll handle it later)
+4. Discard this work
+
+Which option?
+```
+
+**Don't add explanation** - keep options concise.
+
+### Step 4: Execute Choice
+
+#### Option 1: Merge Locally
+
+```bash
+# Switch to base branch
+git checkout <base-branch>
+
+# Pull latest
+git pull
+
+# Merge feature branch
+git merge <feature-branch>
+
+# Verify tests on merged result
+<test command>
+
+# If tests pass
+git branch -d <feature-branch>
+```
+
+Then: Cleanup worktree (Step 5)
+
+#### Option 2: Push and Create PR
+
+```bash
+# Push branch
+git push -u origin <feature-branch>
+
+# Create PR
+gh pr create --title "<title>" --body "$(cat <<'EOF'
+## Summary
+<2-3 bullets of what changed>
+
+## Test Plan
+- [ ] <verification steps>
+EOF
+)"
+```
+
+Then: Cleanup worktree (Step 5)
+
+#### Option 3: Keep As-Is
+
+Report: "Keeping branch <name>. Worktree preserved at <path>."
+
+**Don't cleanup worktree.**
+
+#### Option 4: Discard
+
+**Confirm first:**
+```
+This will permanently delete:
+- Branch <name>
+- All commits: <commit-list>
+- Worktree at <path>
+
+Type 'discard' to confirm.
+```
+
+Wait for exact confirmation.
+
+If confirmed:
+```bash
+git checkout <base-branch>
+git branch -D <feature-branch>
+```
+
+Then: Cleanup worktree (Step 5)
+
+### Step 5: Cleanup Worktree
+
+**For Options 1, 2, 4:**
+
+Check if in worktree:
+```bash
+git worktree list | grep $(git branch --show-current)
+```
+
+If yes:
+```bash
+git worktree remove <worktree-path>
+```
+
+**For Option 3:** Keep worktree.
+
+## Quick Reference
+
+| Option | Merge | Push | Keep Worktree | Cleanup Branch |
+|--------|-------|------|---------------|----------------|
+| 1. Merge locally | Y | - | - | Y |
+| 2. Create PR | - | Y | Y | - |
+| 3. Keep as-is | - | - | Y | - |
+| 4. Discard | - | - | - | Y (force) |
+
+## Common Mistakes
+
+**Skipping test verification**
+- **Problem:** Merge broken code, create failing PR
+- **Fix:** Always verify tests before offering options
+
+**Open-ended questions**
+- **Problem:** "What should I do next?" leads to ambiguity
+- **Fix:** Present exactly 4 structured options
+
+**Automatic worktree cleanup**
+- **Problem:** Remove worktree when might need it (Option 2, 3)
+- **Fix:** Only cleanup for Options 1 and 4
+
+**No confirmation for discard**
+- **Problem:** Accidentally delete work
+- **Fix:** Require typed "discard" confirmation
+
+## Red Flags
+
+**Never:**
+- Proceed with failing tests
+- Merge without verifying tests on result
+- Delete work without confirmation
+- Force-push without explicit request
+
+**Always:**
+- Verify tests before offering options
+- Present exactly 4 options
+- Get typed confirmation for Option 4
+- Clean up worktree for Options 1 and 4 only
+
+## Integration
+
+**Called by:**
+- **specflow:build Phase B** (final step) - After all tasks complete
+- **specflow:build Phase B (inline mode)** (final step) - After all batches complete
+
+**Pairs with:**
+- **specflow:build Phase B (worktree)** - Cleans up worktree created by that skill

package/prompts/fix/debug.md

@@ -0,0 +1,249 @@
+<!-- SOURCE: skills/systematic-debugging/SKILL.md -->
+
+# Systematic Debugging
+
+## Overview
+
+Random fixes waste time and create new bugs. Quick patches mask underlying issues.
+
+**Core principle:** ALWAYS find root cause before attempting fixes. Symptom fixes are failure.
+
+**Violating the letter of this process is violating the spirit of debugging.**
+
+## Spec Awareness
+
+**Before beginning investigation:** Read relevant specs from `specflow/specs/` to understand expected behavior. Knowing the declared behavior helps distinguish bugs from intended behavior and prevents "fixing" things that are working as designed.
+
+If `specflow/specs/` exists:
+1. Identify which specs relate to the failing component
+2. Read the WHEN/THEN scenarios for expected behavior
+3. Compare observed behavior against spec expectations
+4. Use specs to inform your root cause hypothesis
+
+## The Iron Law
+
+```
+NO FIXES WITHOUT ROOT CAUSE INVESTIGATION FIRST
+```
+
+If you haven't completed Phase 1, you cannot propose fixes.
+
+## When to Use
+
+Use for ANY technical issue:
+- Test failures
+- Bugs in production
+- Unexpected behavior
+- Performance problems
+- Build failures
+- Integration issues
+
+**Use this ESPECIALLY when:**
+- Under time pressure (emergencies make guessing tempting)
+- "Just one quick fix" seems obvious
+- You've already tried multiple fixes
+- Previous fix didn't work
+- You don't fully understand the issue
+
+**Don't skip when:**
+- Issue seems simple (simple bugs have root causes too)
+- You're in a hurry (rushing guarantees rework)
+- Manager wants it fixed NOW (systematic is faster than thrashing)
+
+## The Four Phases
+
+You MUST complete each phase before proceeding to the next.
+
+### Phase 1: Root Cause Investigation
+
+**BEFORE attempting ANY fix:**
+
+1. **Read Error Messages Carefully**
+   - Don't skip past errors or warnings
+   - They often contain the exact solution
+   - Read stack traces completely
+   - Note line numbers, file paths, error codes
+
+2. **Reproduce Consistently**
+   - Can you trigger it reliably?
+   - What are the exact steps?
+   - Does it happen every time?
+   - If not reproducible -> gather more data, don't guess
+
+3. **Check Recent Changes**
+   - What changed that could cause this?
+   - Git diff, recent commits
+   - New dependencies, config changes
+   - Environmental differences
+
+4. **Gather Evidence in Multi-Component Systems**
+
+   **WHEN system has multiple components (CI -> build -> signing, API -> service -> database):**
+
+   **BEFORE proposing fixes, add diagnostic instrumentation:**
+   ```
+   For EACH component boundary:
+     - Log what data enters component
+     - Log what data exits component
+     - Verify environment/config propagation
+     - Check state at each layer
+
+   Run once to gather evidence showing WHERE it breaks
+   THEN analyze evidence to identify failing component
+   THEN investigate that specific component
+   ```
+
+5. **Trace Data Flow**
+
+   **WHEN error is deep in call stack:**
+   - Where does bad value originate?
+   - What called this with bad value?
+   - Keep tracing up until you find the source
+   - Fix at source, not at symptom
+
+### Phase 2: Pattern Analysis
+
+**Find the pattern before fixing:**
+
+1. **Find Working Examples**
+   - Locate similar working code in same codebase
+   - What works that's similar to what's broken?
+
+2. **Compare Against References**
+   - If implementing pattern, read reference implementation COMPLETELY
+   - Don't skim - read every line
+   - Understand the pattern fully before applying
+
+3. **Identify Differences**
+   - What's different between working and broken?
+   - List every difference, however small
+   - Don't assume "that can't matter"
+
+4. **Understand Dependencies**
+   - What other components does this need?
+   - What settings, config, environment?
+   - What assumptions does it make?
+
+### Phase 3: Hypothesis and Testing
+
+**Scientific method:**
+
+1. **Form Single Hypothesis**
+   - State clearly: "I think X is the root cause because Y"
+   - Write it down
+   - Be specific, not vague
+
+2. **Test Minimally**
+   - Make the SMALLEST possible change to test hypothesis
+   - One variable at a time
+   - Don't fix multiple things at once
+
+3. **Verify Before Continuing**
+   - Did it work? Yes -> Phase 4
+   - Didn't work? Form NEW hypothesis
+   - DON'T add more fixes on top
+
+4. **When You Don't Know**
+   - Say "I don't understand X"
+   - Don't pretend to know
+   - Ask for help
+   - Research more
+
+### Phase 4: Implementation
+
+**Fix the root cause, not the symptom:**
+
+1. **Create Failing Test Case**
+   - Simplest possible reproduction
+   - Automated test if possible
+   - One-off test script if no framework
+   - MUST have before fixing
+   - Use specflow:test or specflow:build TDD for writing proper failing tests
+
+2. **Implement Single Fix**
+   - Address the root cause identified
+   - ONE change at a time
+   - No "while I'm here" improvements
+   - No bundled refactoring
+
+3. **Verify Fix**
+   - Test passes now?
+   - No other tests broken?
+   - Issue actually resolved?
+
+4. **If Fix Doesn't Work**
+   - STOP
+   - Count: How many fixes have you tried?
+   - If < 3: Return to Phase 1, re-analyze with new information
+   - **If >= 3: STOP and question the architecture (step 5 below)**
+   - DON'T attempt Fix #4 without architectural discussion
+
+5. **If 3+ Fixes Failed: Question Architecture**
+
+   **Pattern indicating architectural problem:**
+   - Each fix reveals new shared state/coupling/problem in different place
+   - Fixes require "massive refactoring" to implement
+   - Each fix creates new symptoms elsewhere
+
+   **STOP and question fundamentals:**
+   - Is this pattern fundamentally sound?
+   - Are we "sticking with it through sheer inertia"?
+   - Should we refactor architecture vs. continue fixing symptoms?
+
+   **Discuss with your human partner before attempting more fixes**
+
+   This is NOT a failed hypothesis - this is a wrong architecture.
+
+## Red Flags - STOP and Follow Process
+
+If you catch yourself thinking:
+- "Quick fix for now, investigate later"
+- "Just try changing X and see if it works"
+- "Add multiple changes, run tests"
+- "Skip the test, I'll manually verify"
+- "It's probably X, let me fix that"
+- "I don't fully understand but this might work"
+- "Pattern says X but I'll adapt it differently"
+- "Here are the main problems: [lists fixes without investigation]"
+- Proposing solutions before tracing data flow
+- **"One more fix attempt" (when already tried 2+)**
+- **Each fix reveals new problem in different place**
+
+**ALL of these mean: STOP. Return to Phase 1.**
+
+**If 3+ fixes failed:** Question the architecture (see Phase 4.5)
+
+## Common Rationalizations
+
+| Excuse | Reality |
+|--------|---------|
+| "Issue is simple, don't need process" | Simple issues have root causes too. Process is fast for simple bugs. |
+| "Emergency, no time for process" | Systematic debugging is FASTER than guess-and-check thrashing. |
+| "Just try this first, then investigate" | First fix sets the pattern. Do it right from the start. |
+| "I'll write test after confirming fix works" | Untested fixes don't stick. Test first proves it. |
+| "Multiple fixes at once saves time" | Can't isolate what worked. Causes new bugs. |
+| "Reference too long, I'll adapt the pattern" | Partial understanding guarantees bugs. Read it completely. |
+| "I see the problem, let me fix it" | Seeing symptoms does not equal understanding root cause. |
+| "One more fix attempt" (after 2+ failures) | 3+ failures = architectural problem. Question pattern, don't fix again. |
+
+## Quick Reference
+
+| Phase | Key Activities | Success Criteria |
+|-------|---------------|------------------|
+| **1. Root Cause** | Read errors, reproduce, check changes, gather evidence | Understand WHAT and WHY |
+| **2. Pattern** | Find working examples, compare | Identify differences |
+| **3. Hypothesis** | Form theory, test minimally | Confirmed or new hypothesis |
+| **4. Implementation** | Create test, fix, verify | Bug resolved, tests pass |
+
+## Related Skills
+
+- **specflow:test** or **specflow:build TDD** - For creating failing test case (Phase 4, Step 1)
+- **specflow:verify** - Verify fix worked before claiming success
+
+## Real-World Impact
+
+From debugging sessions:
+- Systematic approach: 15-30 minutes to fix
+- Random fixes approach: 2-3 hours of thrashing
+- First-time fix rate: 95% vs 40%
+- New bugs introduced: Near zero vs common