@h1dr0n/skill-pool 0.1.0

package/skills/common/skills/architecture/examples.md

@@ -0,0 +1,94 @@
+# Architecture Examples
+
+> Real-world architecture decisions by project type.
+
+---
+
+## Example 1: MVP E-commerce (Solo Developer)
+
+```yaml
+Requirements:
+  - <1000 users initially
+  - Solo developer
+  - Fast to market (8 weeks)
+  - Budget-conscious
+
+Architecture Decisions:
+  App Structure: Monolith (simpler for solo)
+  Framework: Next.js (full-stack, fast)
+  Data Layer: Prisma direct (no over-abstraction)
+  Authentication: JWT (simpler than OAuth)
+  Payment: Stripe (hosted solution)
+  Database: PostgreSQL (ACID for orders)
+
+Trade-offs Accepted:
+  - Monolith → Can't scale independently (team doesn't justify it)
+  - No Repository → Less testable (simple CRUD doesn't need it)
+  - JWT → No social login initially (can add later)
+
+Future Migration Path:
+  - Users > 10K → Extract payment service
+  - Team > 3 → Add Repository pattern
+  - Social login requested → Add OAuth
+```
+
+---
+
+## Example 2: SaaS Product (5-10 Developers)
+
+```yaml
+Requirements:
+  - 1K-100K users
+  - 5-10 developers
+  - Long-term (12+ months)
+  - Multiple domains (billing, users, core)
+
+Architecture Decisions:
+  App Structure: Modular Monolith (team size optimal)
+  Framework: NestJS (modular by design)
+  Data Layer: Repository pattern (testing, flexibility)
+  Domain Model: Partial DDD (rich entities)
+  Authentication: OAuth + JWT
+  Caching: Redis
+  Database: PostgreSQL
+
+Trade-offs Accepted:
+  - Modular Monolith → Some module coupling (microservices not justified)
+  - Partial DDD → No full aggregates (no domain experts)
+  - RabbitMQ later → Initial synchronous (add when proven needed)
+
+Migration Path:
+  - Team > 10 → Consider microservices
+  - Domains conflict → Extract bounded contexts
+  - Read performance issues → Add CQRS
+```
+
+---
+
+## Example 3: Enterprise (100K+ Users)
+
+```yaml
+Requirements:
+  - 100K+ users
+  - 10+ developers
+  - Multiple business domains
+  - Different scaling needs
+  - 24/7 availability
+
+Architecture Decisions:
+  App Structure: Microservices (independent scale)
+  API Gateway: Kong/AWS API GW
+  Domain Model: Full DDD
+  Consistency: Event-driven (eventual OK)
+  Message Bus: Kafka
+  Authentication: OAuth + SAML (enterprise SSO)
+  Database: Polyglot (right tool per job)
+  CQRS: Selected services
+
+Operational Requirements:
+  - Service mesh (Istio/Linkerd)
+  - Distributed tracing (Jaeger/Tempo)
+  - Centralized logging (ELK/Loki)
+  - Circuit breakers (Resilience4j)
+  - Kubernetes/Helm
+```

package/skills/common/skills/architecture/pattern-selection.md

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+# Pattern Selection Guidelines
+
+> Decision trees for choosing architectural patterns.
+
+## Main Decision Tree
+
+```
+START: What's your MAIN concern?
+
+┌─ Data Access Complexity?
+│  ├─ HIGH (complex queries, testing needed)
+│  │  → Repository Pattern + Unit of Work
+│  │  VALIDATE: Will data source change frequently?
+│  │     ├─ YES → Repository worth the indirection
+│  │     └─ NO  → Consider simpler ORM direct access
+│  └─ LOW (simple CRUD, single database)
+│     → ORM directly (Prisma, Drizzle)
+│     Simpler = Better, Faster
+│
+├─ Business Rules Complexity?
+│  ├─ HIGH (domain logic, rules vary by context)
+│  │  → Domain-Driven Design
+│  │  VALIDATE: Do you have domain experts on team?
+│  │     ├─ YES → Full DDD (Aggregates, Value Objects)
+│  │     └─ NO  → Partial DDD (rich entities, clear boundaries)
+│  └─ LOW (mostly CRUD, simple validation)
+│     → Transaction Script pattern
+│     Simpler = Better, Faster
+│
+├─ Independent Scaling Needed?
+│  ├─ YES (different components scale differently)
+│  │  → Microservices WORTH the complexity
+│  │  REQUIREMENTS (ALL must be true):
+│  │    - Clear domain boundaries
+│  │    - Team > 10 developers
+│  │    - Different scaling needs per service
+│  │  IF NOT ALL MET → Modular Monolith instead
+│  └─ NO (everything scales together)
+│     → Modular Monolith
+│     Can extract services later when proven needed
+│
+└─ Real-time Requirements?
+   ├─ HIGH (immediate updates, multi-user sync)
+   │  → Event-Driven Architecture
+   │  → Message Queue (RabbitMQ, Redis, Kafka)
+   │  VALIDATE: Can you handle eventual consistency?
+   │     ├─ YES → Event-driven valid
+   │     └─ NO  → Synchronous with polling
+   └─ LOW (eventual consistency acceptable)
+      → Synchronous (REST/GraphQL)
+      Simpler = Better, Faster
+```
+
+## The 3 Questions (Before ANY Pattern)
+
+1. **Problem Solved**: What SPECIFIC problem does this pattern solve?
+2. **Simpler Alternative**: Is there a simpler solution?
+3. **Deferred Complexity**: Can we add this LATER when needed?
+
+## Red Flags (Anti-patterns)
+
+| Pattern | Anti-pattern | Simpler Alternative |
+|---------|-------------|-------------------|
+| Microservices | Premature splitting | Start monolith, extract later |
+| Clean/Hexagonal | Over-abstraction | Concrete first, interfaces later |
+| Event Sourcing | Over-engineering | Append-only audit log |
+| CQRS | Unnecessary complexity | Single model |
+| Repository | YAGNI for simple CRUD | ORM direct access |

package/skills/common/skills/architecture/patterns-reference.md

@@ -0,0 +1,50 @@
+# Architecture Patterns Reference
+
+> Quick reference for common patterns with usage guidance.
+
+## Data Access Patterns
+
+| Pattern | When to Use | When NOT to Use | Complexity |
+|---------|-------------|-----------------|------------|
+| **Active Record** | Simple CRUD, rapid prototyping | Complex queries, multiple sources | Low |
+| **Repository** | Testing needed, multiple sources | Simple CRUD, single database | Medium |
+| **Unit of Work** | Complex transactions | Simple operations | High |
+| **Data Mapper** | Complex domain, performance | Simple CRUD, rapid dev | High |
+
+## Domain Logic Patterns
+
+| Pattern | When to Use | When NOT to Use | Complexity |
+|---------|-------------|-----------------|------------|
+| **Transaction Script** | Simple CRUD, procedural | Complex business rules | Low |
+| **Table Module** | Record-based logic | Rich behavior needed | Low |
+| **Domain Model** | Complex business logic | Simple CRUD | Medium |
+| **DDD (Full)** | Complex domain, domain experts | Simple domain, no experts | High |
+
+## Distributed System Patterns
+
+| Pattern | When to Use | When NOT to Use | Complexity |
+|---------|-------------|-----------------|------------|
+| **Modular Monolith** | Small teams, unclear boundaries | Clear contexts, different scales | Medium |
+| **Microservices** | Different scales, large teams | Small teams, simple domain | Very High |
+| **Event-Driven** | Real-time, loose coupling | Simple workflows, strong consistency | High |
+| **CQRS** | Read/write performance diverges | Simple CRUD, same model | High |
+| **Saga** | Distributed transactions | Single database, simple ACID | High |
+
+## API Patterns
+
+| Pattern | When to Use | When NOT to Use | Complexity |
+|---------|-------------|-----------------|------------|
+| **REST** | Standard CRUD, resources | Real-time, complex queries | Low |
+| **GraphQL** | Flexible queries, multiple clients | Simple CRUD, caching needs | Medium |
+| **gRPC** | Internal services, performance | Public APIs, browser clients | Medium |
+| **WebSocket** | Real-time updates | Simple request/response | Medium |
+
+---
+
+## Simplicity Principle
+
+**"Start simple, add complexity only when proven necessary."**
+
+- You can always add patterns later
+- Removing complexity is MUCH harder than adding it
+- When in doubt, choose simpler option

package/skills/common/skills/architecture/trade-off-analysis.md

@@ -0,0 +1,77 @@
+# Trade-off Analysis & ADR
+
+> Document every architectural decision with trade-offs.
+
+## Decision Framework
+
+For EACH architectural component, document:
+
+```markdown
+## Architecture Decision Record
+
+### Context
+- **Problem**: [What problem are we solving?]
+- **Constraints**: [Team size, scale, timeline, budget]
+
+### Options Considered
+
+| Option | Pros | Cons | Complexity | When Valid |
+|--------|------|------|------------|-----------|
+| Option A | Benefit 1 | Cost 1 | Low | [Conditions] |
+| Option B | Benefit 2 | Cost 2 | High | [Conditions] |
+
+### Decision
+**Chosen**: [Option B]
+
+### Rationale
+1. [Reason 1 - tied to constraints]
+2. [Reason 2 - tied to requirements]
+
+### Trade-offs Accepted
+- [What we're giving up]
+- [Why this is acceptable]
+
+### Consequences
+- **Positive**: [Benefits we gain]
+- **Negative**: [Costs/risks we accept]
+- **Mitigation**: [How we'll address negatives]
+
+### Revisit Trigger
+- [When to reconsider this decision]
+```
+
+## ADR Template
+
+```markdown
+# ADR-[XXX]: [Decision Title]
+
+## Status
+Proposed | Accepted | Deprecated | Superseded by [ADR-YYY]
+
+## Context
+[What problem? What constraints?]
+
+## Decision
+[What we chose - be specific]
+
+## Rationale
+[Why - tie to requirements and constraints]
+
+## Trade-offs
+[What we're giving up - be honest]
+
+## Consequences
+- **Positive**: [Benefits]
+- **Negative**: [Costs]
+- **Mitigation**: [How to address]
+```
+
+## ADR Storage
+
+```
+docs/
+└── architecture/
+    ├── adr-001-use-nextjs.md
+    ├── adr-002-postgresql-over-mongodb.md
+    └── adr-003-adopt-repository-pattern.md
+```

package/skills/common/skills/brainstorming/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,163 @@
+---
+name: brainstorming
+description: Socratic questioning protocol + user communication. MANDATORY for complex requests, new features, or unclear requirements. Includes progress reporting and error handling.
+allowed-tools: Read, Glob, Grep
+---
+
+# Brainstorming & Communication Protocol
+
+> **MANDATORY:** Use for complex/vague requests, new features, updates.
+
+---
+
+## 🛑 SOCRATIC GATE (ENFORCEMENT)
+
+### When to Trigger
+
+| Pattern | Action |
+|---------|--------|
+| "Build/Create/Make [thing]" without details | 🛑 ASK 3 questions |
+| Complex feature or architecture | 🛑 Clarify before implementing |
+| Update/change request | 🛑 Confirm scope |
+| Vague requirements | 🛑 Ask purpose, users, constraints |
+
+### 🚫 MANDATORY: 3 Questions Before Implementation
+
+1. **STOP** - Do NOT start coding
+2. **ASK** - Minimum 3 questions:
+   - 🎯 Purpose: What problem are you solving?
+   - 👥 Users: Who will use this?
+   - 📦 Scope: Must-have vs nice-to-have?
+3. **WAIT** - Get response before proceeding
+
+---
+
+## 🧠 Dynamic Question Generation
+
+**⛔ NEVER use static templates.** Read `dynamic-questioning.md` for principles.
+
+### Core Principles
+
+| Principle | Meaning |
+|-----------|---------|
+| **Questions Reveal Consequences** | Each question connects to an architectural decision |
+| **Context Before Content** | Understand greenfield/feature/refactor/debug context first |
+| **Minimum Viable Questions** | Each question must eliminate implementation paths |
+| **Generate Data, Not Assumptions** | Don't guess—ask with trade-offs |
+
+### Question Generation Process
+
+```
+1. Parse request → Extract domain, features, scale indicators
+2. Identify decision points → Blocking vs. deferable
+3. Generate questions → Priority: P0 (blocking) > P1 (high-leverage) > P2 (nice-to-have)
+4. Format with trade-offs → What, Why, Options, Default
+```
+
+### Question Format (MANDATORY)
+
+```markdown
+### [PRIORITY] **[DECISION POINT]**
+
+**Question:** [Clear question]
+
+**Why This Matters:**
+- [Architectural consequence]
+- [Affects: cost/complexity/timeline/scale]
+
+**Options:**
+| Option | Pros | Cons | Best For |
+|--------|------|------|----------|
+| A | [+] | [-] | [Use case] |
+
+**If Not Specified:** [Default + rationale]
+```
+
+**For detailed domain-specific question banks and algorithms**, see: `dynamic-questioning.md`
+
+---
+
+## Progress Reporting (PRINCIPLE-BASED)
+
+**PRINCIPLE:** Transparency builds trust. Status must be visible and actionable.
+
+### Status Board Format
+
+| Agent | Status | Current Task | Progress |
+|-------|--------|--------------|----------|
+| [Agent Name] | ✅🔄⏳❌⚠️ | [Task description] | [% or count] |
+
+### Status Icons
+
+| Icon | Meaning | Usage |
+|------|---------|-------|
+| ✅ | Completed | Task finished successfully |
+| 🔄 | Running | Currently executing |
+| ⏳ | Waiting | Blocked, waiting for dependency |
+| ❌ | Error | Failed, needs attention |
+| ⚠️ | Warning | Potential issue, not blocking |
+
+---
+
+## Error Handling (PRINCIPLE-BASED)
+
+**PRINCIPLE:** Errors are opportunities for clear communication.
+
+### Error Response Pattern
+
+```
+1. Acknowledge the error
+2. Explain what happened (user-friendly)
+3. Offer specific solutions with trade-offs
+4. Ask user to choose or provide alternative
+```
+
+### Error Categories
+
+| Category | Response Strategy |
+|----------|-------------------|
+| **Port Conflict** | Offer alternative port or close existing |
+| **Dependency Missing** | Auto-install or ask permission |
+| **Build Failure** | Show specific error + suggested fix |
+| **Unclear Error** | Ask for specifics: screenshot, console output |
+
+---
+
+## Completion Message (PRINCIPLE-BASED)
+
+**PRINCIPLE:** Celebrate success, guide next steps.
+
+### Completion Structure
+
+```
+1. Success confirmation (celebrate briefly)
+2. Summary of what was done (concrete)
+3. How to verify/test (actionable)
+4. Next steps suggestion (proactive)
+```
+
+---
+
+## Communication Principles
+
+| Principle | Implementation |
+|-----------|----------------|
+| **Concise** | No unnecessary details, get to point |
+| **Visual** | Use emojis (✅🔄⏳❌) for quick scanning |
+| **Specific** | "~2 minutes" not "wait a bit" |
+| **Alternatives** | Offer multiple paths when stuck |
+| **Proactive** | Suggest next step after completion |
+
+---
+
+## Anti-Patterns (AVOID)
+
+| Anti-Pattern | Why |
+|--------------|-----|
+| Jumping to solutions before understanding | Wastes time on wrong problem |
+| Assuming requirements without asking | Creates wrong output |
+| Over-engineering first version | Delays value delivery |
+| Ignoring constraints | Creates unusable solutions |
+| "I think" phrases | Uncertainty → Ask instead |
+
+---