@harness-engineering/cli 1.1.0 → 1.2.0

package/dist/agents/agents/skills/claude-code/harness-brainstorming/SKILL.md

@@ -1,247 +0,0 @@
-# Harness Brainstorming
-
-> Design exploration to spec to plan. No implementation before design approval. Think first, build second.
-
-## When to Use
-
-- Starting a new feature or project that requires design decisions
-- When the problem space is ambiguous and needs exploration before planning
-- When multiple implementation approaches exist and tradeoffs must be weighed
-- When `on_new_feature` trigger fires and the scope is non-trivial
-- NOT when the implementation path is already clear (go straight to harness-planning)
-- NOT when fixing a bug with an obvious root cause (use harness-debugging or harness-tdd)
-- NOT when the task is a simple refactor with no design decisions (use harness-refactoring)
-
-## Process
-
-### Iron Law
-
-**No implementation may begin before the design is approved by the human.**
-
-If you find yourself writing production code, tests, or scaffolding before the human has signed off on the design, STOP. You are in the wrong skill. Brainstorming produces a spec document, not code.
-
----
-
-### Phase 1: EXPLORE — Gather Context
-
-1. **Read the existing codebase.** Understand the current architecture, constraints, and conventions. Check AGENTS.md, existing specs in `docs/`, and relevant source files.
-
-2. **Identify the problem boundary.** What exactly needs to be solved? What is explicitly out of scope? Write down both.
-
-3. **Check for prior art.** Has this problem been partially solved elsewhere in the codebase? Are there existing patterns that should be followed or deliberately broken?
-
-4. **Assess scope.** If the problem spans more than 3 major subsystems or would take more than 2 weeks to implement, it is too large. Decompose into sub-projects first, then brainstorm each one separately.
-
----
-
-### Phase 2: EVALUATE — Ask Questions and Narrow
-
-1. **Ask ONE question at a time.** Do not dump a list of 10 questions on the human. Ask the most important question first. Wait for the answer. Let the answer inform the next question.
-
-2. **Prefer multiple choice.** Instead of "How should we handle auth?", ask "For auth, should we: (A) use existing JWT middleware, (B) add OAuth2 via provider X, or (C) delegate to an external service?" Give 2-4 concrete options with brief tradeoff notes.
-
-3. **When the human answers, acknowledge and build on it.** Do not re-ask clarified points. Track decisions as they accumulate.
-
-4. **Apply YAGNI ruthlessly.** For every proposed capability, ask: "Do we need this for the stated goal, or is this speculative?" If speculative, cut it. If the human insists, note it as a future consideration, not a requirement.
-
-5. **Continue until you have enough clarity** to propose concrete approaches. Typically 3-7 questions are sufficient. If you need more than 10, the scope is too large — decompose.
-
-### Context Keywords
-
-During Phase 2, extract 5-10 domain keywords that capture the problem space. Include them in the spec frontmatter:
-
-```
-**Keywords:** auth, middleware, session-tokens, refresh-flow, OAuth2
-```
-
-These keywords flow into the `handoff.json` `contextKeywords` field when the spec is handed off to planning. Select keywords that would help a fresh agent — one that has never seen this conversation — understand the domain area quickly.
-
----
-
-### Phase 3: PRIORITIZE — Propose Approaches
-
-1. **Propose 2-3 concrete approaches.** Not 1 (no choice), not 5 (decision paralysis). Each approach must include:
-   - **Summary:** One sentence describing the approach
-   - **How it works:** Key technical decisions (what data structures, what APIs, what patterns)
-   - **Tradeoffs:** What you gain, what you lose, what gets harder later
-   - **Estimated complexity:** Low / Medium / High, with a brief justification
-   - **Risk:** What could go wrong, what assumptions might be wrong
-
-2. **Be honest about tradeoffs.** Do not soft-sell a preferred approach. If approach A is simpler but less extensible, say so plainly.
-
-3. **State your recommendation** and why, but defer to the human's decision.
-
-4. **Wait for the human to choose.** Do not proceed until an approach is selected.
-
----
-
-### Phase 4: VALIDATE — Write the Spec
-
-1. **Present the design section by section.** Do not dump the entire spec at once. Present each major section, get feedback, and incorporate it before moving to the next:
-   - Overview and goals
-   - Decisions made (with rationale from the brainstorming conversation)
-   - Technical design (data structures, APIs, file layout)
-   - Success criteria (observable, testable outcomes)
-   - Implementation order (high-level phases, not detailed tasks — that is harness-planning's job)
-
-2. **After all sections are reviewed, write the spec to `docs/`.** Use the project's existing spec naming convention. If none exists, use `docs/specs/YYYY-MM-DD-<feature-name>.md`.
-
-   When the project has `docs/specs/`, write proposals to `docs/changes/<feature>/proposal.md` instead. This keeps change proposals separate from established specs. Fall back to the existing behavior (`docs/specs/`) when no `docs/specs/` directory exists yet.
-
-3. **Run `harness validate`** to verify the spec file is properly placed and the project remains healthy.
-
-4. **Ask for final sign-off.** Present the complete spec file path and a one-paragraph summary. The human must explicitly approve before this skill is complete.
-
----
-
-### Scope Check
-
-At any point during brainstorming, if the design reveals that the project is larger than initially expected:
-
-1. **Identify natural decomposition boundaries.** Where can the project be split into independently deliverable pieces?
-2. **Propose sub-projects.** Each sub-project should be brainstormable and plannable on its own.
-3. **Get approval for the decomposition** before continuing to brainstorm any individual sub-project.
-
-## Party Mode
-
-When activated with `--party`, add a multi-perspective evaluation step after proposing approaches.
-
-### Perspective Selection
-
-Select 2-3 perspectives based on design topic:
-
-| Topic          | Perspectives                                 |
-| -------------- | -------------------------------------------- |
-| API / backend  | Backend Developer, API Consumer, Operations  |
-| UI / frontend  | Developer, Designer, End User                |
-| Infrastructure | Architect, SRE, Developer                    |
-| Data model     | Backend Developer, Data Consumer, Migration  |
-| Library / SDK  | Library Author, Library Consumer, Maintainer |
-| Cross-cutting  | Architect, Security, Developer               |
-| Default        | Architect, Developer, User/Consumer          |
-
-### Evaluation Process
-
-For each proposed approach, evaluate from each perspective:
-
-```
-### Approach N: [name]
-
-**[Perspective 1] perspective:**
-[Assessment]. Concern: [specific concern or "None"].
-
-**[Perspective 2] perspective:**
-[Assessment]. Concern: [specific concern or "None"].
-
-**[Perspective 3] perspective:**
-[Assessment]. Concern: [specific concern or "None"].
-
-**Synthesis:** [Consensus summary. Address raised concerns. Recommend proceed/revise.]
-```
-
-Converge on a recommendation that addresses all concerns before presenting the design.
-
-## Harness Integration
-
-- **`harness validate`** — Run after writing the spec to `docs/`. Verifies project health and that the new spec file is properly placed.
-- **`harness check-docs`** — Run to verify the spec does not conflict with existing documentation.
-- **Spec location** — Specs go to `docs/` (or `docs/specs/` if the project uses that convention). Follow existing naming patterns.
-- **Handoff to harness-planning** — Once the spec is approved, invoke harness-planning to create the implementation plan from the spec.
-
-#### Requirement Phrasing
-
-When brainstorming produces requirements or acceptance criteria that will feed into planning, prefer EARS sentence patterns for behavioral requirements. See the EARS Requirement Patterns section in harness-planning for the full template reference. Key patterns:
-
-- **Event-driven:** "When [trigger], the system shall [response]."
-- **Unwanted:** "If [condition], then the system shall not [behavior]."
-
-These patterns make requirements testable and unambiguous. Apply them when the output of brainstorming includes specific behavioral expectations.
-
-## Success Criteria
-
-- A spec document exists in `docs/` with all required sections (overview, decisions, technical design, success criteria, implementation order)
-- The human explicitly approved the design before any implementation
-- YAGNI was applied: no speculative features made it into the spec
-- 2-3 approaches were presented with honest tradeoffs before a decision was made
-- Questions were asked one at a time with multiple-choice options where possible
-- `harness validate` passes after the spec is written
-- If scope was too large, it was decomposed into sub-projects with the human's approval
-
-## Examples
-
-### Example: Designing a Notification System
-
-**EXPLORE:**
-
-```
-Read AGENTS.md — project is a TypeScript monorepo with React frontend and Express backend.
-Read existing docs/ — no prior notification specs. Found docs/specs/2026-01-15-user-auth.md as naming example.
-Checked src/services/ — no notification code exists. Found email utility in src/utils/email.ts.
-Scope assessment: single subsystem (notifications), estimated 1 week. Proceed.
-```
-
-**EVALUATE:**
-
-```
-Q1: "For notifications, should we support:
-  (A) Email only (simplest, covers 90% of use cases)
-  (B) Email + in-app (covers real-time needs)
-  (C) Email + in-app + push (full coverage, most complex)?"
-Human: "B — email and in-app."
-
-Q2: "For in-app notifications, should we:
-  (A) Poll from client every 30s (simple, slight delay)
-  (B) WebSocket push (real-time, more infrastructure)?"
-Human: "A — polling is fine for now."
-
-Q3: "Should notifications be stored permanently or expire after 30 days?"
-Human: "Expire after 30 days."
-```
-
-**PRIORITIZE:**
-
-```
-Approach 1: Event-driven with queue
-- Services emit events, notification worker consumes and dispatches
-- Tradeoff: More infrastructure (needs queue), but decoupled and scalable
-- Complexity: Medium
-- Risk: Queue adds operational overhead
-
-Approach 2: Direct service calls
-- Services call NotificationService directly
-- Tradeoff: Simpler, but couples services to notification logic
-- Complexity: Low
-- Risk: Harder to add channels later, synchronous blocking
-
-Recommendation: Approach 2. YAGNI — direct calls are sufficient for email + polling.
-We can migrate to event-driven later if we add push notifications.
-Human: "Agreed, approach 2."
-```
-
-**VALIDATE:**
-
-```
-Wrote docs/specs/2026-03-14-notification-system.md
-Sections: Overview, Decisions, Technical Design, Success Criteria, Implementation Order
-harness validate — passes
-"Spec written to docs/specs/2026-03-14-notification-system.md. Ready for sign-off?"
-Human: "Approved."
-```
-
-## Gates
-
-These are hard stops. Violating any gate means the process has broken down.
-
-- **No implementation before approval.** No production code, no test code, no scaffolding, no "let me just set up the directory structure." The spec must be approved first. If you wrote code, delete it.
-- **No skipping the question phase.** You must ask at least one clarifying question before proposing approaches. If you think you already know the answer, you are making assumptions — validate them.
-- **No single-approach proposals.** Always present at least 2 approaches with tradeoffs. A single approach is a recommendation disguised as a decision — the human has no real choice.
-- **No speculative features.** Every capability in the spec must trace to a stated requirement. "We might need this later" is not a requirement. Cut it.
-- **No section-dump specs.** Present the design section by section with feedback between each. Do not write the entire spec and ask "looks good?"
-
-## Escalation
-
-- **When the human cannot decide between approaches:** Identify the key differentiator. Ask: "The main difference is X. Given your priorities, does X matter more than Y?" If still stuck, suggest building a small spike to compare (but the spike is NOT production code).
-- **When scope keeps growing during brainstorming:** Stop brainstorming. Explicitly say: "The scope has expanded beyond the original problem. Should we (A) decompose into sub-projects, or (B) revisit the original goal to narrow it?" Do not continue accumulating scope.
-- **When the problem domain is unfamiliar:** State what you do not know. Ask the human if they have domain expertise, documentation, or a reference implementation. Do not guess at domain-specific requirements.
-- **When requirements conflict with existing architecture:** Flag the conflict explicitly: "The spec calls for X, but the current architecture assumes Y. Should we (A) change the spec to work within current architecture, or (B) plan an architecture change as a prerequisite?"
-- **When you have asked more than 10 questions without converging:** The problem is too large or too ambiguous. Stop and propose a decomposition or a scoping exercise before continuing.

package/dist/agents/agents/skills/claude-code/harness-brainstorming/skill.yaml

@@ -1,47 +0,0 @@
-name: harness-brainstorming
-version: "1.0.0"
-description: Structured ideation and exploration with harness methodology
-cognitive_mode: constructive-architect
-triggers:
-  - manual
-  - on_new_feature
-platforms:
-  - claude-code
-  - gemini-cli
-tools:
-  - Bash
-  - Read
-  - Write
-  - Edit
-  - Glob
-  - Grep
-cli:
-  command: harness skill run harness-brainstorming
-  args:
-    - name: path
-      description: Project root path
-      required: false
-mcp:
-  tool: run_skill
-  input:
-    skill: harness-brainstorming
-    path: string
-type: rigid
-phases:
-  - name: explore
-    description: Generate ideas and possibilities
-    required: true
-  - name: evaluate
-    description: Assess ideas against constraints
-    required: true
-  - name: prioritize
-    description: Select and sequence top ideas
-    required: true
-  - name: validate
-    description: Run harness checks on selected approach
-    required: true
-state:
-  persistent: false
-  files: []
-depends_on:
-  - harness-planning