@hcu-lab.me/mcp-device 1.0.9 → 1.0.12

package/control-plane/scripts/skills/webapp-testing/examples/element_discovery.py

@@ -0,0 +1,40 @@
+from playwright.sync_api import sync_playwright
+
+# Example: Discovering buttons and other elements on a page
+
+with sync_playwright() as p:
+    browser = p.chromium.launch(headless=True)
+    page = browser.new_page()
+
+    # Navigate to page and wait for it to fully load
+    page.goto('http://localhost:5173')
+    page.wait_for_load_state('networkidle')
+
+    # Discover all buttons on the page
+    buttons = page.locator('button').all()
+    print(f"Found {len(buttons)} buttons:")
+    for i, button in enumerate(buttons):
+        text = button.inner_text() if button.is_visible() else "[hidden]"
+        print(f"  [{i}] {text}")
+
+    # Discover links
+    links = page.locator('a[href]').all()
+    print(f"\nFound {len(links)} links:")
+    for link in links[:5]:  # Show first 5
+        text = link.inner_text().strip()
+        href = link.get_attribute('href')
+        print(f"  - {text} -> {href}")
+
+    # Discover input fields
+    inputs = page.locator('input, textarea, select').all()
+    print(f"\nFound {len(inputs)} input fields:")
+    for input_elem in inputs:
+        name = input_elem.get_attribute('name') or input_elem.get_attribute('id') or "[unnamed]"
+        input_type = input_elem.get_attribute('type') or 'text'
+        print(f"  - {name} ({input_type})")
+
+    # Take screenshot for visual reference
+    page.screenshot(path='/tmp/page_discovery.png', full_page=True)
+    print("\nScreenshot saved to /tmp/page_discovery.png")
+
+    browser.close()

package/control-plane/scripts/skills/webapp-testing/examples/static_html_automation.py

@@ -0,0 +1,33 @@
+from playwright.sync_api import sync_playwright
+import os
+
+# Example: Automating interaction with static HTML files using file:// URLs
+
+html_file_path = os.path.abspath('path/to/your/file.html')
+file_url = f'file://{html_file_path}'
+
+with sync_playwright() as p:
+    browser = p.chromium.launch(headless=True)
+    page = browser.new_page(viewport={'width': 1920, 'height': 1080})
+
+    # Navigate to local HTML file
+    page.goto(file_url)
+
+    # Take screenshot
+    page.screenshot(path='/mnt/user-data/outputs/static_page.png', full_page=True)
+
+    # Interact with elements
+    page.click('text=Click Me')
+    page.fill('#name', 'John Doe')
+    page.fill('#email', 'john@example.com')
+
+    # Submit form
+    page.click('button[type="submit"]')
+    page.wait_for_timeout(500)
+
+    # Take final screenshot
+    page.screenshot(path='/mnt/user-data/outputs/after_submit.png', full_page=True)
+
+    browser.close()
+
+print("Static HTML automation completed!")

package/control-plane/scripts/skills/webapp-testing/scripts/with_server.py

@@ -0,0 +1,106 @@
+#!/usr/bin/env python3
+"""
+Start one or more servers, wait for them to be ready, run a command, then clean up.
+
+Usage:
+    # Single server
+    python scripts/with_server.py --server "npm run dev" --port 5173 -- python automation.py
+    python scripts/with_server.py --server "npm start" --port 3000 -- python test.py
+
+    # Multiple servers
+    python scripts/with_server.py \
+      --server "cd backend && python server.py" --port 3000 \
+      --server "cd frontend && npm run dev" --port 5173 \
+      -- python test.py
+"""
+
+import subprocess
+import socket
+import time
+import sys
+import argparse
+
+def is_server_ready(port, timeout=30):
+    """Wait for server to be ready by polling the port."""
+    start_time = time.time()
+    while time.time() - start_time < timeout:
+        try:
+            with socket.create_connection(('localhost', port), timeout=1):
+                return True
+        except (socket.error, ConnectionRefusedError):
+            time.sleep(0.5)
+    return False
+
+
+def main():
+    parser = argparse.ArgumentParser(description='Run command with one or more servers')
+    parser.add_argument('--server', action='append', dest='servers', required=True, help='Server command (can be repeated)')
+    parser.add_argument('--port', action='append', dest='ports', type=int, required=True, help='Port for each server (must match --server count)')
+    parser.add_argument('--timeout', type=int, default=30, help='Timeout in seconds per server (default: 30)')
+    parser.add_argument('command', nargs=argparse.REMAINDER, help='Command to run after server(s) ready')
+
+    args = parser.parse_args()
+
+    # Remove the '--' separator if present
+    if args.command and args.command[0] == '--':
+        args.command = args.command[1:]
+
+    if not args.command:
+        print("Error: No command specified to run")
+        sys.exit(1)
+
+    # Parse server configurations
+    if len(args.servers) != len(args.ports):
+        print("Error: Number of --server and --port arguments must match")
+        sys.exit(1)
+
+    servers = []
+    for cmd, port in zip(args.servers, args.ports):
+        servers.append({'cmd': cmd, 'port': port})
+
+    server_processes = []
+
+    try:
+        # Start all servers
+        for i, server in enumerate(servers):
+            print(f"Starting server {i+1}/{len(servers)}: {server['cmd']}")
+
+            # Use shell=True to support commands with cd and &&
+            process = subprocess.Popen(
+                server['cmd'],
+                shell=True,
+                stdout=subprocess.PIPE,
+                stderr=subprocess.PIPE
+            )
+            server_processes.append(process)
+
+            # Wait for this server to be ready
+            print(f"Waiting for server on port {server['port']}...")
+            if not is_server_ready(server['port'], timeout=args.timeout):
+                raise RuntimeError(f"Server failed to start on port {server['port']} within {args.timeout}s")
+
+            print(f"Server ready on port {server['port']}")
+
+        print(f"\nAll {len(servers)} server(s) ready")
+
+        # Run the command
+        print(f"Running: {' '.join(args.command)}\n")
+        result = subprocess.run(args.command)
+        sys.exit(result.returncode)
+
+    finally:
+        # Clean up all servers
+        print(f"\nStopping {len(server_processes)} server(s)...")
+        for i, process in enumerate(server_processes):
+            try:
+                process.terminate()
+                process.wait(timeout=5)
+            except subprocess.TimeoutExpired:
+                process.kill()
+                process.wait()
+            print(f"Server {i+1} stopped")
+        print("All servers stopped")
+
+
+if __name__ == '__main__':
+    main()

package/control-plane/scripts/skills/writing-plans/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,192 @@
+---
+name: writing-plans
+description: Use when you have a spec or requirements for a multi-step task, before touching code
+---
+
+# Writing Plans
+
+## Overview
+
+Write comprehensive implementation plans assuming the engineer has zero context for our codebase and questionable taste. Document everything they need to know: which files to touch for each task, code, testing, docs they might need to check, how to test it. Give them the whole plan as bite-sized tasks. DRY. YAGNI. TDD. Frequent commits.
+
+Assume they are a skilled developer, but know almost nothing about our toolset or problem domain. Assume they don't know good test design very well.
+
+**Announce at start:** "I'm using the writing-plans skill to create the implementation plan."
+
+**Context:** If working in an isolated worktree, it should have been created via the `superpowers:using-git-worktrees` skill at execution time.
+
+**Save plans to:** `docs/superpowers/plans/YYYY-MM-DD-<feature-name>.md`
+- (User preferences for plan location override this default)
+
+## Scope Check
+
+If the spec covers multiple independent subsystems, it should have been broken into sub-project specs during brainstorming. If it wasn't, suggest breaking this into separate plans — one per subsystem. Each plan should produce working, testable software on its own.
+
+## File Structure
+
+Before defining tasks, map out which files will be created or modified and what each one is responsible for. This is where decomposition decisions get locked in.
+
+- Design units with clear boundaries and well-defined interfaces. Each file should have one clear responsibility.
+- You reason best about code you can hold in context at once, and your edits are more reliable when files are focused. Prefer smaller, focused files over large ones that do too much.
+- Files that change together should live together. Split by responsibility, not by technical layer.
+- In existing codebases, follow established patterns. If the codebase uses large files, don't unilaterally restructure - but if a file you're modifying has grown unwieldy, including a split in the plan is reasonable.
+
+This structure informs the task decomposition. Each task should produce self-contained changes that make sense independently.
+
+## Task Right-Sizing
+
+A task is the smallest unit that carries its own test cycle and is worth a
+fresh reviewer's gate. When drawing task boundaries: fold setup,
+configuration, scaffolding, and documentation steps into the task whose
+deliverable needs them; split only where a reviewer could meaningfully
+reject one task while approving its neighbor. Each task ends with an
+independently testable deliverable.
+
+## Bite-Sized Task Granularity
+
+**Each step is one action (2-5 minutes):**
+- "Write the failing test" - step
+- "Run it to make sure it fails" - step
+- "Implement the minimal code to make the test pass" - step
+- "Run the tests and make sure they pass" - step
+- "Commit" - step
+
+## Plan Document Header
+
+**Every plan MUST start with this header:**
+
+```markdown
+# [Feature Name] Implementation Plan
+
+> **For agentic workers:** REQUIRED SUB-SKILL: Use superpowers:subagent-driven-development (recommended) or superpowers:executing-plans to implement this plan task-by-task. Steps use checkbox (`- [ ]`) syntax for tracking.
+
+**Goal:** [One sentence describing what this builds]
+
+**Architecture:** [2-3 sentences about approach]
+
+**Tech Stack:** [Key technologies/libraries]
+
+**Spec:** [path to the spec/design doc this plan implements — the plan
+argues from the spec, so the spec travels with it; executors read both]
+
+## Global Constraints
+
+[The spec's project-wide requirements — version floors, dependency limits,
+naming and copy rules, platform requirements — one line each, with exact
+values copied verbatim from the spec. Every task's requirements implicitly
+include this section.]
+
+## Review Focus
+
+[The five input classes or failure modes the spec implies but no task's
+tests exercise that are most likely to bite a person using this software
+— one line each, naming the input or condition and the behavior a
+reasonable person would expect, most likely first. The spec is a vision
+document: it says what the software must do, not everything it will
+meet, and its silence on an input is not permission for that input to
+break the program. Write the list here, once, with the spec in front of
+you. Then, for each line, add the test that pins it to the task that
+owns the code, in that task's own step style.]
+
+---
+```
+
+## Task Structure
+
+````markdown
+### Task N: [Component Name]
+
+**Files:**
+- Create: `exact/path/to/file.py`
+- Modify: `exact/path/to/existing.py:123-145`
+- Test: `tests/exact/path/to/test.py`
+
+**Interfaces:**
+- Consumes: [what this task uses from earlier tasks — exact signatures]
+- Produces: [what later tasks rely on — exact function names, parameter
+  and return types. A task's implementer sees only their own task; this
+  block is how they learn the names and types neighboring tasks use.]
+
+- [ ] **Step 1: Write the failing test**
+
+```python
+def test_specific_behavior():
+    result = function(input)
+    assert result == expected
+```
+
+- [ ] **Step 2: Run test to verify it fails**
+
+Run: `pytest tests/path/test.py::test_name -v`
+Expected: FAIL with "function not defined"
+
+- [ ] **Step 3: Write minimal implementation**
+
+```python
+def function(input):
+    return expected
+```
+
+- [ ] **Step 4: Run test to verify it passes**
+
+Run: `pytest tests/path/test.py::test_name -v`
+Expected: PASS
+
+- [ ] **Step 5: Commit**
+
+```bash
+git add tests/path/test.py src/path/file.py
+git commit -m "feat: add specific feature"
+```
+````
+
+## No Placeholders
+
+Every step must contain the actual content an engineer needs. These are **plan failures** — never write them:
+- "TBD", "TODO", "implement later", "fill in details"
+- "Add appropriate error handling" / "add validation" / "handle edge cases"
+- "Write tests for the above" (without actual test code)
+- "Similar to Task N" (repeat the code — the engineer may be reading tasks out of order)
+- Steps that describe what to do without showing how (code blocks required for code steps)
+- References to types, functions, or methods not defined in any task
+
+## Self-Review
+
+After writing the complete plan, look at the spec with fresh eyes and check the plan against it. This is a checklist you run yourself — not a subagent dispatch.
+
+**1. Spec coverage:** Skim each section/requirement in the spec. Can you point to a task that implements it? List any gaps.
+
+**2. Placeholder scan:** Search your plan for red flags — any of the patterns from the "No Placeholders" section above. Fix them.
+
+**3. Type consistency:** Do the types, method signatures, and property names you used in later tasks match what you defined in earlier tasks? A function called `clearLayers()` in Task 3 but `clearFullLayers()` in Task 7 is a bug.
+
+**4. Review Focus:** For each input class or failure mode the spec implies, is there a task whose tests exercise it? The five uncovered ones most likely to bite a person go in the Review Focus section, and each line there gets its test added to the owning task. An empty section means you checked and found none, not that you skipped the check.
+
+If you find issues, fix them inline. No need to re-review — just fix and move on. If you find a spec requirement with no task, add the task.
+
+## Execution Handoff
+
+After saving and self-reviewing the plan, link it for your human partner
+to read. If they have already explicitly supplied an execution method, ask
+them to review the plan and confirm it captures what they want; wait for that
+review before implementation, then use the preserved method. Otherwise, ask
+them to review the plan and choose an execution method before implementation.
+
+**When no execution method has already been supplied:**
+
+**"Plan complete and saved to `docs/superpowers/plans/<filename>.md`. Please review the plan. Which execution approach would you prefer?**
+
+- **Subagent-driven** - A fresh subagent implements each task and a fresh reviewer checks it before the next one starts, then a whole-branch review at the end. Most thorough; costs a fresh context per task and per review.
+- **Native** - I implement every task myself in this session, the way this harness runs work, then one fresh reviewer on the most capable model checks the whole branch. Cheapest and fastest; no independent review until the end. Runs well with a mid-tier session model, since the plan carries the design.
+
+**For this plan I recommend <one of the two>, because <one sentence from the plan: how much the tasks depend on each other's interfaces, how many there are, what a shipped mistake would cost>. Does the plan capture what you want, and which approach should we use?"**
+
+**When an execution method has already been supplied:**
+
+**"Plan complete and saved to `docs/superpowers/plans/<filename>.md`. Please review the plan. Does it capture what you want?"**
+
+**If Subagent-driven chosen:**
+- **REQUIRED SUB-SKILL:** Use superpowers:subagent-driven-development
+
+**If Native chosen:**
+- **REQUIRED SUB-SKILL:** Use superpowers:executing-plans

package/control-plane/scripts/skills/writing-plans/plan-document-reviewer-prompt.md

@@ -0,0 +1,49 @@
+# Plan Document Reviewer Prompt Template
+
+Use this template when dispatching a plan document reviewer subagent.
+
+**Purpose:** Verify the plan is complete, matches the spec, and has proper task decomposition.
+
+**Dispatch after:** The complete plan is written.
+
+```
+Subagent (general-purpose):
+  description: "Review plan document"
+  prompt: |
+    You are a plan document reviewer. Verify this plan is complete and ready for implementation.
+
+    **Plan to review:** [PLAN_FILE_PATH]
+    **Spec for reference:** [SPEC_FILE_PATH]
+
+    ## What to Check
+
+    | Category | What to Look For |
+    |----------|------------------|
+    | Completeness | TODOs, placeholders, incomplete tasks, missing steps |
+    | Spec Alignment | Plan covers spec requirements, no major scope creep |
+    | Task Decomposition | Tasks have clear boundaries, steps are actionable |
+    | Buildability | Could an engineer follow this plan without getting stuck? |
+
+    ## Calibration
+
+    **Only flag issues that would cause real problems during implementation.**
+    An implementer building the wrong thing or getting stuck is an issue.
+    Minor wording, stylistic preferences, and "nice to have" suggestions are not.
+
+    Approve unless there are serious gaps — missing requirements from the spec,
+    contradictory steps, placeholder content, or tasks so vague they can't be acted on.
+
+    ## Output Format
+
+    ## Plan Review
+
+    **Status:** Approved | Issues Found
+
+    **Issues (if any):**
+    - [Task X, Step Y]: [specific issue] - [why it matters for implementation]
+
+    **Recommendations (advisory, do not block approval):**
+    - [suggestions for improvement]
+```
+
+**Reviewer returns:** Status, Issues (if any), Recommendations