@hcu-lab.me/mcp-device 1.0.9 → 1.0.12

package/control-plane/scripts/skills/ponytail-audit/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,41 @@
+---
+name: ponytail-audit
+description: >
+  Whole-repo audit for over-engineering. Like ponytail-review, but scans the
+  entire codebase instead of a diff: a ranked list of what to delete, simplify,
+  or replace with stdlib/native equivalents. Use when the user says "audit this
+  codebase", "audit for over-engineering", "what can I delete from this repo",
+  "find bloat", "ponytail-audit", or "/ponytail-audit". One-shot report, does
+  not apply fixes.
+---
+
+ponytail-review, repo-wide. Scan the whole tree instead of a diff. Rank
+findings biggest cut first.
+
+## Tags
+
+Same as ponytail-review:
+
+- `delete:` dead code, unused flexibility, speculative feature. Replacement: nothing.
+- `stdlib:` hand-rolled thing the standard library ships. Name the function.
+- `native:` dependency or code doing what the platform already does. Name the feature.
+- `yagni:` abstraction with one implementation, config nobody sets, layer with one caller.
+- `shrink:` same logic, fewer lines. Show the shorter form.
+
+## Hunt
+
+Deps the stdlib or platform already ships, single-implementation interfaces,
+factories with one product, wrappers that only delegate, files exporting one
+thing, dead flags and config, hand-rolled stdlib.
+
+## Output
+
+One line per finding, ranked: `<tag> <what to cut>. <replacement>. [path]`.
+End with `net: -<N> lines, -<M> deps possible.` Nothing to cut: `Lean already. Ship.`
+
+## Boundaries
+
+Scope: over-engineering and complexity only. Correctness bugs, security holes,
+and performance are explicitly out of scope. Route them to a normal review
+pass. Lists findings, applies nothing. One-shot.
+"stop ponytail-audit" or "normal mode" to revert.

package/control-plane/scripts/skills/ponytail-debt/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,44 @@
+---
+name: ponytail-debt
+description: >
+  Harvest every `ponytail:` comment in the codebase into a debt ledger, so the
+  deliberate shortcuts and deferrals ponytail leaves behind get tracked instead
+  of rotting into "later means never". Use when the user says "ponytail debt",
+  "/ponytail-debt", "what did ponytail defer", "list the shortcuts", "ponytail
+  ledger", or "what did we mark to do later". One-shot report, changes nothing.
+---
+
+Every deliberate ponytail shortcut is marked with a `ponytail:` comment naming
+its ceiling and upgrade path. This collects them into one ledger so a deferral
+can't quietly become permanent.
+
+## Scan
+
+Grep the repo for comment markers, skipping `node_modules`, `.git`, and build
+output:
+
+`grep -rnE '(#|//) ?ponytail:' .`  (add other comment prefixes if your stack uses them)
+
+Each hit is one ledger row. The comment prefix keeps prose that merely mentions
+the convention out of the ledger.
+
+## Output
+
+One row per marker, grouped by file:
+
+`<file>:<line>, <what was simplified>. ceiling: <the limit named>. upgrade: <the trigger to revisit>.`
+
+The convention is `ponytail: <ceiling>, <upgrade path>`, so pull the ceiling
+and the trigger straight from the comment. Want an owner per row too? add
+`git blame -L<line>,<line>`.
+
+Flag the rot risk: any `ponytail:` comment that names no upgrade path or
+trigger gets a `no-trigger` tag, those are the ones that silently rot.
+
+End with `<N> markers, <M> with no trigger.` Nothing found: `No ponytail: debt. Clean ledger.`
+
+## Boundaries
+
+Reads and reports only, changes nothing. To persist it, ask and it writes the
+ledger to a file (e.g. `PONYTAIL-DEBT.md`). One-shot. "stop ponytail-debt" or
+"normal mode" to revert.

package/control-plane/scripts/skills/ponytail-gain/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,50 @@
+---
+name: ponytail-gain
+description: >
+  Show ponytail's measured impact as a compact scoreboard: less code, less
+  cost, more speed, from the benchmark medians. One-shot display, not a
+  persistent mode, and not a per-repo number. Trigger: /ponytail-gain,
+  "ponytail gain", "what does ponytail save", "show ponytail impact",
+  "ponytail scoreboard".
+---
+
+# Ponytail Gain
+
+Display this scoreboard when invoked. One-shot: do NOT change mode, write flag
+files, or persist anything.
+
+The figures are the published benchmark medians (5 everyday tasks: email
+validator, debounce, CSV sum, countdown timer, rate limiter; three models:
+Haiku, Sonnet, Opus). They are measured, not computed from the current repo.
+Source: `benchmarks/` and the README.
+
+## Scoreboard
+
+Render plain ASCII bars. The bar length shows the measured range; the label
+carries the exact figure:
+
+```
+  ponytail gain                     benchmark median · 5 tasks · 3 models
+
+  Lines of code   no-skill  ████████████████████  100%
+                  ponytail  ██▌·················    6–20%   ▼ 80–94%
+  Cost            no-skill  ████████████████████  100%
+                  ponytail  █████▌··············   23–53%  ▼ 47–77%
+  Speed           ponytail  ▸ 3–6× faster
+
+  This repo:  /ponytail-debt  (shortcuts you deferred)
+              /ponytail-audit (what's still cuttable)
+```
+
+## Honesty boundary
+
+These are benchmark medians, not this repo. NEVER print a per-repo savings
+number ("you saved X lines/tokens here"): the unbuilt version was never
+written, so there is no real baseline to subtract from in a live repo. The
+only real per-repo figures come from `/ponytail-debt` (a counted ledger), and
+this card points there instead of inventing one.
+
+## Boundaries
+
+One-shot display. Edits nothing, changes no mode.
+"stop ponytail" or "normal mode": revert.

package/control-plane/scripts/skills/ponytail-help/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,71 @@
+---
+name: ponytail-help
+description: >
+  Quick-reference card for all ponytail modes, skills, and commands.
+  One-shot display, not a persistent mode. Trigger: /ponytail-help,
+  "ponytail help", "what ponytail commands", "how do I use ponytail".
+---
+
+# Ponytail Help
+
+Display this reference card when invoked. One-shot, do NOT change mode,
+write flag files, or persist anything.
+
+## Levels
+
+| Level | Trigger | What change |
+|-------|---------|-------------|
+| **Lite** | `/ponytail lite` | Build what's asked, name the lazier alternative in one line. |
+| **Full** | `/ponytail` | The ladder enforced: YAGNI → stdlib → native → one line → minimum. Default. |
+| **Ultra** | `/ponytail ultra` | YAGNI extremist. Deletion before addition. Challenges requirements before building. |
+
+Level sticks until changed or session end.
+
+## Skills
+
+| Skill | Trigger | What it does |
+|-------|---------|--------------|
+| **ponytail** | `/ponytail` | Lazy mode itself. Simplest solution that works. |
+| **ponytail-review** | `/ponytail-review` | Over-engineering review: `L42: yagni: factory, one product. Inline.` |
+| **ponytail-audit** | `/ponytail-audit` | Whole-repo over-engineering audit: ranked list of what to delete. |
+| **ponytail-debt** | `/ponytail-debt` | Harvest `ponytail:` shortcut comments into a tracked ledger. |
+| **ponytail-gain** | `/ponytail-gain` | Measured-impact scoreboard: less code, less cost, more speed. |
+| **ponytail-help** | `/ponytail-help` | This card. |
+
+Codex uses `@ponytail`, `@ponytail-review`, and `@ponytail-help`; Claude Code
+and OpenCode use the slash-command forms above (OpenCode ships all six as
+slash commands).
+
+## Deactivate
+
+Say "stop ponytail" or "normal mode". Resume anytime with `/ponytail`.
+`/ponytail off` also works.
+
+## Configure Default Mode
+
+Default mode = `full`, auto-active every session. Change it:
+
+**Environment variable** (highest priority):
+```bash
+export PONYTAIL_DEFAULT_MODE=ultra
+```
+
+**Config file** (`~/.config/ponytail/config.json`, Windows: `%APPDATA%\ponytail\config.json`):
+```json
+{ "defaultMode": "lite" }
+```
+
+Set `"off"` to disable auto-activation on session start, activate manually
+with `/ponytail` when wanted.
+
+Resolution: env var > config file > `full`.
+
+## Update
+
+Enable auto-update once: open `/plugin`, go to Marketplaces, pick ponytail, Enable auto-update. Claude Code then pulls new versions at startup (run `/reload-plugins` when it prompts). Manual refresh: `/plugin marketplace update ponytail` then `/reload-plugins`.
+
+If `/plugin` is not recognized, your Claude Code is out of date. Update it (`npm install -g @anthropic-ai/claude-code@latest`, or `brew upgrade claude-code`) and restart. Other hosts use their own update flow.
+
+## More
+
+Full docs + examples: https://github.com/DietrichGebert/ponytail

package/control-plane/scripts/skills/ponytail-review/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,57 @@
+---
+name: ponytail-review
+description: >
+  Code review focused exclusively on over-engineering. Finds what to delete:
+  reinvented standard library, unneeded dependencies, speculative abstractions,
+  dead flexibility. One line per finding: location, what to cut, what replaces
+  it. Use when the user says "review for over-engineering", "what can we
+  delete", "is this over-engineered", "simplify review", or invokes
+  /ponytail-review. Complements correctness-focused review, this one only
+  hunts complexity.
+---
+
+Review diffs for unnecessary complexity. One line per finding: location, what
+to cut, what replaces it. The diff's best outcome is getting shorter.
+
+## Format
+
+`L<line>: <tag> <what>. <replacement>.`, or `<file>:L<line>: ...` for
+multi-file diffs.
+
+Tags:
+
+- `delete:` dead code, unused flexibility, speculative feature. Replacement: nothing.
+- `stdlib:` hand-rolled thing the standard library ships. Name the function.
+- `native:` dependency or code doing what the platform already does. Name the feature.
+- `yagni:` abstraction with one implementation, config nobody sets, layer with one caller.
+- `shrink:` same logic, fewer lines. Show the shorter form.
+
+## Examples
+
+❌ "This EmailValidator class might be more complex than necessary, have you
+considered whether all these validation rules are needed at this stage?"
+
+✅ `L12-38: stdlib: 27-line validator class. "@" in email, 1 line, real validation is the confirmation mail.`
+
+✅ `L4: native: moment.js imported for one format call. Intl.DateTimeFormat, 0 deps.`
+
+✅ `repo.py:L88: yagni: AbstractRepository with one implementation. Inline it until a second one exists.`
+
+✅ `L52-71: delete: retry wrapper around an idempotent local call. Nothing replaces it.`
+
+✅ `L30-44: shrink: manual loop builds dict. dict(zip(keys, values)), 1 line.`
+
+## Scoring
+
+End with the only metric that matters: `net: -<N> lines possible.`
+
+If there is nothing to cut, say `Lean already. Ship.` and stop.
+
+## Boundaries
+
+Scope: over-engineering and complexity only. Correctness bugs, security holes,
+and performance are explicitly out of scope. Route them to a normal review
+pass, not this one. A single smoke test or `assert`-based
+self-check is the ponytail minimum, not bloat, never flag it for deletion.
+Does not apply the fixes, only lists them.
+"stop ponytail-review" or "normal mode": revert to verbose review style.

package/control-plane/scripts/skills/receiving-code-review/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,205 @@
+---
+name: receiving-code-review
+description: Use when receiving code review feedback, before implementing suggestions, especially if feedback seems unclear or technically questionable - requires technical rigor and verification, not performative agreement or blind implementation
+---
+
+# Code Review Reception
+
+## Overview
+
+Code review requires technical evaluation, not emotional performance.
+
+**Core principle:** Verify before implementing. Ask before assuming. Technical correctness over social comfort.
+
+## The Response Pattern
+
+```
+WHEN receiving code review feedback:
+
+1. READ: Complete feedback without reacting
+2. UNDERSTAND: Restate requirement in own words (or ask)
+3. VERIFY: Check against codebase reality
+4. EVALUATE: Technically sound for THIS codebase?
+5. RESPOND: Technical acknowledgment or reasoned pushback
+6. IMPLEMENT: One item at a time, test each
+```
+
+## Forbidden Responses
+
+**NEVER:**
+- "You're absolutely right!" (explicit instruction-file violation)
+- "Great point!" / "Excellent feedback!" (performative)
+- "Let me implement that now" (before verification)
+
+**INSTEAD:**
+- Restate the technical requirement
+- Ask clarifying questions
+- Push back with technical reasoning if wrong
+- Just start working (actions > words)
+
+## Handling Unclear Feedback
+
+```
+IF any item is unclear:
+  STOP - do not implement anything yet
+  ASK for clarification on unclear items
+
+WHY: Items may be related. Partial understanding = wrong implementation.
+```
+
+**Example:**
+```
+your human partner: "Fix 1-6"
+You understand 1,2,3,6. Unclear on 4,5.
+
+❌ WRONG: Implement 1,2,3,6 now, ask about 4,5 later
+✅ RIGHT: "I understand items 1,2,3,6. Need clarification on 4 and 5 before proceeding."
+```
+
+## Source-Specific Handling
+
+### From your human partner
+- **Trusted** - implement after understanding
+- **Still ask** if scope unclear
+- **No performative agreement**
+- **Skip to action** or technical acknowledgment
+
+### From External Reviewers
+```
+BEFORE implementing:
+  1. Check: Technically correct for THIS codebase?
+  2. Check: Breaks existing functionality?
+  3. Check: Reason for current implementation?
+  4. Check: Works on all platforms/versions?
+  5. Check: Does reviewer understand full context?
+
+IF suggestion seems wrong:
+  Push back with technical reasoning
+
+IF can't easily verify:
+  Say so: "I can't verify this without [X]. Should I [investigate/ask/proceed]?"
+
+IF conflicts with your human partner's prior decisions:
+  Stop and discuss with your human partner first
+```
+
+**your human partner's rule:** "External feedback - be skeptical, but check carefully"
+
+## YAGNI Check for "Professional" Features
+
+```
+IF reviewer suggests "implementing properly":
+  grep codebase for actual usage
+
+  IF unused: "This endpoint isn't called. Remove it (YAGNI)?"
+  IF used: Then implement properly
+```
+
+**your human partner's rule:** "You and reviewer both report to me. If we don't need this feature, don't add it."
+
+## Implementation Order
+
+```
+FOR multi-item feedback:
+  1. Clarify anything unclear FIRST
+  2. Then implement in this order:
+     - Blocking issues (breaks, security)
+     - Simple fixes (typos, imports)
+     - Complex fixes (refactoring, logic)
+  3. Test each fix individually
+  4. Verify no regressions
+```
+
+## When To Push Back
+
+Push back when:
+- Suggestion breaks existing functionality
+- Reviewer lacks full context
+- Violates YAGNI (unused feature)
+- Technically incorrect for this stack
+- Legacy/compatibility reasons exist
+- Conflicts with your human partner's architectural decisions
+
+**How to push back:**
+- Use technical reasoning, not defensiveness
+- Ask specific questions
+- Reference working tests/code
+- Involve your human partner if architectural
+
+**If you're uncomfortable pushing back out loud:** Name that tension, then tell your partner about the issue you've seen. They'll appreciate your honesty.
+
+## Acknowledging Correct Feedback
+
+When feedback IS correct:
+```
+✅ "Fixed. [Brief description of what changed]"
+✅ "Good catch - [specific issue]. Fixed in [location]."
+✅ [Just fix it and show in the code]
+
+❌ "You're absolutely right!"
+❌ "Great point!"
+❌ "Thanks for catching that!"
+❌ "Thanks for [anything]"
+❌ ANY gratitude expression
+```
+
+**Why no thanks:** Actions speak. Just fix it. The code itself shows you heard the feedback.
+
+**If you catch yourself about to write "Thanks":** DELETE IT. State the fix instead.
+
+## Gracefully Correcting Your Pushback
+
+If you pushed back and were wrong:
+```
+✅ "You were right - I checked [X] and it does [Y]. Implementing now."
+✅ "Verified this and you're correct. My initial understanding was wrong because [reason]. Fixing."
+
+❌ Long apology
+❌ Defending why you pushed back
+❌ Over-explaining
+```
+
+State the correction factually and move on.
+
+## Common Mistakes
+
+| Mistake | Fix |
+|---------|-----|
+| Performative agreement | State requirement or just act |
+| Blind implementation | Verify against codebase first |
+| Batch without testing | One at a time, test each |
+| Assuming reviewer is right | Check if breaks things |
+| Avoiding pushback | Technical correctness > comfort |
+| Partial implementation | Clarify all items first |
+| Can't verify, proceed anyway | State limitation, ask for direction |
+
+## Real Examples
+
+**Performative Agreement (Bad):**
+```
+Reviewer: "Remove legacy code"
+❌ "You're absolutely right! Let me remove that..."
+```
+
+**Technical Verification (Good):**
+```
+Reviewer: "Remove legacy code"
+✅ "Checking... build target is 10.15+, this API needs 13+. Need legacy for backward compat. Current impl has wrong bundle ID - fix it or drop pre-13 support?"
+```
+
+**YAGNI (Good):**
+```
+Reviewer: "Implement proper metrics tracking with database, date filters, CSV export"
+✅ "Grepped codebase - nothing calls this endpoint. Remove it (YAGNI)? Or is there usage I'm missing?"
+```
+
+**Unclear Item (Good):**
+```
+your human partner: "Fix items 1-6"
+You understand 1,2,3,6. Unclear on 4,5.
+✅ "Understand 1,2,3,6. Need clarification on 4 and 5 before implementing."
+```
+
+## GitHub Thread Replies
+
+When replying to inline review comments on GitHub, reply in the comment thread (`gh api repos/{owner}/{repo}/pulls/{pr}/comments/{id}/replies`), not as a top-level PR comment.

package/control-plane/scripts/skills/requesting-code-review/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,95 @@
+---
+name: requesting-code-review
+description: Use when completing tasks, implementing major features, or before merging to verify work meets requirements
+---
+
+# Requesting Code Review
+
+Dispatch a code reviewer subagent to catch issues before they cascade. The reviewer gets precisely crafted context for evaluation — never your session's history.
+
+**Core principle:** Review early, review often.
+
+## When to Request Review
+
+**Mandatory:**
+- After each task in subagent-driven development
+- After completing major feature
+- Before merge to main
+
+**Optional but valuable:**
+- When stuck (fresh perspective)
+- Before refactoring (baseline check)
+- After fixing complex bug
+
+## How to Request
+
+**1. Get git SHAs:**
+```bash
+BASE_SHA=$(git rev-parse HEAD~1)  # or: git merge-base origin/main HEAD
+HEAD_SHA=$(git rev-parse HEAD)
+```
+
+**2. Dispatch code reviewer subagent:**
+
+Dispatch a `general-purpose` subagent, filling the template at [code-reviewer.md](code-reviewer.md)
+
+**Placeholders:**
+- `{DESCRIPTION}` - Brief summary of what you built
+- `{PLAN_OR_REQUIREMENTS}` - What it should do
+- `{BASE_SHA}` - Starting commit
+- `{HEAD_SHA}` - Ending commit
+
+**3. Act on feedback:**
+- Fix Critical issues immediately
+- Fix Important issues before proceeding
+- Note Minor issues for later
+- Push back if reviewer is wrong (with reasoning)
+
+## Example
+
+```
+[Just completed Task 2: Add verification function]
+
+You: Let me request code review before proceeding.
+
+BASE_SHA=$(git log --oneline | grep "Task 1" | head -1 | awk '{print $1}')
+HEAD_SHA=$(git rev-parse HEAD)
+
+[Dispatch code reviewer subagent]
+  DESCRIPTION: Added verifyIndex() and repairIndex() with 4 issue types
+  PLAN_OR_REQUIREMENTS: Task 2 from docs/superpowers/plans/deployment-plan.md
+  BASE_SHA: a7981ec
+  HEAD_SHA: 3df7661
+
+[Subagent returns]:
+  Strengths: Clean architecture, real tests
+  Issues:
+    Important: Missing progress indicators
+    Minor: Magic number (100) for reporting interval
+  Assessment: Ready to proceed
+
+You: [Fix progress indicators]
+[Continue to Task 3]
+```
+
+## Common Rationalizations
+
+| Excuse | Reality |
+|--------|---------|
+| "I'll just review the diff myself instead of dispatching a reviewer" | You're the coordinator — reviewing the diff inline burns the context window you need to keep driving the work. Dispatch a reviewer subagent: the diff and the evaluation live in its context, and only the findings come back to you. |
+| "The reviewer needs my whole session history to understand the change" | Hand it precisely crafted context, never your session's history. That keeps the reviewer on the work product, not your thought process. |
+
+## Red Flags
+
+**Never:**
+- Skip review because "it's simple"
+- Ignore Critical issues
+- Proceed with unfixed Important issues
+- Argue with valid technical feedback
+
+**If reviewer wrong:**
+- Push back with technical reasoning
+- Show code/tests that prove it works
+- Request clarification
+
+See template at: [code-reviewer.md](code-reviewer.md)