@heihei0299/matt-skills 2.1.9 → 3.0.0

package/template/.agents/skills/code-review/SKILL.md

@@ -1,87 +0,0 @@
----
-name: code-review
-description: "Review the changes since a fixed point (commit, branch, tag, or merge-base) along two axes: Standards (does the code follow this repo's documented coding standards?) and Spec (does the code match what the originating issue/spec asked for?). Runs both reviews in parallel sub-agents and reports them side by side. Use when the user wants to review a branch, a PR, work-in-progress changes, or asks to \"review since X\"."
----
-
-Two-axis review of the diff between `HEAD` and a fixed point the user supplies:
-
-- **Standards**: does the code conform to this repo's documented coding standards?
-- **Spec**: does the code faithfully implement the originating issue / spec?
-
-Both axes run as **parallel sub-agents** so they don't pollute each other's context, then this skill aggregates their findings.
-
-The issue tracker should have been provided to you. If `docs/agents/issue-tracker.md` is missing, tell the user to run `/setup-matt-pocock-skills`.
-
-## Process
-
-### 1. Pin the fixed point
-
-Whatever the user said is the fixed point (a commit SHA, branch name, tag, `main`, `HEAD~5`, etc.). If they didn't specify one, ask for it.
-
-Capture the diff command once: `git diff <fixed-point>...HEAD` (three-dot, so the comparison is against the merge-base). Also note the list of commits via `git log <fixed-point>..HEAD --oneline`.
-
-Before going further, confirm the fixed point resolves (`git rev-parse <fixed-point>`) and the diff is non-empty. A bad ref or empty diff should fail here, not inside two parallel sub-agents.
-
-### 2. Identify the spec source
-
-Look for the originating spec, in this order:
-
-1. Issue references in the commit messages (`#123`, `Closes #45`, GitLab `!67`, etc.), fetched via the workflow in `docs/agents/issue-tracker.md`.
-2. A path the user passed as an argument.
-3. A spec file under `docs/`, `specs/`, or `.scratch/` matching the branch name or feature.
-4. If nothing is found, ask the user where the spec is. If they say there isn't one, the **Spec** sub-agent will skip and report "no spec available".
-
-### 3. Identify the standards sources
-
-Anything in the repo that documents how code should be written, such as `CODING_STANDARDS.md` or `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
-
-On top of whatever the repo documents, the Standards axis always carries the **smell baseline** below: a fixed set of Fowler code smells (_Refactoring_, ch.3) that applies even when a repo documents nothing. Two rules bind it:
-
-- **The repo overrides.** A documented repo standard always wins; where it endorses something the baseline would flag, suppress the smell.
-- **Always a judgement call.** Each smell is a labelled heuristic ("possible Feature Envy"), never a hard violation. Like any standard here, skip anything tooling already enforces.
-
-Each smell reads *what it is* → *how to fix*; match it against the diff:
-
-- **Mysterious Name**: a function, variable, or type whose name doesn't reveal what it does or holds. → rename it; if no honest name comes, the design's murky.
-- **Duplicated Code**: the same logic shape appears in more than one hunk or file in the change. → extract the shared shape, call it from both.
-- **Feature Envy**: a method that reaches into another object's data more than its own. → move the method onto the data it envies.
-- **Data Clumps**: the same few fields or params keep travelling together (a type wanting to be born). → bundle them into one type, pass that.
-- **Primitive Obsession**: a primitive or string standing in for a domain concept that deserves its own type. → give the concept its own small type.
-- **Repeated Switches**: the same `switch`/`if`-cascade on the same type recurs across the change. → replace with polymorphism, or one map both sites share.
-- **Shotgun Surgery**: one logical change forces scattered edits across many files in the diff. → gather what changes together into one module.
-- **Divergent Change**: one file or module is edited for several unrelated reasons. → split so each module changes for one reason.
-- **Speculative Generality**: abstraction, parameters, or hooks added for needs the spec doesn't have. → delete it; inline back until a real need shows.
-- **Message Chains**: long `a.b().c().d()` navigation the caller shouldn't depend on. → hide the walk behind one method on the first object.
-- **Middle Man**: a class or function that mostly just delegates onward. → cut it, call the real target direct.
-- **Refused Bequest**: a subclass or implementer that ignores or overrides most of what it inherits. → drop the inheritance, use composition.
-
-### 4. Spawn both sub-agents in parallel
-
-**Standards sub-agent prompt** should include:
-
-- The full diff command and commit list.
-- The list of standards-source files you found in step 3, **plus the smell baseline from step 3** pasted in full (the sub-agent has no other access to it).
-- The brief: "Report, per file/hunk where relevant, (a) every place the diff violates a documented standard: cite the standard (file + the rule); and (b) any baseline smell you spot: name it and quote the hunk. Distinguish hard violations from judgement calls: documented-standard breaches can be hard, but baseline smells are always judgement calls, and a documented repo standard overrides the baseline. Skip anything tooling enforces. Under 400 words."
-
-**Spec sub-agent prompt** should include:
-
-- The diff command and commit list.
-- The path or fetched contents of the spec.
-- The brief: "Report: (a) requirements the spec asked for that are missing or partial; (b) behaviour in the diff that wasn't asked for (scope creep); (c) requirements that look implemented but where the implementation looks wrong. Quote the spec line for each finding. Under 400 words."
-
-If the spec is missing, skip the Spec sub-agent and note this in the final report.
-
-### 5. Aggregate
-
-Present the two reports under `## Standards` and `## Spec` headings, verbatim or lightly cleaned. Do **not** merge or rerank findings, because the two axes are deliberately separate (see _Why two axes_).
-
-End with a one-line summary: total findings per axis, and the worst issue _within each axis_ (if any). Don't pick a single winner across axes: that's the reranking the separation exists to prevent.
-
-## Why two axes
-
-A change can pass one axis and fail the other:
-
-- Code that follows every standard but implements the wrong thing → **Standards pass, Spec fail.**
-- Code that does exactly what the issue asked but breaks the project's conventions → **Spec pass, Standards fail.**
-
-Reporting them separately stops one axis from masking the other.

package/template/.agents/skills/code-review/agents/openai.yaml

@@ -1,3 +0,0 @@
-interface:
-  display_name: "Code Review"
-  short_description: "Review a diff on standards and spec"

package/template/.agents/skills/codebase-design/DEEPENING.md

@@ -1,37 +0,0 @@
-# Deepening
-
-How to deepen a cluster of shallow modules safely, given its dependencies. Assumes the vocabulary in [SKILL.md](SKILL.md): **module**, **interface**, **seam**, **adapter**.
-
-## Dependency categories
-
-When assessing a candidate for deepening, classify its dependencies. The category determines how the deepened module is tested across its seam.
-
-### 1. In-process
-
-Pure computation, in-memory state, no I/O. Always deepenable: merge the modules and test through the new interface directly. No adapter needed.
-
-### 2. Local-substitutable
-
-Dependencies that have local test stand-ins (PGLite for Postgres, in-memory filesystem). Deepenable if the stand-in exists. The deepened module is tested with the stand-in running in the test suite. The seam is internal; no port at the module's external interface.
-
-### 3. Remote but owned (Ports & Adapters)
-
-Your own services across a network boundary (microservices, internal APIs). Define a **port** (interface) at the seam. The deep module owns the logic; the transport is injected as an **adapter**. Tests use an in-memory adapter. Production uses an HTTP/gRPC/queue adapter.
-
-Recommendation shape: *"Define a port at the seam, implement an HTTP adapter for production and an in-memory adapter for testing, so the logic sits in one deep module even though it's deployed across a network."*
-
-### 4. True external (Mock)
-
-Third-party services (Stripe, Twilio, etc.) you don't control. The deepened module takes the external dependency as an injected port; tests provide a mock adapter.
-
-## Seam discipline
-
-- **One adapter means a hypothetical seam. Two adapters means a real one.** Don't introduce a port unless at least two adapters are justified (typically production + test). A single-adapter seam is just indirection.
-- **Internal seams vs external seams.** A deep module can have internal seams (private to its implementation, used by its own tests) as well as the external seam at its interface. Don't expose internal seams through the interface just because tests use them.
-
-## Testing strategy: replace, don't layer
-
-- Old unit tests on shallow modules become waste once tests at the deepened module's interface exist; delete them.
-- Write new tests at the deepened module's interface. The **interface is the test surface**.
-- Tests assert on observable outcomes through the interface, not internal state.
-- Tests should survive internal refactors, since they describe behaviour, not implementation. If a test has to change when the implementation changes, it's testing past the interface.

package/template/.agents/skills/codebase-design/DESIGN-IT-TWICE.md

@@ -1,44 +0,0 @@
-# Design It Twice
-
-When the user wants to explore alternative interfaces for a chosen deepening candidate, use this parallel sub-agent pattern. Based on "Design It Twice" (Ousterhout): your first idea is unlikely to be the best.
-
-Uses the vocabulary in [SKILL.md](SKILL.md): **module**, **interface**, **seam**, **adapter**, **leverage**.
-
-## Process
-
-### 1. Frame the problem space
-
-Before spawning sub-agents, write a user-facing explanation of the problem space for the chosen candidate:
-
-- The constraints any new interface would need to satisfy
-- The dependencies it would rely on, and which category they fall into (see [DEEPENING.md](DEEPENING.md))
-- A rough illustrative code sketch to ground the constraints, not a proposal, just a way to make the constraints concrete
-
-Show this to the user, then immediately proceed to Step 2. The user reads and thinks while the sub-agents work in parallel.
-
-### 2. Spawn sub-agents
-
-Spawn 3+ sub-agents in parallel. Each must produce a **radically different** interface for the deepened module.
-
-Prompt each sub-agent with a separate technical brief (file paths, coupling details, dependency category from [DEEPENING.md](DEEPENING.md), what sits behind the seam). The brief is independent of the user-facing problem-space explanation in Step 1. Give each agent a different design constraint:
-
-- Agent 1: "Minimize the interface: aim for 1–3 entry points max. Maximise leverage per entry point."
-- Agent 2: "Maximise flexibility: support many use cases and extension."
-- Agent 3: "Optimise for the most common caller: make the default case trivial."
-- Agent 4 (if applicable): "Design around ports & adapters for cross-seam dependencies."
-
-Include both [SKILL.md](SKILL.md) vocabulary and CONTEXT.md vocabulary in the brief so each sub-agent names things consistently with the architecture language and the project's domain language.
-
-Each sub-agent outputs:
-
-1. Interface (types, methods, params, plus invariants, ordering, error modes)
-2. Usage example showing how callers use it
-3. What the implementation hides behind the seam
-4. Dependency strategy and adapters (see [DEEPENING.md](DEEPENING.md))
-5. Trade-offs: where leverage is high, where it's thin
-
-### 3. Present and compare
-
-Present designs sequentially so the user can absorb each one, then compare them in prose. Contrast by **depth** (leverage at the interface), **locality** (where change concentrates), and **seam placement**.
-
-After comparing, give your own recommendation: which design you think is strongest and why. If elements from different designs would combine well, propose a hybrid. Be opinionated: the user wants a strong read, not a menu.

package/template/.agents/skills/codebase-design/SKILL.md

@@ -1,114 +0,0 @@
----
-name: codebase-design
-description: Shared vocabulary for designing deep modules. Use when the user wants to design or improve a module's interface, find deepening opportunities, decide where a seam goes, make code more testable or AI-navigable, or when another skill needs the deep-module vocabulary.
----
-
-# Codebase Design
-
-Design **deep modules**: a lot of behaviour behind a small interface, placed at a clean seam, testable through that interface. Use this language and these principles wherever code is being designed or restructured. The aim is leverage for callers, locality for maintainers, and testability for everyone.
-
-## Glossary
-
-Use these terms exactly: don't substitute "component," "service," "API," or "boundary." Consistent language is the whole point.
-
-**Module**: anything with an interface and an implementation. Deliberately scale-agnostic: a function, class, package, or tier-spanning slice. _Avoid_: unit, component, service.
-
-**Interface**: everything a caller must know to use the module correctly: the type signature, but also invariants, ordering constraints, error modes, required configuration, and performance characteristics. _Avoid_: API, signature (too narrow, they refer only to the type-level surface).
-
-**Implementation**: what's inside a module, its body of code. Distinct from **Adapter**: a thing can be a small adapter with a large implementation (a Postgres repo) or a large adapter with a small implementation (an in-memory fake). Reach for "adapter" when the seam is the topic; "implementation" otherwise.
-
-**Depth**: leverage at the interface. The amount of behaviour a caller (or test) can exercise per unit of interface they have to learn. A module is **deep** when a large amount of behaviour sits behind a small interface, **shallow** when the interface is nearly as complex as the implementation.
-
-**Seam** _(Michael Feathers)_: a place where you can alter behaviour without editing in that place; the *location* at which a module's interface lives. Where to put the seam is its own design decision, distinct from what goes behind it. _Avoid_: boundary (overloaded with DDD's bounded context).
-
-**Adapter**: a concrete thing that satisfies an interface at a seam. Describes *role* (what slot it fills), not substance (what's inside).
-
-**Leverage**: what callers get from depth. More capability per unit of interface they learn. One implementation pays back across N call sites and M tests.
-
-**Locality**: what maintainers get from depth. Change, bugs, knowledge, and verification concentrate in one place rather than spreading across callers. Fix once, fixed everywhere.
-
-## Deep vs shallow
-
-**Deep module** = small interface + lots of implementation:
-
-```
-┌─────────────────────┐
-│   Small Interface   │  ← Few methods, simple params
-├─────────────────────┤
-│                     │
-│  Deep Implementation│  ← Complex logic hidden
-│                     │
-└─────────────────────┘
-```
-
-**Shallow module** = large interface + little implementation (avoid):
-
-```
-┌─────────────────────────────────┐
-│       Large Interface           │  ← Many methods, complex params
-├─────────────────────────────────┤
-│  Thin Implementation            │  ← Just passes through
-└─────────────────────────────────┘
-```
-
-When designing an interface, ask:
-
-- Can I reduce the number of methods?
-- Can I simplify the parameters?
-- Can I hide more complexity inside?
-
-## Principles
-
-- **Depth is a property of the interface, not the implementation.** A deep module can be internally composed of small, mockable, swappable parts; they just aren't part of the interface. A module can have **internal seams** (private to its implementation, used by its own tests) as well as the **external seam** at its interface.
-- **The deletion test.** Imagine deleting the module. If complexity vanishes, it was a pass-through. If complexity reappears across N callers, it was earning its keep.
-- **The interface is the test surface.** Callers and tests cross the same seam. If you want to test *past* the interface, the module is probably the wrong shape.
-- **One adapter means a hypothetical seam. Two adapters means a real one.** Don't introduce a seam unless something actually varies across it.
-
-## Designing for testability
-
-Good interfaces make testing natural:
-
-1. **Accept dependencies, don't create them.**
-
-   ```typescript
-   // Testable
-   function processOrder(order, paymentGateway) {}
-
-   // Hard to test
-   function processOrder(order) {
-     const gateway = new StripeGateway();
-   }
-   ```
-
-2. **Return results, don't produce side effects.**
-
-   ```typescript
-   // Testable
-   function calculateDiscount(cart): Discount {}
-
-   // Hard to test
-   function applyDiscount(cart): void {
-     cart.total -= discount;
-   }
-   ```
-
-3. **Small surface area.** Fewer methods = fewer tests needed. Fewer params = simpler test setup.
-
-## Relationships
-
-- A **Module** has exactly one **Interface** (the surface it presents to callers and tests).
-- **Depth** is a property of a **Module**, measured against its **Interface**.
-- A **Seam** is where a **Module**'s **Interface** lives.
-- An **Adapter** sits at a **Seam** and satisfies the **Interface**.
-- **Depth** produces **Leverage** for callers and **Locality** for maintainers.
-
-## Rejected framings
-
-- **Depth as ratio of implementation-lines to interface-lines** (Ousterhout): rewards padding the implementation. We use depth-as-leverage instead.
-- **"Interface" as the TypeScript `interface` keyword or a class's public methods**: too narrow: interface here includes every fact a caller must know.
-- **"Boundary"**: overloaded with DDD's bounded context. Say **seam** or **interface**.
-
-## Going deeper
-
-- **Deepening a cluster given its dependencies**, see [DEEPENING.md](DEEPENING.md): dependency categories, seam discipline, and replace-don't-layer testing.
-- **Exploring alternative interfaces**, see [DESIGN-IT-TWICE.md](DESIGN-IT-TWICE.md): spin up parallel sub-agents to design the interface several radically different ways, then compare on depth, locality, and seam placement.

package/template/.agents/skills/codebase-design/agents/openai.yaml

@@ -1,3 +0,0 @@
-interface:
-  display_name: "Codebase Design"
-  short_description: "Vocabulary for deep-module design"

package/template/.agents/skills/diagnose-fix/SKILL.md

@@ -1,43 +0,0 @@
----
-name: diagnose-fix
-description: "Complete diagnosis→fix→regression channel for bugs and performance regressions: diagnose, then fix behind observed red regression evidence. Functional bugs require a failing regression test; performance regressions may use a benchmark/perf harness with an explicit failing threshold. Use when the user says diagnose/debug/fix this, or reports something broken/throwing/failing/slow — prefer this over diagnosing-bugs when a fix is wanted, not just a diagnosis."
----
-
-# Diagnose Fix
-
-本 skill 只连接诊断、受保护的最小修复和回归三个阶段。诊断细节以 [`diagnosing-bugs`](.agents/skills/diagnosing-bugs/SKILL.md) 为事实源，普通功能 bug 的红绿语义以 [`tdd`](.agents/skills/tdd/SKILL.md) 为事实源；不复制两个上游的完整步骤。
-
-## 流程
-
-### ① 诊断
-
-委托 `diagnosing-bugs` 完成修复前的诊断活动：建立能捕捉用户症状的 tight feedback loop，实际复现并最小化，再形成可证伪的假设并按单变量探针验证。不要依赖固定 Phase 编号；以上游当前“进入修复前必须完成的诊断出口”为事实源。
-
-出口：反馈回路已实际变红，最小复现已确认，且导致症状的假设已有证据；此阶段不写修复代码。
-
-### ② 受保护的最小修复
-
-先判断 Red 证据类型：
-
-- **功能 bug**：在正确的公共 seam 上提出回归测试边界，遵循 `tdd` 要求获得用户确认；把最小复现转成失败回归测试并实际看到 Red，再写最小修复直到 Green。
-- **性能回归**：复用 `diagnosing-bugs` 的 performance branch，建立可重复的 benchmark、timing harness、query-count 或 profiler-derived threshold；必须先实际观察到该阈值失败，再做最小修复，并用同一测量方式确认转绿。不为满足形式强造一个无法代表真实性能症状的普通单元测试。
-
-**硬门槛：**不存在已实际观察到的 **red-capable regression evidence** 时，不得写修复代码。功能 bug 的证据必须是正确 seam 上的失败回归测试；性能回归可使用带明确阈值且可重复的 benchmark/perf harness。不存在正确 seam 或可靠性能测量边界时，本身就是 finding；记录阻塞，不绕过证据直接修改。
-
-出口：功能 bug 为 regression test Red → 最小修复 → Green；性能回归为 benchmark/perf threshold Red → 最小修复 → Green。两者都不进入 `tdd-implement` 的长流程。
-
-### ③ 回归收尾
-
-按 `diagnosing-bugs` 的收尾要求重跑阶段 ① 的原始、未最小化反馈回路，确认用户症状消失；功能 bug 重跑回归测试，性能回归重跑原始基准/测量；清理 `[DEBUG-...]` 探针和一次性 harness，并记录最终验证的假设。
-
-出口：原始症状消失、对应 regression evidence 为 Green、临时诊断产物已清理。
-
-## 回合连续性
-
-诊断 → Red 证据 → 修复 → Green → 原始回路 → 清理在一个回合内连续推进。只有功能 bug 的 seam 确认、发现无正确 seam/测量边界、外部环境阻塞或整个阶段出口可以暂停；预告下一步后立即执行。
-
-## 引用
-
-- 诊断与性能分支：[`diagnosing-bugs`](.agents/skills/diagnosing-bugs/SKILL.md)
-- 功能 bug 修复：[`tdd`](.agents/skills/tdd/SKILL.md)
-- 负向边界：[`references/anti-patterns.md`](references/anti-patterns.md)

package/template/.agents/skills/diagnose-fix/agents/openai.yaml

@@ -1,5 +0,0 @@
-interface:
-  display_name: "Diagnose Fix"
-  short_description: "诊断硬 bug 并按 TDD 红-绿修复"
-policy:
-  allow_implicit_invocation: false

package/template/.agents/skills/diagnose-fix/references/anti-patterns.md

@@ -1,21 +0,0 @@
-# 反模式清单（Diagnose-Fix）
-
-SKILL.md 正文各阶段规则是正面约束；本文件是负向边界（不做什么），为细节唯一出处。SKILL.md 只引用本文件，不重复内容。
-
-## 诊断阶段
-
-- 不跳过反馈回路直接猜根因：回路未红之前不进入假设、不写修复代码
-- 功能 bug 不把最小复现永久留在 harness 里：必须转写为正确 seam 上的回归测试；性能回归可保留最小、可重复且有明确阈值的 benchmark/perf harness 作为回归证据
-- 不一次改多个变量：探针一次只改一个，`[DEBUG-...]` 前缀标记
-
-## 修复阶段
-
-- 不绕过 red-capable regression evidence 直接改代码——功能 bug 没有正确 seam 是 finding；性能回归没有可靠测量边界同样是 finding，不是豁免
-- 不为性能问题强造一个不能代表真实慢路径的普通单元测试；优先复用 diagnosis 中已经验证过的 benchmark、timing、query-count 或 profiler-derived threshold
-- 不套用 tdd-implement 重流程：单个 bug/perf regression 的修复保持轻量，不引入完整 delivery orchestration
-- 不重写 tdd 技能的红-绿语义：功能 bug 的 seam 定义、好测试标准、mocking 边界一律查上游技能
-
-## 回归阶段
-
-- 不遗留探针：`[DEBUG-...]` 前缀的临时改动在回归验证后全部清理
-- 不跳过原始反馈回路的重跑：最小化场景绿 ≠ 原始症状消失

package/template/.agents/skills/diagnosing-bugs/SKILL.md

@@ -1,138 +0,0 @@
----
-name: diagnosing-bugs
-description: Diagnosis loop for hard bugs and performance regressions. Use when the user says "diagnose"/"debug this", or reports something broken/throwing/failing/slow.
----
-
-# Diagnosing Bugs
-
-A discipline for hard bugs. Skip phases only when explicitly justified.
-
-When exploring the codebase, read `CONTEXT.md` (if it exists) to get a clear mental model of the relevant modules, and check ADRs in the area you're touching.
-
-## Redact
-
-This skill has you show commands, outputs and captured artifacts. **Redact every secret first**: write `<REDACTED>` in its place. Build loops against env vars, so the credential stays in the environment rather than in what you show. Captured artifacts carry auth headers: quote only the lines that carry the signal.
-
-If the redacted output is not enough to diagnose the bug, say so and ask the user.
-
-## Phase 1: Build a feedback loop
-
-**This is the skill.** Everything else is mechanical. If you have a **tight** pass/fail signal for the bug (one that goes red on _this_ bug), you will find the cause; bisection, hypothesis-testing, and instrumentation all just consume it. If you don't have one, no amount of staring at code will save you.
-
-Spend disproportionate effort here. **Be aggressive. Be creative. Refuse to give up.**
-
-### Ways to construct one, in roughly this order
-
-1. **Failing test** at whatever seam reaches the bug: unit, integration, e2e.
-2. **Curl / HTTP script** against a running dev server.
-3. **CLI invocation** with a fixture input, diffing stdout against a known-good snapshot.
-4. **Headless browser script** (Playwright / Puppeteer) that drives the UI and asserts on DOM/console/network.
-5. **Replay a captured trace.** Save a real network request / payload / event log to disk; replay it through the code path in isolation.
-6. **Throwaway harness.** Spin up a minimal subset of the system (one service, mocked deps) that exercises the bug code path with a single function call.
-7. **Property / fuzz loop.** If the bug is "sometimes wrong output", run 1000 random inputs and look for the failure mode.
-8. **Bisection harness.** If the bug appeared between two known states (commit, dataset, version), automate "boot at state X, check, repeat" so you can `git bisect run` it.
-9. **Differential loop.** Run the same input through old-version vs new-version (or two configs) and diff outputs.
-10. **HITL bash script.** Last resort. If a human must click, drive _them_ with `scripts/hitl-loop.template.sh` so the loop is still structured. Captured output feeds back to you.
-
-Build the right feedback loop, and the bug is 90% fixed.
-
-### Tighten the loop
-
-Treat the loop as a product. Once you have _a_ loop, **tighten** it:
-
-- Can I make it faster? (Cache setup, skip unrelated init, narrow the test scope.)
-- Can I make the signal sharper? (Assert on the specific symptom, not "didn't crash".)
-- Can I make it more deterministic? (Pin time, seed RNG, isolate filesystem, freeze network.)
-
-A 30-second flaky loop is barely better than no loop; a 2-second deterministic one is tight, a debugging superpower.
-
-### Non-deterministic bugs
-
-The goal is not a clean repro but a **higher reproduction rate**. Loop the trigger 100×, parallelise, add stress, narrow timing windows, inject sleeps. A 50%-flake bug is debuggable; 1% is not, so keep raising the rate until it's debuggable.
-
-### When you genuinely cannot build a loop
-
-Stop and say so explicitly. List what you tried. Ask the user for: (a) access to whatever environment reproduces it, (b) a redacted captured artifact (HAR file, log dump, core dump, screen recording with timestamps), or (c) permission to add temporary production instrumentation. Do **not** proceed to hypothesise without a loop.
-
-### Completion criterion: a tight loop that goes red
-
-Phase 1 is done when the loop is **tight** and **red-capable**: you can name **one command** (a script path, a test invocation, a curl) that you have **already run at least once** (show the invocation and its output, redacted), and that is:
-
-- [ ] **Red-capable**: it drives the actual bug code path and asserts the **user's exact symptom**, so it can go red on this bug and green once fixed. Not "runs without erroring"; it must be able to _catch this specific bug_.
-- [ ] **Deterministic**: same verdict every run (flaky bugs: a pinned, high reproduction rate, per above).
-- [ ] **Fast**: seconds, not minutes.
-- [ ] **Agent-runnable**: you can run it unattended; a human in the loop only via `scripts/hitl-loop.template.sh`.
-
-If you catch yourself reading code to build a theory before this command exists, **stop: jumping straight to a hypothesis is the exact failure this skill prevents.** No red-capable command, no Phase 2.
-
-## Phase 2: Reproduce + minimise
-
-Run the loop. Watch it go red as the bug appears.
-
-Confirm:
-
-- [ ] The loop produces the failure mode the **user** described, not a different failure that happens to be nearby. Wrong bug = wrong fix.
-- [ ] The failure is reproducible across multiple runs (or, for non-deterministic bugs, reproducible at a high enough rate to debug against).
-- [ ] You have captured the exact symptom (error message, wrong output, slow timing) so later phases can verify the fix actually addresses it.
-
-### Minimise
-
-Once it's red, shrink the repro to the **smallest scenario that still goes red**. Cut inputs, callers, config, data, and steps **one at a time**, re-running the loop after each cut, and keep only what's load-bearing for the failure.
-
-Why bother: a minimal repro shrinks the hypothesis space in Phase 3 (fewer moving parts left to suspect) and becomes the clean regression test in Phase 5.
-
-Done when **every remaining element is load-bearing**: removing any one of them makes the loop go green.
-
-Do not proceed until you have reproduced **and** minimised.
-
-## Phase 3: Hypothesise
-
-Generate **3–5 ranked hypotheses** before testing any of them. Single-hypothesis generation anchors on the first plausible idea.
-
-Each hypothesis must be **falsifiable**: state the prediction it makes.
-
-> Format: "If <X> is the cause, then <changing Y> will make the bug disappear / <changing Z> will make it worse."
-
-If you cannot state the prediction, the hypothesis is a vibe: discard or sharpen it.
-
-**Show the ranked list to the user before testing.** They often have domain knowledge that re-ranks instantly ("we just deployed a change to #3"), or know hypotheses they've already ruled out. Cheap checkpoint, big time saver. Don't block on it; proceed with your ranking if the user is AFK.
-
-## Phase 4: Instrument
-
-Each probe must map to a specific prediction from Phase 3. **Change one variable at a time.**
-
-Tool preference:
-
-1. **Debugger / REPL inspection** if the env supports it. One breakpoint beats ten logs.
-2. **Targeted logs** at the boundaries that distinguish hypotheses.
-3. Never "log everything and grep".
-
-**Tag every debug log** with a unique prefix, e.g. `[DEBUG-a4f2]`. Cleanup at the end becomes a single grep. Untagged logs survive; tagged logs die.
-
-**Perf branch.** For performance regressions, logs are usually wrong. Instead: establish a baseline measurement (timing harness, `performance.now()`, profiler, query plan), then bisect. Measure first, fix second.
-
-## Phase 5: Fix + regression test
-
-Write the regression test **before the fix**, but only if there is a **correct seam** for it.
-
-A correct seam is one where the test exercises the **real bug pattern** as it occurs at the call site. If the only available seam is too shallow (single-caller test when the bug needs multiple callers, unit test that can't replicate the chain that triggered the bug), a regression test there gives false confidence.
-
-**If no correct seam exists, that itself is the finding.** Note it. The codebase architecture is preventing the bug from being locked down. Flag this for the next phase.
-
-If a correct seam exists:
-
-1. Turn the minimised repro into a failing test at that seam.
-2. Watch it fail.
-3. Apply the fix.
-4. Watch it pass.
-5. Re-run the Phase 1 feedback loop against the original (un-minimised) scenario.
-
-## Phase 6: Cleanup
-
-Required before declaring done:
-
-- [ ] Original repro no longer reproduces (re-run the Phase 1 loop)
-- [ ] Regression test passes (or absence of seam is documented)
-- [ ] All `[DEBUG-...]` instrumentation removed (`grep` the prefix)
-- [ ] Throwaway prototypes deleted (or moved to a clearly-marked debug location)
-- [ ] The hypothesis that turned out correct is stated in the commit / PR message, so the next debugger learns

package/template/.agents/skills/diagnosing-bugs/agents/openai.yaml

@@ -1,3 +0,0 @@
-interface:
-  display_name: "Diagnosing Bugs"
-  short_description: "Diagnose hard bugs and regressions"

package/template/.agents/skills/diagnosing-bugs/scripts/hitl-loop.template.sh

@@ -1,44 +0,0 @@
-#!/usr/bin/env bash
-# Human-in-the-loop reproduction loop.
-# Copy this file, edit the steps below, and run it.
-# The agent runs the script; the user follows prompts in their terminal.
-#
-# Usage:
-#   bash hitl-loop.template.sh
-#
-# Two helpers:
-#   step "<instruction>"          → show instruction, wait for Enter
-#   capture VAR "<question>"      → show question, read response into VAR
-#
-# At the end, captured values are printed as KEY=VALUE for the agent to parse.
-#
-# `capture` prints its value back to the terminal, where the agent reads it,
-# so capture observations, and leave signing in to the user as a `step`.
-
-set -euo pipefail
-
-step() {
-  printf '\n>>> %s\n' "$1"
-  read -r -p "    [Enter when done] " _
-}
-
-capture() {
-  local var="$1" question="$2" answer
-  printf '\n>>> %s\n' "$question"
-  read -r -p "    > " answer
-  printf -v "$var" '%s' "$answer"
-}
-
-# --- edit below ---------------------------------------------------------
-
-step "Open the app at http://localhost:3000 and sign in."
-
-capture ERRORED "Click the 'Export' button. Did it throw an error? (y/n)"
-
-capture ERROR_MSG "Paste the error message (or 'none'):"
-
-# --- edit above ---------------------------------------------------------
-
-printf '\n--- Captured ---\n'
-printf 'ERRORED=%s\n' "$ERRORED"
-printf 'ERROR_MSG=%s\n' "$ERROR_MSG"

package/template/.agents/skills/domain-modeling/ADR-FORMAT.md

@@ -1,47 +0,0 @@
-# ADR Format
-
-ADRs live in `docs/adr/` and use sequential numbering: `0001-slug.md`, `0002-slug.md`, etc.
-
-Create the `docs/adr/` directory lazily: only when the first ADR is needed.
-
-## Template
-
-```md
-# {Short title of the decision}
-
-{1-3 sentences: what's the context, what did we decide, and why.}
-```
-
-That's it. An ADR can be a single paragraph. The value is in recording *that* a decision was made and *why*, not in filling out sections.
-
-## Optional sections
-
-Only include these when they add genuine value. Most ADRs won't need them.
-
-- **Status** frontmatter (`proposed | accepted | deprecated | superseded by ADR-NNNN`): useful when decisions are revisited
-- **Considered Options**: only when the rejected alternatives are worth remembering
-- **Consequences**: only when non-obvious downstream effects need to be called out
-
-## Numbering
-
-Scan `docs/adr/` for the highest existing number and increment by one.
-
-## When to offer an ADR
-
-All three of these must be true:
-
-1. **Hard to reverse**: the cost of changing your mind later is meaningful
-2. **Surprising without context**: a future reader will look at the code and wonder "why on earth did they do it this way?"
-3. **The result of a real trade-off**: there were genuine alternatives and you picked one for specific reasons
-
-If a decision is easy to reverse, skip it: you'll just reverse it. If it's not surprising, nobody will wonder why. If there was no real alternative, there's nothing to record beyond "we did the obvious thing."
-
-### What qualifies
-
-- **Architectural shape.** "We're using a monorepo." "The write model is event-sourced, the read model is projected into Postgres."
-- **Integration patterns between contexts.** "Ordering and Billing communicate via domain events, not synchronous HTTP."
-- **Technology choices that carry lock-in.** Database, message bus, auth provider, deployment target. Not every library: just the ones that would take a quarter to swap out.
-- **Boundary and scope decisions.** "Customer data is owned by the Customer context; other contexts reference it by ID only." The explicit no-s are as valuable as the yes-s.
-- **Deliberate deviations from the obvious path.** "We're using manual SQL instead of an ORM because X." Anything where a reasonable reader would assume the opposite. These stop the next engineer from "fixing" something that was deliberate.
-- **Constraints not visible in the code.** "We can't use AWS because of compliance requirements." "Response times must be under 200ms because of the partner API contract."
-- **Rejected alternatives when the rejection is non-obvious.** If you considered GraphQL and picked REST for subtle reasons, record it; otherwise someone will suggest GraphQL again in six months.