@hung319/opencode-hive 1.3.1

package/skills/parallel-exploration/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,240 @@
+---
+name: parallel-exploration
+description: Use when you need parallel, read-only exploration with task() (Scout fan-out)
+---
+
+# Parallel Exploration (Scout Fan-Out)
+
+## Overview
+
+When you need to answer "where/how does X work?" across multiple domains (codebase, tests, docs, OSS), investigating sequentially wastes time. Each investigation is independent and can happen in parallel.
+
+**Core principle:** Decompose into independent sub-questions, spawn one task per sub-question, collect results asynchronously.
+
+**Safe in Planning mode:** This is read-only exploration. It is OK to use during exploratory research even when there is no feature, no plan, and no approved tasks.
+
+**This skill is for read-only research.** For parallel implementation work, use `hive_skill("dispatching-parallel-agents")` with `hive_worktree_start`.
+
+## When to Use
+
+**Default to this skill when:**
+**Use when:**
+- Investigation spans multiple domains (code + tests + docs)
+- User asks **2+ questions across different domains** (e.g., code + tests, code + docs/OSS, code + config/runtime)
+- Questions are independent (answer to A doesn't affect B)
+- User asks **3+ independent questions** (often as a numbered list or separate bullets)
+- No edits needed (read-only exploration)
+- User asks for an exploration that likely spans multiple files/packages
+- The work is read-only and the questions can be investigated independently
+
+**Only skip this skill when:**
+- Investigation requires shared state or context between questions
+- It's a single focused question that is genuinely answerable with **one quick grep + one file read**
+- Questions are dependent (answer A materially changes what to ask for B)
+- Work involves file edits (use Hive tasks / Forager instead)
+
+**Important:** Do not treat "this is exploratory" as a reason to avoid delegation. This skill is specifically for exploratory research when fan-out makes it faster and cleaner.
+
+## The Pattern
+
+### 1. Decompose Into Independent Questions
+
+Split your investigation into 2-4 independent sub-questions. Good decomposition:
+
+| Domain | Question Example |
+|--------|------------------|
+| Codebase | "Where is X implemented? What files define it?" |
+| Tests | "How is X tested? What test patterns exist?" |
+| Docs/OSS | "How do other projects implement X? What's the recommended pattern?" |
+| Config | "How is X configured? What environment variables affect it?" |
+
+**Bad decomposition (dependent questions):**
+- "What is X?" then "How is X used?" (second depends on first)
+- "Find the bug" then "Fix the bug" (not read-only)
+
+### 2. Spawn Tasks (Fan-Out)
+
+Launch all tasks before waiting for any results:
+
+```typescript
+// Parallelize by issuing multiple task() calls in the same assistant message.
+task({
+  subagent_type: 'scout-researcher',
+  description: 'Find API route implementation',
+  prompt: `Where are API routes implemented and registered?
+    - Find the tool definition
+    - Find the plugin registration
+    - Return file paths with line numbers`,
+});
+
+task({
+  subagent_type: 'scout-researcher',
+  description: 'Analyze background task concurrency',
+  prompt: `How does background task concurrency/queueing work?
+    - Find the manager/scheduler code
+    - Document the concurrency model
+    - Return file paths with evidence`,
+});
+
+task({
+  subagent_type: 'scout-researcher',
+  description: 'Find parent notification mechanism',
+  prompt: `How does parent notification work for background tasks?
+    - Where is the notification built?
+    - How is it sent to the parent session?
+    - Return file paths with evidence`,
+});
+```
+
+**Key points:**
+- Use `subagent_type: 'scout-researcher'` for read-only exploration
+- Give each task a clear, focused `description`
+- Make prompts specific about what evidence to return
+
+### 3. Continue Working (Optional)
+
+While tasks run, you can:
+- Work on other aspects of the problem
+- Prepare synthesis structure
+- Start drafting based on what you already know
+
+You'll receive a `<system-reminder>` notification when each task completes.
+
+### 4. Collect Results
+
+When each task completes, its result is returned directly. Collect the outputs from each task and proceed to synthesis.
+
+### 5. Synthesize Findings
+
+Combine results from all tasks:
+- Cross-reference findings (file X mentioned by tasks A and B)
+- Identify gaps (task C found nothing, need different approach)
+- Build coherent answer from parallel evidence
+
+### 6. Cleanup (If Needed)
+
+No manual cancellation is required in task mode.
+
+## Prompt Templates
+
+### Codebase Slice
+
+```
+Investigate [TOPIC] in the codebase:
+- Where is [X] defined/implemented?
+- What files contain [X]?
+- How does [X] interact with [Y]?
+
+Return:
+- File paths with line numbers
+- Brief code snippets as evidence
+- Key patterns observed
+```
+
+### Tests Slice
+
+```
+Investigate how [TOPIC] is tested:
+- What test files cover [X]?
+- What testing patterns are used?
+- What edge cases are tested?
+
+Return:
+- Test file paths
+- Example test patterns
+- Coverage gaps if obvious
+```
+
+### Docs/OSS Slice
+
+```
+Research [TOPIC] in external sources:
+- How do other projects implement [X]?
+- What does the official documentation say?
+- What are common patterns/anti-patterns?
+
+Return:
+- Links to relevant docs/repos
+- Key recommendations
+- Patterns that apply to our codebase
+```
+
+## Real Example
+
+**Investigation:** "How does the API routing system work?"
+
+**Decomposition:**
+1. Implementation: Where are API routes defined?
+2. Routing: How does route registration work?
+3. Notifications: How are errors surfaced to the caller?
+
+**Fan-out:**
+```typescript
+// Parallelize by issuing multiple task() calls in the same assistant message.
+task({
+  subagent_type: 'scout-researcher',
+  description: 'Find API route implementation',
+  prompt: 'Where are API routes implemented? Find tool definition and registration.',
+});
+
+task({
+  subagent_type: 'scout-researcher',
+  description: 'Analyze concurrency model',
+  prompt: 'How does background task concurrency work? Find the manager/scheduler.',
+});
+
+task({
+  subagent_type: 'scout-researcher',
+  description: 'Find notification mechanism',
+  prompt: 'How are parent sessions notified of task completion?',
+});
+```
+
+**Results:**
+- Task 1: Found `background-tools.ts` (tool definition), `index.ts` (registration)
+- Task 2: Found `manager.ts` with concurrency=3 default, queue-based scheduling
+- Task 3: Found `session.prompt()` call in manager for parent notification
+
+**Synthesis:** Complete picture of background task lifecycle in ~1/3 the time of sequential investigation.
+
+## Common Mistakes
+
+**Spawning sequentially (defeats the purpose):**
+```typescript
+// BAD: Wait for each before spawning next
+await task({ ... });
+await task({ ... });
+```
+
+```typescript
+// GOOD: Spawn all in the same assistant message
+task({ ... });
+task({ ... });
+task({ ... });
+```
+
+**Too many tasks (diminishing returns):**
+- 2-4 tasks: Good parallelization
+- 5+ tasks: Overhead exceeds benefit, harder to synthesize
+
+**Dependent questions:**
+- Don't spawn task B if it needs task A's answer
+- Either make them independent or run sequentially
+
+**Using for edits:**
+- Scout is read-only; use Forager for implementation
+- This skill is for exploration, not execution
+
+## Key Benefits
+
+1. **Speed** - 3 investigations in time of 1
+2. **Focus** - Each Scout has narrow scope
+3. **Independence** - No interference between tasks
+4. **Flexibility** - Cancel unneeded tasks, add new ones
+
+## Verification
+
+After using this pattern, verify:
+- [ ] All tasks spawned before collecting any results (true fan-out)
+- [ ] Verified `task()` fan-out pattern used for parallel exploration
+- [ ] Synthesized findings into coherent answer

package/skills/systematic-debugging/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,296 @@
+---
+name: systematic-debugging
+description: Use when encountering any bug, test failure, or unexpected behavior, before proposing fixes
+---
+
+# Systematic Debugging
+
+## Overview
+
+Random fixes waste time and create new bugs. Quick patches mask underlying issues.
+
+**Core principle:** ALWAYS find root cause before attempting fixes. Symptom fixes are failure.
+
+**Violating the letter of this process is violating the spirit of debugging.**
+
+## The Iron Law
+
+```
+NO FIXES WITHOUT ROOT CAUSE INVESTIGATION FIRST
+```
+
+If you haven't completed Phase 1, you cannot propose fixes.
+
+## When to Use
+
+Use for ANY technical issue:
+- Test failures
+- Bugs in production
+- Unexpected behavior
+- Performance problems
+- Build failures
+- Integration issues
+
+**Use this ESPECIALLY when:**
+- Under time pressure (emergencies make guessing tempting)
+- "Just one quick fix" seems obvious
+- You've already tried multiple fixes
+- Previous fix didn't work
+- You don't fully understand the issue
+
+**Don't skip when:**
+- Issue seems simple (simple bugs have root causes too)
+- You're in a hurry (rushing guarantees rework)
+- Manager wants it fixed NOW (systematic is faster than thrashing)
+
+## The Four Phases
+
+You MUST complete each phase before proceeding to the next.
+
+### Phase 1: Root Cause Investigation
+
+**BEFORE attempting ANY fix:**
+
+1. **Read Error Messages Carefully**
+   - Don't skip past errors or warnings
+   - They often contain the exact solution
+   - Read stack traces completely
+   - Note line numbers, file paths, error codes
+
+2. **Reproduce Consistently**
+   - Can you trigger it reliably?
+   - What are the exact steps?
+   - Does it happen every time?
+   - If not reproducible → gather more data, don't guess
+
+3. **Check Recent Changes**
+   - What changed that could cause this?
+   - Git diff, recent commits
+   - New dependencies, config changes
+   - Environmental differences
+
+4. **Gather Evidence in Multi-Component Systems**
+
+   **WHEN system has multiple components (CI → build → signing, API → service → database):**
+
+   **BEFORE proposing fixes, add diagnostic instrumentation:**
+   ```
+   For EACH component boundary:
+     - Log what data enters component
+     - Log what data exits component
+     - Verify environment/config propagation
+     - Check state at each layer
+
+   Run once to gather evidence showing WHERE it breaks
+   THEN analyze evidence to identify failing component
+   THEN investigate that specific component
+   ```
+
+   **Example (multi-layer system):**
+   ```bash
+   # Layer 1: Workflow
+   echo "=== Secrets available in workflow: ==="
+   echo "IDENTITY: ${IDENTITY:+SET}${IDENTITY:-UNSET}"
+
+   # Layer 2: Build script
+   echo "=== Env vars in build script: ==="
+   env | grep IDENTITY || echo "IDENTITY not in environment"
+
+   # Layer 3: Signing script
+   echo "=== Keychain state: ==="
+   security list-keychains
+   security find-identity -v
+
+   # Layer 4: Actual signing
+   codesign --sign "$IDENTITY" --verbose=4 "$APP"
+   ```
+
+   **This reveals:** Which layer fails (secrets → workflow ✓, workflow → build ✗)
+
+5. **Trace Data Flow**
+
+   **WHEN error is deep in call stack:**
+
+   See `root-cause-tracing.md` in this directory for the complete backward tracing technique.
+
+   **Quick version:**
+   - Where does bad value originate?
+   - What called this with bad value?
+   - Keep tracing up until you find the source
+   - Fix at source, not at symptom
+
+### Phase 2: Pattern Analysis
+
+**Find the pattern before fixing:**
+
+1. **Find Working Examples**
+   - Locate similar working code in same codebase
+   - What works that's similar to what's broken?
+
+2. **Compare Against References**
+   - If implementing pattern, read reference implementation COMPLETELY
+   - Don't skim - read every line
+   - Understand the pattern fully before applying
+
+3. **Identify Differences**
+   - What's different between working and broken?
+   - List every difference, however small
+   - Don't assume "that can't matter"
+
+4. **Understand Dependencies**
+   - What other components does this need?
+   - What settings, config, environment?
+   - What assumptions does it make?
+
+### Phase 3: Hypothesis and Testing
+
+**Scientific method:**
+
+1. **Form Single Hypothesis**
+   - State clearly: "I think X is the root cause because Y"
+   - Write it down
+   - Be specific, not vague
+
+2. **Test Minimally**
+   - Make the SMALLEST possible change to test hypothesis
+   - One variable at a time
+   - Don't fix multiple things at once
+
+3. **Verify Before Continuing**
+   - Did it work? Yes → Phase 4
+   - Didn't work? Form NEW hypothesis
+   - DON'T add more fixes on top
+
+4. **When You Don't Know**
+   - Say "I don't understand X"
+   - Don't pretend to know
+   - Ask for help
+   - Research more
+
+### Phase 4: Implementation
+
+**Fix the root cause, not the symptom:**
+
+1. **Create Failing Test Case**
+   - Simplest possible reproduction
+   - Automated test if possible
+   - One-off test script if no framework
+   - MUST have before fixing
+   - Use the `hive_skill:test-driven-development` skill for writing proper failing tests
+
+2. **Implement Single Fix**
+   - Address the root cause identified
+   - ONE change at a time
+   - No "while I'm here" improvements
+   - No bundled refactoring
+
+3. **Verify Fix**
+   - Test passes now?
+   - No other tests broken?
+   - Issue actually resolved?
+
+4. **If Fix Doesn't Work**
+   - STOP
+   - Count: How many fixes have you tried?
+   - If < 3: Return to Phase 1, re-analyze with new information
+   - **If ≥ 3: STOP and question the architecture (step 5 below)**
+   - DON'T attempt Fix #4 without architectural discussion
+
+5. **If 3+ Fixes Failed: Question Architecture**
+
+   **Pattern indicating architectural problem:**
+   - Each fix reveals new shared state/coupling/problem in different place
+   - Fixes require "massive refactoring" to implement
+   - Each fix creates new symptoms elsewhere
+
+   **STOP and question fundamentals:**
+   - Is this pattern fundamentally sound?
+   - Are we "sticking with it through sheer inertia"?
+   - Should we refactor architecture vs. continue fixing symptoms?
+
+   **Discuss with your human partner before attempting more fixes**
+
+   This is NOT a failed hypothesis - this is a wrong architecture.
+
+## Red Flags - STOP and Follow Process
+
+If you catch yourself thinking:
+- "Quick fix for now, investigate later"
+- "Just try changing X and see if it works"
+- "Add multiple changes, run tests"
+- "Skip the test, I'll manually verify"
+- "It's probably X, let me fix that"
+- "I don't fully understand but this might work"
+- "Pattern says X but I'll adapt it differently"
+- "Here are the main problems: [lists fixes without investigation]"
+- Proposing solutions before tracing data flow
+- **"One more fix attempt" (when already tried 2+)**
+- **Each fix reveals new problem in different place**
+
+**ALL of these mean: STOP. Return to Phase 1.**
+
+**If 3+ fixes failed:** Question the architecture (see Phase 4.5)
+
+## your human partner's Signals You're Doing It Wrong
+
+**Watch for these redirections:**
+- "Is that not happening?" - You assumed without verifying
+- "Will it show us...?" - You should have added evidence gathering
+- "Stop guessing" - You're proposing fixes without understanding
+- "Ultrathink this" - Question fundamentals, not just symptoms
+- "We're stuck?" (frustrated) - Your approach isn't working
+
+**When you see these:** STOP. Return to Phase 1.
+
+## Common Rationalizations
+
+| Excuse | Reality |
+|--------|---------|
+| "Issue is simple, don't need process" | Simple issues have root causes too. Process is fast for simple bugs. |
+| "Emergency, no time for process" | Systematic debugging is FASTER than guess-and-check thrashing. |
+| "Just try this first, then investigate" | First fix sets the pattern. Do it right from the start. |
+| "I'll write test after confirming fix works" | Untested fixes don't stick. Test first proves it. |
+| "Multiple fixes at once saves time" | Can't isolate what worked. Causes new bugs. |
+| "Reference too long, I'll adapt the pattern" | Partial understanding guarantees bugs. Read it completely. |
+| "I see the problem, let me fix it" | Seeing symptoms ≠ understanding root cause. |
+| "One more fix attempt" (after 2+ failures) | 3+ failures = architectural problem. Question pattern, don't fix again. |
+
+## Quick Reference
+
+| Phase | Key Activities | Success Criteria |
+|-------|---------------|------------------|
+| **1. Root Cause** | Read errors, reproduce, check changes, gather evidence | Understand WHAT and WHY |
+| **2. Pattern** | Find working examples, compare | Identify differences |
+| **3. Hypothesis** | Form theory, test minimally | Confirmed or new hypothesis |
+| **4. Implementation** | Create test, fix, verify | Bug resolved, tests pass |
+
+## When Process Reveals "No Root Cause"
+
+If systematic investigation reveals issue is truly environmental, timing-dependent, or external:
+
+1. You've completed the process
+2. Document what you investigated
+3. Implement appropriate handling (retry, timeout, error message)
+4. Add monitoring/logging for future investigation
+
+**But:** 95% of "no root cause" cases are incomplete investigation.
+
+## Supporting Techniques
+
+These techniques are part of systematic debugging and available in this directory:
+
+- **`root-cause-tracing.md`** - Trace bugs backward through call stack to find original trigger
+- **`defense-in-depth.md`** - Add validation at multiple layers after finding root cause
+- **`condition-based-waiting.md`** - Replace arbitrary timeouts with condition polling
+
+**Related skills:**
+- **hive_skill:test-driven-development** - For creating failing test case (Phase 4, Step 1)
+- **hive_skill:verification-before-completion** - Verify fix worked before claiming success
+
+## Real-World Impact
+
+From debugging sessions:
+- Systematic approach: 15-30 minutes to fix
+- Random fixes approach: 2-3 hours of thrashing
+- First-time fix rate: 95% vs 40%
+- New bugs introduced: Near zero vs common