@ia-ccun/code-agent-cli 0.0.3 → 0.0.4-8.beta.1

package/config/agent/skills/receiving-code-review/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,216 @@
+---
+name: receiving-code-review
+description: "Handle code review feedback with technical rigor and verification. Use when receiving code review feedback, implementing review comments, or handling review suggestions."
+metadata:
+  version: "1.0.0"
+  author: "xujianjiang"
+---
+
+# 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 CLAUDE.md 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
+
+**Signal if uncomfortable pushing back out loud:** "Strange things are afoot at the Circle K"
+
+## 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.
+
+## The Bottom Line
+
+**External feedback = suggestions to evaluate, not orders to follow.**
+
+Verify. Question. Then implement.
+
+No performative agreement. Technical rigor always.

package/config/agent/skills/refactor/SKILL.md

@@ -1,7 +1,10 @@
 ---
 name: refactor
-description: "对代码进行重构，提高可读性和可维护性，同时保持功能不变。"
-author: xujianjiang
+description: "对代码进行重构，提高可读性和可维护性，同时保持功能不变。Use when refactoring code, improving code readability, or optimizing code structure."
+disable-model-invocation: true
+metadata:
+  version: "1.0.0"
+  author: "xujianjiang"
 ---
 
 # 重构代码 Skill

package/config/agent/skills/requesting-code-review/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,108 @@
+---
+name: requesting-code-review
+description: "Request code review to verify work meets requirements before merging. Use when needing review, requesting code review, or before merging PRs."
+metadata:
+  version: "1.0.0"
+  author: "xujianjiang"
+---
+
+# Requesting Code Review
+
+Dispatch superpowers:code-reviewer subagent to catch issues before they cascade. The reviewer gets precisely crafted context for evaluation — never your session's history. This keeps the reviewer focused on the work product, not your thought process, and preserves your own context for continued work.
+
+**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=$(git rev-parse HEAD~1)  # or origin/main
+HEAD_SHA=$(git rev-parse HEAD)
+```
+
+**2. Dispatch code-reviewer subagent:**
+
+Use Task tool with superpowers:code-reviewer type, fill template at `code-reviewer.md`
+
+**Placeholders:**
+- `{WHAT_WAS_IMPLEMENTED}` - What you just built
+- `{PLAN_OR_REQUIREMENTS}` - What it should do
+- `{BASE_SHA}` - Starting commit
+- `{HEAD_SHA}` - Ending commit
+- `{DESCRIPTION}` - Brief summary
+
+**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 superpowers:code-reviewer subagent]
+  WHAT_WAS_IMPLEMENTED: Verification and repair functions for conversation index
+  PLAN_OR_REQUIREMENTS: Task 2 from docs/superpowers/plans/deployment-plan.md
+  BASE_SHA: a7981ec
+  HEAD_SHA: 3df7661
+  DESCRIPTION: Added verifyIndex() and repairIndex() with 4 issue types
+
+[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]
+```
+
+## Integration with Workflows
+
+**Subagent-Driven Development:**
+- Review after EACH task
+- Catch issues before they compound
+- Fix before moving to next task
+
+**Executing Plans:**
+- Review after each batch (3 tasks)
+- Get feedback, apply, continue
+
+**Ad-Hoc Development:**
+- Review before merge
+- Review when stuck
+
+## 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: requesting-code-review/code-reviewer.md

package/config/agent/skills/requesting-code-review/code-reviewer.md

@@ -0,0 +1,146 @@
+# Code Review Agent
+
+You are reviewing code changes for production readiness.
+
+**Your task:**
+1. Review {WHAT_WAS_IMPLEMENTED}
+2. Compare against {PLAN_OR_REQUIREMENTS}
+3. Check code quality, architecture, testing
+4. Categorize issues by severity
+5. Assess production readiness
+
+## What Was Implemented
+
+{DESCRIPTION}
+
+## Requirements/Plan
+
+{PLAN_REFERENCE}
+
+## Git Range to Review
+
+**Base:** {BASE_SHA}
+**Head:** {HEAD_SHA}
+
+```bash
+git diff --stat {BASE_SHA}..{HEAD_SHA}
+git diff {BASE_SHA}..{HEAD_SHA}
+```
+
+## Review Checklist
+
+**Code Quality:**
+- Clean separation of concerns?
+- Proper error handling?
+- Type safety (if applicable)?
+- DRY principle followed?
+- Edge cases handled?
+
+**Architecture:**
+- Sound design decisions?
+- Scalability considerations?
+- Performance implications?
+- Security concerns?
+
+**Testing:**
+- Tests actually test logic (not mocks)?
+- Edge cases covered?
+- Integration tests where needed?
+- All tests passing?
+
+**Requirements:**
+- All plan requirements met?
+- Implementation matches spec?
+- No scope creep?
+- Breaking changes documented?
+
+**Production Readiness:**
+- Migration strategy (if schema changes)?
+- Backward compatibility considered?
+- Documentation complete?
+- No obvious bugs?
+
+## Output Format
+
+### Strengths
+[What's well done? Be specific.]
+
+### Issues
+
+#### Critical (Must Fix)
+[Bugs, security issues, data loss risks, broken functionality]
+
+#### Important (Should Fix)
+[Architecture problems, missing features, poor error handling, test gaps]
+
+#### Minor (Nice to Have)
+[Code style, optimization opportunities, documentation improvements]
+
+**For each issue:**
+- File:line reference
+- What's wrong
+- Why it matters
+- How to fix (if not obvious)
+
+### Recommendations
+[Improvements for code quality, architecture, or process]
+
+### Assessment
+
+**Ready to merge?** [Yes/No/With fixes]
+
+**Reasoning:** [Technical assessment in 1-2 sentences]
+
+## Critical Rules
+
+**DO:**
+- Categorize by actual severity (not everything is Critical)
+- Be specific (file:line, not vague)
+- Explain WHY issues matter
+- Acknowledge strengths
+- Give clear verdict
+
+**DON'T:**
+- Say "looks good" without checking
+- Mark nitpicks as Critical
+- Give feedback on code you didn't review
+- Be vague ("improve error handling")
+- Avoid giving a clear verdict
+
+## Example Output
+
+```
+### Strengths
+- Clean database schema with proper migrations (db.ts:15-42)
+- Comprehensive test coverage (18 tests, all edge cases)
+- Good error handling with fallbacks (summarizer.ts:85-92)
+
+### Issues
+
+#### Important
+1. **Missing help text in CLI wrapper**
+   - File: index-conversations:1-31
+   - Issue: No --help flag, users won't discover --concurrency
+   - Fix: Add --help case with usage examples
+
+2. **Date validation missing**
+   - File: search.ts:25-27
+   - Issue: Invalid dates silently return no results
+   - Fix: Validate ISO format, throw error with example
+
+#### Minor
+1. **Progress indicators**
+   - File: indexer.ts:130
+   - Issue: No "X of Y" counter for long operations
+   - Impact: Users don't know how long to wait
+
+### Recommendations
+- Add progress reporting for user experience
+- Consider config file for excluded projects (portability)
+
+### Assessment
+
+**Ready to merge: With fixes**
+
+**Reasoning:** Core implementation is solid with good architecture and tests. Important issues (help text, date validation) are easily fixed and don't affect core functionality.
+```

package/config/agent/skills/session-learning/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,185 @@
+---
+name: session-learning
+description: "Summarize conversation experiences and 沉淀 skills. Use when summarizing lessons learned, refining skills, reflecting on experience, or doing post-task reviews."
+metadata:
+  version: "1.0.0"
+  author: "xujianjiang"
+---
+
+# 对话经验总结与 Skills 沉淀
+
+## 📋 概述
+
+此 skill 用于在对话任务完成后，系统性地总结经验教训并沉淀到仓库的 skills 中，持续提升 AICode 助手的能力。
+
+---
+
+## 🎯 触发时机
+
+当以下情况发生时使用此 skill：
+- 用户请求总结本轮对话的经验
+- 用户询问是否需要补充/更新 skills
+- 一个复杂任务成功完成后，主动询问用户是否需要沉淀经验
+- 用户使用关键词：总结经验、沉淀、学习、skill 补充
+
+---
+
+## 📝 执行流程
+
+### 第一步：对话上下文分析
+
+1. **回顾对话历史**，识别：
+   - 任务目标是什么
+   - 遇到了哪些挑战或问题
+   - 最终解决方案是什么
+   - 任务是否成功完成
+
+2. **提取关键信息**：
+   - 涉及的技术领域（如 VS Code 服务、TypeScript、Rust 等）
+   - 使用的工具或命令
+   - 发现的最佳实践
+   - 踩过的坑和解决方法
+
+### 第二步：经验教训分析
+
+**仅在任务成功完成时**进行深度分析：
+
+1. **成功因素分析**：
+   - 什么方法/策略有效
+   - 哪些工具使用得当
+   - 发现了什么规律或模式
+
+2. **可复用知识提炼**：
+   - 通用的解决方案模板
+   - 可重复使用的代码模式
+   - 值得记录的注意事项
+
+3. **失败教训总结**（如果过程中有失败）：
+   - 走过的弯路
+   - 错误的假设
+   - 需要避免的陷阱
+
+### 第三步：Skills 匹配与更新
+
+1. **浏览现有 skills**
+
+   首先列出 `.aicode-cli/agent/skills/` 目录下的所有 skills：
+
+   ```
+   现有 skills 列表：
+   - xxxxx
+   - xxxxx
+ 
+   ```
+
+2. **判断扩充策略**
+
+   **优先级顺序**（从高到低）：
+
+   | 优先级 | 策略 | 适用场景 |
+   |--------|------|----------|
+   | 1️⃣ | 扩充现有 skill 的 docs | 经验与现有 skill 主题直接相关 |
+   | 2️⃣ | 补充现有 skill 的 SKILL.md | 发现了现有 skill 缺失的核心知识 |
+   | 3️⃣ | 新增独立 skill | 经验属于全新领域，无法归入现有 skill |
+
+3. **内容定位决策表**
+
+   | 经验类型 | 归属 skill | 具体位置 |
+------|----------|------------|----------|
+   | xxx    | xxx | 对应 docs/*.md |
+ 
+### 第四步：生成更新建议
+
+输出格式：
+
+```markdown
+## 📊 对话总结
+
+**任务**: [简述任务目标]
+**结果**: ✅ 成功 / ❌ 失败 / ⏳ 进行中
+
+## 💡 经验教训
+
+### 成功经验
+1. [经验1]
+2. [经验2]
+
+### 踩坑记录
+1. [坑点1] - [解决方案]
+
+## 📝 Skills 更新建议
+
+### 建议更新: [skill 名称]
+
+**更新类型**: 扩充 docs / 补充 SKILL.md / 新增 skill
+**目标文件**: [具体文件路径]
+**更新内容**:
+
+[具体的内容草稿]
+```
+
+### 第五步：用户确认
+
+**必须使用 `AskUserQuestion` 工具**询问用户是否需要执行更新，**禁止**直接通过文本对话询问。
+
+**工具调用配置：**
+
+- `questions`: 包含一个问题对象
+  - `header`: "Skills 更新"
+  - `question`: "根据上述分析，是否需要我帮你更新这些 skills？"
+  - `options`:
+    - 选项 1:
+      - `label`: "更新全部"
+      - `description`: "应用所有建议的更新"
+    - 选项 2:
+      - `label`: "暂不更新"
+      - `description`: "结束当前任务，不进行更改"
+
+**处理用户选择：**
+
+1. **用户选择"更新全部"**：
+   - 直接执行第四步中列出的所有更新建议。
+
+2. **用户选择"暂不更新"**：
+   - 结束任务，不进行任何文件修改。
+
+---
+
+## ⚠️ 注意事项
+
+1. **不要过度总结** - 只提取真正有价值的、可复用的经验
+2. **保持简洁** - 每条经验应该简明扼要，避免冗长
+3. **优先扩充** - 始终优先考虑扩充现有 skills，而非创建新的
+4. **尊重用户** - 任何更新都必须先征得用户同意
+5. **避免重复** - 更新前检查是否已存在类似内容
+6. **保持一致** - 新内容应与现有 skill 的风格保持一致
+
+---
+
+## 📐 更新规范
+
+### 扩充 docs 文件
+
+遵循现有文档的结构和风格，通常包括：
+- 简短的概述
+- 具体的代码示例
+- 注意事项或常见问题
+
+### 补充 SKILL.md
+
+通常添加到以下位置：
+- 路由表（新增场景-文档映射）
+- 快速索引（新增常用条目）
+- 注意事项（新增通用提醒）
+
+### 新增独立 skill
+
+必须包含：
+- `SKILL.md` - 核心说明文件
+- `docs/` 目录 - 详细文档（如需要）
+
+---
+
+## 🔗 相关资源
+
+- Skills 目录: `.aicode-cli/agent/skills/`