@jakkrichm/create-nexus-devflow 2.0.0 → 2.0.2

package/template/.claude/skills/using-agent-skills/SKILL.md

@@ -1,171 +1,171 @@
----
-name: using-agent-skills
-description: Discovers and invokes agent skills. Use when starting a session or when you need to discover which skill applies to the current task. This is the meta-skill that governs how all other skills are discovered and invoked.
----
-
-# Using Agent Skills
-
-## Overview
-
-Agent Skills is a collection of engineering workflow skills organized by development phase. Each skill encodes a specific process that senior engineers follow. This meta-skill helps you discover and apply the right skill for your current task.
-
-## Skill Discovery
-
-When a task arrives, identify the development phase and apply the corresponding skill:
-
-```
-Task arrives
-    │
-    ├── Vague idea/need refinement? ──→ idea-refine
-    ├── New project/feature/change? ──→ spec-driven-development
-    ├── Have a spec, need tasks? ──────→ planning-and-task-breakdown
-    ├── Implementing code? ────────────→ incremental-implementation
-    │   ├── UI work? ─────────────────→ frontend-ui-engineering
-    │   ├── API work? ────────────────→ api-and-interface-design
-    │   └── Need better context? ─────→ context-engineering
-    ├── Writing/running tests? ────────→ test-driven-development
-    │   └── Browser-based? ───────────→ browser-testing-with-devtools
-    ├── Something broke? ──────────────→ debugging-and-error-recovery
-    ├── Reviewing code? ───────────────→ code-review-and-quality
-    │   ├── Security concerns? ───────→ security-and-hardening
-    │   └── Performance concerns? ────→ performance-optimization
-    ├── Committing/branching? ─────────→ git-workflow-and-versioning
-    ├── CI/CD pipeline work? ──────────→ ci-cd-and-automation
-    ├── Writing docs/ADRs? ───────────→ documentation-and-adrs
-    └── Deploying/launching? ─────────→ shipping-and-launch
-```
-
-## Core Operating Behaviors
-
-These behaviors apply at all times, across all skills. They are non-negotiable.
-
-### 1. Surface Assumptions
-
-Before implementing anything non-trivial, explicitly state your assumptions:
-
-```
-ASSUMPTIONS I'M MAKING:
-1. [assumption about requirements]
-2. [assumption about architecture]
-3. [assumption about scope]
-→ Correct me now or I'll proceed with these.
-```
-
-Don't silently fill in ambiguous requirements. The most common failure mode is making wrong assumptions and running with them unchecked. Surface uncertainty early — it's cheaper than rework.
-
-### 2. Manage Confusion Actively
-
-When you encounter inconsistencies, conflicting requirements, or unclear specifications:
-
-1. **STOP.** Do not proceed with a guess.
-2. Name the specific confusion.
-3. Present the tradeoff or ask the clarifying question.
-4. Wait for resolution before continuing.
-
-**Bad:** Silently picking one interpretation and hoping it's right.
-**Good:** "I see X in the spec but Y in the existing code. Which takes precedence?"
-
-### 3. Push Back When Warranted
-
-You are not a yes-machine. When an approach has clear problems:
-
-- Point out the issue directly
-- Explain the concrete downside (quantify when possible — "this adds ~200ms latency" not "this might be slower")
-- Propose an alternative
-- Accept the human's decision if they override with full information
-
-Sycophancy is a failure mode. "Of course!" followed by implementing a bad idea helps no one. Honest technical disagreement is more valuable than false agreement.
-
-### 4. Enforce Simplicity
-
-Your natural tendency is to overcomplicate. Actively resist it.
-
-Before finishing any implementation, ask:
-- Can this be done in fewer lines?
-- Are these abstractions earning their complexity?
-- Would a staff engineer look at this and say "why didn't you just..."?
-
-If you build 1000 lines and 100 would suffice, you have failed. Prefer the boring, obvious solution. Cleverness is expensive.
-
-### 5. Maintain Scope Discipline
-
-Touch only what you're asked to touch.
-
-Do NOT:
-- Remove comments you don't understand
-- "Clean up" code orthogonal to the task
-- Refactor adjacent systems as a side effect
-- Delete code that seems unused without explicit approval
-- Add features not in the spec because they "seem useful"
-
-Your job is surgical precision, not unsolicited renovation.
-
-### 6. Verify, Don't Assume
-
-Every skill includes a verification step. A task is not complete until verification passes. "Seems right" is never sufficient — there must be evidence (passing tests, build output, runtime data).
-
-## Failure Modes to Avoid
-
-These are the subtle errors that look like productivity but create problems:
-
-1. Making wrong assumptions without checking
-2. Not managing your own confusion — plowing ahead when lost
-3. Not surfacing inconsistencies you notice
-4. Not presenting tradeoffs on non-obvious decisions
-5. Being sycophantic ("Of course!") to approaches with clear problems
-6. Overcomplicating code and APIs
-7. Modifying code or comments orthogonal to the task
-8. Removing things you don't fully understand
-9. Building without a spec because "it's obvious"
-10. Skipping verification because "it looks right"
-
-## Skill Rules
-
-1. **Check for an applicable skill before starting work.** Skills encode processes that prevent common mistakes.
-
-2. **Skills are workflows, not suggestions.** Follow the steps in order. Don't skip verification steps.
-
-3. **Multiple skills can apply.** A feature implementation might involve `idea-refine` → `spec-driven-development` → `planning-and-task-breakdown` → `incremental-implementation` → `test-driven-development` → `code-review-and-quality` → `shipping-and-launch` in sequence.
-
-4. **When in doubt, start with a spec.** If the task is non-trivial and there's no spec, begin with `spec-driven-development`.
-
-## Lifecycle Sequence
-
-For a complete feature, the typical skill sequence is:
-
-```
-1. idea-refine                 → Refine vague ideas
-2. spec-driven-development     → Define what we're building
-3. planning-and-task-breakdown → Break into verifiable chunks
-4. context-engineering         → Load the right context
-5. incremental-implementation  → Build slice by slice
-6. test-driven-development     → Prove each slice works
-7. code-review-and-quality     → Review before merge
-8. git-workflow-and-versioning → Clean commit history
-9. documentation-and-adrs      → Document decisions
-10. shipping-and-launch        → Deploy safely
-```
-
-Not every task needs every skill. A bug fix might only need: `debugging-and-error-recovery` → `test-driven-development` → `code-review-and-quality`.
-
-## Quick Reference
-
-| Phase | Skill | One-Line Summary |
-|-------|-------|-----------------|
-| Define | idea-refine | Refine ideas through structured divergent and convergent thinking |
-| Define | spec-driven-development | Requirements and acceptance criteria before code |
-| Plan | planning-and-task-breakdown | Decompose into small, verifiable tasks |
-| Build | incremental-implementation | Thin vertical slices, test each before expanding |
-| Build | context-engineering | Right context at the right time |
-| Build | frontend-ui-engineering | Production-quality UI with accessibility |
-| Build | api-and-interface-design | Stable interfaces with clear contracts |
-| Verify | test-driven-development | Failing test first, then make it pass |
-| Verify | browser-testing-with-devtools | Chrome DevTools MCP for runtime verification |
-| Verify | debugging-and-error-recovery | Reproduce → localize → fix → guard |
-| Review | code-review-and-quality | Five-axis review with quality gates |
-| Review | security-and-hardening | OWASP prevention, input validation, least privilege |
-| Review | performance-optimization | Measure first, optimize only what matters |
-| Ship | git-workflow-and-versioning | Atomic commits, clean history |
-| Ship | ci-cd-and-automation | Automated quality gates on every change |
-| Ship | documentation-and-adrs | Document the why, not just the what |
-| Ship | shipping-and-launch | Pre-launch checklist, monitoring, rollback plan |
+---
+name: using-agent-skills
+description: Discovers and invokes agent skills. Use when starting a session or when you need to discover which skill applies to the current task. This is the meta-skill that governs how all other skills are discovered and invoked.
+---
+
+# Using Agent Skills
+
+## Overview
+
+Agent Skills is a collection of engineering workflow skills organized by development phase. Each skill encodes a specific process that senior engineers follow. This meta-skill helps you discover and apply the right skill for your current task.
+
+## Skill Discovery
+
+When a task arrives, identify the development phase and apply the corresponding skill:
+
+```
+Task arrives
+    │
+    ├── Vague idea/need refinement? ──→ idea-refine
+    ├── New project/feature/change? ──→ spec-driven-development
+    ├── Have a spec, need tasks? ──────→ planning-and-task-breakdown
+    ├── Implementing code? ────────────→ incremental-implementation
+    │   ├── UI work? ─────────────────→ frontend-ui-engineering
+    │   ├── API work? ────────────────→ api-and-interface-design
+    │   └── Need better context? ─────→ context-engineering
+    ├── Writing/running tests? ────────→ test-driven-development
+    │   └── Browser-based? ───────────→ browser-testing-with-devtools
+    ├── Something broke? ──────────────→ debugging-and-error-recovery
+    ├── Reviewing code? ───────────────→ code-review-and-quality
+    │   ├── Security concerns? ───────→ security-and-hardening
+    │   └── Performance concerns? ────→ performance-optimization
+    ├── Committing/branching? ─────────→ git-workflow-and-versioning
+    ├── CI/CD pipeline work? ──────────→ ci-cd-and-automation
+    ├── Writing docs/ADRs? ───────────→ documentation-and-adrs
+    └── Deploying/launching? ─────────→ shipping-and-launch
+```
+
+## Core Operating Behaviors
+
+These behaviors apply at all times, across all skills. They are non-negotiable.
+
+### 1. Surface Assumptions
+
+Before implementing anything non-trivial, explicitly state your assumptions:
+
+```
+ASSUMPTIONS I'M MAKING:
+1. [assumption about requirements]
+2. [assumption about architecture]
+3. [assumption about scope]
+→ Correct me now or I'll proceed with these.
+```
+
+Don't silently fill in ambiguous requirements. The most common failure mode is making wrong assumptions and running with them unchecked. Surface uncertainty early — it's cheaper than rework.
+
+### 2. Manage Confusion Actively
+
+When you encounter inconsistencies, conflicting requirements, or unclear specifications:
+
+1. **STOP.** Do not proceed with a guess.
+2. Name the specific confusion.
+3. Present the tradeoff or ask the clarifying question.
+4. Wait for resolution before continuing.
+
+**Bad:** Silently picking one interpretation and hoping it's right.
+**Good:** "I see X in the spec but Y in the existing code. Which takes precedence?"
+
+### 3. Push Back When Warranted
+
+You are not a yes-machine. When an approach has clear problems:
+
+- Point out the issue directly
+- Explain the concrete downside (quantify when possible — "this adds ~200ms latency" not "this might be slower")
+- Propose an alternative
+- Accept the human's decision if they override with full information
+
+Sycophancy is a failure mode. "Of course!" followed by implementing a bad idea helps no one. Honest technical disagreement is more valuable than false agreement.
+
+### 4. Enforce Simplicity
+
+Your natural tendency is to overcomplicate. Actively resist it.
+
+Before finishing any implementation, ask:
+- Can this be done in fewer lines?
+- Are these abstractions earning their complexity?
+- Would a staff engineer look at this and say "why didn't you just..."?
+
+If you build 1000 lines and 100 would suffice, you have failed. Prefer the boring, obvious solution. Cleverness is expensive.
+
+### 5. Maintain Scope Discipline
+
+Touch only what you're asked to touch.
+
+Do NOT:
+- Remove comments you don't understand
+- "Clean up" code orthogonal to the task
+- Refactor adjacent systems as a side effect
+- Delete code that seems unused without explicit approval
+- Add features not in the spec because they "seem useful"
+
+Your job is surgical precision, not unsolicited renovation.
+
+### 6. Verify, Don't Assume
+
+Every skill includes a verification step. A task is not complete until verification passes. "Seems right" is never sufficient — there must be evidence (passing tests, build output, runtime data).
+
+## Failure Modes to Avoid
+
+These are the subtle errors that look like productivity but create problems:
+
+1. Making wrong assumptions without checking
+2. Not managing your own confusion — plowing ahead when lost
+3. Not surfacing inconsistencies you notice
+4. Not presenting tradeoffs on non-obvious decisions
+5. Being sycophantic ("Of course!") to approaches with clear problems
+6. Overcomplicating code and APIs
+7. Modifying code or comments orthogonal to the task
+8. Removing things you don't fully understand
+9. Building without a spec because "it's obvious"
+10. Skipping verification because "it looks right"
+
+## Skill Rules
+
+1. **Check for an applicable skill before starting work.** Skills encode processes that prevent common mistakes.
+
+2. **Skills are workflows, not suggestions.** Follow the steps in order. Don't skip verification steps.
+
+3. **Multiple skills can apply.** A feature implementation might involve `idea-refine` → `spec-driven-development` → `planning-and-task-breakdown` → `incremental-implementation` → `test-driven-development` → `code-review-and-quality` → `shipping-and-launch` in sequence.
+
+4. **When in doubt, start with a spec.** If the task is non-trivial and there's no spec, begin with `spec-driven-development`.
+
+## Lifecycle Sequence
+
+For a complete feature, the typical skill sequence is:
+
+```
+1. idea-refine                 → Refine vague ideas
+2. spec-driven-development     → Define what we're building
+3. planning-and-task-breakdown → Break into verifiable chunks
+4. context-engineering         → Load the right context
+5. incremental-implementation  → Build slice by slice
+6. test-driven-development     → Prove each slice works
+7. code-review-and-quality     → Review before merge
+8. git-workflow-and-versioning → Clean commit history
+9. documentation-and-adrs      → Document decisions
+10. shipping-and-launch        → Deploy safely
+```
+
+Not every task needs every skill. A bug fix might only need: `debugging-and-error-recovery` → `test-driven-development` → `code-review-and-quality`.
+
+## Quick Reference
+
+| Phase | Skill | One-Line Summary |
+|-------|-------|-----------------|
+| Define | idea-refine | Refine ideas through structured divergent and convergent thinking |
+| Define | spec-driven-development | Requirements and acceptance criteria before code |
+| Plan | planning-and-task-breakdown | Decompose into small, verifiable tasks |
+| Build | incremental-implementation | Thin vertical slices, test each before expanding |
+| Build | context-engineering | Right context at the right time |
+| Build | frontend-ui-engineering | Production-quality UI with accessibility |
+| Build | api-and-interface-design | Stable interfaces with clear contracts |
+| Verify | test-driven-development | Failing test first, then make it pass |
+| Verify | browser-testing-with-devtools | Chrome DevTools MCP for runtime verification |
+| Verify | debugging-and-error-recovery | Reproduce → localize → fix → guard |
+| Review | code-review-and-quality | Five-axis review with quality gates |
+| Review | security-and-hardening | OWASP prevention, input validation, least privilege |
+| Review | performance-optimization | Measure first, optimize only what matters |
+| Ship | git-workflow-and-versioning | Atomic commits, clean history |
+| Ship | ci-cd-and-automation | Automated quality gates on every change |
+| Ship | documentation-and-adrs | Document the why, not just the what |
+| Ship | shipping-and-launch | Pre-launch checklist, monitoring, rollback plan |

package/template/.claude/skills/verification-orchestration/SKILL.md

@@ -1,68 +1,68 @@
----
-name: verification-orchestration
-description: Coordinate multi-lane QA, specialist review, test planning, and verification follow-up. Use when /50-Verify needs more structure than a single pass and the team needs a QA matrix or specialist routing.
----
-
-# Verification Orchestration
-
-## Overview
-
-This skill structures complex verification work across multiple QA lanes without replacing the main verification stage.
-
-## When to Use
-
-- `/50-Verify` is too broad for a single simple pass
-- the change needs correctness, regression, security, performance, and UX checks together
-- the team needs specialist routing for QA
-
-## Process
-
-### 1. Validate The Verification Context
-
-- inspect the owning stage artifacts first
-- confirm what implementation scope is actually under review
-- keep markdown stage artifacts as the source of truth
-
-### 2. Choose QA Lanes
-
-Typical lanes:
-
-- correctness and acceptance criteria
-- tests and regressions
-- security and data safety
-- performance and scalability
-- UX or manual verification
-- codebase fit and maintainability
-
-### 3. Route Specialist Help
-
-Use specialist agents only when needed, such as:
-
-- `code-reviewer`
-- `test-engineer`
-- `security-auditor`
-
-### 4. Save Reusable Report
-
-Write reusable output under:
-
-```text
-devflow/reports/{date}-qa-orchestrate-{id}.md
-```
-
-Use `.agent/resources/schemas/qa_orchestration.template.md` when saving a reusable report.
-
-### 5. Route Back
-
-- `/50-Verify` when the QA matrix strengthens verification evidence
-- `/40-Implement` when actionable fixes are required
-- `Followup` when findings become new scope
-
-## Output
-
-Return:
-
-- QA lanes used
-- specialist recommendations
-- findings and blockers
-- recommended return stage
+---
+name: verification-orchestration
+description: Coordinate multi-lane QA, specialist review, test planning, and verification follow-up. Use when /50-Verify needs more structure than a single pass and the team needs a QA matrix or specialist routing.
+---
+
+# Verification Orchestration
+
+## Overview
+
+This skill structures complex verification work across multiple QA lanes without replacing the main verification stage.
+
+## When to Use
+
+- `/50-Verify` is too broad for a single simple pass
+- the change needs correctness, regression, security, performance, and UX checks together
+- the team needs specialist routing for QA
+
+## Process
+
+### 1. Validate The Verification Context
+
+- inspect the owning stage artifacts first
+- confirm what implementation scope is actually under review
+- keep markdown stage artifacts as the source of truth
+
+### 2. Choose QA Lanes
+
+Typical lanes:
+
+- correctness and acceptance criteria
+- tests and regressions
+- security and data safety
+- performance and scalability
+- UX or manual verification
+- codebase fit and maintainability
+
+### 3. Route Specialist Help
+
+Use specialist agents only when needed, such as:
+
+- `code-reviewer`
+- `test-engineer`
+- `security-auditor`
+
+### 4. Save Reusable Report
+
+Write reusable output under:
+
+```text
+devflow/reports/{date}-qa-orchestrate-{id}.md
+```
+
+Use `.agent/resources/schemas/qa_orchestration.template.md` when saving a reusable report.
+
+### 5. Route Back
+
+- `/50-Verify` when the QA matrix strengthens verification evidence
+- `/40-Implement` when actionable fixes are required
+- `Followup` when findings become new scope
+
+## Output
+
+Return:
+
+- QA lanes used
+- specialist recommendations
+- findings and blockers
+- recommended return stage