@jakkrichm/create-nexus-devflow 2.0.11 → 2.0.13

package/template/.claude/skills/git-workflow-and-versioning/SKILL.md

@@ -1,300 +0,0 @@
----
-name: git-workflow-and-versioning
-description: "[Devflow] Structures git workflow practices. Use when making any code change. Use when committing, branching, resolving conflicts, or when you need to organize work across multiple parallel streams."
----
-
-# Git Workflow and Versioning
-
-## Overview
-
-Git is your safety net. Treat commits as save points, branches as sandboxes, and history as documentation. With AI agents generating code at high speed, disciplined version control is the mechanism that keeps changes manageable, reviewable, and reversible.
-
-## When to Use
-
-Always. Every code change flows through git.
-
-## Core Principles
-
-### Trunk-Based Development (Recommended)
-
-Keep `main` always deployable. Work in short-lived feature branches that merge back within 1-3 days. Long-lived development branches are hidden costs — they diverge, create merge conflicts, and delay integration. DORA research consistently shows trunk-based development correlates with high-performing engineering teams.
-
-```
-main ──●──●──●──●──●──●──●──●──●──  (always deployable)
-        ╲      ╱  ╲    ╱
-         ●──●─╱    ●──╱    ← short-lived feature branches (1-3 days)
-```
-
-This is the recommended default. Teams using gitflow or long-lived branches can adapt the principles (atomic commits, small changes, descriptive messages) to their branching model — the commit discipline matters more than the specific branching strategy.
-
-- **Dev branches are costs.** Every day a branch lives, it accumulates merge risk.
-- **Release branches are acceptable.** When you need to stabilize a release while main moves forward.
-- **Feature flags > long branches.** Prefer deploying incomplete work behind flags rather than keeping it on a branch for weeks.
-
-### 1. Commit Early, Commit Often
-
-Each successful increment gets its own commit. Don't accumulate large uncommitted changes.
-
-```
-Work pattern:
-  Implement slice → Test → Verify → Commit → Next slice
-
-Not this:
-  Implement everything → Hope it works → Giant commit
-```
-
-Commits are save points. If the next change breaks something, you can revert to the last known-good state instantly.
-
-### 2. Atomic Commits
-
-Each commit does one logical thing:
-
-```
-# Good: Each commit is self-contained
-git log --oneline
-a1b2c3d Add task creation endpoint with validation
-d4e5f6g Add task creation form component
-h7i8j9k Connect form to API and add loading state
-m1n2o3p Add task creation tests (unit + integration)
-
-# Bad: Everything mixed together
-git log --oneline
-x1y2z3a Add task feature, fix sidebar, update deps, refactor utils
-```
-
-### 3. Descriptive Messages
-
-Commit messages explain the *why*, not just the *what*:
-
-```
-# Good: Explains intent
-feat: add email validation to registration endpoint
-
-Prevents invalid email formats from reaching the database.
-Uses Zod schema validation at the route handler level,
-consistent with existing validation patterns in auth.ts.
-
-# Bad: Describes what's obvious from the diff
-update auth.ts
-```
-
-**Format:**
-```
-<type>: <short description>
-
-<optional body explaining why, not what>
-```
-
-**Types:**
-- `feat` — New feature
-- `fix` — Bug fix
-- `refactor` — Code change that neither fixes a bug nor adds a feature
-- `test` — Adding or updating tests
-- `docs` — Documentation only
-- `chore` — Tooling, dependencies, config
-
-### 4. Keep Concerns Separate
-
-Don't combine formatting changes with behavior changes. Don't combine refactors with features. Each type of change should be a separate commit — and ideally a separate PR:
-
-```
-# Good: Separate concerns
-git commit -m "refactor: extract validation logic to shared utility"
-git commit -m "feat: add phone number validation to registration"
-
-# Bad: Mixed concerns
-git commit -m "refactor validation and add phone number field"
-```
-
-**Separate refactoring from feature work.** A refactoring change and a feature change are two different changes — submit them separately. This makes each change easier to review, revert, and understand in history. Small cleanups (renaming a variable) can be included in a feature commit at reviewer discretion.
-
-### 5. Size Your Changes
-
-Target ~100 lines per commit/PR. Changes over ~1000 lines should be split. See the splitting strategies in `code-review-and-quality` for how to break down large changes.
-
-```
-~100 lines  → Easy to review, easy to revert
-~300 lines  → Acceptable for a single logical change
-~1000 lines → Split into smaller changes
-```
-
-## Branching Strategy
-
-### Feature Branches
-
-```
-main (always deployable)
-  │
-  ├── feature/task-creation    ← One feature per branch
-  ├── feature/user-settings    ← Parallel work
-  └── fix/duplicate-tasks      ← Bug fixes
-```
-
-- Branch from `main` (or the team's default branch)
-- Keep branches short-lived (merge within 1-3 days) — long-lived branches are hidden costs
-- Delete branches after merge
-- Prefer feature flags over long-lived branches for incomplete features
-
-### Branch Naming
-
-```
-feature/<short-description>   → feature/task-creation
-fix/<short-description>       → fix/duplicate-tasks
-chore/<short-description>     → chore/update-deps
-refactor/<short-description>  → refactor/auth-module
-```
-
-## Working with Worktrees
-
-For parallel AI agent work, use git worktrees to run multiple branches simultaneously:
-
-```bash
-# Create a worktree for a feature branch
-git worktree add ../project-feature-a feature/task-creation
-git worktree add ../project-feature-b feature/user-settings
-
-# Each worktree is a separate directory with its own branch
-# Agents can work in parallel without interfering
-ls ../
-  project/              ← main branch
-  project-feature-a/    ← task-creation branch
-  project-feature-b/    ← user-settings branch
-
-# When done, merge and clean up
-git worktree remove ../project-feature-a
-```
-
-Benefits:
-- Multiple agents can work on different features simultaneously
-- No branch switching needed (each directory has its own branch)
-- If one experiment fails, delete the worktree — nothing is lost
-- Changes are isolated until explicitly merged
-
-## The Save Point Pattern
-
-```
-Agent starts work
-    │
-    ├── Makes a change
-    │   ├── Test passes? → Commit → Continue
-    │   └── Test fails? → Revert to last commit → Investigate
-    │
-    ├── Makes another change
-    │   ├── Test passes? → Commit → Continue
-    │   └── Test fails? → Revert to last commit → Investigate
-    │
-    └── Feature complete → All commits form a clean history
-```
-
-This pattern means you never lose more than one increment of work. If an agent goes off the rails, stop, inspect `git status`, and ask for explicit approval before any destructive reset back to the last successful state.
-
-## Change Summaries
-
-After any modification, provide a structured summary. This makes review easier, documents scope discipline, and surfaces unintended changes:
-
-```
-CHANGES MADE:
-- src/routes/tasks.ts: Added validation middleware to POST endpoint
-- src/lib/validation.ts: Added TaskCreateSchema using Zod
-
-THINGS I DIDN'T TOUCH (intentionally):
-- src/routes/auth.ts: Has similar validation gap but out of scope
-- src/middleware/error.ts: Error format could be improved (separate task)
-
-POTENTIAL CONCERNS:
-- The Zod schema is strict — rejects extra fields. Confirm this is desired.
-- Added zod as a dependency (72KB gzipped) — already in package.json
-```
-
-This pattern catches wrong assumptions early and gives reviewers a clear map of the change. The "DIDN'T TOUCH" section is especially important — it shows you exercised scope discipline and didn't go on an unsolicited renovation.
-
-## Pre-Commit Hygiene
-
-Before every commit:
-
-```bash
-# 1. Check what you're about to commit
-git diff --staged
-
-# 2. Ensure no secrets
-git diff --staged | grep -i "password\|secret\|api_key\|token"
-
-# 3. Run tests
-npm test
-
-# 4. Run linting
-npm run lint
-
-# 5. Run type checking
-npx tsc --noEmit
-```
-
-Automate this with git hooks:
-
-```json
-// package.json (using lint-staged + husky)
-{
-  "lint-staged": {
-    "*.{ts,tsx}": ["eslint --fix", "prettier --write"],
-    "*.{json,md}": ["prettier --write"]
-  }
-}
-```
-
-## Handling Generated Files
-
-- **Commit generated files** only if the project expects them (e.g., `package-lock.json`, Prisma migrations)
-- **Don't commit** build output (`dist/`, `.next/`), environment files (`.env`), or IDE config (`.vscode/settings.json` unless shared)
-- **Have a `.gitignore`** that covers: `node_modules/`, `dist/`, `.env`, `.env.local`, `*.pem`
-
-## Using Git for Debugging
-
-```bash
-# Find which commit introduced a bug
-git bisect start
-git bisect bad HEAD
-git bisect good <known-good-commit>
-# Git checkouts midpoints; run your test at each to narrow down
-
-# View what changed recently
-git log --oneline -20
-git diff HEAD~5..HEAD -- src/
-
-# Find who last changed a specific line
-git blame src/services/task.ts
-
-# Search commit messages for a keyword
-git log --grep="validation" --oneline
-```
-
-## Common Rationalizations
-
-| Rationalization | Reality |
-|---|---|
-| "I'll commit when the feature is done" | One giant commit is impossible to review, debug, or revert. Commit each slice. |
-| "The message doesn't matter" | Messages are documentation. Future you (and future agents) will need to understand what changed and why. |
-| "I'll squash it all later" | Squashing destroys the development narrative. Prefer clean incremental commits from the start. |
-| "Branches add overhead" | Short-lived branches are free and prevent conflicting work from colliding. Long-lived branches are the problem — merge within 1-3 days. |
-| "I'll split this change later" | Large changes are harder to review, riskier to deploy, and harder to revert. Split before submitting, not after. |
-| "I don't need a .gitignore" | Until `.env` with production secrets gets committed. Set it up immediately. |
-
-## Red Flags
-
-- Large uncommitted changes accumulating
-- Commit messages like "fix", "update", "misc"
-- Formatting changes mixed with behavior changes
-- No `.gitignore` in the project
-- Committing `node_modules/`, `.env`, or build artifacts
-- Long-lived branches that diverge significantly from main
-- Force-pushing to shared branches
-
-## Verification
-
-For every commit:
-
-- [ ] Commit does one logical thing
-- [ ] Message explains the why, follows type conventions
-- [ ] Tests pass before committing
-- [ ] No secrets in the diff
-- [ ] No formatting-only changes mixed with behavior changes
-- [ ] `.gitignore` covers standard exclusions

package/template/.claude/skills/human-review-decisions/SKILL.md

@@ -1,74 +0,0 @@
----
-name: human-review-decisions
-description: "[Devflow] Handle human approval, feedback, rejection, and recheck decisions around verified work. Use when a task needs a human gate after verification and the result must route cleanly back into the DevFlow 2.0 lifecycle."
----
-
-# Human Review Decisions
-
-## Overview
-
-This skill handles the human review loop after implementation and verification. It does not replace mainline stages; it records or advises the human decision and routes the task back to the right stage.
-
-## Supported Modes
-
-- `approve`
-- `feedback`
-- `reject`
-- `recheck`
-
-## When to Use
-
-- After `50-verify` when a human must decide whether the work is acceptable
-- When verified work needs non-blocking feedback
-- When review fails and the task must be sent back with explicit action items
-- When a read-only re-evaluation is needed before the human chooses a decision
-
-## Process
-
-### 1. Load The Review Context
-
-Prefer these artifacts:
-
-- `verify.md`
-- `implement.md`
-- `release.md`
-- `report.md`
-
-Read only what is necessary to understand the review question and evidence.
-
-### 2. Apply The Requested Decision
-
-#### Approve
-
-- confirm the task is genuinely review-ready
-- record approval in the current review-facing artifact
-- route to `60-report` first, then `70-release` when release execution is the remaining step
-
-#### Feedback
-
-- record requested improvements without treating them as hard rejection
-- preserve the feedback round and source
-- route to `40-implement` or `30-plan` if the feedback changes scope
-
-#### Reject
-
-- record rejection reason and concrete action items
-- route to `40-implement`, `30-plan`, or `Debug` depending on the issue
-
-#### Recheck
-
-- keep the action read-only unless the user explicitly asks to record it
-- evaluate the evidence and recommend `approve`, `feedback`, `reject`, or `50-verify`
-
-### 3. Record Reusable Lessons
-
-If the review reveals a durable team lesson, add it to `devflow/lessons.md` or route to `Wiki`.
-
-## Output
-
-Return:
-
-- decision taken
-- artifact updated or not updated
-- next recommended stage or companion command
-- any reusable lesson worth capturing

package/template/.claude/skills/idea-refine/SKILL.md

@@ -1,178 +0,0 @@
----
-name: idea-refine
-description: "[Devflow] Refines ideas iteratively. Refine ideas through structured divergent and convergent thinking. Use "idea-refine" or "ideate" to trigger."
----
-
-# Idea Refine
-
-Refines raw ideas into sharp, actionable concepts worth building through structured divergent and convergent thinking.
-
-## How It Works
-
-1.  **Understand & Expand (Divergent):** Restate the idea, ask sharpening questions, and generate variations.
-2.  **Evaluate & Converge:** Cluster ideas, stress-test them, and surface hidden assumptions.
-3.  **Sharpen & Ship:** Produce a concrete markdown one-pager moving work forward.
-
-## Usage
-
-This skill is primarily an interactive dialogue. Invoke it with an idea, and the agent will guide you through the process.
-
-```bash
-# Optional: Initialize the ideas directory
-bash /mnt/skills/user/idea-refine/scripts/idea-refine.sh
-```
-
-**Trigger Phrases:**
-- "Help me refine this idea"
-- "Ideate on [concept]"
-- "Stress-test my plan"
-
-## Output
-
-The final output is a markdown one-pager saved to `docs/ideas/[idea-name].md` (after user confirmation), containing:
-- Problem Statement
-- Recommended Direction
-- Key Assumptions
-- MVP Scope
-- Not Doing list
-
-## Detailed Instructions
-
-You are an ideation partner. Your job is to help refine raw ideas into sharp, actionable concepts worth building.
-
-### Philosophy
-
-- Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication. Push toward the simplest version that still solves the real problem.
-- Start with the user experience, work backwards to technology.
-- Say no to 1,000 things. Focus beats breadth.
-- Challenge every assumption. "How it's usually done" is not a reason.
-- Show people the future — don't just give them better horses.
-- The parts you can't see should be as beautiful as the parts you can.
-
-### Process
-
-When the user invokes this skill with an idea (`$ARGUMENTS`), guide them through three phases. Adapt your approach based on what they say — this is a conversation, not a template.
-
-#### Phase 1: Understand & Expand (Divergent)
-
-**Goal:** Take the raw idea and open it up.
-
-1. **Restate the idea** as a crisp "How Might We" problem statement. This forces clarity on what's actually being solved.
-
-2. **Ask 3-5 sharpening questions** — no more. Focus on:
-   - Who is this for, specifically?
-   - What does success look like?
-   - What are the real constraints (time, tech, resources)?
-   - What's been tried before?
-   - Why now?
-
-   Use the `AskUserQuestion` tool to gather this input. Do NOT proceed until you understand who this is for and what success looks like.
-
-3. **Generate 5-8 idea variations** using these lenses:
-   - **Inversion:** "What if we did the opposite?"
-   - **Constraint removal:** "What if budget/time/tech weren't factors?"
-   - **Audience shift:** "What if this were for [different user]?"
-   - **Combination:** "What if we merged this with [adjacent idea]?"
-   - **Simplification:** "What's the version that's 10x simpler?"
-   - **10x version:** "What would this look like at massive scale?"
-   - **Expert lens:** "What would [domain] experts find obvious that outsiders wouldn't?"
-
-   Push beyond what the user initially asked for. Create products people don't know they need yet.
-
-**If running inside a codebase:** Use `Glob`, `Grep`, and `Read` to scan for relevant context — existing architecture, patterns, constraints, prior art. Ground your variations in what actually exists. Reference specific files and patterns when relevant.
-
-Read `frameworks.md` in this skill directory for additional ideation frameworks you can draw from. Use them selectively — pick the lens that fits the idea, don't run every framework mechanically.
-
-#### Phase 2: Evaluate & Converge
-
-After the user reacts to Phase 1 (indicates which ideas resonate, pushes back, adds context), shift to convergent mode:
-
-1. **Cluster** the ideas that resonated into 2-3 distinct directions. Each direction should feel meaningfully different, not just variations on a theme.
-
-2. **Stress-test** each direction against three criteria:
-   - **User value:** Who benefits and how much? Is this a painkiller or a vitamin?
-   - **Feasibility:** What's the technical and resource cost? What's the hardest part?
-   - **Differentiation:** What makes this genuinely different? Would someone switch from their current solution?
-
-   Read `refinement-criteria.md` in this skill directory for the full evaluation rubric.
-
-3. **Surface hidden assumptions.** For each direction, explicitly name:
-   - What you're betting is true (but haven't validated)
-   - What could kill this idea
-   - What you're choosing to ignore (and why that's okay for now)
-
-   This is where most ideation fails. Don't skip it.
-
-**Be honest, not supportive.** If an idea is weak, say so with kindness. A good ideation partner is not a yes-machine. Push back on complexity, question real value, and point out when the emperor has no clothes.
-
-#### Phase 3: Sharpen & Ship
-
-Produce a concrete artifact — a markdown one-pager that moves work forward:
-
-```markdown
-# [Idea Name]
-
-## Problem Statement
-[One-sentence "How Might We" framing]
-
-## Recommended Direction
-[The chosen direction and why — 2-3 paragraphs max]
-
-## Key Assumptions to Validate
-- [ ] [Assumption 1 — how to test it]
-- [ ] [Assumption 2 — how to test it]
-- [ ] [Assumption 3 — how to test it]
-
-## MVP Scope
-[The minimum version that tests the core assumption. What's in, what's out.]
-
-## Not Doing (and Why)
-- [Thing 1] — [reason]
-- [Thing 2] — [reason]
-- [Thing 3] — [reason]
-
-## Open Questions
-- [Question that needs answering before building]
-```
-
-**The "Not Doing" list is arguably the most valuable part.** Focus is about saying no to good ideas. Make the trade-offs explicit.
-
-Ask the user if they'd like to save this to `docs/ideas/[idea-name].md` (or a location of their choosing). Only save if they confirm.
-
-### Anti-patterns to Avoid
-
-- **Don't generate 20+ ideas.** Quality over quantity. 5-8 well-considered variations beat 20 shallow ones.
-- **Don't be a yes-machine.** Push back on weak ideas with specificity and kindness.
-- **Don't skip "who is this for."** Every good idea starts with a person and their problem.
-- **Don't produce a plan without surfacing assumptions.** Untested assumptions are the #1 killer of good ideas.
-- **Don't over-engineer the process.** Three phases, each doing one thing well. Resist adding steps.
-- **Don't just list ideas — tell a story.** Each variation should have a reason it exists, not just be a bullet point.
-- **Don't ignore the codebase.** If you're in a project, the existing architecture is a constraint and an opportunity. Use it.
-
-### Tone
-
-Direct, thoughtful, slightly provocative. You're a sharp thinking partner, not a facilitator reading from a script. Channel the energy of "that's interesting, but what if..." -- always pushing one step further without being exhausting.
-
-Read `examples.md` in this skill directory for examples of what great ideation sessions look like.
-
-## Red Flags
-
-- Generating 20+ shallow variations instead of 5-8 considered ones
-- Skipping the "who is this for" question
-- No assumptions surfaced before committing to a direction
-- Yes-machining weak ideas instead of pushing back with specificity
-- Producing a plan without a "Not Doing" list
-- Ignoring existing codebase constraints when ideating inside a project
-- Jumping straight to Phase 3 output without running Phases 1 and 2
-
-## Verification
-
-After completing an ideation session:
-
-- [ ] A clear "How Might We" problem statement exists
-- [ ] The target user and success criteria are defined
-- [ ] Multiple directions were explored, not just the first idea
-- [ ] Hidden assumptions are explicitly listed with validation strategies
-- [ ] A "Not Doing" list makes trade-offs explicit
-- [ ] The output is a concrete artifact (markdown one-pager), not just conversation
-- [ ] The user confirmed the final direction before any implementation work