@jspg-ai/coding-bb 0.0.1 → 0.0.2-beta.22

package/superpowers/skills/receiving-code-review/SKILL.md

@@ -1,205 +1,205 @@
----
-name: receiving-code-review
-description: Use when receiving code review feedback, before implementing suggestions, especially if feedback seems unclear or technically questionable - requires technical rigor and verification, not performative agreement or blind implementation
----
-
-# 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 instruction-file 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
-
-**If you're uncomfortable pushing back out loud:** Name that tension, then tell your partner about the issue you've seen. They'll appreciate your honesty.
-
-## 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.
+---
+name: receiving-code-review
+description: Use when receiving code review feedback, before implementing suggestions, especially if feedback seems unclear or technically questionable - requires technical rigor and verification, not performative agreement or blind implementation
+---
+
+# 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 instruction-file 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
+
+**If you're uncomfortable pushing back out loud:** Name that tension, then tell your partner about the issue you've seen. They'll appreciate your honesty.
+
+## 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.

package/superpowers/skills/requesting-code-review/SKILL.md

@@ -1,95 +1,95 @@
----
-name: requesting-code-review
-description: Use when completing tasks, implementing major features, or before merging to verify work meets requirements
----
-
-# Requesting Code Review
-
-Dispatch a code reviewer subagent to catch issues before they cascade. The reviewer gets precisely crafted context for evaluation — never your session's history.
-
-**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:**
-
-Dispatch a `general-purpose` subagent, filling the template at [code-reviewer.md](code-reviewer.md)
-
-**Placeholders:**
-- `{DESCRIPTION}` - Brief summary of what you built
-- `{PLAN_OR_REQUIREMENTS}` - What it should do
-- `{BASE_SHA}` - Starting commit
-- `{HEAD_SHA}` - Ending commit
-
-**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 code reviewer subagent]
-  DESCRIPTION: Added verifyIndex() and repairIndex() with 4 issue types
-  PLAN_OR_REQUIREMENTS: Task 2 from docs/superpowers/plans/deployment-plan.md
-  BASE_SHA: a7981ec
-  HEAD_SHA: 3df7661
-
-[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]
-```
-
-## Common Rationalizations
-
-| Excuse | Reality |
-|--------|---------|
-| "I'll just review the diff myself instead of dispatching a reviewer" | You're the coordinator — reviewing the diff inline burns the context window you need to keep driving the work. Dispatch a reviewer subagent: the diff and the evaluation live in its context, and only the findings come back to you. |
-| "The reviewer needs my whole session history to understand the change" | Hand it precisely crafted context, never your session's history. That keeps the reviewer on the work product, not your thought process. |
-
-## 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: [code-reviewer.md](code-reviewer.md)
+---
+name: requesting-code-review
+description: Use when completing tasks, implementing major features, or before merging to verify work meets requirements
+---
+
+# Requesting Code Review
+
+Dispatch a code reviewer subagent to catch issues before they cascade. The reviewer gets precisely crafted context for evaluation — never your session's history.
+
+**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:**
+
+Dispatch a `general-purpose` subagent, filling the template at [code-reviewer.md](code-reviewer.md)
+
+**Placeholders:**
+- `{DESCRIPTION}` - Brief summary of what you built
+- `{PLAN_OR_REQUIREMENTS}` - What it should do
+- `{BASE_SHA}` - Starting commit
+- `{HEAD_SHA}` - Ending commit
+
+**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 code reviewer subagent]
+  DESCRIPTION: Added verifyIndex() and repairIndex() with 4 issue types
+  PLAN_OR_REQUIREMENTS: Task 2 from docs/superpowers/plans/deployment-plan.md
+  BASE_SHA: a7981ec
+  HEAD_SHA: 3df7661
+
+[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]
+```
+
+## Common Rationalizations
+
+| Excuse | Reality |
+|--------|---------|
+| "I'll just review the diff myself instead of dispatching a reviewer" | You're the coordinator — reviewing the diff inline burns the context window you need to keep driving the work. Dispatch a reviewer subagent: the diff and the evaluation live in its context, and only the findings come back to you. |
+| "The reviewer needs my whole session history to understand the change" | Hand it precisely crafted context, never your session's history. That keeps the reviewer on the work product, not your thought process. |
+
+## 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: [code-reviewer.md](code-reviewer.md)