@jspg-ai/coding-bb 0.0.1

package/openspec/skills/openspec-verify-change/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,174 @@
+---
+name: openspec-verify-change
+description: Verify implementation matches change artifacts. Use when the user wants to validate that implementation is complete, correct, and coherent before archiving.
+allowed-tools: Bash(openspec:*)
+license: MIT
+compatibility: Requires openspec CLI.
+metadata:
+  author: openspec
+  version: "1.0"
+---
+
+Verify that an implementation matches the change artifacts (specs, tasks, design).
+
+**Store selection:** If the user names a store (a store is a standalone OpenSpec repo registered on this machine) or the work lives in one, run `openspec store list --json` to discover registered store ids, then pass `--store <id>` on the commands that read or write specs and changes (`new change`, `status`, `instructions`, `list`, `show`, `validate`, `archive`, `doctor`, `context`, `schemas`, `view`). Once selected, treat `--store <id>` as sticky for the rest of the workflow. Every unscoped example of those commands below is shorthand: before running it, append the flag. For example, run `openspec status --change "<name>" --json --store "<id>"`, not the unscoped form shown below. Other commands do not take the flag. Hints printed by commands already carry the flag; keep it on follow-ups. Without a store, commands act on the nearest local `openspec/` root.
+
+**Input**: Optionally specify a change name. If omitted, check if it can be inferred from conversation context. If vague or ambiguous you MUST prompt for available changes.
+
+**Steps**
+
+1. **Select the change**
+
+   If a name is provided, use it. Otherwise:
+   - Infer from conversation context if the user mentioned a change
+   - Auto-select if only one active change exists
+   - If ambiguous, run `openspec list --json` to get available changes and ask the user to select one
+
+   When prompting, show changes that have implementation tasks (tasks artifact exists).
+   Include the schema used for each change if available.
+   Mark changes with incomplete tasks as "(In Progress)".
+
+   Always announce: "Using change: <name>" and how to override (e.g., `/openspec-verify-change <other>`).
+
+2. **Check status to understand the schema**
+   ```bash
+   openspec status --change "<name>" --json
+   ```
+   Parse the JSON to understand:
+   - `schemaName`: The workflow being used (e.g., "spec-driven")
+   - `planningHome`, `changeRoot`, `artifactPaths`, and `actionContext`: path and scope context
+   - Which artifacts exist for this change
+
+3. **Get planning context and load artifacts**
+
+   ```bash
+   openspec instructions apply --change "<name>" --json
+   ```
+
+   This returns the change directory and `contextFiles` (artifact ID -> array of concrete file paths). Read all available artifacts from `contextFiles`.
+
+4. **Initialize verification report structure**
+
+   Create a report structure with three dimensions:
+   - **Completeness**: Track tasks and spec coverage
+   - **Correctness**: Track requirement implementation and scenario coverage
+   - **Coherence**: Track design adherence and pattern consistency
+
+   Each dimension can have CRITICAL, WARNING, or SUGGESTION issues.
+
+5. **Verify Completeness**
+
+   **Task Completion**:
+   - If `contextFiles.tasks` exists, read every file path in it
+   - Parse checkboxes: `- [ ]` (incomplete) vs `- [x]` (complete)
+   - Count complete vs total tasks
+   - If incomplete tasks exist:
+     - Add CRITICAL issue for each incomplete task
+     - Recommendation: "Complete task: <description>" or "Mark as done if already implemented"
+
+   **Spec Coverage**:
+   - If delta specs exist in `contextFiles.specs`:
+     - Extract all requirements (marked with "### Requirement:")
+     - For each requirement:
+       - Search codebase for keywords related to the requirement
+       - Assess if implementation likely exists
+     - If requirements appear unimplemented:
+       - Add CRITICAL issue: "Requirement not found: <requirement name>"
+       - Recommendation: "Implement requirement X: <description>"
+
+6. **Verify Correctness**
+
+   **Requirement Implementation Mapping**:
+   - For each requirement from delta specs:
+     - Search codebase for implementation evidence
+     - If found, note file paths and line ranges
+     - Assess if implementation matches requirement intent
+     - If divergence detected:
+       - Add WARNING: "Implementation may diverge from spec: <details>"
+       - Recommendation: "Review <file>:<lines> against requirement X"
+
+   **Scenario Coverage**:
+   - For each scenario in delta specs (marked with "#### Scenario:"):
+     - Check if conditions are handled in code
+     - Check if tests exist covering the scenario
+     - If scenario appears uncovered:
+       - Add WARNING: "Scenario not covered: <scenario name>"
+       - Recommendation: "Add test or implementation for scenario: <description>"
+
+7. **Verify Coherence**
+
+   **Design Adherence**:
+   - If `contextFiles.design` exists:
+     - Extract key decisions (look for sections like "Decision:", "Approach:", "Architecture:")
+     - Verify implementation follows those decisions
+     - If contradiction detected:
+       - Add WARNING: "Design decision not followed: <decision>"
+       - Recommendation: "Update implementation or revise design.md to match reality"
+   - If no design.md: Skip design adherence check, note "No design.md to verify against"
+
+   **Code Pattern Consistency**:
+   - Review new code for consistency with project patterns
+   - Check file naming, directory structure, coding style
+   - If significant deviations found:
+     - Add SUGGESTION: "Code pattern deviation: <details>"
+     - Recommendation: "Consider following project pattern: <example>"
+
+8. **Generate Verification Report**
+
+   **Summary Scorecard**:
+   ```markdown
+   ## Verification Report: <change-name>
+
+   ### Summary
+   | Dimension    | Status           |
+   |--------------|------------------|
+   | Completeness | X/Y tasks, N reqs|
+   | Correctness  | M/N reqs covered |
+   | Coherence    | Followed/Issues  |
+   ```
+
+   **Issues by Priority**:
+
+   1. **CRITICAL** (Must fix before archive):
+      - Incomplete tasks
+      - Missing requirement implementations
+      - Each with specific, actionable recommendation
+
+   2. **WARNING** (Should fix):
+      - Spec/design divergences
+      - Missing scenario coverage
+      - Each with specific recommendation
+
+   3. **SUGGESTION** (Nice to fix):
+      - Pattern inconsistencies
+      - Minor improvements
+      - Each with specific recommendation
+
+   **Final Assessment**:
+   - If CRITICAL issues: "X critical issue(s) found. Fix before archiving."
+   - If only warnings: "No critical issues. Y warning(s) to consider. Ready for archive (with noted improvements)."
+   - If all clear: "All checks passed. Ready for archive."
+
+**Verification Heuristics**
+
+- **Completeness**: Focus on objective checklist items (checkboxes, requirements list)
+- **Correctness**: Use keyword search, file path analysis, reasonable inference - don't require perfect certainty
+- **Coherence**: Look for glaring inconsistencies, don't nitpick style
+- **False Positives**: When uncertain, prefer SUGGESTION over WARNING, WARNING over CRITICAL
+- **Actionability**: Every issue must have a specific recommendation with file/line references where applicable
+
+**Graceful Degradation**
+
+- If only tasks.md exists: verify task completion only, skip spec/design checks
+- If tasks + specs exist: verify completeness and correctness, skip design
+- If full artifacts: verify all three dimensions
+- Always note which checks were skipped and why
+
+**Output Format**
+
+Use clear markdown with:
+- Table for summary scorecard
+- Grouped lists for issues (CRITICAL/WARNING/SUGGESTION)
+- Code references in format: `file.ts:123`
+- Specific, actionable recommendations
+- No vague suggestions like "consider reviewing"

package/package.json

@@ -0,0 +1,46 @@
+{
+  "name": "@jspg-ai/coding-bb",
+  "version": "0.0.1",
+  "description": "整合业界热门且高价值的工具、框架与技能，为 AI CODING AGENT 提供统一的行为准则与工作流，辅助开发者将需求高效落地为符合规范的代码",
+  "main": "cbb/lib/install/init.js",
+  "bin": {
+    "cbb": "cbb/lib/install/init.js"
+  },
+  "files": [
+    "cbb/",
+    "openspec/",
+    "config/",
+    "superpowers/",
+    "!**/__pycache__/",
+    "!**/*.pyc",
+    "!**/*.pyo"
+  ],
+  "scripts": {
+    "sync:shared": "node scripts/sync-shared.js",
+    "pretest": "node scripts/sync-shared.js --check",
+    "test": "node test/lib/install/cleanup.test.js && node test/lib/utils/settings.test.js && node test/lib/utils/gitignore.test.js && node test/lib/utils/version.test.js && node test/lib/install/workspaces.test.js && node test/lib/utils/checkbox.test.js && node test/lib/install/cli-help.test.js && node test/lib/wiki/wiki-publish.test.js && node test/lib/wiki/wiki-parse-args.test.js && node test/lib/wiki/wiki-split.test.js && node test/lib/superpowers/superpowers.test.js && node test/worktrees/push-branches.test.js && node test/worktrees/commit-worktrees.test.js && node test/worktrees/push-worktrees.test.js && node test/worktrees/install-ai.test.js && node test/worktrees/install-ai-extend.test.js && node test/worktrees/check-env-deep.test.js && node test/lib/openspec/openspec-render.test.js"
+  },
+  "keywords": [
+    "cbb",
+    "coding-bb",
+    "ai",
+    "coding-assistant",
+    "openspec",
+    "superpowers",
+    "spec-driven",
+    "backend",
+    "java"
+  ],
+  "author": "Contributors",
+  "license": "MIT",
+  "publishConfig": {
+    "registry": "https://registry.npmjs.org"
+  },
+  "engines": {
+    "node": ">=16.7.0"
+  },
+  "dependencies": {
+    "js-yaml": "^4.1.1",
+    "koffi": "^3.1.0"
+  }
+}

package/superpowers/.version

@@ -0,0 +1,6 @@
+{
+  "sha": "b36e0829c6d0140e93cfef2ca599b1b07d4a7797",
+  "branch": "main",
+  "repo": "obra/superpowers",
+  "updatedAt": "2026-09-12T00:00:00.000Z"
+}

package/superpowers/skills/brainstorming/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,250 @@
+---
+name: brainstorming
+description: "You MUST use this before any creative work - creating features, building components, adding functionality, or modifying behavior. Explores user intent, requirements and design before implementation."
+---
+
+# Brainstorming Ideas Into Designs
+
+Help turn ideas into fully formed designs and specs through natural collaborative dialogue.
+
+Start by classifying how much process the request needs, then work
+through your path: understand the context, refine the idea, present a
+design, and get your human partner's approval.
+
+<HARD-GATE>
+Do NOT invoke any implementation skill, write any code, scaffold any
+project, or take any implementation action until you have told your
+human partner what you intend and they have approved it. This applies
+to EVERY task on EVERY path below — the ceremony scales with the task;
+the approval gate never does.
+</HARD-GATE>
+
+## Three Paths
+
+Before your first question, classify the request and say the
+classification out loud — "this looks bounded, so I'll present a short
+design here rather than write a spec" — so your human partner can
+override it:
+
+- **Spike** — a feasibility question ("can we...", "is it possible...",
+  "quick and dirty is fine") whose output is an answer, not code you
+  keep. Present the question and what you'll try in 2-3 sentences, get
+  a nod, then find out as cheaply as correctness allows. No design
+  doc, no spec file. Report findings as a recommendation; anything you
+  built stays labeled throwaway.
+- **Bounded** — a well-scoped change to code that already exists in
+  this repo: a new flag, a small endpoint, a one-file fix.
+  Understanding the kind of app is not enough — bounded means the flow
+  you are changing is already here to read. If there is no existing
+  flow to change, the task is not bounded. Ask the clarifying
+  questions that matter, present a short design IN CHAT (a few
+  sentences to a few short paragraphs), and STOP. Implementation
+  starts only after your human partner says yes to that design — a
+  bounded task's approval is as hard a gate as an architectural
+  one. No spec file, no implementation plan document.
+- **Architectural** — new projects, new subsystems, changes that
+  restructure how components fit together or alter interfaces others
+  depend on. Follow the full process: questions, approaches, sectioned
+  design, written spec, then the writing-plans skill.
+
+When in doubt between two paths, take the heavier one. The ratchet is
+one-way: hidden complexity discovered mid-task upgrades the path —
+stop, say so, and step up. Nothing downgrades mid-task.
+
+## Anti-Pattern: "Too Simple To Need Approval"
+
+Every path ends with your human partner approving your intent before
+implementation. A todo list, a single-function utility, a config
+change — the design may be two sentences in chat, but you MUST present
+it and get approval. "Simple" tasks are where unexamined assumptions
+cause the most wasted work. What scales with simplicity is the
+artifact, never the approval.
+
+## Red Flags
+
+| Thought | Reality |
+|---------|---------|
+| "This is too simple to need a design" | Simple means a short design, not no design. Two sentences in chat, then approval. |
+| "I'll call it bounded and skip the spec" | Reaching for a label to skip work IS the doubt — take the heavier path. |
+| "It's bounded and the design is obvious — I'll start while they read it" | The gate is the approval, not the design's length. Present, then stop until you hear yes. |
+| "I understand this kind of app, so it's bounded" | Bounded measures the repo, not your familiarity. A new project has no existing flow — it is architectural. |
+| "The spike works, so I'll keep the code" | A spike's output is an answer. Keeping the code is a new request — classify it. |
+| "It grew, but I'm almost done — no need to re-classify" | Hidden complexity upgrades the path mid-task. Stop and say so. |
+| "They approved the spike, so the follow-up change is approved too" | Each task gets its own classification and its own approval. |
+
+## Checklist
+
+Classify first, announce the path, then create a task for each item on
+your path and complete them in order.
+
+**Spike:**
+1. **Explore project context** — enough to frame the probe
+2. **Present question + probe plan** — 2-3 sentences
+3. **Get approval** — a nod is enough
+4. **Investigate** — as cheaply as correctness allows
+5. **Report findings** — a recommendation; label anything built as throwaway
+
+**Bounded:**
+1. **Explore project context** — check files, docs, recent commits
+2. **Ask clarifying questions** — one at a time, the ones that matter
+3. **Present short design in chat** — approach, files touched, testing
+4. **Get approval** — STOP and wait for an explicit yes; presenting the design and starting in the same breath is skipping the gate
+5. **Implement** — proceed with the normal development workflow (TDD applies); no plan document
+
+**Architectural:**
+1. **Explore project context** — check files, docs, recent commits
+2. **Offer the visual companion just-in-time** — NOT upfront. The first time a question would genuinely be clearer shown than described, offer it then (its own message); on approval its browser tab opens for you. If no visual question ever arises, never offer it. See the Visual Companion section below.
+3. **Ask clarifying questions** — one at a time, understand purpose/constraints/success criteria
+4. **Propose 2-3 approaches** — with trade-offs and your recommendation
+5. **Present design** — in sections scaled to their complexity, get user approval after each section
+6. **Write design doc** — save to `docs/superpowers/specs/YYYY-MM-DD-<topic>-design.md` and commit
+7. **Spec self-review** — quick inline check for placeholders, contradictions, ambiguity, scope (see below)
+8. **User reviews written spec** — ask user to review the spec file before proceeding
+9. **Transition to implementation** — invoke writing-plans skill to create implementation plan
+
+## Process Flow
+
+```dot
+digraph brainstorming {
+    "Classify: spike / bounded / architectural" [shape=diamond];
+    "Present question + probe (2-3 sentences)" [shape=box];
+    "Ask clarifying questions (bounded)" [shape=box];
+    "Present short design in chat" [shape=box];
+    "Human approves?" [shape=diamond];
+    "Investigate; report recommendation" [shape=doublecircle];
+    "Implement via normal workflow (no plan doc)" [shape=doublecircle];
+    "Explore project context" [shape=box];
+    "Ask clarifying questions" [shape=box];
+    "Propose 2-3 approaches" [shape=box];
+    "Present design sections" [shape=box];
+    "User approves design?" [shape=diamond];
+    "Write design doc" [shape=box];
+    "Spec self-review\n(fix inline)" [shape=box];
+    "User reviews spec?" [shape=diamond];
+    "Invoke writing-plans skill" [shape=doublecircle];
+    "Hidden complexity? Upgrade path" [shape=box];
+
+    "Classify: spike / bounded / architectural" -> "Present question + probe (2-3 sentences)" [label="spike"];
+    "Classify: spike / bounded / architectural" -> "Ask clarifying questions (bounded)" [label="bounded"];
+    "Classify: spike / bounded / architectural" -> "Explore project context" [label="architectural"];
+    "Present question + probe (2-3 sentences)" -> "Human approves?";
+    "Ask clarifying questions (bounded)" -> "Present short design in chat";
+    "Present short design in chat" -> "Human approves?";
+    "Human approves?" -> "Investigate; report recommendation" [label="spike: yes"];
+    "Human approves?" -> "Implement via normal workflow (no plan doc)" [label="bounded: yes"];
+    "Hidden complexity? Upgrade path" -> "Classify: spike / bounded / architectural";
+    "Explore project context" -> "Ask clarifying questions";
+    "Ask clarifying questions" -> "Propose 2-3 approaches";
+    "Propose 2-3 approaches" -> "Present design sections";
+    "Present design sections" -> "User approves design?";
+    "User approves design?" -> "Present design sections" [label="no, revise"];
+    "User approves design?" -> "Write design doc" [label="yes"];
+    "Write design doc" -> "Spec self-review\n(fix inline)";
+    "Spec self-review\n(fix inline)" -> "User reviews spec?";
+    "User reviews spec?" -> "Write design doc" [label="changes requested"];
+    "User reviews spec?" -> "Invoke writing-plans skill" [label="approved"];
+}
+```
+
+**Terminal states are path-bound.** Architectural: the ONLY skill you
+invoke after brainstorming is writing-plans — never frontend-design,
+mcp-builder, or any other implementation skill. Bounded: after
+approval, implementation proceeds directly through the normal
+development workflow; no plan document. Spike: the terminal state is a
+reported recommendation.
+
+## The Process
+
+The subsections below serve the bounded and architectural paths (a
+spike stops at "present the probe, get a nod"). Sections from
+**Exploring approaches** onward are architectural-path depth — for
+bounded work, context plus a few questions plus a short in-chat design
+is the whole process.
+
+**Understanding the idea:**
+
+- Check out the current project state first (files, docs, recent commits)
+- Before asking detailed questions, assess scope: if the request describes multiple independent subsystems (e.g., "build a platform with chat, file storage, billing, and analytics"), flag this immediately. Don't spend questions refining details of a project that needs to be decomposed first.
+- If the project is too large for a single spec, help the user decompose into sub-projects: what are the independent pieces, how do they relate, what order should they be built? Then brainstorm the first sub-project through the normal design flow. Each sub-project gets its own spec → plan → implementation cycle.
+- For appropriately-scoped projects, ask questions one at a time to refine the idea
+- Prefer multiple choice questions when possible, but open-ended is fine too
+- Only one question per message - if a topic needs more exploration, break it into multiple questions
+- Focus on understanding: purpose, constraints, success criteria
+
+**Exploring approaches:**
+
+- Propose 2-3 different approaches with trade-offs
+- Present options conversationally with your recommendation and reasoning
+- Lead with your recommended option and explain why
+- YAGNI ruthlessly - remove unnecessary features from every approach and design
+
+**Presenting the design:**
+
+- Once you believe you understand what you're building, present the design
+- Scale each section to its complexity: a few sentences if straightforward, up to 200-300 words if nuanced
+- Ask after each section whether it looks right so far
+- Cover: architecture, components, data flow, error handling, testing
+- Be ready to go back and clarify if something doesn't make sense
+
+**Design for isolation and clarity:**
+
+- Break the system into smaller units that each have one clear purpose, communicate through well-defined interfaces, and can be understood and tested independently
+- For each unit, you should be able to answer: what does it do, how do you use it, and what does it depend on?
+- Can someone understand what a unit does without reading its internals? Can you change the internals without breaking consumers? If not, the boundaries need work.
+- Smaller, well-bounded units are also easier for you to work with - you reason better about code you can hold in context at once, and your edits are more reliable when files are focused. When a file grows large, that's often a signal that it's doing too much.
+
+**Working in existing codebases:**
+
+- Explore the current structure before proposing changes. Follow existing patterns.
+- Where existing code has problems that affect the work (e.g., a file that's grown too large, unclear boundaries, tangled responsibilities), include targeted improvements as part of the design - the way a good developer improves code they're working in.
+- Don't propose unrelated refactoring. Stay focused on what serves the current goal.
+
+## After the Design (architectural path)
+
+**Documentation:**
+
+- Write the validated design (spec) to `docs/superpowers/specs/YYYY-MM-DD-<topic>-design.md`
+  - (User preferences for spec location override this default)
+- Use elements-of-style:writing-clearly-and-concisely skill if available
+- Commit the design document to git
+
+**Spec Self-Review:**
+After writing the spec document, look at it with fresh eyes:
+
+1. **Placeholder scan:** Any "TBD", "TODO", incomplete sections, or vague requirements? Fix them.
+2. **Internal consistency:** Do any sections contradict each other? Does the architecture match the feature descriptions?
+3. **Scope check:** Is this focused enough for a single implementation plan, or does it need decomposition?
+4. **Ambiguity check:** Could any requirement be interpreted two different ways? If so, pick one and make it explicit.
+
+Fix any issues inline. No need to re-review — just fix and move on.
+
+**User Review Gate:**
+After the spec review loop passes, ask the user to review the written spec before proceeding:
+
+> "Spec written and committed to `<path>`. Please review it and let me know if you want to make any changes before we start writing out the implementation plan."
+
+Wait for the user's response. If they request changes, make them and re-run the spec review loop. Only proceed once the user approves.
+
+**Implementation:**
+
+- Invoke the writing-plans skill to create a detailed implementation plan
+- Do NOT invoke any other skill. writing-plans is the next step.
+
+## Visual Companion
+
+A browser-based companion for showing mockups, diagrams, and visual options during brainstorming. Available as a tool — not a mode. Accepting the companion means it's available for questions that benefit from visual treatment; it does NOT mean every question goes through the browser.
+
+**Offering the companion (just-in-time):** Do NOT offer it upfront. Wait until a question would genuinely be clearer shown than told — a real mockup / layout / diagram question, not merely a UI *topic*. The first time that happens, offer it then, as its own message:
+> "This next part might be easier if I show you — I can put together mockups, diagrams, and comparisons in a browser tab as we go. It's still new and can be token-intensive. Want me to? I'll open it for you."
+
+**This offer MUST be its own message.** Only the offer — no clarifying question, summary, or other content. Wait for the user's response. If they accept, start the server with `--open` so their browser opens to the first screen automatically. If they decline, continue text-only and don't offer again unless they raise it.
+
+**Per-question decision:** Even after the user accepts, decide FOR EACH QUESTION whether to use the browser or the terminal. The test: **would the user understand this better by seeing it than reading it?**
+
+- **Use the browser** for content that IS visual — mockups, wireframes, layout comparisons, architecture diagrams, side-by-side visual designs
+- **Use the terminal** for content that is text — requirements questions, conceptual choices, tradeoff lists, A/B/C/D text options, scope decisions
+
+A question about a UI topic is not automatically a visual question. "What does personality mean in this context?" is a conceptual question — use the terminal. "Which wizard layout works better?" is a visual question — use the browser.
+
+If they agree to the companion, read the detailed guide before proceeding:
+`skills/brainstorming/visual-companion.md`