@leejungkiin/awkit 1.3.8 → 1.4.0

package/skills/single-flow-task-execution/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,409 @@
+---
+name: single-flow-task-execution
+description: Use when executing implementation plans, handling multiple independent tasks, or doing structured task-by-task development with review gates in Antigravity.
+---
+
+# Single-Flow Task Execution
+
+Execute plans by working through one task at a time with two-stage review after each: spec compliance review first, then code quality review.
+
+**Core principle:** One task at a time + two-stage review (spec then quality) = high quality, disciplined iteration.
+
+## Antigravity Execution Model
+
+Antigravity does NOT support parallel coding subagents. All work happens in a single execution thread.
+
+**Rules:**
+
+1. **One active task only** — never work on multiple tasks simultaneously.
+2. **One execution thread only** — no parallel dispatch.
+3. **No parallel coding subagents** — Antigravity does not have `Task(...)`.
+4. **Browser automation** may use `browser_subagent` in isolated steps.
+5. **Track progress** via Symphony task system. Update task status at each state change.
+6. **Use `task_boundary`** to clearly delineate each unit of work.
+
+## When to Use
+
+```dot
+digraph when_to_use {
+    "Have implementation plan?" [shape=diamond];
+    "Tasks mostly independent?" [shape=diamond];
+    "Multiple problems to solve?" [shape=diamond];
+    "single-flow-task-execution" [shape=box];
+    "executing-plans" [shape=box];
+    "Manual execution or brainstorm first" [shape=box];
+
+    "Have implementation plan?" -> "Tasks mostly independent?" [label="yes"];
+    "Have implementation plan?" -> "Manual execution or brainstorm first" [label="no"];
+    "Tasks mostly independent?" -> "single-flow-task-execution" [label="yes"];
+    "Tasks mostly independent?" -> "Manual execution or brainstorm first" [label="no - tightly coupled"];
+    "Multiple problems to solve?" -> "single-flow-task-execution" [label="yes - work through them sequentially"];
+    "Multiple problems to solve?" -> "Manual execution or brainstorm first" [label="no - single task"];
+}
+```
+
+**Use when:**
+
+- You have an implementation plan with multiple independent tasks
+- 2+ test files failing with different root causes (work through them one at a time)
+- Multiple subsystems broken independently
+- Each problem can be understood without context from others
+- Structured execution with quality gates is needed
+
+**Don't use when:**
+
+- Failures are related (fix one might fix others) — investigate together first
+- Tasks are tightly coupled and need full system understanding
+- Single simple task that doesn't need review structure
+
+**vs. Executing Plans (worktree-based):**
+
+- Same session (no context switch)
+- Fresh `task_boundary` per task (clean scope)
+- Two-stage review after each task: spec compliance first, then code quality
+- Faster iteration (no human-in-loop between tasks)
+
+## The Process
+
+```dot
+digraph process {
+    rankdir=TB;
+
+    subgraph cluster_per_task {
+        label="Per Task";
+        "Execute implementation (./implementer-prompt.md)" [shape=box];
+        "Questions about requirements?" [shape=diamond];
+        "Answer questions, provide context" [shape=box];
+        "Implement, test, commit, self-review" [shape=box];
+        "Run spec compliance review (./spec-reviewer-prompt.md)" [shape=box];
+        "Spec confirms code matches spec?" [shape=diamond];
+        "Fix spec gaps" [shape=box];
+        "Run code quality review (./code-quality-reviewer-prompt.md)" [shape=box];
+        "Code quality approved?" [shape=diamond];
+        "Fix quality issues" [shape=box];
+        "Mark task complete via Symphony" [shape=box];
+    }
+
+    "Read plan, extract all tasks with full text, note context" [shape=box];
+    "More tasks remain?" [shape=diamond];
+    "Run final code review for entire implementation" [shape=box];
+    "Complete Symphony task and present next steps" [shape=box style=filled fillcolor=lightgreen];
+
+    "Read plan, extract all tasks with full text, note context" -> "Execute implementation (./implementer-prompt.md)";
+    "Execute implementation (./implementer-prompt.md)" -> "Questions about requirements?";
+    "Questions about requirements?" -> "Answer questions, provide context" [label="yes"];
+    "Answer questions, provide context" -> "Execute implementation (./implementer-prompt.md)";
+    "Questions about requirements?" -> "Implement, test, commit, self-review" [label="no"];
+    "Implement, test, commit, self-review" -> "Run spec compliance review (./spec-reviewer-prompt.md)";
+    "Run spec compliance review (./spec-reviewer-prompt.md)" -> "Spec confirms code matches spec?";
+    "Spec confirms code matches spec?" -> "Fix spec gaps" [label="no"];
+    "Fix spec gaps" -> "Run spec compliance review (./spec-reviewer-prompt.md)" [label="re-review"];
+    "Spec confirms code matches spec?" -> "Run code quality review (./code-quality-reviewer-prompt.md)" [label="yes"];
+    "Run code quality review (./code-quality-reviewer-prompt.md)" -> "Code quality approved?";
+    "Code quality approved?" -> "Fix quality issues" [label="no"];
+    "Fix quality issues" -> "Run code quality review (./code-quality-reviewer-prompt.md)" [label="re-review"];
+    "Code quality approved?" -> "Mark task complete via Symphony" [label="yes"];
+    "Mark task complete via Symphony" -> "More tasks remain?";
+    "More tasks remain?" -> "Execute implementation (./implementer-prompt.md)" [label="yes"];
+    "More tasks remain?" -> "Run final code review for entire implementation" [label="no"];
+    "Run final code review for entire implementation" -> "Complete Symphony task and present next steps";
+}
+```
+
+## UI-First Task Ordering (Gate 4 Three-Phase — v12.3)
+
+When a task set includes UI components (COMPLEX or MODERATE), tasks MUST be ordered in three phases:
+
+### Phase A: Infrastructure Tasks
+```
+Priority: Execute FIRST
+Examples:
+  - Add dependencies (Gradle, SPM, CocoaPods)
+  - Create project structure (packages, modules, DI)
+  - Set up navigation skeleton (NavGraph, Router)
+  - Configure build variants, signing
+Gate: App MUST build successfully → proceed
+```
+
+### Phase B: UI Shell Tasks (Mock Data)
+```
+Priority: Execute SECOND, BEFORE any logic tasks
+Examples:
+  - Build all screen layouts with static/mock data
+  - Implement navigation between screens
+  - Add animations, transitions, loading/empty/error states
+  - Wire up UI components (no real API/DB calls)
+Gate: 🧪 USER TEST CHECKPOINT — user must test UI on device
+  → Present test guidance (see symphony-enforcer TP1.7)
+  → User confirms UI OK → proceed to Phase C
+  → User reports issue → fix → re-checkpoint
+```
+
+### Phase C: Logic Tasks (Per Feature)
+```
+Priority: Execute LAST, after UI is confirmed
+Examples:
+  - Replace mock data with real API/DB calls
+  - Implement business logic, validation
+  - Add error handling, retry, offline support
+  - Wire up hardware features (camera, GPS, sensors)
+Gate: 🧪 USER TEST CHECKPOINT per feature (batch small ones)
+  → Especially important for hardware-dependent features
+```
+
+### Task Sorting Rule
+```
+When creating task list from implementation plan:
+1. Tag each task: [INFRA] [UI] [LOGIC]  
+2. Sort: INFRA first → UI second → LOGIC last
+3. Within each phase: respect dependency ordering
+4. Between phases: MANDATORY checkpoint where indicated
+```
+
+## Task Decomposition
+
+When facing multiple problems (e.g., 5 test failures across 3 files):
+
+### 1. Identify Independent Domains
+
+Group failures by what's broken:
+
+- File A tests: User authentication flow
+- File B tests: Data validation logic
+- File C tests: API response handling
+
+Each domain is independent — fixing authentication doesn't affect validation tests.
+
+### 2. Create Task Units
+
+Each task gets:
+
+- **Specific scope:** One test file or subsystem
+- **Clear goal:** Make these tests pass / implement this feature
+- **Constraints:** Don't change unrelated code
+- **Expected output:** Summary of what changed and verification results
+
+### 3. Execute Sequentially with Review
+
+Work through each task one at a time using the full review cycle.
+
+### 4. Review and Integrate
+
+After all tasks:
+
+- Run full test suite to verify no regressions
+- Check for conflicts between task changes
+- Run final code review on entire implementation
+
+## Task Brief Structure
+
+For each task, prepare:
+
+```
+task_boundary:
+  description: "Implement Task N: [task name]"
+  prompt: |
+    ## Task Description
+    [FULL TEXT of task from plan — paste it here]
+
+    ## Context
+    [Where this fits, dependencies, architectural context]
+
+    ## Constraints
+    - Only modify [specific files/directories]
+    - Follow existing patterns in the codebase
+    - Write tests for new functionality
+
+    ## Verification
+    - Run: [specific test command]
+    - Expected: [what success looks like]
+```
+
+**Key:** Provide full task text and context upfront. Don't make the task boundary re-read the plan file.
+
+## Review Templates
+
+This skill includes prompt templates for structured reviews:
+
+- **`./implementer-prompt.md`** — Template for implementation task boundaries
+- **`./spec-reviewer-prompt.md`** — Template for spec compliance review (did we build what was requested?)
+- **`./code-quality-reviewer-prompt.md`** — Template for code quality review (is it well-built?)
+
+**Review order matters:** Always run spec compliance FIRST, then code quality. There's no point reviewing code quality if the implementation doesn't match the spec.
+
+## Checkpoint Pattern
+
+At logical boundaries (after each task, at major milestones), report:
+
+- **What changed** — files modified, features implemented
+- **What verification ran** — test results, lint results
+- **What remains** — remaining tasks, known issues
+
+Update Symphony task progress with current status.
+
+## Common Mistakes
+
+**Task scoping:**
+
+- **Bad:** "Fix all the tests" — loses focus
+- **Good:** "Fix user-auth.test.ts failures" — clear scope
+
+**Context:**
+
+- **Bad:** "Fix the validation bug" — unclear where
+- **Good:** Paste error messages, test names, relevant code paths
+
+**Constraints:**
+
+- **Bad:** No constraints — task might refactor everything
+- **Good:** "Only modify src/auth/ directory"
+
+**Output:**
+
+- **Bad:** "Fix it" — no visibility into what changed
+- **Good:** "Report: root cause, changes made, test results"
+
+**Reviews:**
+
+- **Bad:** "It works, move on" — quality debt
+- **Good:** Implement then spec review then quality review then next task
+
+## Example Workflow
+
+```
+You: I'm using single-flow-task-execution to execute this plan.
+
+[Read plan file: docs/plans/feature-plan.md]
+[Extract all 5 tasks with full text and context]
+[Create Symphony tasks for tracking]
+
+--- Task 1: Hook installation script ---
+
+[Prepare task brief with full text + context]
+[Execute implementation following ./implementer-prompt.md structure]
+
+Questions: "Should the hook be installed at user or system level?"
+Answer: "User level (~/.config/superpowers/hooks/)"
+
+Implementation:
+  - Implemented install-hook command
+  - Added tests, 5/5 passing
+  - Self-review: Found I missed --force flag, added it
+  - Committed
+
+[Run spec compliance review following ./spec-reviewer-prompt.md]
+Spec review: Spec compliant — all requirements met, nothing extra
+
+[Run code quality review following ./code-quality-reviewer-prompt.md]
+Code review: Strengths: Good test coverage, clean. Issues: None. Approved.
+
+[Mark Task 1 complete in Symphony]
+
+--- Task 2: Recovery modes ---
+
+[Prepare task brief with full text + context]
+[Execute implementation]
+
+Implementation:
+  - Added verify/repair modes
+  - 8/8 tests passing
+  - Self-review: All good
+  - Committed
+
+[Run spec compliance review]
+Spec review: Issues found:
+  - Missing: Progress reporting (spec says "report every 100 items")
+  - Extra: Added --json flag (not requested)
+
+[Fix issues: remove --json flag, add progress reporting]
+[Run spec compliance review again]
+Spec review: Spec compliant now
+
+[Run code quality review]
+Code review: Issue (Important): Magic number (100) should be a constant
+
+[Fix: extract PROGRESS_INTERVAL constant]
+[Run code quality review again]
+Code review: Approved
+
+[Mark Task 2 complete in Symphony]
+
+... [Continue through remaining tasks] ...
+
+[After all tasks complete]
+[Run final code review on entire implementation]
+Final review: All requirements met, ready to merge
+
+[Complete Symphony task and present next steps]
+Done!
+```
+
+## Red Flags
+
+**Never:**
+
+- Start implementation on main/master branch without explicit user consent
+- Skip reviews (spec compliance OR code quality)
+- Proceed with unfixed review issues
+- Work on multiple tasks simultaneously
+- Skip scene-setting context (task needs to understand where it fits)
+- Accept "close enough" on spec compliance (reviewer found issues = not done)
+- Skip review loops (reviewer found issues = fix = review again)
+- Let self-review replace actual review (both are needed)
+- **Start code quality review before spec compliance passes** (wrong order)
+- Move to next task while either review has open issues
+
+**If you have questions about requirements:**
+
+- Ask clearly and wait for answers
+- Don't guess or make assumptions
+- Better to ask upfront than rework later
+
+**If reviewer finds issues:**
+
+- Fix them
+- Run reviewer again
+- Repeat until approved
+- Don't skip the re-review
+
+## Completion
+
+Before claiming all work is done:
+
+1. Ensure all Symphony tasks are marked `done` or `cancelled`
+2. Run full test/validation command
+3. Verify no regressions across all tasks
+4. Summarize evidence (test output, review approvals)
+
+## Advantages
+
+**Structured execution:**
+
+- Clear task boundaries prevent scope creep
+- Review gates catch issues early (cheaper than debugging later)
+- Progress tracking provides visibility
+
+**Quality gates:**
+
+- Self-review catches obvious issues before handoff
+- Two-stage review: spec compliance prevents over/under-building, code quality ensures maintainability
+- Review loops ensure fixes actually work
+
+**Efficiency:**
+
+- Provide full task text upfront (no re-reading plan files)
+- Controller curates exactly what context is needed
+- Questions surfaced before work begins (not after)
+- Sequential execution avoids conflicts between tasks
+
+## Integration
+
+**Required workflow skills:**
+
+- **`~/.gemini/antigravity/skills/symphony-orchestrator/SKILL.md`** — Task tracking and lifecycle
+- **`~/.gemini/antigravity/skills/symphony-enforcer/SKILL.md`** — Enforce task discipline
+
+**Should also use:**
+
+- **test-driven-development** — Follow TDD for each task
+- **verification-before-completion** — Final verification checklist

package/skills/single-flow-task-execution/code-quality-reviewer-prompt.md

@@ -0,0 +1,20 @@
+# Code Quality Reviewer Prompt Template
+
+Use this template when running a code quality review step in single-flow mode.
+
+**Purpose:** Verify implementation is well-built (clean, tested, maintainable)
+
+**Only proceed after spec compliance review passes.**
+
+```
+task_boundary:
+  Use template at requesting-code-review/code-reviewer.md
+
+  WHAT_WAS_IMPLEMENTED: [from implementer's report]
+  PLAN_OR_REQUIREMENTS: Task N from [plan-file]
+  BASE_SHA: [commit before task]
+  HEAD_SHA: [current commit]
+  DESCRIPTION: [task summary]
+```
+
+**Code reviewer returns:** Strengths, Issues (Critical/Important/Minor), Assessment

package/skills/single-flow-task-execution/implementer-prompt.md

@@ -0,0 +1,78 @@
+# Implementer Task Template
+
+Use this template when executing an implementation task in single-flow mode.
+
+```
+task_boundary:
+  description: "Implement Task N: [task name]"
+  prompt: |
+    You are implementing Task N: [task name]
+
+    ## Task Description
+
+    [FULL TEXT of task from plan - paste it here]
+
+    ## Context
+
+    [Scene-setting: where this fits, dependencies, architectural context]
+
+    ## Before You Begin
+
+    If you have questions about:
+    - The requirements or acceptance criteria
+    - The approach or implementation strategy
+    - Dependencies or assumptions
+    - Anything unclear in the task description
+
+    **Ask them now.** Raise any concerns before starting work.
+
+    ## Your Job
+
+    Once you're clear on requirements:
+    1. Implement exactly what the task specifies
+    2. Write tests (following TDD if task says to)
+    3. Verify implementation works
+    4. Commit your work
+    5. Self-review (see below)
+    6. Report back
+
+    Work from: [directory]
+
+    **While you work:** If you encounter something unexpected or unclear, **ask questions**.
+    It's always OK to pause and clarify. Don't guess or make assumptions.
+
+    ## Before Reporting Back: Self-Review
+
+    Review your work with fresh eyes. Ask yourself:
+
+    **Completeness:**
+    - Did I fully implement everything in the spec?
+    - Did I miss any requirements?
+    - Are there edge cases I didn't handle?
+
+    **Quality:**
+    - Is this my best work?
+    - Are names clear and accurate (match what things do, not how they work)?
+    - Is the code clean and maintainable?
+
+    **Discipline:**
+    - Did I avoid overbuilding (YAGNI)?
+    - Did I only build what was requested?
+    - Did I follow existing patterns in the codebase?
+
+    **Testing:**
+    - Do tests actually verify behavior (not just mock behavior)?
+    - Did I follow TDD if required?
+    - Are tests comprehensive?
+
+    If you find issues during self-review, fix them now before reporting.
+
+    ## Report Format
+
+    When done, report:
+    - What you implemented
+    - What you tested and test results
+    - Files changed
+    - Self-review findings (if any)
+    - Any issues or concerns
+```

package/skills/single-flow-task-execution/spec-reviewer-prompt.md

@@ -0,0 +1,61 @@
+# Spec Compliance Reviewer Prompt Template
+
+Use this template when running a spec compliance review step in single-flow mode.
+
+**Purpose:** Verify implementer built what was requested (nothing more, nothing less)
+
+```
+task_boundary:
+  description: "Review spec compliance for Task N"
+  prompt: |
+    You are reviewing whether an implementation matches its specification.
+
+    ## What Was Requested
+
+    [FULL TEXT of task requirements]
+
+    ## What Implementer Claims They Built
+
+    [From implementer's report]
+
+    ## CRITICAL: Do Not Trust the Report
+
+    The implementer finished suspiciously quickly. Their report may be incomplete,
+    inaccurate, or optimistic. You MUST verify everything independently.
+
+    **DO NOT:**
+    - Take their word for what they implemented
+    - Trust their claims about completeness
+    - Accept their interpretation of requirements
+
+    **DO:**
+    - Read the actual code they wrote
+    - Compare actual implementation to requirements line by line
+    - Check for missing pieces they claimed to implement
+    - Look for extra features they didn't mention
+
+    ## Your Job
+
+    Read the implementation code and verify:
+
+    **Missing requirements:**
+    - Did they implement everything that was requested?
+    - Are there requirements they skipped or missed?
+    - Did they claim something works but didn't actually implement it?
+
+    **Extra/unneeded work:**
+    - Did they build things that weren't requested?
+    - Did they over-engineer or add unnecessary features?
+    - Did they add "nice to haves" that weren't in spec?
+
+    **Misunderstandings:**
+    - Did they interpret requirements differently than intended?
+    - Did they solve the wrong problem?
+    - Did they implement the right feature but wrong way?
+
+    **Verify by reading code, not by trusting report.**
+
+    Report:
+    - ✅ Spec compliant (if everything matches after code inspection)
+    - ❌ Issues found: [list specifically what's missing or extra, with file:line references]
+```