@massa-ai/cursor-plugin 1.27.0 → 1.29.0

package/skills/massa-ai/references/skill-architect/patterns.md

@@ -0,0 +1,317 @@
+# Skill Patterns Reference
+
+This document details the five proven patterns for skill architecture.
+Read this when deciding how to structure a skill's workflow during the
+Architecture phase.
+
+## Table of Contents
+
+1. Sequential Workflow Orchestration (line ~20)
+2. Multi-MCP Coordination (line ~70)
+3. Iterative Refinement (line ~120)
+4. Context-Aware Tool Selection (line ~170)
+5. Domain-Specific Intelligence (line ~210)
+6. Choosing Between Patterns (line ~250)
+7. Combining Patterns (line ~280)
+
+---
+
+## 1. Sequential Workflow Orchestration
+
+**Use when:** Users need multi-step processes executed in a specific order,
+where each step depends on the previous one.
+
+**Problem-first framing:** "I need to onboard a new customer" → Skill
+orchestrates the right calls in the right sequence.
+
+**Key characteristics:**
+
+- Explicit step ordering with dependencies between steps
+- Validation gates between steps (don't proceed if step N fails)
+- Rollback instructions for failures
+- Data flows from earlier steps to later ones
+
+**Structure template:**
+
+```markdown
+## Workflow: [Name]
+
+### Step 1: [Action]
+Call tool: `tool_name`
+Parameters: [what's needed]
+Validation: [how to know it succeeded]
+On failure: [what to do]
+
+### Step 2: [Action]
+Depends on: Step 1 (uses [specific output])
+Call tool: `tool_name`
+Parameters: [include output from Step 1]
+Validation: [check]
+
+### Step 3: [Action]
+...
+```
+
+**When to choose this pattern:**
+
+- The workflow has a natural linear order
+- Steps have clear dependencies
+- Skipping a step would break the workflow
+- Users currently do these steps manually in sequence
+
+**Watch out for:**
+
+- Rigid ordering when some steps could be parallel
+- Missing rollback logic (what if step 3 fails after step 1 and 2 succeeded?)
+- Not validating between steps
+
+---
+
+## 2. Multi-MCP Coordination
+
+**Use when:** Workflows span multiple external services, each connected
+via its own MCP server.
+
+**Key characteristics:**
+
+- Clear phase separation by service
+- Data passing between MCP servers
+- Validation before moving to next phase
+- Centralized error handling across services
+
+**Structure template:**
+
+```markdown
+## Workflow: [Name]
+
+### Phase 1: [Service A] ([MCP name])
+1. [Action using Service A tools]
+2. [Action using Service A tools]
+Output: [data needed by Phase 2]
+
+### Phase 2: [Service B] ([MCP name])
+Input: [data from Phase 1]
+1. [Action using Service B tools]
+2. [Action using Service B tools]
+Output: [data needed by Phase 3]
+
+### Phase 3: [Service C] ([MCP name])
+...
+
+## Error Handling
+- If Phase 1 fails: [action]
+- If Phase 2 fails but Phase 1 succeeded: [action]
+```
+
+**When to choose this pattern:**
+
+- The workflow crosses service boundaries
+- Multiple MCP servers are involved
+- Data needs to flow between services
+- Users currently switch between tools manually
+
+**Watch out for:**
+
+- Assuming all MCPs are connected (check availability first)
+- Not handling partial failures (Phase 2 fails but Phase 1 already ran)
+- Tight coupling between phases (prefer passing data explicitly)
+
+---
+
+## 3. Iterative Refinement
+
+**Use when:** Output quality improves through multiple review-and-fix cycles.
+
+**Key characteristics:**
+
+- Initial draft generation
+- Quality check against explicit criteria
+- Refinement loop with clear stopping conditions
+- Finalization step
+
+**Structure template:**
+
+```markdown
+## Workflow: [Name]
+
+### Initial Draft
+1. Gather input data
+2. Generate first version
+3. Save to working file
+
+### Quality Check
+Run validation: `scripts/[check_quality].py`
+Criteria:
+- [Criterion 1]: [how to check]
+- [Criterion 2]: [how to check]
+- [Criterion 3]: [how to check]
+
+### Refinement Loop
+For each issue found:
+1. Identify the specific problem
+2. Fix it
+3. Re-validate
+
+STOP when:
+- All criteria pass, OR
+- 3 iterations completed (diminishing returns), OR
+- User signals satisfaction
+
+### Finalization
+1. Apply final formatting
+2. Generate summary of changes
+3. Save final version
+```
+
+**When to choose this pattern:**
+
+- Output quality is subjective or multi-dimensional
+- First drafts are usually "close but not quite"
+- Users currently review and ask for revisions manually
+- There are explicit quality criteria to check against
+
+**Watch out for:**
+
+- Infinite loops (always define stopping conditions)
+- Over-polishing (3 iterations is usually enough)
+- Vague quality criteria (make them checkable)
+
+---
+
+## 4. Context-Aware Tool Selection
+
+**Use when:** The same goal can be achieved with different tools depending
+on the input or context.
+
+**Key characteristics:**
+
+- Decision tree based on input properties
+- Fallback options when primary choice isn't available
+- Transparency about why a particular path was chosen
+
+**Structure template:**
+
+```markdown
+## Workflow: [Name]
+
+### Analyze Input
+Check: [what properties to examine]
+- Property A: [value range or type]
+- Property B: [value range or type]
+
+### Decision Tree
+IF [condition 1]:
+  → Use [Tool/Approach A]
+  Rationale: [why this is better for this case]
+ELIF [condition 2]:
+  → Use [Tool/Approach B]
+  Rationale: [why]
+ELSE:
+  → Use [Tool/Approach C] (default)
+
+### Execute
+Based on decision, execute using the selected approach.
+
+### Explain Choice
+Tell the user which approach was selected and why.
+```
+
+**When to choose this pattern:**
+
+- Multiple valid approaches exist for the same goal
+- The "best" approach depends on input characteristics
+- Users don't know (or shouldn't need to know) which tool is optimal
+
+**Watch out for:**
+
+- Decision criteria that overlap (ambiguous routing)
+- Missing fallback for edge cases
+- Not explaining the choice to the user
+
+---
+
+## 5. Domain-Specific Intelligence
+
+**Use when:** The skill's value comes from specialized knowledge, not just
+tool orchestration.
+
+**Key characteristics:**
+
+- Domain rules and constraints embedded in logic
+- Compliance or validation checks before action
+- Comprehensive audit trails
+- Expert-level decision making
+
+**Structure template:**
+
+```markdown
+## Workflow: [Name]
+
+### Pre-Check ([Domain] Rules)
+Before proceeding, verify:
+1. [Domain rule 1]: [how to check]
+2. [Domain rule 2]: [how to check]
+3. [Domain rule 3]: [how to check]
+
+IF any rule fails:
+  → [Escalation or alternative path]
+  → Document the failure
+
+### Execute
+Only if pre-checks pass:
+1. [Action with domain context]
+2. [Action with domain context]
+
+### Audit Trail
+Log:
+- All checks performed and results
+- Decisions made and rationale
+- Actions taken
+```
+
+**When to choose this pattern:**
+
+- The skill needs expert knowledge to execute correctly
+- There are compliance, safety, or quality rules to enforce
+- Getting it wrong has significant consequences
+- Users benefit from the skill's "expertise" more than its automation
+
+**Watch out for:**
+
+- Outdated domain knowledge (plan for updates)
+- Over-encoding rules that change frequently (reference external docs instead)
+- Not documenting the reasoning for decisions
+
+---
+
+## 6. Choosing Between Patterns
+
+| Signal | Suggested Pattern |
+|--------|------------------|
+| "Do A, then B, then C" | Sequential Workflow |
+| "Get data from X, send to Y, notify in Z" | Multi-MCP Coordination |
+| "Make it good, then review and improve" | Iterative Refinement |
+| "Handle PDFs differently from CSVs" | Context-Aware Selection |
+| "Follow our compliance rules" | Domain-Specific Intelligence |
+| Steps have no dependencies | Consider parallel execution |
+| User says "it depends" a lot | Context-Aware Selection |
+| Quality is subjective | Iterative Refinement |
+
+---
+
+## 7. Combining Patterns
+
+Most real skills combine patterns. Common combinations:
+
+- **Sequential + Domain Intelligence:** Follow steps in order, but embed
+  expert checks at critical points (e.g., compliance check before payment)
+- **Multi-MCP + Iterative:** Coordinate across services, then refine the
+  combined output
+- **Context-Aware + Sequential:** Choose the right tool first, then follow
+  a sequential workflow specific to that tool
+- **Domain Intelligence + Iterative:** Apply domain rules, generate output,
+  review against domain criteria, refine
+
+When combining, identify the PRIMARY pattern (the one that shapes the
+overall flow) and SECONDARY patterns (the ones that apply within specific
+steps).

package/skills/massa-ai/references/skill-architect/quality-checklist.md

@@ -0,0 +1,70 @@
+# Quality Checklist
+
+Use this checklist at the end of the Validate phase to ensure the skill
+meets all quality criteria before delivery.
+
+---
+
+## Structural Checks (Pass/Fail)
+
+These are hard requirements. Any failure must be fixed.
+
+- [ ] SKILL.md exists with exact casing
+- [ ] YAML frontmatter has opening and closing `---` delimiters
+- [ ] `name` field is present and kebab-case
+- [ ] `name` matches the folder name
+- [ ] `description` field is present
+- [ ] `description` is under 1024 characters
+- [ ] `description` contains no XML angle brackets (< >)
+- [ ] `name` does not contain "claude" or "anthropic"
+- [ ] No README.md inside the skill folder
+- [ ] Folder name is kebab-case (no spaces, no capitals, no underscores)
+
+## Description Quality (Score 1-5)
+
+Rate each and target 4+ on all:
+
+- [ ] **Specificity (1-5):** Does it describe a concrete capability?
+- [ ] **Trigger clarity (1-5):** Would the agent know when to load this?
+- [ ] **User language (1-5):** Does it use phrases a user would actually say?
+- [ ] **Scope boundaries (1-5):** Is it clear what this skill does NOT do?
+- [ ] **Pushiness (1-5):** Is it assertive enough to avoid undertriggering?
+
+## Instruction Quality (Score 1-5)
+
+- [ ] **Actionability (1-5):** Can the agent follow every step without ambiguity?
+- [ ] **Specificity (1-5):** Are instructions concrete (not "validate properly")?
+- [ ] **Examples (1-5):** Are there realistic input/output examples?
+- [ ] **Error handling (1-5):** Are common failures addressed?
+- [ ] **Progressive disclosure (1-5):** Is SKILL.md focused, with details in refs?
+- [ ] **Composability (1-5):** Does it play well with other skills?
+
+## Trigger Testing
+
+### Should trigger (test 3-5 phrases)
+
+1. [ ] "[Obvious request]" → triggers? Y/N
+2. [ ] "[Paraphrased request]" → triggers? Y/N
+3. [ ] "[Informal request]" → triggers? Y/N
+
+### Should NOT trigger (test 3-5 phrases)
+
+1. [ ] "[Unrelated task]" → stays silent? Y/N
+2. [ ] "[Similar but different scope]" → stays silent? Y/N
+3. [ ] "[Generic question]" → stays silent? Y/N
+
+## Performance Targets
+
+Aspirational benchmarks (adapt to your skill):
+
+- [ ] Triggers on ≥90% of relevant queries
+- [ ] Completes workflow without user correction
+- [ ] Consistent results across separate sessions
+- [ ] No failed tool/API calls per workflow
+- [ ] Users don't need to prompt the agent about next steps
+
+## Final Sign-Off
+
+- [ ] User has reviewed the skill
+- [ ] Test phrases produce expected behavior
+- [ ] Skill is packaged and ready for upload