@mindfoldhq/trellis 0.4.0 → 0.5.0-beta.10

package/dist/templates/iflow/commands/trellis/before-dev.md

@@ -1,29 +0,0 @@
-Read the relevant development guidelines before starting your task.
-
-Execute these steps:
-
-1. **Discover packages and their spec layers**:
-   ```bash
-   python3 ./.trellis/scripts/get_context.py --mode packages
-   ```
-
-2. **Identify which specs apply** to your task based on:
-   - Which package you're modifying (e.g., `cli/`, `docs-site/`)
-   - What type of work (backend, frontend, unit-test, docs, etc.)
-
-3. **Read the spec index** for each relevant module:
-   ```bash
-   cat .trellis/spec/<package>/<layer>/index.md
-   ```
-   Follow the **"Pre-Development Checklist"** section in the index.
-
-4. **Read the specific guideline files** listed in the Pre-Development Checklist that are relevant to your task. The index is NOT the goal — it points you to the actual guideline files (e.g., `error-handling.md`, `conventions.md`, `mock-strategies.md`). Read those files to understand the coding standards and patterns.
-
-5. **Always read shared guides**:
-   ```bash
-   cat .trellis/spec/guides/index.md
-   ```
-
-6. Understand the coding standards and patterns you need to follow, then proceed with your development plan.
-
-This step is **mandatory** before writing any code.

package/dist/templates/iflow/commands/trellis/brainstorm.md

@@ -1,487 +0,0 @@
-# Brainstorm - Requirements Discovery (AI Coding Enhanced)
-
-Guide AI through collaborative requirements discovery **before implementation**, optimized for AI coding workflows:
-
-* **Task-first** (capture ideas immediately)
-* **Action-before-asking** (reduce low-value questions)
-* **Research-first** for technical choices (avoid asking users to invent options)
-* **Diverge → Converge** (expand thinking, then lock MVP)
-
----
-
-## When to Use
-
-Triggered from `/trellis:start` when the user describes a development task, especially when:
-
-* requirements are unclear or evolving
-* there are multiple valid implementation paths
-* trade-offs matter (UX, reliability, maintainability, cost, performance)
-* the user might not know the best options up front
-
----
-
-## Core Principles (Non-negotiable)
-
-1. **Task-first (capture early)**
-   Always ensure a task exists at the start so the user's ideas are recorded immediately.
-
-2. **Action before asking**
-   If you can derive the answer from repo code, docs, configs, conventions, or quick research — do that first.
-
-3. **One question per message**
-   Never overwhelm the user with a list of questions. Ask one, update PRD, repeat.
-
-4. **Prefer concrete options**
-   For preference/decision questions, present 2–3 feasible, specific approaches with trade-offs.
-
-5. **Research-first for technical choices**
-   If the decision depends on industry conventions / similar tools / established patterns, do research first, then propose options.
-
-6. **Diverge → Converge**
-   After initial understanding, proactively consider future evolution, related scenarios, and failure/edge cases — then converge to an MVP with explicit out-of-scope.
-
-7. **No meta questions**
-   Do not ask "should I search?" or "can you paste the code so I can continue?"
-   If you need information: search/inspect. If blocked: ask the minimal blocking question.
-
----
-
-## Step 0: Ensure Task Exists (ALWAYS)
-
-Before any Q&A, ensure a task exists. If none exists, create one immediately.
-
-* Use a **temporary working title** derived from the user's message.
-* It's OK if the title is imperfect — refine later in PRD.
-
-```bash
-TASK_DIR=$(python3 ./.trellis/scripts/task.py create "brainstorm: <short goal>" --slug <auto>)
-```
-
-Create/seed `prd.md` immediately with what you know:
-
-```markdown
-# brainstorm: <short goal>
-
-## Goal
-
-<one paragraph: what + why>
-
-## What I already know
-
-* <facts from user message>
-* <facts discovered from repo/docs>
-
-## Assumptions (temporary)
-
-* <assumptions to validate>
-
-## Open Questions
-
-* <ONLY Blocking / Preference questions; keep list short>
-
-## Requirements (evolving)
-
-* <start with what is known>
-
-## Acceptance Criteria (evolving)
-
-* [ ] <testable criterion>
-
-## Definition of Done (team quality bar)
-
-* Tests added/updated (unit/integration where appropriate)
-* Lint / typecheck / CI green
-* Docs/notes updated if behavior changes
-* Rollout/rollback considered if risky
-
-## Out of Scope (explicit)
-
-* <what we will not do in this task>
-
-## Technical Notes
-
-* <files inspected, constraints, links, references>
-* <research notes summary if applicable>
-```
-
----
-
-## Step 1: Auto-Context (DO THIS BEFORE ASKING QUESTIONS)
-
-Before asking questions like "what does the code look like?", gather context yourself:
-
-### Repo inspection checklist
-
-* Identify likely modules/files impacted
-* Locate existing patterns (similar features, conventions, error handling style)
-* Check configs, scripts, existing command definitions
-* Note any constraints (runtime, dependency policy, build tooling)
-
-### Documentation checklist
-
-* Look for existing PRDs/specs/templates
-* Look for command usage examples, README, ADRs if any
-
-Write findings into PRD:
-
-* Add to `What I already know`
-* Add constraints/links to `Technical Notes`
-
----
-
-## Step 2: Classify Complexity (still useful, not gating task creation)
-
-| Complexity   | Criteria                                               | Action                                      |
-| ------------ | ------------------------------------------------------ | ------------------------------------------- |
-| **Trivial**  | Single-line fix, typo, obvious change                  | Skip brainstorm, implement directly         |
-| **Simple**   | Clear goal, 1–2 files, scope well-defined              | Ask 1 confirm question, then implement      |
-| **Moderate** | Multiple files, some ambiguity                         | Light brainstorm (2–3 high-value questions) |
-| **Complex**  | Vague goal, architectural choices, multiple approaches | Full brainstorm                             |
-
-> Note: Task already exists from Step 0. Classification only affects depth of brainstorming.
-
----
-
-## Step 3: Question Gate (Ask ONLY high-value questions)
-
-Before asking ANY question, run the following gate:
-
-### Gate A — Can I derive this without the user?
-
-If answer is available via:
-
-* repo inspection (code/config)
-* docs/specs/conventions
-* quick market/OSS research
-
-→ **Do not ask.** Fetch it, summarize, update PRD.
-
-### Gate B — Is this a meta/lazy question?
-
-Examples:
-
-* "Should I search?"
-* "Can you paste the code so I can proceed?"
-* "What does the code look like?" (when repo is available)
-
-→ **Do not ask.** Take action.
-
-### Gate C — What type of question is it?
-
-* **Blocking**: cannot proceed without user input
-* **Preference**: multiple valid choices, depends on product/UX/risk preference
-* **Derivable**: should be answered by inspection/research
-
-→ Only ask **Blocking** or **Preference**.
-
----
-
-## Step 4: Research-first Mode (Mandatory for technical choices)
-
-### Trigger conditions (any → research-first)
-
-* The task involves selecting an approach, library, protocol, framework, template system, plugin mechanism, or CLI UX convention
-* The user asks for "best practice", "how others do it", "recommendation"
-* The user can't reasonably enumerate options
-
-### Research steps
-
-1. Identify 2–4 comparable tools/patterns
-2. Summarize common conventions and why they exist
-3. Map conventions onto our repo constraints
-4. Produce **2–3 feasible approaches** for our project
-
-### Research output format (PRD)
-
-Add a section in PRD (either within Technical Notes or as its own):
-
-```markdown
-## Research Notes
-
-### What similar tools do
-
-* ...
-* ...
-
-### Constraints from our repo/project
-
-* ...
-
-### Feasible approaches here
-
-**Approach A: <name>** (Recommended)
-
-* How it works:
-* Pros:
-* Cons:
-
-**Approach B: <name>**
-
-* How it works:
-* Pros:
-* Cons:
-
-**Approach C: <name>** (optional)
-
-* ...
-```
-
-Then ask **one** preference question:
-
-* "Which approach do you prefer: A / B / C (or other)?"
-
----
-
-## Step 5: Expansion Sweep (DIVERGE) — Required after initial understanding
-
-After you can summarize the goal, proactively broaden thinking before converging.
-
-### Expansion categories (keep to 1–2 bullets each)
-
-1. **Future evolution**
-
-   * What might this feature become in 1–3 months?
-   * What extension points are worth preserving now?
-
-2. **Related scenarios**
-
-   * What adjacent commands/flows should remain consistent with this?
-   * Are there parity expectations (create vs update, import vs export, etc.)?
-
-3. **Failure & edge cases**
-
-   * Conflicts, offline/network failure, retries, idempotency, compatibility, rollback
-   * Input validation, security boundaries, permission checks
-
-### Expansion message template (to user)
-
-```markdown
-I understand you want to implement: <current goal>.
-
-Before diving into design, let me quickly diverge to consider three categories (to avoid rework later):
-
-1. Future evolution: <1–2 bullets>
-2. Related scenarios: <1–2 bullets>
-3. Failure/edge cases: <1–2 bullets>
-
-For this MVP, which would you like to include (or none)?
-
-1. Current requirement only (minimal viable)
-2. Add <X> (reserve for future extension)
-3. Add <Y> (improve robustness/consistency)
-4. Other: describe your preference
-```
-
-Then update PRD:
-
-* What's in MVP → `Requirements`
-* What's excluded → `Out of Scope`
-
----
-
-## Step 6: Q&A Loop (CONVERGE)
-
-### Rules
-
-* One question per message
-* Prefer multiple-choice when possible
-* After each user answer:
-
-  * Update PRD immediately
-  * Move answered items from `Open Questions` → `Requirements`
-  * Update `Acceptance Criteria` with testable checkboxes
-  * Clarify `Out of Scope`
-
-### Question priority (recommended)
-
-1. **MVP scope boundary** (what is included/excluded)
-2. **Preference decisions** (after presenting concrete options)
-3. **Failure/edge behavior** (only for MVP-critical paths)
-4. **Success metrics & Acceptance Criteria** (what proves it works)
-
-### Preferred question format (multiple choice)
-
-```markdown
-For <topic>, which approach do you prefer?
-
-1. **Option A** — <what it means + trade-off>
-2. **Option B** — <what it means + trade-off>
-3. **Option C** — <what it means + trade-off>
-4. **Other** — describe your preference
-```
-
----
-
-## Step 7: Propose Approaches + Record Decisions (Complex tasks)
-
-After requirements are clear enough, propose 2–3 approaches (if not already done via research-first):
-
-```markdown
-Based on current information, here are 2–3 feasible approaches:
-
-**Approach A: <name>** (Recommended)
-
-* How:
-* Pros:
-* Cons:
-
-**Approach B: <name>**
-
-* How:
-* Pros:
-* Cons:
-
-Which direction do you prefer?
-```
-
-Record the outcome in PRD as an ADR-lite section:
-
-```markdown
-## Decision (ADR-lite)
-
-**Context**: Why this decision was needed
-**Decision**: Which approach was chosen
-**Consequences**: Trade-offs, risks, potential future improvements
-```
-
----
-
-## Step 8: Final Confirmation + Implementation Plan
-
-When open questions are resolved, confirm complete requirements with a structured summary:
-
-### Final confirmation format
-
-```markdown
-Here's my understanding of the complete requirements:
-
-**Goal**: <one sentence>
-
-**Requirements**:
-
-* ...
-* ...
-
-**Acceptance Criteria**:
-
-* [ ] ...
-* [ ] ...
-
-**Definition of Done**:
-
-* ...
-
-**Out of Scope**:
-
-* ...
-
-**Technical Approach**:
-<brief summary + key decisions>
-
-**Implementation Plan (small PRs)**:
-
-* PR1: <scaffolding + tests + minimal plumbing>
-* PR2: <core behavior>
-* PR3: <edge cases + docs + cleanup>
-
-Does this look correct? If yes, I'll proceed with implementation.
-```
-
-### Subtask Decomposition (Complex Tasks)
-
-For complex tasks with multiple independent work items, create subtasks:
-
-```bash
-# Create child tasks
-CHILD1=$(python3 ./.trellis/scripts/task.py create "Child task 1" --slug child1 --parent "$TASK_DIR")
-CHILD2=$(python3 ./.trellis/scripts/task.py create "Child task 2" --slug child2 --parent "$TASK_DIR")
-
-# Or link existing tasks
-python3 ./.trellis/scripts/task.py add-subtask "$TASK_DIR" "$CHILD_DIR"
-```
-
----
-
-## PRD Target Structure (final)
-
-`prd.md` should converge to:
-
-```markdown
-# <Task Title>
-
-## Goal
-
-<why + what>
-
-## Requirements
-
-* ...
-
-## Acceptance Criteria
-
-* [ ] ...
-
-## Definition of Done
-
-* ...
-
-## Technical Approach
-
-<key design + decisions>
-
-## Decision (ADR-lite)
-
-Context / Decision / Consequences
-
-## Out of Scope
-
-* ...
-
-## Technical Notes
-
-<constraints, references, files, research notes>
-```
-
----
-
-## Anti-Patterns (Hard Avoid)
-
-* Asking user for code/context that can be derived from repo
-* Asking user to choose an approach before presenting concrete options
-* Meta questions about whether to research
-* Staying narrowly on the initial request without considering evolution/edges
-* Letting brainstorming drift without updating PRD
-
----
-
-## Integration with Start Workflow
-
-After brainstorm completes (Step 8 confirmation approved), the flow continues to the Task Workflow's **Phase 2: Prepare for Implementation**:
-
-```text
-Brainstorm
-  Step 0: Create task directory + seed PRD
-  Step 1–7: Discover requirements, research, converge
-  Step 8: Final confirmation → user approves
-  ↓
-Task Workflow Phase 2 (Prepare for Implementation)
-  Code-Spec Depth Check (if applicable)
-  → Research codebase (based on confirmed PRD)
-  → Configure code-spec context (jsonl files)
-  → Activate task
-  ↓
-Task Workflow Phase 3 (Execute)
-  Implement → Check → Complete
-```
-
-The task directory and PRD already exist from brainstorm, so Phase 1 of the Task Workflow is skipped entirely.
-
----
-
-## Related Commands
-
-| Command | When to Use |
-|---------|-------------|
-| `/trellis:start` | Entry point that triggers brainstorm |
-| `/trellis:finish-work` | After implementation is complete |
-| `/trellis:update-spec` | If new patterns emerge during work |

package/dist/templates/iflow/commands/trellis/check-cross-layer.md

@@ -1,153 +0,0 @@
-# Cross-Layer Check
-
-Check if your changes considered all dimensions. Most bugs come from "didn't think of it", not lack of technical skill.
-
-> **Note**: This is a **post-implementation** safety net. Ideally, read the [Pre-Implementation Checklist](.trellis/spec/guides/pre-implementation-checklist.md) **before** writing code.
-
----
-
-## Related Documents
-
-| Document | Purpose | Timing |
-|----------|---------|--------|
-| [Pre-Implementation Checklist](.trellis/spec/guides/pre-implementation-checklist.md) | Questions before coding | **Before** writing code |
-| [Code Reuse Thinking Guide](.trellis/spec/guides/code-reuse-thinking-guide.md) | Pattern recognition | During implementation |
-| **`/trellis:check-cross-layer`** (this) | Verification check | **After** implementation |
-
----
-
-## Execution Steps
-
-### 1. Identify Change Scope
-
-```bash
-git status
-git diff --name-only
-```
-
-### 2. Select Applicable Check Dimensions
-
-Based on your change type, execute relevant checks below:
-
----
-
-## Dimension A: Cross-Layer Data Flow (Required when 3+ layers)
-
-**Trigger**: Changes involve 3 or more layers
-
-| Layer | Common Locations |
-|-------|------------------|
-| API/Routes | `routes/`, `api/`, `handlers/`, `controllers/` |
-| Service/Business Logic | `services/`, `lib/`, `core/`, `domain/` |
-| Database/Storage | `db/`, `models/`, `repositories/`, `schema/` |
-| UI/Presentation | `components/`, `views/`, `templates/`, `pages/` |
-| Utility | `utils/`, `helpers/`, `common/` |
-
-**Checklist**:
-- [ ] Read flow: Database -> Service -> API -> UI
-- [ ] Write flow: UI -> API -> Service -> Database
-- [ ] Types/schemas correctly passed between layers?
-- [ ] Errors properly propagated to caller?
-- [ ] Loading/pending states handled at each layer?
-
-**Detailed Guide**: `.trellis/spec/guides/cross-layer-thinking-guide.md`
-
----
-
-## Dimension B: Code Reuse (Required when modifying constants/config)
-
-**Trigger**: 
-- Modifying UI constants (label, icon, color)
-- Modifying any hardcoded value
-- Seeing similar code in multiple places
-- Creating a new utility/helper function
-- Just finished batch modifications across files
-
-**Checklist**:
-- [ ] Search first: How many places define this value?
-  ```bash
-  # Search in source files (adjust extensions for your project)
-  grep -r "value-to-change" src/
-  ```
-- [ ] If 2+ places define same value -> Should extract to shared constant
-- [ ] After modification, all usage sites updated?
-- [ ] If creating utility: Does similar utility already exist?
-
-**Detailed Guide**: `.trellis/spec/guides/code-reuse-thinking-guide.md`
-
----
-
-## Dimension B2: New Utility Functions
-
-**Trigger**: About to create a new utility/helper function
-
-**Checklist**:
-- [ ] Search for existing similar utilities first
-  ```bash
-  grep -r "functionNamePattern" src/
-  ```
-- [ ] If similar exists, can you extend it instead?
-- [ ] If creating new, is it in the right location (shared vs domain-specific)?
-
----
-
-## Dimension B3: After Batch Modifications
-
-**Trigger**: Just modified similar patterns in multiple files
-
-**Checklist**:
-- [ ] Did you check ALL files with similar patterns?
-  ```bash
-  grep -r "patternYouChanged" src/
-  ```
-- [ ] Any files missed that should also be updated?
-- [ ] Should this pattern be abstracted to prevent future duplication?
-
----
-
-## Dimension C: Import/Dependency Paths (Required when creating new files)
-
-**Trigger**: Creating new source files
-
-**Checklist**:
-- [ ] Using correct import paths (relative vs absolute)?
-- [ ] No circular dependencies?
-- [ ] Consistent with project's module organization?
-
----
-
-## Dimension D: Same-Layer Consistency
-
-**Trigger**: 
-- Modifying display logic or formatting
-- Same domain concept used in multiple places
-
-**Checklist**:
-- [ ] Search for other places using same concept
-  ```bash
-  grep -r "ConceptName" src/
-  ```
-- [ ] Are these usages consistent?
-- [ ] Should they share configuration/constants?
-
----
-
-## Common Issues Quick Reference
-
-| Issue | Root Cause | Prevention |
-|-------|------------|------------|
-| Changed one place, missed others | Didn't search impact scope | `grep` before changing |
-| Data lost at some layer | Didn't check data flow | Trace data source to destination |
-| Type/schema mismatch | Cross-layer types inconsistent | Use shared type definitions |
-| UI/output inconsistent | Same concept in multiple places | Extract shared constants |
-| Similar utility exists | Didn't search first | Search before creating |
-| Batch fix incomplete | Didn't verify all occurrences | grep after fixing |
-
----
-
-## Output
-
-Report:
-1. Which dimensions your changes involve
-2. Check results for each dimension
-3. Issues found and fix suggestions

package/dist/templates/iflow/commands/trellis/check.md

@@ -1,25 +0,0 @@
-Check if the code you just wrote follows the development guidelines.
-
-Execute these steps:
-
-1. **Identify changed files**:
-   ```bash
-   git diff --name-only HEAD
-   ```
-
-2. **Determine which spec modules apply** based on the changed file paths:
-   ```bash
-   python3 ./.trellis/scripts/get_context.py --mode packages
-   ```
-
-3. **Read the spec index** for each relevant module:
-   ```bash
-   cat .trellis/spec/<package>/<layer>/index.md
-   ```
-   Follow the **"Quality Check"** section in the index.
-
-4. **Read the specific guideline files** referenced in the Quality Check section (e.g., `quality-guidelines.md`, `conventions.md`). The index is NOT the goal — it points you to the actual guideline files. Read those files and review your code against them.
-
-5. **Run lint and typecheck** for the affected package.
-
-6. **Report any violations** and fix them if found.