@monoes/monomindcli 1.10.54 → 1.10.55

package/.claude/skills/mastermind/finish.md

@@ -0,0 +1,251 @@
+---
+name: mastermind-finish
+description: Use when implementation is complete, all tests pass, and you need to decide how to integrate the work — guides completion of development work by presenting structured options for merge, PR, or cleanup
+---
+
+# Finishing a Development Branch
+
+## Overview
+
+Guide completion of development work by presenting clear options and handling the chosen workflow.
+
+**Core principle:** Verify tests → Detect environment → Present options → Execute choice → Clean up.
+
+**Announce at start:** "I'm using the mastermind:finish skill to complete this work."
+
+## The Process
+
+### Step 1: Verify Tests
+
+**Before presenting options, verify tests pass:**
+
+```bash
+# Run project's test suite
+npm test / cargo test / pytest / go test ./...
+```
+
+**If tests fail:**
+```
+Tests failing (<N> failures). Must fix before completing:
+
+[Show failures]
+
+Cannot proceed with merge/PR until tests pass.
+```
+
+Stop. Don't proceed to Step 2.
+
+**If tests pass:** Continue to Step 2.
+
+### Step 2: Detect Environment
+
+**Determine workspace state before presenting options:**
+
+```bash
+GIT_DIR=$(cd "$(git rev-parse --git-dir)" 2>/dev/null && pwd -P)
+GIT_COMMON=$(cd "$(git rev-parse --git-common-dir)" 2>/dev/null && pwd -P)
+```
+
+This determines which menu to show and how cleanup works:
+
+| State | Menu | Cleanup |
+|-------|------|---------|
+| `GIT_DIR == GIT_COMMON` (normal repo) | Standard 4 options | No worktree to clean up |
+| `GIT_DIR != GIT_COMMON`, named branch | Standard 4 options | Provenance-based (see Step 6) |
+| `GIT_DIR != GIT_COMMON`, detached HEAD | Reduced 3 options (no merge) | No cleanup (externally managed) |
+
+### Step 3: Determine Base Branch
+
+```bash
+# Try common base branches
+git merge-base HEAD main 2>/dev/null || git merge-base HEAD master 2>/dev/null
+```
+
+Or ask: "This branch split from main — is that correct?"
+
+### Step 4: Present Options
+
+**Normal repo and named-branch worktree — present exactly these 4 options:**
+
+```
+Implementation complete. What would you like to do?
+
+1. Merge back to <base-branch> locally
+2. Push and create a Pull Request
+3. Keep the branch as-is (I'll handle it later)
+4. Discard this work
+
+Which option?
+```
+
+**Detached HEAD — present exactly these 3 options:**
+
+```
+Implementation complete. You're on a detached HEAD (externally managed workspace).
+
+1. Push as new branch and create a Pull Request
+2. Keep as-is (I'll handle it later)
+3. Discard this work
+
+Which option?
+```
+
+**Don't add explanation** — keep options concise.
+
+### Step 5: Execute Choice
+
+#### Option 1: Merge Locally
+
+```bash
+# Get main repo root for CWD safety
+MAIN_ROOT=$(git -C "$(git rev-parse --git-common-dir)/.." rev-parse --show-toplevel)
+cd "$MAIN_ROOT"
+
+# Merge first — verify success before removing anything
+git checkout <base-branch>
+git pull
+git merge <feature-branch>
+
+# Verify tests on merged result
+<test command>
+
+# Only after merge succeeds: cleanup worktree (Step 6), then delete branch
+```
+
+Then: Cleanup worktree (Step 6), then delete branch:
+
+```bash
+git branch -d <feature-branch>
+```
+
+#### Option 2: Push and Create PR
+
+```bash
+# Push branch
+git push -u origin <feature-branch>
+
+# Create PR
+gh pr create --title "<title>" --body "$(cat <<'EOF'
+## Summary
+<2-3 bullets of what changed>
+
+## Test Plan
+- [ ] <verification steps>
+EOF
+)"
+```
+
+**Do NOT clean up worktree** — user needs it alive to iterate on PR feedback.
+
+#### Option 3: Keep As-Is
+
+Report: "Keeping branch <name>. Worktree preserved at <path>."
+
+**Don't cleanup worktree.**
+
+#### Option 4: Discard
+
+**Confirm first:**
+```
+This will permanently delete:
+- Branch <name>
+- All commits: <commit-list>
+- Worktree at <path>
+
+Type 'discard' to confirm.
+```
+
+Wait for exact confirmation.
+
+If confirmed:
+```bash
+MAIN_ROOT=$(git -C "$(git rev-parse --git-common-dir)/.." rev-parse --show-toplevel)
+cd "$MAIN_ROOT"
+```
+
+Then: Cleanup worktree (Step 6), then force-delete branch:
+```bash
+git branch -D <feature-branch>
+```
+
+### Step 6: Cleanup Workspace
+
+**Only runs for Options 1 and 4.** Options 2 and 3 always preserve the worktree.
+
+```bash
+GIT_DIR=$(cd "$(git rev-parse --git-dir)" 2>/dev/null && pwd -P)
+GIT_COMMON=$(cd "$(git rev-parse --git-common-dir)" 2>/dev/null && pwd -P)
+WORKTREE_PATH=$(git rev-parse --show-toplevel)
+```
+
+**If `GIT_DIR == GIT_COMMON`:** Normal repo, no worktree to clean up. Done.
+
+**If worktree path is under `.worktrees/`, `worktrees/`, or `~/.config/monomind/worktrees/`:** Mastermind created this worktree — we own cleanup.
+
+```bash
+MAIN_ROOT=$(git -C "$(git rev-parse --git-common-dir)/.." rev-parse --show-toplevel)
+cd "$MAIN_ROOT"
+git worktree remove "$WORKTREE_PATH"
+git worktree prune  # Self-healing: clean up any stale registrations
+```
+
+**Otherwise:** The host environment (harness) owns this workspace. Do NOT remove it. If your platform provides a workspace-exit tool, use it. Otherwise, leave the workspace in place.
+
+## Quick Reference
+
+| Option | Merge | Push | Keep Worktree | Cleanup Branch |
+|--------|-------|------|---------------|----------------|
+| 1. Merge locally | yes | - | - | yes |
+| 2. Create PR | - | yes | yes | - |
+| 3. Keep as-is | - | - | yes | - |
+| 4. Discard | - | - | - | yes (force) |
+
+## Common Mistakes
+
+**Skipping test verification**
+- **Problem:** Merge broken code, create failing PR
+- **Fix:** Always verify tests before offering options
+
+**Open-ended questions**
+- **Problem:** "What should I do next?" is ambiguous
+- **Fix:** Present exactly 4 structured options (or 3 for detached HEAD)
+
+**Cleaning up worktree for Option 2**
+- **Problem:** Remove worktree user needs for PR iteration
+- **Fix:** Only cleanup for Options 1 and 4
+
+**Deleting branch before removing worktree**
+- **Problem:** `git branch -d` fails because worktree still references the branch
+- **Fix:** Merge first, remove worktree, then delete branch
+
+**Running git worktree remove from inside the worktree**
+- **Problem:** Command fails silently when CWD is inside the worktree being removed
+- **Fix:** Always `cd` to main repo root before `git worktree remove`
+
+**Cleaning up harness-owned worktrees**
+- **Problem:** Removing a worktree the harness created causes phantom state
+- **Fix:** Only clean up worktrees under `.worktrees/`, `worktrees/`, or `~/.config/monomind/worktrees/`
+
+**No confirmation for discard**
+- **Problem:** Accidentally delete work
+- **Fix:** Require typed "discard" confirmation
+
+## Red Flags
+
+**Never:**
+- Proceed with failing tests
+- Merge without verifying tests on result
+- Delete work without confirmation
+- Force-push without explicit request
+- Remove a worktree before confirming merge success
+- Clean up worktrees you didn't create (provenance check)
+- Run `git worktree remove` from inside the worktree
+
+**Always:**
+- Verify tests before offering options
+- Detect environment before presenting menu
+- Present exactly 4 options (or 3 for detached HEAD)
+- Get typed confirmation for Option 4
+- Clean up worktree for Options 1 & 4 only
+- `cd` to main repo root before worktree removal
+- Run `git worktree prune` after removal

package/.claude/skills/mastermind/plan.md

@@ -0,0 +1,180 @@
+---
+name: mastermind-plan
+description: Write comprehensive implementation plans from specs or requirements before touching code. Saves plans to docs/mastermind/plans/. No placeholders — every step has exact file paths, complete code, and expected output.
+type: domain-skill
+default_mode: confirm
+---
+
+# Mastermind Plan
+
+## Overview
+
+Write comprehensive implementation plans assuming the engineer has zero context for our codebase and questionable taste. Document everything they need to know: which files to touch for each task, code, testing, docs they might need to check, how to test it. Give them the whole plan as bite-sized tasks. DRY. YAGNI. TDD. Frequent commits.
+
+Assume they are a skilled developer, but know almost nothing about our toolset or problem domain. Assume they don't know good test design very well.
+
+**Announce at start:** "I'm using the mastermind:plan skill to create the implementation plan."
+
+**Context:** If working in an isolated worktree, it should have been created via the git worktrees workflow at execution time.
+
+**Save plans to:** `docs/mastermind/plans/YYYY-MM-DD-<feature-name>.md`
+- (User preferences for plan location override this default)
+
+---
+
+## Inputs
+
+- `brain_context`: BRAIN CONTEXT block (loaded via _protocol.md brain load)
+- `params`: spec text, feature description, or path to spec file
+- `mode`: auto | confirm
+
+---
+
+## Scope Check
+
+If the spec covers multiple independent subsystems, it should have been broken into sub-project specs during brainstorming. If it wasn't, suggest breaking this into separate plans — one per subsystem. Each plan should produce working, testable software on its own.
+
+---
+
+## File Structure
+
+Before defining tasks, map out which files will be created or modified and what each one is responsible for. This is where decomposition decisions get locked in.
+
+- Design units with clear boundaries and well-defined interfaces. Each file should have one clear responsibility.
+- You reason best about code you can hold in context at once, and your edits are more reliable when files are focused. Prefer smaller, focused files over large ones that do too much.
+- Files that change together should live together. Split by responsibility, not by technical layer.
+- In existing codebases, follow established patterns. If the codebase uses large files, don't unilaterally restructure — but if a file you're modifying has grown unwieldy, including a split in the plan is reasonable.
+
+This structure informs the task decomposition. Each task should produce self-contained changes that make sense independently.
+
+---
+
+## Bite-Sized Task Granularity
+
+**Each step is one action (2-5 minutes):**
+- "Write the failing test" — step
+- "Run it to make sure it fails" — step
+- "Implement the minimal code to make the test pass" — step
+- "Run the tests and make sure they pass" — step
+- "Commit" — step
+
+---
+
+## Plan Document Header
+
+**Every plan MUST start with this header:**
+
+```markdown
+# [Feature Name] Implementation Plan
+
+> **For agentic workers:** REQUIRED SUB-SKILL: Use `Skill("mastermind:taskdev")` (recommended) or `Skill("mastermind:execute")` to implement this plan task-by-task. Steps use checkbox (`- [ ]`) syntax for tracking.
+
+**Goal:** [One sentence describing what this builds]
+
+**Architecture:** [2-3 sentences about approach]
+
+**Tech Stack:** [Key technologies/libraries]
+
+---
+```
+
+---
+
+## Task Structure
+
+````markdown
+### Task N: [Component Name]
+
+**Files:**
+- Create: `exact/path/to/file.py`
+- Modify: `exact/path/to/existing.py:123-145`
+- Test: `tests/exact/path/to/test.py`
+
+- [ ] **Step 1: Write the failing test**
+
+```python
+def test_specific_behavior():
+    result = function(input)
+    assert result == expected
+```
+
+- [ ] **Step 2: Run test to verify it fails**
+
+Run: `pytest tests/path/test.py::test_name -v`
+Expected: FAIL with "function not defined"
+
+- [ ] **Step 3: Write minimal implementation**
+
+```python
+def function(input):
+    return expected
+```
+
+- [ ] **Step 4: Run test to verify it passes**
+
+Run: `pytest tests/path/test.py::test_name -v`
+Expected: PASS
+
+- [ ] **Step 5: Commit**
+
+```bash
+git add tests/path/test.py src/path/file.py
+git commit -m "feat: add specific feature"
+```
+````
+
+---
+
+## No Placeholders
+
+Every step must contain the actual content an engineer needs. These are **plan failures** — never write them:
+- "TBD", "TODO", "implement later", "fill in details"
+- "Add appropriate error handling" / "add validation" / "handle edge cases"
+- "Write tests for the above" (without actual test code)
+- "Similar to Task N" (repeat the code — the engineer may be reading tasks out of order)
+- Steps that describe what to do without showing how (code blocks required for code steps)
+- References to types, functions, or methods not defined in any task
+
+---
+
+## Remember
+- Exact file paths always
+- Complete code in every step — if a step changes code, show the code
+- Exact commands with expected output
+- DRY, YAGNI, TDD, frequent commits
+
+---
+
+## Self-Review
+
+After writing the complete plan, look at the spec with fresh eyes and check the plan against it. This is a checklist you run yourself — not a subagent dispatch.
+
+**1. Spec coverage:** Skim each section/requirement in the spec. Can you point to a task that implements it? List any gaps.
+
+**2. Placeholder scan:** Search your plan for red flags — any of the patterns from the "No Placeholders" section above. Fix them.
+
+**3. Type consistency:** Do the types, method signatures, and property names you used in later tasks match what you defined in earlier tasks? A function called `clearLayers()` in Task 3 but `clearFullLayers()` in Task 7 is a bug.
+
+If you find issues, fix them inline. No need to re-review — just fix and move on. If you find a spec requirement with no task, add the task.
+
+---
+
+## Execution Handoff
+
+After saving the plan, offer execution choice:
+
+**"Plan complete and saved to `docs/mastermind/plans/<filename>.md`. Two execution options:**
+
+**1. Subagent-Driven (recommended)** — Invoke `Skill("mastermind:taskdev")`: dispatches a fresh subagent per task, reviews between tasks, fast iteration.
+
+**2. Inline Execution** — Invoke `Skill("mastermind:execute")`: batch execution with checkpoints.
+
+**Which approach?"**
+
+**If Subagent-Driven chosen:**
+- Invoke `Skill("mastermind:taskdev")`
+- Fresh subagent per task + two-stage review
+
+**If Inline Execution chosen:**
+- Invoke `Skill("mastermind:execute")`
+- Batch execution with checkpoints for review

package/.claude/skills/mastermind/receive-review.md

@@ -0,0 +1,213 @@
+---
+name: mastermind-receive-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 CLAUDE.md 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
+```
+
+**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
+```
+
+**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
+
+**Signal if uncomfortable pushing back out loud:** "Strange things are afoot at the Circle K"
+
+## 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]
+
+NEVER: "You're absolutely right!"
+NEVER: "Great point!"
+NEVER: "Thanks for catching that!"
+NEVER: "Thanks for [anything]"
+NEVER: 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."
+
+NEVER: Long apology
+NEVER: Defending why you pushed back
+NEVER: 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.
+
+## The Bottom Line
+
+**External feedback = suggestions to evaluate, not orders to follow.**
+
+Verify. Question. Then implement.
+
+No performative agreement. Technical rigor always.