@monoes/monomindcli 2.15.2 → 2.15.4

package/org-skills/react-testing/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,427 @@
+---
+name: react-testing
+description: "React component testing with React Testing Library, Vitest/Jest, MSW for network mocking, accessibility assertions with axe, and the decision boundary between component tests and Playwright/Cypress end-to-end runs. Use when writing or fixing tests for React components, hooks, or pages."
+tags: ["frontend","testing"]
+tools: []
+license: MIT
+source: https://github.com/affaan-m/ECC
+source_path: "skills/react-testing"
+source_commit: bf70150eb2df8070024e5bdf08e4aa08959e2735
+---
+# React Testing
+
+Comprehensive React testing patterns for behavior-focused component tests, custom hook tests, accessibility assertions, and network-level mocking.
+
+## When to Activate
+
+- Writing tests for React components, custom hooks, or pages
+- Adding test coverage to legacy untested components
+- Migrating from Enzyme or class-component-era patterns to React Testing Library
+- Setting up Vitest or Jest for a new React project
+- Mocking HTTP requests in tests
+- Asserting accessibility violations
+- Deciding which tests belong in RTL vs Playwright Component Testing vs full E2E
+
+## Core Principle
+
+Test what the user sees and does, not implementation details.
+
+A test should:
+
+- Render the component with the same providers it has in production
+- Interact with it via accessible queries (role, label) and `userEvent`
+- Assert visible output and observable side effects (callback fired, request sent)
+
+A test should NOT:
+
+- Inspect component state, props passed to children, or which hooks were called
+- Mock React itself or framework hooks
+- Assert on the number of renders or DOM structure beyond what affects users
+
+## Library Choice
+
+| Runner | When | Note |
+|---|---|---|
+| **Vitest** | Vite, Remix, modern setups | Faster, native ESM, Jest-compatible API |
+| **Jest** | Next.js, CRA, established repos | Default for many React projects |
+| **Playwright Component Testing** | Real browser engine needed | Use when JSDOM lacks the required feature |
+| **Cypress Component Testing** | Real browser, Cypress already in use | Alternative to Playwright CT |
+
+Pick one. Do not run RTL + Vitest AND Playwright CT in the same repo unless you have a clear lane separation.
+
+## Query Priority
+
+React Testing Library exposes queries in three tiers — use top-down:
+
+1. **Accessible to everyone**: `getByRole`, `getByLabelText`, `getByPlaceholderText`, `getByText`, `getByDisplayValue`
+2. **Semantic**: `getByAltText`, `getByTitle`
+3. **Test IDs (escape hatch)**: `getByTestId`
+
+```tsx
+// Best
+screen.getByRole("button", { name: /save/i });
+
+// OK for inputs
+screen.getByLabelText("Email");
+
+// Last resort
+screen.getByTestId("save-btn");
+```
+
+Variants:
+
+- `getBy*` — throws if no match
+- `queryBy*` — returns `null` (use for "assert absence")
+- `findBy*` — async, returns a Promise (use for elements that appear after async work)
+
+## User Interaction with `userEvent`
+
+```tsx
+import userEvent from "@testing-library/user-event";
+
+test("submits the form", async () => {
+  const user = userEvent.setup();
+  const onSubmit = vi.fn();
+  render(<UserForm onSubmit={onSubmit} />);
+
+  await user.type(screen.getByLabelText("Email"), "user@example.com");
+  await user.click(screen.getByRole("button", { name: /save/i }));
+
+  expect(onSubmit).toHaveBeenCalledWith({ email: "user@example.com" });
+});
+```
+
+- Always `await` userEvent calls
+- Call `userEvent.setup()` once per test, reuse the returned `user`
+- `userEvent` simulates a real browser sequence; `fireEvent` dispatches a single synthetic event — prefer `userEvent`
+
+## Async Patterns
+
+```tsx
+// Element that appears after async work
+expect(await screen.findByText("Loaded")).toBeInTheDocument();
+
+// Side effect assertion
+await waitFor(() => expect(saveSpy).toHaveBeenCalled());
+
+// Element that should disappear
+await waitForElementToBeRemoved(() => screen.queryByText("Loading"));
+```
+
+Never `setTimeout` + assertion — flaky. Use the matchers above.
+
+## Network Mocking with MSW
+
+Mock Service Worker mocks at the network layer. The component, hooks, and fetch library all behave exactly as in production.
+
+### Setup
+
+```ts
+// test/setup.ts
+import { setupServer } from "msw/node";
+import { http, HttpResponse } from "msw";
+
+export const handlers = [
+  http.get("/api/users/:id", ({ params }) =>
+    HttpResponse.json({ id: params.id, name: "Alice" }),
+  ),
+  http.post("/api/users", async ({ request }) => {
+    const body = await request.json();
+    return HttpResponse.json({ id: "new-id", ...body }, { status: 201 });
+  }),
+];
+
+export const server = setupServer(...handlers);
+
+beforeAll(() => server.listen({ onUnhandledRequest: "error" }));
+afterEach(() => server.resetHandlers());
+afterAll(() => server.close());
+```
+
+Configure `onUnhandledRequest: "error"` so any unmocked request fails the test loudly — silent passes are worse than red.
+
+### Per-test override
+
+```tsx
+test("renders error on 500", async () => {
+  server.use(
+    http.get("/api/users/:id", () => new HttpResponse(null, { status: 500 })),
+  );
+  render(<UserPage id="1" />);
+  expect(await screen.findByText(/something went wrong/i)).toBeInTheDocument();
+});
+```
+
+## Provider Wrapping
+
+Wrap providers once in a `test-utils.tsx`:
+
+```tsx
+// test-utils.tsx
+import { render, RenderOptions } from "@testing-library/react";
+import { QueryClient, QueryClientProvider } from "@tanstack/react-query";
+
+export function renderWithProviders(
+  ui: React.ReactElement,
+  options?: RenderOptions,
+) {
+  const queryClient = new QueryClient({
+    defaultOptions: { queries: { retry: false } },
+  });
+
+  return render(
+    <QueryClientProvider client={queryClient}>
+      <ThemeProvider theme={lightTheme}>
+        <MemoryRouter>{ui}</MemoryRouter>
+      </ThemeProvider>
+    </QueryClientProvider>,
+    options,
+  );
+}
+
+export * from "@testing-library/react";
+```
+
+Then `import { renderWithProviders, screen } from "test-utils"` in every test file.
+
+## Custom Hook Testing
+
+```tsx
+import { renderHook, act } from "@testing-library/react";
+
+test("useCounter increments and decrements", () => {
+  const { result } = renderHook(() => useCounter(0));
+
+  expect(result.current.count).toBe(0);
+
+  act(() => result.current.increment());
+  expect(result.current.count).toBe(1);
+
+  act(() => result.current.decrement());
+  expect(result.current.count).toBe(0);
+});
+
+test("useCounter accepts initial value", () => {
+  const { result } = renderHook(() => useCounter(10));
+  expect(result.current.count).toBe(10);
+});
+
+test("useUser fetches user data", async () => {
+  // Instantiate QueryClient ONCE per test outside the wrapper so it survives re-renders.
+  // Creating it inside the wrapper closure resets cache state on every render, producing flaky tests.
+  const queryClient = new QueryClient({
+    defaultOptions: { queries: { retry: false } },
+  });
+  const wrapper = ({ children }: { children: React.ReactNode }) => (
+    <QueryClientProvider client={queryClient}>{children}</QueryClientProvider>
+  );
+
+  const { result } = renderHook(() => useUser("1"), { wrapper });
+
+  await waitFor(() => expect(result.current.isSuccess).toBe(true));
+  expect(result.current.data).toEqual({ id: "1", name: "Alice" });
+});
+```
+
+- Wrap state-changing calls in `act`
+- Test through the hook's public API only
+- For hooks that use context, pass a `wrapper`
+
+## Accessibility Assertions
+
+```tsx
+import { axe, toHaveNoViolations } from "jest-axe"; // or vitest-axe
+expect.extend(toHaveNoViolations);
+
+test("UserCard has no a11y violations", async () => {
+  const { container } = render(<UserCard user={mockUser} />);
+  expect(await axe(container)).toHaveNoViolations();
+});
+```
+
+Run axe in component tests for every interactive component. Catches:
+
+- Missing labels on form inputs
+- Invalid ARIA usage
+- Poor color contrast (limited — JSDOM has no real CSS engine, so this works for inline styles only; visual contrast belongs in Playwright)
+- Missing alt text on images
+- Heading order violations
+
+Cross-link: [skills/accessibility/SKILL.md](../accessibility/SKILL.md) for the broader a11y testing playbook.
+
+## When NOT to Use Snapshot Tests
+
+Snapshots of rendered output:
+
+- Break on every styling change
+- Get rubber-stamped during review
+- Test implementation detail (DOM structure), not behavior
+
+Acceptable snapshot uses:
+
+- Pure data serialization functions (`formatInvoice(invoice)` -> stable string)
+- Generated config files (e.g., webpack config output)
+
+For visual regression on components, use Playwright/Cypress screenshots or Percy/Chromatic — actual visual diffs, not DOM strings.
+
+## When to Reach for Playwright / Cypress
+
+JSDOM (used by Vitest/Jest) cannot:
+
+- Render real layout (flexbox, grid, viewport queries)
+- Run native browser animation, CSS transitions
+- Test scrolling behavior, drag-and-drop, paste from clipboard
+- Handle iframes, popups, downloads, cross-origin flows
+- Run real network in a controlled environment with full DevTools support
+
+For any of those, use Playwright Component Testing (component test in real browser) or full E2E. See [e2e-testing skill](../e2e-testing/SKILL.md).
+
+Decision boundary:
+
+- A hook, a presentational component, a form with logic -> RTL
+- A component whose layout matters or that uses browser APIs not in JSDOM -> Playwright CT
+- A full user flow across multiple pages -> Playwright/Cypress E2E
+
+## Coverage Targets
+
+| Layer | Target |
+|---|---|
+| Pure utilities | >=90% |
+| Custom hooks | >=85% |
+| Presentational components | >=80% — behavior, not lines |
+| Container components | >=70% — golden paths + error states |
+| Pages | E2E covered separately; smoke test minimum |
+
+Configure via `vitest.config.ts` / `jest.config.js`:
+
+```ts
+// vitest.config.ts
+test: {
+  coverage: {
+    provider: "v8",
+    reporter: ["text", "html", "lcov"],
+    thresholds: {
+      lines: 80,
+      functions: 80,
+      branches: 70,
+      statements: 80,
+    },
+  },
+}
+```
+
+## Anti-Patterns
+
+- `container.querySelector("...")` — bypasses accessibility queries, lets tests pass when real users would fail
+- Asserting on number of renders — implementation detail
+- `jest.mock("react", ...)` — never mock React. Refactor the component instead
+- Mocking child components by default — tests the integration, not isolation. Mock only when the child has heavy side effects
+- Ignoring `act()` warnings — they signal real bugs (state update after unmount, missing async wrapping)
+- Sharing mutable state across tests — flakes when test order changes
+- Tests that pass with `it.skip()` removed — your test does not actually assert what you think
+
+## TDD Workflow
+
+```
+RED     -> Write failing test for the next requirement
+GREEN   -> Write minimal component code to pass
+REFACTOR -> Improve the component, tests stay green
+REPEAT  -> Next requirement
+```
+
+For new components:
+
+1. Define the component's prop type and signature
+2. Write the first test for the simplest case
+3. Verify it fails for the right reason
+4. Implement just enough to pass
+5. Add the next test case
+6. Refactor when the third similar test reveals a pattern
+
+## Test Commands
+
+```bash
+# Vitest
+vitest                            # watch
+vitest run                        # one-shot
+vitest run --coverage             # with coverage
+vitest run path/to/file.test.tsx  # single file
+
+# Jest
+jest --watch
+jest --coverage
+jest path/to/file.test.tsx
+
+# CI mode
+CI=true vitest run --coverage
+```
+
+## Related
+
+- Rules: [rules/react/testing.md](../../rules/react/testing.md)
+- Skills: [react-patterns](../react-patterns/SKILL.md), [accessibility](../accessibility/SKILL.md), [e2e-testing](../e2e-testing/SKILL.md), [tdd-workflow](../tdd-workflow/SKILL.md)
+- Agents: `react-reviewer` (reviews test quality during code review), `tdd-guide` (enforces TDD process)
+- Commands: `/react-test`, `/react-review`
+
+## Examples
+
+### Form submission with MSW and userEvent
+
+```tsx
+test("submits user form and shows success", async () => {
+  server.use(
+    http.post("/api/users", () =>
+      HttpResponse.json({ id: "1", name: "Alice" }, { status: 201 }),
+    ),
+  );
+
+  const user = userEvent.setup();
+  renderWithProviders(<UserForm />);
+
+  await user.type(screen.getByLabelText("Name"), "Alice");
+  await user.type(screen.getByLabelText("Email"), "alice@example.com");
+  await user.click(screen.getByRole("button", { name: /save/i }));
+
+  expect(await screen.findByText(/saved successfully/i)).toBeInTheDocument();
+});
+```
+
+### Testing an error boundary
+
+```tsx
+function Broken() {
+  throw new Error("boom");
+}
+
+test("error boundary renders fallback", () => {
+  // Suppress React's console.error noise for the expected throw, then restore so
+  // the spy does not leak across tests and hide real errors elsewhere.
+  const errorSpy = vi.spyOn(console, "error").mockImplementation(() => {});
+  try {
+    render(
+      <ErrorBoundary fallback={<div>Something went wrong</div>}>
+        <Broken />
+      </ErrorBoundary>,
+    );
+
+    expect(screen.getByText("Something went wrong")).toBeInTheDocument();
+  } finally {
+    errorSpy.mockRestore();
+  }
+});
+```
+
+### Testing a Suspense boundary
+
+```tsx
+test("shows loading then content", async () => {
+  renderWithProviders(
+    <Suspense fallback={<div>Loading...</div>}>
+      <UserDetail id="1" />
+    </Suspense>,
+  );
+
+  expect(screen.getByText("Loading...")).toBeInTheDocument();
+  expect(await screen.findByText("Alice")).toBeInTheDocument();
+});
+```

package/{dist/src/orgrt/role-skills/reality-checker.md → org-skills/reality-checker/SKILL.md}

@@ -1,3 +1,11 @@
+---
+name: reality-checker
+description: "Reality Checker role best practices. Independently verifies that a reported outcome matches ground truth — catching agents or teammates that report success without having actually confirmed it."
+tags: ["testing","engineering"]
+tools: ["monograph_query","monograph_context","monograph_impact"]
+license: Apache-2.0
+source: https://github.com/monoes/monomind
+---
 # Reality Checker — Best Practices
 
 ## Focus

package/org-skills/receiving-code-review/LICENSE.txt

@@ -0,0 +1,21 @@
+MIT License
+
+Copyright (c) 2025 Jesse Vincent
+
+Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy
+of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal
+in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights
+to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell
+copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is
+furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:
+
+The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all
+copies or substantial portions of the Software.
+
+THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR
+IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY,
+FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE
+AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER
+LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM,
+OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE
+SOFTWARE.

package/org-skills/receiving-code-review/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,210 @@
+---
+name: receiving-code-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"
+tags: ["engineering"]
+tools: ["monograph_query","monograph_context"]
+license: MIT
+source: https://github.com/obra/superpowers
+source_path: "skills/receiving-code-review"
+source_commit: 5bf4e78011075bcfc0dc295f0724994cd123ee71
+---
+# 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 instruction-file 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
+```
+
+**your human partner's 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
+```
+
+**your human partner's 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
+
+**If you're uncomfortable pushing back out loud:** Name that tension, then tell your partner about the issue you've seen. They'll appreciate your honesty.
+
+## 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]
+
+❌ "You're absolutely right!"
+❌ "Great point!"
+❌ "Thanks for catching that!"
+❌ "Thanks for [anything]"
+❌ 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."
+
+❌ Long apology
+❌ Defending why you pushed back
+❌ 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.

package/{dist/src/orgrt/role-skills/recruitment.md → org-skills/recruitment/SKILL.md}

@@ -1,3 +1,11 @@
+---
+name: recruitment
+description: "Recruitment role best practices. Sources, screens, and moves candidates through a hiring pipeline — for technical or general roles — balancing speed, candidate experience, and signal quality."
+tags: ["leadership","operations"]
+tools: []
+license: Apache-2.0
+source: https://github.com/monoes/monomind
+---
 # Recruitment — Best Practices
 
 ## Focus

package/org-skills/redis-patterns/LICENSE.txt

@@ -0,0 +1,21 @@
+MIT License
+
+Copyright (c) 2026 Affaan Mustafa
+
+Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy
+of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal
+in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights
+to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell
+copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is
+furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:
+
+The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all
+copies or substantial portions of the Software.
+
+THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR
+IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY,
+FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE
+AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER
+LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM,
+OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE
+SOFTWARE.