@monoes/monomindcli 2.15.3 → 2.15.4

package/org-skills/test-driven-development/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,335 @@
+---
+name: test-driven-development
+description: "Use when implementing any feature or bugfix, before writing implementation code"
+tags: ["engineering","testing"]
+tools: ["monograph_query","monograph_context"]
+license: MIT
+source: https://github.com/obra/superpowers
+source_path: "skills/test-driven-development"
+source_commit: 5bf4e78011075bcfc0dc295f0724994cd123ee71
+---
+# Test-Driven Development (TDD)
+
+## Overview
+
+Write the test first. Watch it fail. Write minimal code to pass.
+
+**Core principle:** If you didn't watch the test fail, you don't know if it tests the right thing.
+
+**Violating the letter of the rules is violating the spirit of the rules.**
+
+## When to Use
+
+**Always:**
+- New features
+- Bug fixes
+- Refactoring
+- Behavior changes
+
+**Exceptions (ask your human partner):**
+- Throwaway prototypes
+- Generated code
+- Configuration files
+
+Thinking "skip TDD just this once"? Stop. That's rationalization.
+
+## The Iron Law
+
+```
+NO PRODUCTION CODE WITHOUT A FAILING TEST FIRST
+```
+
+Write code before the test? Delete it. Start over.
+
+**No exceptions:**
+- Don't keep it as "reference"
+- Don't "adapt" it while writing tests
+- Don't look at it
+- Delete means delete
+
+Implement fresh from tests. Period.
+
+## Red-Green-Refactor
+
+```dot
+digraph tdd_cycle {
+    rankdir=LR;
+    red [label="RED\nWrite failing test", shape=box, style=filled, fillcolor="#ffcccc"];
+    verify_red [label="Verify fails\ncorrectly", shape=diamond];
+    green [label="GREEN\nMinimal code", shape=box, style=filled, fillcolor="#ccffcc"];
+    verify_green [label="Verify passes\nAll green", shape=diamond];
+    refactor [label="REFACTOR\nClean up", shape=box, style=filled, fillcolor="#ccccff"];
+    next [label="Next", shape=ellipse];
+
+    red -> verify_red;
+    verify_red -> green [label="yes"];
+    verify_red -> red [label="wrong\nfailure"];
+    green -> verify_green;
+    verify_green -> refactor [label="yes"];
+    verify_green -> green [label="no"];
+    refactor -> verify_green [label="stay\ngreen"];
+    verify_green -> next;
+    next -> red;
+}
+```
+
+### RED - Write Failing Test
+
+Write one minimal test showing what should happen.
+
+<Good>
+```typescript
+test('retries failed operations 3 times', async () => {
+  let attempts = 0;
+  const operation = () => {
+    attempts++;
+    if (attempts < 3) throw new Error('fail');
+    return 'success';
+  };
+
+  const result = await retryOperation(operation);
+
+  expect(result).toBe('success');
+  expect(attempts).toBe(3);
+});
+```
+Clear name, tests real behavior, one thing
+</Good>
+
+<Bad>
+```typescript
+test('retry works', async () => {
+  const mock = jest.fn()
+    .mockRejectedValueOnce(new Error())
+    .mockRejectedValueOnce(new Error())
+    .mockResolvedValueOnce('success');
+  await retryOperation(mock);
+  expect(mock).toHaveBeenCalledTimes(3);
+});
+```
+Vague name, tests mock not code
+</Bad>
+
+**Requirements:**
+- One behavior
+- Clear name
+- Real code (no mocks unless unavoidable)
+
+### Verify RED - Watch It Fail
+
+**MANDATORY. Never skip.**
+
+```bash
+npm test path/to/test.test.ts
+```
+
+Confirm:
+- Test fails (not errors)
+- Failure message is expected
+- Fails because feature missing (not typos)
+
+**Test passes?** You're testing existing behavior. Fix test.
+
+**Test errors?** Fix error, re-run until it fails correctly.
+
+### GREEN - Minimal Code
+
+Write simplest code to pass the test.
+
+<Good>
+```typescript
+async function retryOperation<T>(fn: () => Promise<T>): Promise<T> {
+  for (let i = 0; i < 3; i++) {
+    try {
+      return await fn();
+    } catch (e) {
+      if (i === 2) throw e;
+    }
+  }
+  throw new Error('unreachable');
+}
+```
+Just enough to pass
+</Good>
+
+<Bad>
+```typescript
+async function retryOperation<T>(
+  fn: () => Promise<T>,
+  options?: {
+    maxRetries?: number;
+    backoff?: 'linear' | 'exponential';
+    onRetry?: (attempt: number) => void;
+  }
+): Promise<T> {
+  // YAGNI
+}
+```
+Over-engineered
+</Bad>
+
+Don't add features, refactor other code, or "improve" beyond the test.
+
+### Verify GREEN - Watch It Pass
+
+**MANDATORY.**
+
+```bash
+npm test path/to/test.test.ts
+```
+
+Confirm:
+- Test passes
+- Other tests still pass
+- Output pristine (no errors, warnings)
+
+**Test fails?** Fix code, not test.
+
+**Other tests fail?** Fix now.
+
+**"Other tests" means the project's suite, not just your file.** A
+green run of the test you wrote is not a green suite. Before you call
+the change done, run the project's test command (bare `pytest`,
+`npm test`, `cargo test` — whatever the repo uses) even when your task
+named only one test file. A scope statement in your task bounds the
+deliverable, not your verification. Any failure that run shows —
+including one you didn't cause — goes in your report by name; a red
+test you watched scroll past and didn't mention is a report falsified
+by omission.
+
+### REFACTOR - Clean Up
+
+After green only:
+- Remove duplication
+- Improve names
+- Extract helpers
+
+Keep tests green. Don't add behavior.
+
+### Repeat
+
+Next failing test for next feature.
+
+## Good Tests
+
+| Quality | Good | Bad |
+|---------|------|-----|
+| **Minimal** | One thing. "and" in name? Split it. | `test('validates email and domain and whitespace')` |
+| **Clear** | Name describes behavior | `test('test1')` |
+| **Shows intent** | Demonstrates desired API | Obscures what code should do |
+
+When writing or changing any test, read [writing-good-tests.md](writing-good-tests.md) for the rules that keep tests honest:
+- Name the production change that would make the test fail — before writing it
+- Assert on real behavior, never on mock behavior
+- Keep test-only code in test utilities, out of production classes
+- Understand a dependency's side effects before mocking it
+
+## Common Rationalizations
+
+| Excuse | Reality |
+|--------|---------|
+| "Too simple to test" | Simple code breaks. Test takes 30 seconds. |
+| "I'll test after" | Tests written after pass immediately — which proves nothing. They may test the wrong thing, test the implementation instead of the behavior, or miss the edge case you forgot. You never watched it fail, so you never proved it can catch the bug. Test-first forces that failure. |
+| "Tests after achieve same goals (spirit not ritual)" | Tests-after answer "what does this do?"; tests-first answer "what should this do?" Tests written after are biased by the code you already wrote — you verify the cases you remembered, not the ones you'd have discovered. Coverage without proof the tests work. |
+| "Already manually tested" | Manual testing is ad-hoc: no record of what you covered, no way to re-run it when the code changes, easy to forget cases under pressure. "Worked when I tried it" ≠ comprehensive. Automated tests run the same way every time. |
+| "Deleting X hours is wasteful" | Sunk cost fallacy — that time is already spent either way. The real choice: rewrite with TDD (high confidence) vs. keep it and bolt tests on after (low confidence, likely bugs). Keeping code you can't trust is the waste. |
+| "Keep as reference, write tests first" | You'll adapt it. That's testing after. Delete means delete. |
+| "Need to explore first" | Fine. Throw away exploration, start with TDD. |
+| "Test hard = design unclear" | Listen to test. Hard to test = hard to use. |
+| "TDD will slow me down" | TDD IS the pragmatic path: catches bugs before commit, prevents regressions, lets you refactor without fear. "Pragmatic" shortcuts mean debugging in production — slower, not faster. |
+| "Manual test faster" | Manual doesn't prove edge cases. You'll re-test every change. |
+| "Existing code has no tests" | You're improving it. Add tests for existing code. |
+
+## Red Flags - STOP and Start Over
+
+- Code before test
+- Test after implementation
+- Test passes immediately
+- Can't explain why test failed
+- Tests added "later"
+- Rationalizing "just this once"
+- "I already manually tested it"
+- "Tests after achieve the same purpose"
+- "It's about spirit not ritual"
+- "Keep as reference" or "adapt existing code"
+- "Already spent X hours, deleting is wasteful"
+- "TDD is dogmatic, I'm being pragmatic"
+- "This is different because..."
+
+**All of these mean: Delete code. Start over with TDD.**
+
+## Example: Bug Fix
+
+**Bug:** Empty email accepted
+
+**RED**
+```typescript
+test('rejects empty email', async () => {
+  const result = await submitForm({ email: '' });
+  expect(result.error).toBe('Email required');
+});
+```
+
+**Verify RED**
+```bash
+$ npm test
+FAIL: expected 'Email required', got undefined
+```
+
+**GREEN**
+```typescript
+function submitForm(data: FormData) {
+  if (!data.email?.trim()) {
+    return { error: 'Email required' };
+  }
+  // ...
+}
+```
+
+**Verify GREEN**
+```bash
+$ npm test
+PASS
+```
+
+**REFACTOR**
+Extract validation for multiple fields if needed.
+
+## Verification Checklist
+
+Before marking work complete:
+
+- [ ] Every new function/method has a test
+- [ ] Watched each test fail before implementing
+- [ ] Each test failed for expected reason (feature missing, not typo)
+- [ ] Wrote minimal code to pass each test
+- [ ] All tests pass
+- [ ] Output pristine (no errors, warnings)
+- [ ] Tests use real code (mocks only if unavoidable)
+- [ ] Edge cases and errors covered
+
+Can't check all boxes? You skipped TDD. Start over.
+
+## When Stuck
+
+| Problem | Solution |
+|---------|----------|
+| Don't know how to test | Write wished-for API. Write assertion first. Ask your human partner. |
+| Test too complicated | Design too complicated. Simplify interface. |
+| Must mock everything | Code too coupled. Use dependency injection. |
+| Test setup huge | Extract helpers. Still complex? Simplify design. |
+
+## Debugging Integration
+
+Bug found? Write failing test reproducing it. Follow TDD cycle. Test proves fix and prevents regression.
+
+Never fix bugs without a test.
+
+## Final Rule
+
+```
+Production code → test exists and failed first
+Otherwise → not TDD
+```
+
+No exceptions without your human partner's permission.

package/org-skills/test-driven-development/writing-good-tests.md

@@ -0,0 +1,198 @@
+# Writing Good Tests
+
+**Load this reference when:** writing or changing tests, adding mocks, or
+adding cleanup/helper methods for tests.
+
+## Overview
+
+A test exists to catch a specific break. Two principles govern everything
+here:
+
+```
+1. Every test names the break it catches
+2. Every test exercises the real thing
+```
+
+Strict TDD produces both naturally: a test written first and watched
+failing against real code has already proven it can fail, and only earns
+a mock when the real dependency proves slow or external.
+
+## Principle 1: Name the Break
+
+Before writing the test body, answer: **what production change should
+make this test fail — and is that change a bug or a decision?** A test
+earns its place by catching a wrong branch, missing side effect, wrong
+argument, boundary case, or broken contract.
+
+**Derive expectations independently.** Use literals and hand-checked
+fixtures; table-driven tests with literal `want` values are the preferred
+shape. An expectation computed by the code under test — or its helpers —
+passes no matter what that code does:
+
+```typescript
+// ❌ Mirror assertion: the same builder computes both sides — always true
+const expected = buildSearchQuery({ tag: 'urgent' });
+expect(buildSearchQuery({ tag: 'urgent' })).toBe(expected);
+
+// ✅ Hand-derived literal
+expect(buildSearchQuery({ tag: 'urgent' })).toBe('tag:"urgent"');
+```
+
+**No change detectors.** If only intentional decisions can fail a test —
+a constant's value, exact message wording, private structure — it fires
+on redesign and sleeps through bugs. Test the behavior that depends on
+the decision: not `expect(MAX_RETRIES).toBe(5)` but "a failing call is
+retried 5 times and the 6th attempt never happens."
+
+**Behavior, not text.** Asserting that a script, skill, or config
+contains an exact line proves only that the source is the source. Run
+scripts against controlled inputs and assert outputs, side effects, or
+exit codes. Documents that instruct agents are tested by the consuming
+agent's behavior (superpowers:writing-skills); prose for humans earns no
+test at all.
+
+**Your code, not the framework.** Test the contract your code makes at
+its boundaries — the route you register, the query you emit, the payload
+you produce. Upstream mechanics are their maintainers' tests to write
+(the classic: asserting your router invokes a registered handler — that
+is the framework's test, not yours). When upstream behavior genuinely
+surprised you, write one narrow characterization test naming the
+assumption. The same boundary applies inside your code: constructors,
+getters, constants, and trivial forwarding earn tests only when they
+validate, normalize, default, derive, enforce, or cause side effects —
+otherwise assert the first consumer-visible result that depends on them.
+
+### Gate Function
+
+```
+BEFORE writing the test body:
+  Name the production change that would make this test fail.
+
+  Cannot name one            → redesign around an observable behavior
+  "The source text changed"  → run the artifact and assert its effects
+  Only intentional decisions → change detector; test the behavior
+                               that depends on the decision
+
+  Confirm the expected value is derived without the code under test.
+  IF it reuses the code's logic or helpers:
+    Replace it with a literal or hand-checked fixture
+```
+
+## Principle 2: Exercise the Real Thing
+
+**The mock earns no assertions.** A mock assertion passes when the mock
+is present and fails when it is absent — it says nothing about the
+component. Assert the real component's behavior; if the mock is what you
+are checking, unmock it or delete the assertion.
+
+```typescript
+// ✅ Real behavior
+expect(screen.getByRole('navigation')).toBeInTheDocument();
+
+// ❌ Mock existence
+expect(screen.getByTestId('sidebar-mock')).toBeInTheDocument();
+```
+
+**your human partner's correction:** "Are we testing the behavior of a
+mock?"
+
+**Mock at the right level.** Learn every side effect of the real method
+before replacing it; mock the slow or external operation and keep what
+the test depends on real. When unsure, run the test against the real
+implementation first and observe what actually needs to happen.
+
+```typescript
+// ❌ The mock swallows the config write that duplicate detection reads
+vi.mock('ToolCatalog', () => ({
+  discoverAndCacheTools: vi.fn().mockResolvedValue(undefined)
+}));
+
+// ✅ Mock only the slow server startup; the config write stays real
+vi.mock('MCPServerManager');
+```
+
+**Make doubles specific.** When arguments, call counts, or ordering are
+part of the contract, assert them — a fake that accepts anything verifies
+nothing. Give each branch (success, error, malformed) its own fixture or
+spy, so the wrong branch cannot satisfy the expectation.
+
+**Mirror real data completely.** Mock the complete structure as it exists
+in reality — all documented fields — not just the ones your test reads.
+Partial mocks fail silently when downstream code reads an omitted field:
+the test passes while integration breaks.
+
+**Production classes carry production methods only.** Cleanup that only
+tests need lives in test utilities, never as a `destroy()` on the
+production class. Ask: is this method called only from tests? Does this
+class own this resource's lifecycle? Wrong answers → test utility.
+
+**Prefer real components over complex mocks.** When mock setup outgrows
+the test logic, mocks miss methods the real components have, or tests
+break when the mock changes, switch to an integration test with real
+components. **your human partner's question:** "Do we need to be using a
+mock here?"
+
+### Gate Function
+
+```
+BEFORE adding a mock or test helper:
+  List the real method's side effects; keep the ones the test
+  depends on real — mock the slow/external level below them.
+
+  Mock responses mirror the complete real structure.
+
+  A method only tests call lives in test utilities, not production.
+
+  About to assert on the mock itself?
+    Unmock it or delete the assertion.
+```
+
+## Tests Ship With the Implementation
+
+The TDD cycle — failing test, minimal implementation, refactor — is what
+"complete" means. Ship the tests the behavior needs and only those:
+trivial code and human prose earn none, and a test written to satisfy
+process costs maintenance forever.
+
+## The Mutation Check
+
+Before finishing, mentally mutate the production code; at least one test
+should fail for each realistic mutation:
+
+- Wrong constant or argument
+- Wrong branch handler
+- Missing state change or side effect
+- Empty or default return
+- Missing validation for zero, empty, nil, unauthorized, or malformed input
+
+A mutation nothing catches marks the behavior as unprotected — or the
+test as tautological.
+
+## Quick Reference
+
+| When you... | Do |
+|-------------|-----|
+| Write any test | Name the break it catches — a bug, not a decision |
+| Build an expected value | Derive it by hand; never with the code under test |
+| Test a script or document | Run it / pressure-test its consumer; never grep its text |
+| Reach for a dependency test | Test your boundary contract, not their documented mechanics |
+| Want to assert on a mocked element | Test the real component, or unmock it |
+| Are about to mock a method | Learn its side effects; mock the slow/external level |
+| Build a mock response | Mirror the real structure completely |
+| Need cleanup only tests use | Put it in test utilities |
+| Watch mock setup balloon | Switch to an integration test with real components |
+| Finish a test file | Run the mutation check |
+
+## Warning Signs
+
+- Setup and assertion share the same object, guaranteeing equality
+- The test can fail only through a panic, crash, or missing selector
+- The test fails on every intentional change, never on accidental breakage
+- Expected values are hidden behind loops, builders, or helpers
+- The test greps source text, or asserts a removed symbol stays removed
+- The test would still matter if only the framework remained
+- The test exists for coverage, checking no side effect or outcome
+- An assertion checks a `*-mock` test ID, or fails if you remove the mock
+- A method is called only from test files
+- Mock setup is more than half the test, or you can't explain why the mock is needed
+- Mocking "just to be safe"

package/org-skills/test-master/LICENSE.txt

@@ -0,0 +1,21 @@
+MIT License
+
+Copyright (c) 2025
+
+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/test-master/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,91 @@
+---
+name: test-master
+description: "Generates test files, creates mocking strategies, analyzes code coverage, designs test architectures, and produces test plans and defect reports across functional, performance, and security testing disciplines. Use when writing unit tests, integration tests, or E2E tests; creating test strategies or automation frameworks; analyzing coverage gaps; performance testing with k6 or Artillery;"
+tags: ["testing","engineering"]
+tools: ["monograph_query","monograph_context"]
+license: MIT
+source: https://github.com/Jeffallan/claude-skills
+source_path: "skills/test-master"
+source_commit: 882ef55e377dbf9a4dbe496bb41ac6ccd0e555cf
+---
+# Test Master
+
+Comprehensive testing specialist ensuring software quality through functional, performance, and security testing.
+
+## Core Workflow
+
+1. **Define scope** — Identify what to test and which testing types apply
+2. **Create strategy** — Plan the test approach across functional, performance, and security perspectives
+3. **Write tests** — Implement tests with proper assertions (see example below)
+4. **Execute** — Run tests and collect results
+   - If tests fail: classify the failure (assertion error vs. environment/flakiness), fix root cause, re-run
+   - If tests are flaky: isolate ordering dependencies, check async handling, add retry or stabilization logic
+5. **Report** — Document findings with severity ratings and actionable fix recommendations
+   - Verify coverage targets are met before closing; flag gaps explicitly
+
+## Quick-Start Example
+
+A minimal Jest unit test illustrating the key patterns this skill enforces:
+
+```js
+// ✅ Good: meaningful description, specific assertion, isolated dependency
+describe('calculateDiscount', () => {
+  it('applies 10% discount for premium users', () => {
+    const result = calculateDiscount({ price: 100, userTier: 'premium' });
+    expect(result).toBe(90); // specific outcome, not just truthy
+  });
+
+  it('throws on negative price', () => {
+    expect(() => calculateDiscount({ price: -1, userTier: 'standard' }))
+      .toThrow('Price must be non-negative');
+  });
+});
+```
+
+Apply the same structure for pytest (`def test_…`, `assert result == expected`) and other frameworks.
+
+## Reference Guide
+
+Load detailed guidance based on context:
+
+<!-- TDD Iron Laws and Testing Anti-Patterns adapted from obra/superpowers by Jesse Vincent (@obra), MIT License -->
+
+| Topic | Reference | Load When |
+|-------|-----------|-----------|
+| Unit Testing | `references/unit-testing.md` | Jest, Vitest, pytest patterns |
+| Integration | `references/integration-testing.md` | API testing, Supertest |
+| E2E | `references/e2e-testing.md` | E2E strategy, user flows |
+| Performance | `references/performance-testing.md` | k6, load testing |
+| Security | `references/security-testing.md` | Security test checklist |
+| Reports | `references/test-reports.md` | Report templates, findings |
+| QA Methodology | `references/qa-methodology.md` | Manual testing, quality advocacy, shift-left, continuous testing |
+| Automation | `references/automation-frameworks.md` | Framework patterns, scaling, maintenance, team enablement |
+| TDD Iron Laws | `references/tdd-iron-laws.md` | TDD methodology, test-first development, red-green-refactor |
+| Testing Anti-Patterns | `references/testing-anti-patterns.md` | Test review, mock issues, test quality problems |
+
+## Constraints
+
+**MUST DO**
+- Test happy paths AND error/edge cases (e.g., empty input, null, boundary values)
+- Mock external dependencies — never call real APIs or databases in unit tests
+- Use meaningful `it('…')` descriptions that read as plain-English specifications
+- Assert specific outcomes (`expect(result).toBe(90)`), not just truthiness
+- Run tests in CI/CD; document and remediate coverage gaps
+
+**MUST NOT**
+- Skip error-path testing (e.g., don't test only the success branch of a try/catch)
+- Use production data in tests — use fixtures or factories instead
+- Create order-dependent tests — each test must be independently runnable
+- Ignore flaky tests — quarantine and fix them; don't just re-run until green
+- Test implementation details (internal method calls) — test observable behaviour
+
+## Output Templates
+
+When creating test plans, provide:
+1. Test scope and approach
+2. Test cases with expected outcomes
+3. Coverage analysis
+4. Findings with severity (Critical/High/Medium/Low)
+5. Specific fix recommendations
+
+[Documentation](https://jeffallan.github.io/claude-skills/skills/quality/test-master/)