@monoes/monomindcli 2.9.7 → 2.9.9

package/.claude/skills/mastermind-tdd/SKILL.md

@@ -1,424 +0,0 @@
----
-name: mastermind-tdd
-description: Use when writing new code, fixing bugs, or adding any production logic — enforces test-first discipline before touching implementation. Use ESPECIALLY when under time pressure or when a fix seems obvious.
-type: domain-skill
-default_mode: auto
----
-
-# Mastermind TDD
-
-This skill is invoked by `mastermind:master` or directly via `/mastermind:tdd`.
-
-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.**
-
----
-
-## Inputs
-
-- `brain_context`: BRAIN CONTEXT block (injected by master, or loaded standalone via mastermind-protocol/SKILL.md brain load)
-- `prompt`: what feature or bug to implement with TDD
-- `project_name`: monotask space name
-- `board_id`: monotask board ID (set by master, or created standalone)
-- `mode`: auto | confirm
-
----
-
-## 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
-
-```
-RED   → Write failing test
-        ↓
-        Verify fails correctly
-        ↓ (wrong failure → back to RED)
-GREEN → Minimal code
-        ↓
-        Verify passes — all green
-        ↓ (no → fix code, not test)
-REFACTOR → Clean up
-        ↓
-        Verify still green
-        ↓
-        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.
-
-**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.
-
-**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 is missing (not typos)
-
-**Test passes?** You're testing existing behavior. Fix test.
-
-**Test errors?** Fix error, re-run until it fails correctly.
-
-Invoke `Skill("mastermind-verify")` to gate this step: the RED verification must confirm the test fails for the expected reason.
-
-### 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.
-
-**Bad:**
-```typescript
-async function retryOperation<T>(
-  fn: () => Promise<T>,
-  options?: {
-    maxRetries?: number;
-    backoff?: 'linear' | 'exponential';
-    onRetry?: (attempt: number) => void;
-  }
-): Promise<T> {
-  // YAGNI
-}
-```
-Over-engineered.
-
-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.
-
-Invoke `Skill("mastermind-verify")` to gate this step.
-
-### 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 |
-
----
-
-## Why Order Matters
-
-**"I'll write tests after to verify it works"**
-
-Tests written after code pass immediately. Passing immediately proves nothing:
-- Might test wrong thing
-- Might test implementation, not behavior
-- Might miss edge cases you forgot
-- You never saw it catch the bug
-
-Test-first forces you to see the test fail, proving it actually tests something.
-
-**"I already manually tested all the edge cases"**
-
-Manual testing is ad-hoc. You think you tested everything but:
-- No record of what you tested
-- Can't re-run when code changes
-- Easy to forget cases under pressure
-- "It worked when I tried it" ≠ comprehensive
-
-Automated tests are systematic. They run the same way every time.
-
-**"Deleting X hours of work is wasteful"**
-
-Sunk cost fallacy. The time is already gone. Your choice now:
-- Delete and rewrite with TDD (X more hours, high confidence)
-- Keep it and add tests after (30 min, low confidence, likely bugs)
-
-The "waste" is keeping code you can't trust. Working code without real tests is technical debt.
-
-**"TDD is dogmatic, being pragmatic means adapting"**
-
-TDD IS pragmatic:
-- Finds bugs before commit (faster than debugging after)
-- Prevents regressions (tests catch breaks immediately)
-- Documents behavior (tests show how to use code)
-- Enables refactoring (change freely, tests catch breaks)
-
-"Pragmatic" shortcuts = debugging in production = slower.
-
-**"Tests after achieve the same goals — it's spirit not ritual"**
-
-No. Tests-after answer "What does this do?" Tests-first answer "What should this do?"
-
-Tests-after are biased by your implementation. You test what you built, not what's required. You verify remembered edge cases, not discovered ones.
-
-Tests-first force edge case discovery before implementing. Tests-after verify you remembered everything (you didn't).
-
-30 minutes of tests after ≠ TDD. You get coverage, lose proof tests work.
-
----
-
-## Common Rationalizations
-
-| Excuse | Reality |
-|--------|---------|
-| "Too simple to test" | Simple code breaks. Test takes 30 seconds. |
-| "I'll test after" | Tests passing immediately prove nothing. |
-| "Tests after achieve same goals" | Tests-after = "what does this do?" Tests-first = "what should this do?" |
-| "Already manually tested" | Ad-hoc ≠ systematic. No record, can't re-run. |
-| "Deleting X hours is wasteful" | Sunk cost fallacy. Keeping unverified code is technical debt. |
-| "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 faster than debugging. Pragmatic = test-first. |
-| "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 — invoke `Skill("mastermind-verify")` to run this gate:
-
-- [ ] 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. |
-
----
-
-## Testing Anti-Patterns
-
-Tests must verify real behavior, not mock behavior. Mocks are a means to isolate, not the thing being tested. **Test what the code does, not what the mocks do.**
-
-**The Iron Laws of mocking:**
-
-```
-1. NEVER test mock behavior
-2. NEVER add test-only methods to production classes
-3. NEVER mock without understanding dependencies
-```
-
-| Anti-pattern | The violation | The fix |
-|---|---|---|
-| **Testing mock behavior** | Asserting a `*-mock` element or mocked return exists — the test verifies the mock works, not the component | Test the real component, or don't assert on the mock at all |
-| **Test-only methods in production** | A method (e.g. `destroy()`) that only tests call, living on a production class | Move it to test utilities; production classes carry only production API |
-| **Mocking without understanding** | Mocking a method whose side effect the test depends on ("I'll mock this to be safe") — the test passes for the wrong reason or fails mysteriously | Run the test against the real implementation FIRST, observe what it needs, then mock minimally at the lowest slow/external level |
-| **Incomplete mocks** | Mocking only the fields your immediate test uses — downstream code reads omitted fields and fails silently in integration | Mirror the COMPLETE real data structure; if uncertain, include all documented fields |
-| **Tests as afterthought** | "Implementation complete, ready for testing" | Testing is part of implementation — TDD, tests first |
-
-**Gate before any mock:** What side effects does the real method have? Does this test depend on any of them? Do I fully understand what this test needs? If unsure — run against the real implementation first.
-
-**When mocks become too complex** (setup longer than test logic, mock missing methods real components have, test breaks when mock changes): ask "do we need a mock here at all?" — integration tests with real components are often simpler than complex mocks.
-
-**Red flags:** assertions on `*-mock` IDs · methods only called from test files · mock setup >50% of the test · test fails when you remove the mock · can't explain why the mock is needed · mocking "just to be safe".
-
-If TDD reveals you're testing mock behavior, you added mocks without watching the test fail against real code first — test real behavior or question why you're mocking at all.
-
----
-
-## 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/.claude/skills/mastermind-verify/SKILL.md

@@ -1,196 +0,0 @@
----
-name: mastermind-verify
-description: Mastermind verification gate — enforces evidence-before-claims before any completion, commit, PR, or agent-delegation step. The Iron Law of verification.
-type: domain-skill
-default_mode: auto
----
-
-# Mastermind Verify
-
-This skill is invoked by `mastermind:master` or directly via `/mastermind:verify`.
-
-Claiming work is complete without verification is dishonesty, not efficiency.
-
-**Core principle:** Evidence before claims, always.
-
-**Violating the letter of this rule is violating the spirit of this rule.**
-
----
-
-## Inputs
-
-- `brain_context`: BRAIN CONTEXT block (injected by master, or loaded standalone via mastermind-protocol/SKILL.md brain load)
-- `prompt`: what to verify and what claim is being made
-- `project_name`: monotask space name
-- `board_id`: monotask board ID (set by master, or created standalone)
-- `mode`: auto | confirm
-
----
-
-## The Iron Law
-
-```
-NO COMPLETION CLAIMS WITHOUT FRESH VERIFICATION EVIDENCE
-```
-
-If you haven't run the verification command in this message, you cannot claim it passes.
-
----
-
-## The Gate Function
-
-```
-BEFORE claiming any status or expressing satisfaction:
-
-1. IDENTIFY: What command proves this claim?
-2. RUN: Execute the FULL command (fresh, complete)
-3. READ: Full output, check exit code, count failures
-4. VERIFY: Does output confirm the claim?
-   - If NO: State actual status with evidence
-   - If YES: State claim WITH evidence
-5. ONLY THEN: Make the claim
-
-Skip any step = lying, not verifying
-```
-
----
-
-## Common Failures
-
-| Claim | Requires | Not Sufficient |
-|-------|----------|----------------|
-| Tests pass | Test command output: 0 failures | Previous run, "should pass" |
-| Linter clean | Linter output: 0 errors | Partial check, extrapolation |
-| Build succeeds | Build command: exit 0 | Linter passing, logs look good |
-| Bug fixed | Test original symptom: passes | Code changed, assumed fixed |
-| Regression test works | Red-green cycle verified | Test passes once |
-| Agent completed | VCS diff shows changes | Agent reports "success" |
-| Requirements met | Line-by-line checklist | Tests passing |
-
----
-
-## Red Flags - STOP
-
-- Using "should", "probably", "seems to"
-- Expressing satisfaction before verification ("Great!", "Perfect!", "Done!", etc.)
-- About to commit/push/PR without verification
-- Trusting agent success reports
-- Relying on partial verification
-- Thinking "just this once"
-- Tired and wanting work over
-- **ANY wording implying success without having run verification**
-
----
-
-## Rationalization Prevention
-
-| Excuse | Reality |
-|--------|---------|
-| "Should work now" | RUN the verification |
-| "I'm confident" | Confidence ≠ evidence |
-| "Just this once" | No exceptions |
-| "Linter passed" | Linter ≠ compiler |
-| "Agent said success" | Verify independently |
-| "I'm tired" | Exhaustion ≠ excuse |
-| "Partial check is enough" | Partial proves nothing |
-| "Different words so rule doesn't apply" | Spirit over letter |
-
----
-
-## Key Patterns
-
-**Tests:**
-```
-✅ [Run test command] [See: 34/34 pass] "All tests pass"
-❌ "Should pass now" / "Looks correct"
-```
-
-**Regression tests (TDD Red-Green):**
-```
-✅ Write → Run (pass) → Revert fix → Run (MUST FAIL) → Restore → Run (pass)
-❌ "I've written a regression test" (without red-green verification)
-```
-
-**Build:**
-```
-✅ [Run build] [See: exit 0] "Build passes"
-❌ "Linter passed" (linter doesn't check compilation)
-```
-
-**Requirements:**
-```
-✅ Re-read plan → Create checklist → Verify each → Report gaps or completion
-❌ "Tests pass, phase complete"
-```
-
-**Agent delegation:**
-```
-✅ Agent reports success → Check VCS diff → Verify changes → Report actual state
-❌ Trust agent report
-```
-
----
-
-## Execution
-
-### Complexity Assessment
-
-**Simple (direct verification):** Single command, one claim:
-- "Do the tests pass?"
-- "Does the build succeed?"
-- Run the command, report the output.
-
-**Complex (multi-gate verification):** Multiple claims or multi-step requirements:
-- "Is this feature complete?" → decompose into requirement checklist, run each gate
-- Spawn a Verification Coordinator if needed
-
-### Steps
-
-1. **Parse the claim or task being verified.** If the prompt is empty or vague, ask: "What claim or task needs verification?"
-
-2. **Identify all verification gates.** For each claim, determine the exact command that proves or disproves it.
-
-3. **Run each gate fresh.** Execute commands in this session. Do not rely on prior output.
-
-4. **Collect evidence.** Exit code, line counts, failure messages, diff output.
-
-5. **Report findings with evidence.** Never summarize without quoting relevant output.
-
----
-
-## When To Apply
-
-**ALWAYS before:**
-- ANY variation of success/completion claims
-- ANY expression of satisfaction
-- ANY positive statement about work state
-- Committing, PR creation, task completion
-- Moving to next task
-- Delegating to agents
-
-**Rule applies to:**
-- Exact phrases
-- Paraphrases and synonyms
-- Implications of success
-- ANY communication suggesting completion/correctness
-
----
-
-## Why This Matters
-
-From failure patterns:
-- Trust broken when claiming done without checking
-- Undefined functions shipped — would crash
-- Missing requirements shipped — incomplete features
-- Time wasted on false completion → redirect → rework
-- Violates: "Honesty is a core value. If you lie, you'll be replaced."
-
----
-
-## The Bottom Line
-
-**No shortcuts for verification.**
-
-Run the command. Read the output. THEN claim the result.
-
-This is non-negotiable.