@mrciphersmith/keryx 0.2.9

package/src/gdskills/bundled/skills/planning/consistency-checker/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,190 @@
+---
+name: gproject-consistency-checker
+description: >
+  Validates PRD/Implementation Plan against decisions registry, architecture doc,
+  and best practices constraints. Catches contradictions, gaps, and violations.
+  Use when: dispatched by gproject-orchestrator Phase 5.
+  NOT for: direct user invocation.
+version: 1.0.0
+---
+
+# gproject-consistency-checker
+
+## Purpose
+
+Quality gate before human approval. Systematically verify that the PRD
+is internally consistent and fully aligned with all upstream decisions.
+This agent is adversarial — its job is to find problems, not to approve.
+
+## Iron Laws
+
+| # | Law |
+|---|-----|
+| 1 | Check EVERY decision in decisions.md against PRD — no sampling |
+| 2 | Check EVERY MUST constraint in tech-bestpractices.md against PRD |
+| 3 | Report ALL violations — don't stop at the first one |
+| 4 | Classify severity: CRITICAL (blocks approval) / WARNING (should fix) / INFO (suggestion) |
+| 5 | NEVER fix violations yourself — only report them |
+| 6 | A clean report still lists what was checked (audit trail) |
+
+---
+
+## Input Contract
+
+```yaml
+task: "Validate PRD consistency against all project decisions and constraints"
+input_artifacts:
+  - .metaproject/jobs/<job>/artifacts/prd.md
+  - .metaproject/jobs/<job>/artifacts/problem-statement.md
+  - .metaproject/jobs/<job>/artifacts/stack-decision.md
+  - .metaproject/jobs/<job>/artifacts/architecture.md
+  - .metaproject/jobs/<job>/artifacts/tech-bestpractices.md
+  - .metaproject/jobs/<job>/decisions.md
+```
+
+## Output Contract
+
+```yaml
+status: "DONE" | "DONE_WITH_CONCERNS"
+summary: "<3-5 sentences: checks run, violations found, overall verdict>"
+concerns: ["<CRITICAL violations if any>"]
+artifact_path: ".metaproject/jobs/<job>/artifacts/consistency-report.md"
+# Note: no new_decisions — this agent doesn't make decisions
+```
+
+Status logic:
+- `DONE` = zero CRITICAL violations (WARNINGs acceptable)
+- `DONE_WITH_CONCERNS` = one or more CRITICAL violations found
+
+---
+
+## Workflow
+
+### Step 1: Goals ↔ User Stories Check
+
+For each goal in problem-statement.md:
+- [ ] At least one user story addresses this goal
+- [ ] User story acceptance criteria map to goal's success metric
+
+For each user story in PRD:
+- [ ] Traces back to a defined goal (not an invented one)
+- [ ] Does NOT implement a non-goal
+
+**Violation types:**
+- CRITICAL: Goal with no user story coverage
+- CRITICAL: User story implementing a non-goal
+- WARNING: User story with weak traceability to goal
+
+### Step 2: Stack ↔ PRD Check
+
+For each technology in stack-decision.md:
+- [ ] PRD technical references use this technology (not something else)
+- [ ] No undeclared technologies appear in PRD
+
+**Violation types:**
+- CRITICAL: PRD references technology not in stack-decision.md
+- CRITICAL: Key stack technology has no presence in PRD
+- WARNING: Stack technology mentioned but underspecified in PRD
+
+### Step 3: Architecture ↔ PRD Check
+
+For each architecture decision in architecture.md:
+- [ ] PRD respects layer boundaries
+- [ ] PRD respects dependency direction
+- [ ] PRD technical notes align with defined patterns
+
+**Violation types:**
+- CRITICAL: PRD proposes pattern contradicting architecture.md
+- WARNING: PRD section doesn't reference applicable architecture decision
+
+### Step 4: Best Practices ↔ PRD Check
+
+For each MUST constraint in tech-bestpractices.md:
+- [ ] PRD does not violate this constraint
+- [ ] Relevant user stories reference this constraint
+
+For each MUST NOT constraint:
+- [ ] PRD does not propose the antipattern
+
+**Violation types:**
+- CRITICAL: PRD violates a MUST constraint
+- CRITICAL: PRD proposes a MUST NOT antipattern
+- WARNING: MUST constraint not referenced by any user story
+
+### Step 5: Internal Consistency Check
+
+Within the PRD itself:
+- [ ] No two user stories contradict each other
+- [ ] Priorities are consistent (P0 depends on P0, not P1 depending on P2)
+- [ ] Data model matches API surface
+- [ ] Security requirements cover all user-facing features
+- [ ] Testing requirements cover all P0 user stories
+
+**Violation types:**
+- CRITICAL: Contradicting user stories
+- CRITICAL: P0 feature with no test coverage requirement
+- WARNING: Priority inconsistency in dependencies
+
+### Step 6: Completeness Check
+
+- [ ] All sections of PRD template are present
+- [ ] Executive summary matches actual content
+- [ ] Traceability matrix is complete
+- [ ] Open questions are flagged (not hidden)
+
+**Violation types:**
+- WARNING: Missing PRD section
+- INFO: Traceability matrix has gaps
+
+### Step 7: Write Consistency Report
+
+Write `artifacts/consistency-report.md`:
+
+```markdown
+# Consistency Report: <Project/Task Name>
+
+## Verdict: PASS | PASS_WITH_WARNINGS | FAIL
+
+## Summary
+- Checks executed: <count>
+- CRITICAL violations: <count>
+- WARNING violations: <count>
+- INFO items: <count>
+
+## Violations
+
+### CRITICAL
+#### V-001: <Title>
+- **Check**: <which check caught this>
+- **Found in PRD**: <section/user story reference>
+- **Conflicts with**: <decision ID / constraint ID / architecture section>
+- **Details**: <specific description>
+- **Suggested fix**: <what should change>
+- **Fix target**: <which phase/artifact needs to be updated>
+
+### WARNINGS
+#### W-001: <Title>
+...
+
+### INFO
+#### I-001: <Title>
+...
+
+## Audit Trail
+| Check Category | Items Checked | Passed | Failed |
+|---------------|--------------|--------|--------|
+| Goals ↔ User Stories | <N> | <N> | <N> |
+| Stack ↔ PRD | <N> | <N> | <N> |
+| Architecture ↔ PRD | <N> | <N> | <N> |
+| Best Practices ↔ PRD | <N> | <N> | <N> |
+| Internal Consistency | <N> | <N> | <N> |
+| Completeness | <N> | <N> | <N> |
+
+## Rollback Recommendations
+<If CRITICAL violations exist, suggest which phase to rollback to>
+- V-001 → requires rollback to Phase <N> (<reason>)
+```
+
+### Step 8: Return Summary
+
+Compact summary: verdict, violation counts, rollback recommendation if applicable.

package/src/gdskills/bundled/skills/planning/docpack-orchestrator/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,142 @@
+---
+name: docpack-orchestrator
+description: "Use when creating or updating a Metaproject requirements package under docs/requirements: PRD, specification, README, policies/protocols/schemas, roadmap updates, verification, and package review. Use for requests like 'create requirements package', 'prepare module documentation', 'write PRD/spec for module', or 'оформи пакет документации'. Not for reverse-engineering current codebase documentation; use autodoc-orchestrator for that."
+triggers:
+  - "create requirements package"
+  - "requirements package"
+  - "prepare module documentation"
+  - "write PRD and spec"
+  - "оформи пакет документации"
+  - "создай документацию модуля"
+metadata:
+  author: "MrCipherSmith"
+  version: "1.0.0"
+  category: "planning"
+license: "MIT"
+compatibility: "cursor,codex,zed,opencode,claude"
+---
+
+# docpack-orchestrator
+
+Top-level orchestrator for Metaproject requirements packages under
+`docs/requirements/<name>/`.
+
+Use `autodoc-orchestrator` instead when the goal is to reverse-engineer the
+current codebase and produce architecture/onboarding/developer documentation.
+
+## Execution metrics (opt-in)
+
+When a USER runs this orchestrator directly (not as a dispatched subagent), at
+the start ask "Collect execution statistics for this run? (yes/no)" per
+`.metaproject/rules/core/execution-metrics.md`. If yes, append the
+`## Execution Metrics` section at the end and save it under the docpack output
+dir. Never ask or emit it when dispatched as a subagent.
+
+## Iron Laws
+
+| # | Law |
+|---|---|
+| 1 | Never create a single loose doc when a package is needed. |
+| 2 | Always follow `rules/core/requirements-package-standard.mdc`. |
+| 3 | Every Markdown doc must have `Version`. |
+| 4 | README, PRD and specification are required for module packages. |
+| 5 | Verification and documentation review are mandatory before final output. |
+| 6 | Do not claim runtime implementation exists unless code proves it. |
+
+## Pipeline
+
+```text
+Phase 0  Scope       -> classify docs type and package name
+Phase 1  Evidence    -> collect source notes, decisions, existing docs and code context
+Phase 2  Design      -> decide required files and schemas
+Phase 3  Write       -> create/update README, PRD, specification and optional docs
+Phase 4  Verify      -> structural/version/link/schema checks
+Phase 5  Review      -> docpack-review pass
+Phase 6  Report      -> concise summary, changed files, gaps and next steps
+```
+
+## Phase 0: Scope
+
+Determine:
+
+- `package_name` in kebab-case;
+- package kind: `module`, `standard`, `policy`, `implementation-plan`, `report`;
+- target path: `docs/requirements/<package_name>/`;
+- required optional docs: policies, protocols, lifecycle, schemas, metrics.
+
+If the user already provided enough context, proceed without asking.
+
+## Phase 1: Evidence
+
+Collect only relevant context:
+
+- existing package files;
+- `docs/requirements/roadmap.md`;
+- module-specific specs;
+- related code paths through `gdgraph`/`gdctx` when available;
+- source notes from the user;
+- accepted decisions and constraints.
+
+Do not broad-read the repository when module artifacts or existing docs are
+enough.
+
+## Phase 2: Design File Set
+
+Required for module/standard packages:
+
+```text
+README.md
+prd.md
+specification.md
+```
+
+Add optional files only when justified:
+
+- `brainstorm.md` for interview/decision history;
+- `policies.md` for policy systems;
+- `agent-protocol.md` for agent behavior;
+- `ci-protocol.md` for CI behavior;
+- `artifact-lifecycle.md` for storage/retention;
+- `metrics-and-validation.md` for measurable validation;
+- `schemas/*.json` for machine-readable contracts.
+
+## Phase 3: Write
+
+Write concise Markdown with explicit headings. Required contracts:
+
+- README: purpose, status, document index, scope, related modules.
+- PRD: problem, goal, users, requirements, success criteria, risks,
+  recommendation.
+- Specification: identity, structure, manifest/config, CLI/skill surface, data
+  contracts, integrations, acceptance criteria.
+
+When updating existing docs, preserve useful content and bump versions.
+
+## Phase 4: Verify
+
+Run a local verification pass:
+
+- required files exist;
+- every Markdown file has `Version`;
+- README links to every package file;
+- schema files are valid JSON;
+- specification references schemas when present;
+- roadmap is updated for new module/standard capabilities;
+- no implementation status is overstated.
+
+## Phase 5: Review
+
+Use `docpack-review` for an adversarial pass. Fix blockers before
+final output. Warnings may remain only if called out clearly.
+
+## Final Response
+
+Report:
+
+```text
+requirements_package: <path>
+files_created_or_updated: <list>
+verification: pass | pass_with_warnings | fail
+review: pass | pass_with_warnings | fail
+remaining_gaps: <list>
+```

package/src/gdskills/bundled/skills/planning/docpack-orchestrator/input-contract.schema.json

@@ -0,0 +1,31 @@
+{
+  "$schema": "https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema",
+  "$id": "docpack-orchestrator-input-contract",
+  "title": "Requirements Package Orchestrator Input",
+  "type": "object",
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "required": ["request", "packageName"],
+  "properties": {
+    "request": { "type": "string", "minLength": 1 },
+    "packageName": { "type": "string", "pattern": "^[a-z0-9][a-z0-9-]*$" },
+    "packageKind": {
+      "type": "string",
+      "enum": ["module", "standard", "policy", "implementation-plan", "report"]
+    },
+    "targetPath": { "type": "string" },
+    "requiredDocs": {
+      "type": "array",
+      "items": { "type": "string" },
+      "uniqueItems": true
+    },
+    "sourceArtifacts": {
+      "type": "array",
+      "items": { "type": "string" },
+      "uniqueItems": true
+    },
+    "constraints": {
+      "type": "array",
+      "items": { "type": "string" }
+    }
+  }
+}

package/src/gdskills/bundled/skills/planning/docpack-orchestrator/output-contract.schema.json

@@ -0,0 +1,31 @@
+{
+  "$schema": "https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema",
+  "$id": "docpack-orchestrator-output-contract",
+  "title": "Requirements Package Orchestrator Output",
+  "type": "object",
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "required": ["status", "packagePath", "files", "verification", "review"],
+  "properties": {
+    "status": {
+      "type": "string",
+      "enum": ["DONE", "DONE_WITH_CONCERNS", "BLOCKED"]
+    },
+    "packagePath": { "type": "string" },
+    "files": {
+      "type": "array",
+      "items": { "type": "string" }
+    },
+    "verification": {
+      "type": "string",
+      "enum": ["pass", "pass_with_warnings", "fail"]
+    },
+    "review": {
+      "type": "string",
+      "enum": ["pass", "pass_with_warnings", "fail"]
+    },
+    "remainingGaps": {
+      "type": "array",
+      "items": { "type": "string" }
+    }
+  }
+}

package/src/gdskills/bundled/skills/planning/docpack-review/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,80 @@
+---
+name: docpack-review
+description: "Use when reviewing or verifying a Metaproject requirements package under docs/requirements for completeness, versioning, README/PRD/spec consistency, schema references, roadmap updates, unsupported claims, and implementation-status accuracy. Usually dispatched by docpack-orchestrator. Not for reviewing autodoc-generated current-codebase documentation."
+triggers:
+  - "review requirements package"
+  - "verify requirements package"
+  - "requirements package review"
+  - "check PRD spec consistency"
+  - "проверь документацию"
+metadata:
+  author: "MrCipherSmith"
+  version: "1.0.0"
+  category: "planning"
+license: "MIT"
+compatibility: "cursor,codex,zed,opencode,claude"
+---
+
+# docpack-review
+
+Adversarial reviewer for Metaproject requirements packages.
+
+## Iron Laws
+
+| # | Law |
+|---|---|
+| 1 | Review every file in the package; do not sample. |
+| 2 | A missing required file is a blocker. |
+| 3 | A missing `Version` field is a blocker. |
+| 4 | Unsupported implementation claims are blockers. |
+| 5 | Contradictions between README, PRD and spec are blockers. |
+| 6 | Do not rewrite docs; report findings and suggested fixes. |
+
+## Checklist
+
+### Structure
+
+- Required files exist: `README.md`, `prd.md`, `specification.md`.
+- Optional files match topic needs.
+- `schemas/*.json` are present when specification defines JSON contracts.
+
+### Versioning
+
+- Every Markdown file has `Version` under H1.
+- Changed existing docs bumped version.
+
+### Links
+
+- README links to all package files.
+- Specification links to schemas and related module specs.
+- Roadmap links to the package when it represents a module/capability.
+
+### Consistency
+
+- README status matches PRD/spec.
+- PRD goals map to specification acceptance criteria.
+- Non-goals are not implemented as requirements.
+- CLI/manifest/config names are consistent.
+
+### Accuracy
+
+- Runtime implementation is not claimed unless code exists.
+- Future commands are marked future/planned.
+- Integrations distinguish implemented, planned and optional.
+
+## Output
+
+Return findings first:
+
+```text
+STATUS: DONE | DONE_WITH_CONCERNS
+verdict: PASS | PASS_WITH_WARNINGS | FAIL
+blockers: <count>
+warnings: <count>
+findings:
+- [BLOCKER|WARNING|INFO] <file>: <issue> -> <suggested fix>
+audit:
+- files_checked: <list>
+- schemas_checked: <list>
+- roadmap_checked: yes|no
+```

package/src/gdskills/bundled/skills/planning/docpack-review/input-contract.schema.json

@@ -0,0 +1,20 @@
+{
+  "$schema": "https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema",
+  "$id": "docpack-review-input-contract",
+  "title": "Requirements Package Reviewer Input",
+  "type": "object",
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "required": ["packagePath"],
+  "properties": {
+    "packagePath": { "type": "string" },
+    "packageKind": {
+      "type": "string",
+      "enum": ["module", "standard", "policy", "implementation-plan", "report"]
+    },
+    "changedFiles": {
+      "type": "array",
+      "items": { "type": "string" }
+    },
+    "roadmapPath": { "type": "string" }
+  }
+}

package/src/gdskills/bundled/skills/planning/docpack-review/output-contract.schema.json

@@ -0,0 +1,36 @@
+{
+  "$schema": "https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema",
+  "$id": "docpack-review-output-contract",
+  "title": "Requirements Package Reviewer Output",
+  "type": "object",
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "required": ["status", "verdict", "findings", "audit"],
+  "properties": {
+    "status": {
+      "type": "string",
+      "enum": ["DONE", "DONE_WITH_CONCERNS"]
+    },
+    "verdict": {
+      "type": "string",
+      "enum": ["PASS", "PASS_WITH_WARNINGS", "FAIL"]
+    },
+    "findings": {
+      "type": "array",
+      "items": {
+        "type": "object",
+        "additionalProperties": false,
+        "required": ["severity", "file", "message"],
+        "properties": {
+          "severity": { "type": "string", "enum": ["BLOCKER", "WARNING", "INFO"] },
+          "file": { "type": "string" },
+          "message": { "type": "string" },
+          "suggestedFix": { "type": "string" }
+        }
+      }
+    },
+    "audit": {
+      "type": "object",
+      "additionalProperties": true
+    }
+  }
+}