@mrciphersmith/keryx 0.2.97 → 0.2.99

package/src/gdskills/bundled/skills/quality/tests-creator/SKILL.zed.md

@@ -1,339 +0,0 @@
----
-name: tests-creator
-description: "Use when writing test cases BEFORE implementation — converts acceptance criteria into failing test stubs that task-implementer will make pass. Mandatory step in the TDD pipeline between issue-analyzer and task-implementer."
-triggers:
-  - "Create tests"
-  - "Write tests first"
-  - "Generate test specs"
-  - "Tests before implementation"
-  - "TDD test stubs"
-  - "Convert criteria to tests"
-metadata:
-  author: "MrCipherSmith"
-  version: "1.0.0"
-  category: "testing"
-  agent_worthy: true
-  compatible_harnesses: "cursor,codex,zed,opencode"
-license: "MIT"
----
-
-# Tests Creator
-
-## Purpose
-
-Converts acceptance criteria (from `issue-analyzer` or manual input) into concrete, failing test stubs **before any implementation code is written**. Enforces the RED phase of TDD.
-
-**Input:** Task object with `acceptance_criteria` + codebase path + test framework info
-**Output:** Ready-to-run test files with failing test stubs + `test_case_specs` block for `task-implementer`
-
-## When to Use
-
-- Between `issue-analyzer` and `task-implementer` in the TDD pipeline
-- Orchestrator needs test specs before dispatching implementation
-- User wants to review test expectations before code is written
-- Acceptance criteria need to be translated into executable specifications
-
-## Architecture: 4 Phases
-
-```
-Phase 1: DETECT    →  Identify test framework, conventions, fixture patterns
-Phase 2: ANALYZE   →  Map acceptance criteria to test scenarios
-Phase 3: GENERATE  →  Write failing test stubs with correct framework syntax
-Phase 4: REPORT    →  Emit test_case_specs for task-implementer consumption
-```
-
----
-
-## Workflow
-
-```
-Tests Creator Progress:
-- [ ] Phase 1: Detect test framework and conventions
-- [ ] Phase 2: Map acceptance criteria to test scenarios
-- [ ] Phase 3: Generate failing test stubs
-- [ ] Phase 4: Report test_case_specs
-```
-
----
-
-### Phase 1: DETECT
-
-Identify the test framework and conventions used in the project.
-
-**1.1 Detect framework:**
-
-```bash
-# Check package.json for test dependencies
-cat <codebase_path>/package.json | grep -E '"(jest|vitest|mocha|jasmine|bun:test|pytest|go test)"'
-
-# Check for config files
-ls <codebase_path>/{vitest.config.*,jest.config.*,pytest.ini,setup.cfg}
-
-# Check existing test files for imports
-find <codebase_path>/src -name "*.test.*" -o -name "*.spec.*" | head -5
-```
-
-**1.2 Read 2-3 existing test files** to understand:
-- Import style (`import { describe, it, expect } from 'vitest'` vs global)
-- Test file location (co-located `*.test.ts` vs `__tests__/` directory)
-- Describe/it/test nesting patterns
-- Common assertion patterns (`expect(x).toBe(y)` vs `assert.equal(x, y)`)
-- Mock patterns (`vi.fn()` vs `jest.fn()` vs manual mocks)
-- Fixture/factory patterns (how test data is created)
-- Before/after hook usage
-
-**1.3 Identify test file naming:**
-- Pattern: `<component>.test.ts`, `<service>.spec.ts`, `test_<module>.py`, etc.
-- Location: co-located with source or in `__tests__`/`tests/` directory
-
-**Output of Phase 1:**
-```
-TEST_ENV:
-  framework: vitest | jest | bun:test | mocha | pytest | go_test
-  import_style: esm | cjs | global
-  file_pattern: "*.test.ts" | "*.spec.ts" | "test_*.py"
-  file_location: co-located | __tests__ | tests/
-  assertion_style: expect | assert | chai
-  mock_library: vi | jest | sinon | unittest.mock
-  fixture_pattern: <description of how test data is created>
-```
-
----
-
-### Phase 2: ANALYZE
-
-Map each acceptance criterion to one or more test scenarios.
-
-**2.1 Parse acceptance criteria:**
-
-For each criterion, determine:
-- **Happy path**: when everything works correctly
-- **Edge cases**: boundary values, empty inputs, maximum values
-- **Error paths**: invalid input, missing data, permission denied, external failure
-
-**2.2 Criterion-to-scenario mapping:**
-
-| Criterion Type | Test Scenarios to Generate |
-|---|---|
-| "User can X" | happy path: user can X; error: user cannot X when [condition] |
-| "System returns Y when Z" | given Z → returns Y; given not-Z → does not return Y |
-| "Field is required" | valid data passes; missing field fails with error |
-| "Value must be between A and B" | A passes; B passes; A-1 fails; B+1 fails |
-| "X must not happen" | verify X does not happen under [conditions] |
-| "Async operation completes" | resolves with expected value; rejects on failure |
-
-**2.3 Group scenarios by test file:**
-
-Group related scenarios into test files matching the target_files from the task:
-- Service test → test the service class methods
-- Component test → test component rendering and interactions
-- Integration test → test the full flow
-
-**Output of Phase 2:**
-```
-TEST_PLAN:
-  - test_file: <path>
-    target_module: <source file being tested>
-    scenarios:
-      - id: test-1
-        criterion: <which acceptance criterion>
-        description: <what to test>
-        type: happy_path | edge_case | error_path
-        setup: <what to arrange>
-        action: <what to call/render/trigger>
-        assertion: <what to expect>
-```
-
----
-
-### Phase 3: GENERATE
-
-Write the actual test files with failing stubs.
-
-**3.1 Test file structure:**
-
-```typescript
-// Template for TypeScript (vitest/jest)
-import { describe, it, expect, vi, beforeEach } from 'vitest';
-// import the module under test — may not exist yet, that is expected
-import { <ModuleUnderTest> } from '<relative path>';
-
-describe('<ModuleUnderTest>', () => {
-  // Acceptance criterion: <criterion text>
-  describe('<group name>', () => {
-    it('<should do X when Y>', async () => {
-      // Arrange
-      const <fixture> = <test data>;
-
-      // Act
-      const result = await <action>;
-
-      // Assert
-      expect(result).<assertion>;
-    });
-
-    it('<should fail when Z>', async () => {
-      // Arrange
-      const <invalid fixture> = <invalid data>;
-
-      // Act & Assert
-      await expect(<action with invalid data>).rejects.toThrow(<error type>);
-    });
-  });
-});
-```
-
-**3.2 Failing stubs (RED phase):**
-
-The generated tests MUST:
-- Import the module under test (file may not exist yet — that is fine)
-- Have meaningful test descriptions
-- Have placeholder assertions that will FAIL until implementation:
-  ```typescript
-  // Use todo() for unimplemented tests
-  it.todo('<test description>');
-  
-  // OR use a stub assertion that fails
-  it('<test description>', () => {
-    expect(true).toBe(false); // RED: remove this when implementing
-  });
-  ```
-- OR use proper assertions calling the future API (will fail with "module not found" or "function is not a function")
-
-**3.3 Preferred approach — forward-declared tests:**
-
-Write tests that call the actual future API with real assertions. They will fail because the module doesn't exist yet:
-
-```typescript
-// This file will fail to compile/run until task-implementer creates:
-// src/services/UserValidator.ts with a validate() method
-import { UserValidator } from '../services/UserValidator';
-
-describe('UserValidator', () => {
-  it('should accept valid email address', () => {
-    const validator = new UserValidator();
-    expect(validator.validate({ email: 'user@example.com' })).toEqual({ valid: true });
-  });
-
-  it('should reject email without @ symbol', () => {
-    const validator = new UserValidator();
-    expect(validator.validate({ email: 'not-an-email' })).toEqual({
-      valid: false,
-      errors: [{ field: 'email', message: 'Invalid email format' }],
-    });
-  });
-});
-```
-
-**3.4 Commit the test files:**
-
-```bash
-git add <test files>
-git commit -m "test(<scope>): add failing test stubs for <task description>
-
-RED phase — tests will pass after implementation
-refs #<issue_number>"
-```
-
----
-
-### Phase 4: REPORT
-
-Emit the `test_case_specs` block for consumption by `task-implementer`.
-
-**Output structure:**
-
-```
-TEST_CASE_SPECS:
-  framework: <vitest|jest|pytest|...>
-  test_files:
-    - path: <test file path>
-      target_module: <source file to implement>
-      test_count: <N>
-      tests:
-        - id: test-1
-          description: <it description>
-          criterion: <which acceptance criterion>
-          type: happy_path | edge_case | error_path
-          status: written  # test file exists, test is RED
-
-  run_command: "<command to run just these tests>"
-  expected_result: "all failing (RED phase)"
-  notes: "<any test design decisions or assumptions>"
-```
-
-**STATUS reporting:**
-
-```
-STATUS: DONE
-tests_written: <N>
-test_files: [<list of paths>]
-all_criteria_covered: true | false (with explanation)
-```
-
----
-
-## Integration with Task Implementer
-
-When `task-implementer` receives a task that includes `test_case_specs`:
-
-1. Read the test files (already committed as RED)
-2. Run the tests — confirm they FAIL
-3. Implement code until all tests are GREEN
-4. Commit the implementation
-5. Re-run tests — confirm GREEN
-6. Report SUCCESS
-
-This ensures the TDD cycle is maintained end-to-end.
-
----
-
-## Automation Settings
-
-| Setting | Default | Options | Description |
-|---------|---------|---------|-------------|
-| `commit_test_stubs` | `true` | true/false | Commit the test files after generation |
-| `verify_red` | `true` | true/false | Run tests to confirm they fail before reporting |
-| `stub_style` | `forward_declared` | `forward_declared` / `todo` | How to write failing stubs |
-| `include_edge_cases` | `true` | true/false | Generate edge case tests in addition to happy path |
-| `max_tests_per_criterion` | `3` | 1-5 | Max test cases per acceptance criterion |
-
----
-
-## Error Handling
-
-| Error | Action |
-|-------|--------|
-| No acceptance criteria provided | Derive from task description — log warning |
-| Test framework not detected | Ask via output, default to vitest for TypeScript |
-| Test file already exists | Read existing tests, add new stubs without overwriting |
-| Module path unknown | Use placeholder path, note in test_case_specs |
-| Verify-red fails (tests pass before implementation) | This means the test is wrong — fix the assertion or report as concern |
-
----
-
-## Rules of Engagement
-
-1. **DO NOT** write any implementation code. This skill only writes test files.
-2. **DO NOT** write tests that pass without implementation — RED means failing.
-3. **DO** write tests that describe WHAT the code should do, not HOW.
-4. **DO** cover every acceptance criterion with at least one test.
-5. **DO** follow the project's existing test conventions (discovered in Phase 1).
-6. **DO** commit the test files before reporting.
-7. Return `TEST_CASE_SPECS` as the final message to the orchestrator/caller.
-
----
-
-## Job Context Awareness
-
-When dispatched by `job-orchestrator`:
-
-```
-JOB_NAME:     <job-name>
-CONTEXT_PATH: <JOBS_ROOT>/<job-name>/ai/context.md
-```
-
-If provided, read the context document to understand:
-- Which test frameworks are in use
-- Testing conventions and patterns from the codebase
-- Mock/stub strategies documented in the project

package/src/gdskills/bundled/skills/review/code-ai-review/SKILL.codex.md

@@ -1,203 +0,0 @@
----
-name: code-ai-review
-description: "Performs strict AI code review following code-review-ai-assistant.mdc standards. Reviews current branch changes from merge-base by default, including both committed and local uncommitted changes. Use when: code review requested, checking branch changes, reviewing implementation quality."
-triggers:
-  - "Code review"
-  - "Review my changes"
-  - "Check this code"
-  - "Review code"
-metadata:
-  author: "MrCipherSmith"
-  version: "1.0.0"
-  category: "review"
-  compatible_harnesses: "cursor,codex,zed,opencode"
-license: "MIT"
----
-
-
-# Code AI Review (только текущая ветка)
-
-## Workflow
-
-Copy this checklist and track progress:
-
-```
-Code Review Progress:
-- [ ] Step 1: Determine parent branch and calculate merge-base
-- [ ] Step 2: Collect git diff (committed + local changes)
-- [ ] Step 3: Identify changed files and categorize
-- [ ] Step 4: Review each file following standards
-- [ ] Step 5: Document findings with severity and location
-- [ ] Step 6: Generate report with patches
-```
-
-## Scope Boundaries
-This skill focuses on:
-- Correctness and logic bugs
-- Type safety and TypeScript contract violations
-- Security and null-safety issues
-- Error handling completeness
-- Performance anti-patterns
-
-This skill does NOT duplicate:
-- MobX store-specific patterns → covered by code-mobx-store-review
-- Naming/formatting/import organization → covered by code-style-review
-- Architecture opinions and persona-specific insights → covered by code-learned-review
-
-## Главное правило: скоуп ревью
-
-Ревьюй только изменения, внесённые в текущей ветке с момента её ответвления от родительской.
-
-- Если пользователь **не передал commit hash/range**, включай **весь срез ветки от merge-base до рабочего дерева**:
-  - закоммиченные (`BASE_SHA..HEAD`)
-  - локальные незакоммиченные (`staged/unstaged/untracked`)
-- Если пользователь **явно передал commit hash/range**, ревьюй только запрошенный диапазон; локальные незакоммиченные изменения не добавляй, если это отдельно не попросили.
-- Не ревьюй не связанные с веткой части репозитория.
-
-## Scope Detection
-
-See shared script: `skills/shared/git-merge-base.md`
-
-Run the script from that file to determine MERGE_BASE and SCOPE before proceeding with the review.
-
-## Команды, чтобы собрать “срез” для ревью
-
-### A) Режим по умолчанию (пользователь НЕ дал hash/range)
-
-```bash
-git status
-
-# Закоммиченная часть ветки
-git log --oneline "${BASE_SHA}..HEAD"
-git diff --stat "${BASE_SHA}..HEAD"
-git diff --name-status "${BASE_SHA}..HEAD"
-git diff "${BASE_SHA}..HEAD"
-
-# Полный текущий срез от merge-base до рабочего дерева:
-# включает commit'ы + staged + unstaged
-# (untracked смотри через git status / git ls-files)
-git diff --stat "${BASE_SHA}"
-git diff --name-status "${BASE_SHA}"
-git diff "${BASE_SHA}"
-git ls-files --others --exclude-standard
-```
-
-### B) Режим с явным hash/range
-
-```bash
-# Примеры:
-git show --stat --name-status --patch <COMMIT_SHA>
-git log --oneline <FROM_SHA>..<TO_SHA>
-git diff --stat <FROM_SHA>..<TO_SHA>
-git diff --name-status <FROM_SHA>..<TO_SHA>
-git diff <FROM_SHA>..<TO_SHA>
-```
-
-## Правила ревью (обязательно)
-
-Ты обязан следовать стандарту ревью из `.metaproject/rules/core/code-review-ai-assistant.mdc`:
-
-- Structure output as: short summary -> structured findings by category -> concrete suggestions / optional patches.
-- Prioritize correctness and safety over style.
-- Avoid noise; focus on actionable, high-signal findings.
-- Do not request large refactors unless explicitly asked.
-
-## Формат вывода (шаблон подробного отчёта)
-
-Пиши ревью по структуре ниже:
-
-```markdown
-## Краткое резюме
-<1-3 предложения: что сделано и общий вердикт (OK / needs work).>
-
-## Скоуп ревью (только текущая ветка)
-- Ветка: `<BRANCH>`
-- Parent ref: `<PARENT>`
-- Merge-base: `<BASE_SHA>`
-- Режим скоупа: `<default-with-uncommitted | explicit-hash-range>`
-- Коммиты (merge-base..HEAD): <N>
-- Изменённые файлы: <список или количество>
-
-## Находки
-### Correctness
-<находки>
-
-### Types & Safety
-<находки>
-
-### Architecture & State
-<находки>
-
-### Readability & Style
-<находки>
-
-### Performance
-<находки>
-
-### UX/UI
-<находки>
-
-### A11y
-<находки>
-
-### Tests
-<находки>
-
-## Предложенные исправления (patches)
-<минимальные, точечные диффы для самых очевидных фиксов>
-```
-
-### Формат каждой находки (обязательно)
-
-Для каждой находки укажи:
-
-- **Severity**: `blocker` / `major` / `minor`
-- **Location**: file path + relevant lines/hunk (from the diff)
-- **Problem**: what is wrong
-- **Why it matters**: correctness/safety/perf/maintainability impact
-- **Suggested fix**: concrete change
-- **Optional patch**: provide a minimal unified diff when straightforward
-
-Пример блока патча:
-
-```diff
-diff --git a/path/file.ts b/path/file.ts
-index 0000000..1111111 100644
---- a/path/file.ts
-+++ b/path/file.ts
-@@ -1,3 +1,3 @@
--const x = 1;
-+const x = 2;
-```
-
----
-
-## Scope Boundaries
-
-This skill covers **general AI code quality review** following `code-review-ai-assistant.mdc`.
-
-| Concern | This skill | Use instead |
-|---------|-----------|-------------|
-| Types, safety, architecture, readability, performance, tests | ✅ YES | — |
-| MobX store internals (actions, computed, reactions, async) | ⚠️ surface-level only | `code-mobx-store-review` for deep store analysis |
-| Review against this project's own learned conventions | ❌ NO | `code-learned-review` |
-| Pure style/naming/pattern audit | ❌ NO | `code-style-review` |
-
----
-
-## Job Context Awareness
-
-When dispatched by `job-orchestrator` as part of a job pipeline, the prompt MAY include:
-
-```
-JOB_NAME:     <job-name>
-CONTEXT_PATH: .metaproject/jobs/<job-name>/ai/context.md
-```
-
-If provided and the file exists, read the context document before starting the review. Use it to:
-- Understand which libraries and patterns were intentionally chosen for the implementation
-- Avoid flagging correct library usage as issues (e.g., if context documents the API pattern)
-- Provide more accurate findings by understanding the project's architectural decisions
-- Reference context when justifying suggestions
-
-If the file does not exist or is not provided, proceed normally — context is optional and non-blocking.