@ngxtm/devkit 3.0.3 → 3.2.0

package/skills/codebase-cleanup-tech-debt/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,386 @@
+---
+name: codebase-cleanup-tech-debt
+description: "You are a technical debt expert specializing in identifying, quantifying, and prioritizing technical debt in software projects. Analyze the codebase to uncover debt, assess its impact, and create acti"
+---
+
+# Technical Debt Analysis and Remediation
+
+You are a technical debt expert specializing in identifying, quantifying, and prioritizing technical debt in software projects. Analyze the codebase to uncover debt, assess its impact, and create actionable remediation plans.
+
+## Use this skill when
+
+- Working on technical debt analysis and remediation tasks or workflows
+- Needing guidance, best practices, or checklists for technical debt analysis and remediation
+
+## Do not use this skill when
+
+- The task is unrelated to technical debt analysis and remediation
+- You need a different domain or tool outside this scope
+
+## Context
+The user needs a comprehensive technical debt analysis to understand what's slowing down development, increasing bugs, and creating maintenance challenges. Focus on practical, measurable improvements with clear ROI.
+
+## Requirements
+$ARGUMENTS
+
+## Instructions
+
+### 1. Technical Debt Inventory
+
+Conduct a thorough scan for all types of technical debt:
+
+**Code Debt**
+- **Duplicated Code**
+  - Exact duplicates (copy-paste)
+  - Similar logic patterns
+  - Repeated business rules
+  - Quantify: Lines duplicated, locations
+  
+- **Complex Code**
+  - High cyclomatic complexity (>10)
+  - Deeply nested conditionals (>3 levels)
+  - Long methods (>50 lines)
+  - God classes (>500 lines, >20 methods)
+  - Quantify: Complexity scores, hotspots
+
+- **Poor Structure**
+  - Circular dependencies
+  - Inappropriate intimacy between classes
+  - Feature envy (methods using other class data)
+  - Shotgun surgery patterns
+  - Quantify: Coupling metrics, change frequency
+
+**Architecture Debt**
+- **Design Flaws**
+  - Missing abstractions
+  - Leaky abstractions
+  - Violated architectural boundaries
+  - Monolithic components
+  - Quantify: Component size, dependency violations
+
+- **Technology Debt**
+  - Outdated frameworks/libraries
+  - Deprecated API usage
+  - Legacy patterns (e.g., callbacks vs promises)
+  - Unsupported dependencies
+  - Quantify: Version lag, security vulnerabilities
+
+**Testing Debt**
+- **Coverage Gaps**
+  - Untested code paths
+  - Missing edge cases
+  - No integration tests
+  - Lack of performance tests
+  - Quantify: Coverage %, critical paths untested
+
+- **Test Quality**
+  - Brittle tests (environment-dependent)
+  - Slow test suites
+  - Flaky tests
+  - No test documentation
+  - Quantify: Test runtime, failure rate
+
+**Documentation Debt**
+- **Missing Documentation**
+  - No API documentation
+  - Undocumented complex logic
+  - Missing architecture diagrams
+  - No onboarding guides
+  - Quantify: Undocumented public APIs
+
+**Infrastructure Debt**
+- **Deployment Issues**
+  - Manual deployment steps
+  - No rollback procedures
+  - Missing monitoring
+  - No performance baselines
+  - Quantify: Deployment time, failure rate
+
+### 2. Impact Assessment
+
+Calculate the real cost of each debt item:
+
+**Development Velocity Impact**
+```
+Debt Item: Duplicate user validation logic
+Locations: 5 files
+Time Impact: 
+- 2 hours per bug fix (must fix in 5 places)
+- 4 hours per feature change
+- Monthly impact: ~20 hours
+Annual Cost: 240 hours × $150/hour = $36,000
+```
+
+**Quality Impact**
+```
+Debt Item: No integration tests for payment flow
+Bug Rate: 3 production bugs/month
+Average Bug Cost:
+- Investigation: 4 hours
+- Fix: 2 hours  
+- Testing: 2 hours
+- Deployment: 1 hour
+Monthly Cost: 3 bugs × 9 hours × $150 = $4,050
+Annual Cost: $48,600
+```
+
+**Risk Assessment**
+- **Critical**: Security vulnerabilities, data loss risk
+- **High**: Performance degradation, frequent outages
+- **Medium**: Developer frustration, slow feature delivery
+- **Low**: Code style issues, minor inefficiencies
+
+### 3. Debt Metrics Dashboard
+
+Create measurable KPIs:
+
+**Code Quality Metrics**
+```yaml
+Metrics:
+  cyclomatic_complexity:
+    current: 15.2
+    target: 10.0
+    files_above_threshold: 45
+    
+  code_duplication:
+    percentage: 23%
+    target: 5%
+    duplication_hotspots:
+      - src/validation: 850 lines
+      - src/api/handlers: 620 lines
+      
+  test_coverage:
+    unit: 45%
+    integration: 12%
+    e2e: 5%
+    target: 80% / 60% / 30%
+    
+  dependency_health:
+    outdated_major: 12
+    outdated_minor: 34
+    security_vulnerabilities: 7
+    deprecated_apis: 15
+```
+
+**Trend Analysis**
+```python
+debt_trends = {
+    "2024_Q1": {"score": 750, "items": 125},
+    "2024_Q2": {"score": 820, "items": 142},
+    "2024_Q3": {"score": 890, "items": 156},
+    "growth_rate": "18% quarterly",
+    "projection": "1200 by 2025_Q1 without intervention"
+}
+```
+
+### 4. Prioritized Remediation Plan
+
+Create an actionable roadmap based on ROI:
+
+**Quick Wins (High Value, Low Effort)**
+Week 1-2:
+```
+1. Extract duplicate validation logic to shared module
+   Effort: 8 hours
+   Savings: 20 hours/month
+   ROI: 250% in first month
+
+2. Add error monitoring to payment service
+   Effort: 4 hours
+   Savings: 15 hours/month debugging
+   ROI: 375% in first month
+
+3. Automate deployment script
+   Effort: 12 hours
+   Savings: 2 hours/deployment × 20 deploys/month
+   ROI: 333% in first month
+```
+
+**Medium-Term Improvements (Month 1-3)**
+```
+1. Refactor OrderService (God class)
+   - Split into 4 focused services
+   - Add comprehensive tests
+   - Create clear interfaces
+   Effort: 60 hours
+   Savings: 30 hours/month maintenance
+   ROI: Positive after 2 months
+
+2. Upgrade React 16 → 18
+   - Update component patterns
+   - Migrate to hooks
+   - Fix breaking changes
+   Effort: 80 hours  
+   Benefits: Performance +30%, Better DX
+   ROI: Positive after 3 months
+```
+
+**Long-Term Initiatives (Quarter 2-4)**
+```
+1. Implement Domain-Driven Design
+   - Define bounded contexts
+   - Create domain models
+   - Establish clear boundaries
+   Effort: 200 hours
+   Benefits: 50% reduction in coupling
+   ROI: Positive after 6 months
+
+2. Comprehensive Test Suite
+   - Unit: 80% coverage
+   - Integration: 60% coverage
+   - E2E: Critical paths
+   Effort: 300 hours
+   Benefits: 70% reduction in bugs
+   ROI: Positive after 4 months
+```
+
+### 5. Implementation Strategy
+
+**Incremental Refactoring**
+```python
+# Phase 1: Add facade over legacy code
+class PaymentFacade:
+    def __init__(self):
+        self.legacy_processor = LegacyPaymentProcessor()
+    
+    def process_payment(self, order):
+        # New clean interface
+        return self.legacy_processor.doPayment(order.to_legacy())
+
+# Phase 2: Implement new service alongside
+class PaymentService:
+    def process_payment(self, order):
+        # Clean implementation
+        pass
+
+# Phase 3: Gradual migration
+class PaymentFacade:
+    def __init__(self):
+        self.new_service = PaymentService()
+        self.legacy = LegacyPaymentProcessor()
+        
+    def process_payment(self, order):
+        if feature_flag("use_new_payment"):
+            return self.new_service.process_payment(order)
+        return self.legacy.doPayment(order.to_legacy())
+```
+
+**Team Allocation**
+```yaml
+Debt_Reduction_Team:
+  dedicated_time: "20% sprint capacity"
+  
+  roles:
+    - tech_lead: "Architecture decisions"
+    - senior_dev: "Complex refactoring"  
+    - dev: "Testing and documentation"
+    
+  sprint_goals:
+    - sprint_1: "Quick wins completed"
+    - sprint_2: "God class refactoring started"
+    - sprint_3: "Test coverage >60%"
+```
+
+### 6. Prevention Strategy
+
+Implement gates to prevent new debt:
+
+**Automated Quality Gates**
+```yaml
+pre_commit_hooks:
+  - complexity_check: "max 10"
+  - duplication_check: "max 5%"
+  - test_coverage: "min 80% for new code"
+  
+ci_pipeline:
+  - dependency_audit: "no high vulnerabilities"
+  - performance_test: "no regression >10%"
+  - architecture_check: "no new violations"
+  
+code_review:
+  - requires_two_approvals: true
+  - must_include_tests: true
+  - documentation_required: true
+```
+
+**Debt Budget**
+```python
+debt_budget = {
+    "allowed_monthly_increase": "2%",
+    "mandatory_reduction": "5% per quarter",
+    "tracking": {
+        "complexity": "sonarqube",
+        "dependencies": "dependabot",
+        "coverage": "codecov"
+    }
+}
+```
+
+### 7. Communication Plan
+
+**Stakeholder Reports**
+```markdown
+## Executive Summary
+- Current debt score: 890 (High)
+- Monthly velocity loss: 35%
+- Bug rate increase: 45%
+- Recommended investment: 500 hours
+- Expected ROI: 280% over 12 months
+
+## Key Risks
+1. Payment system: 3 critical vulnerabilities
+2. Data layer: No backup strategy
+3. API: Rate limiting not implemented
+
+## Proposed Actions
+1. Immediate: Security patches (this week)
+2. Short-term: Core refactoring (1 month)
+3. Long-term: Architecture modernization (6 months)
+```
+
+**Developer Documentation**
+```markdown
+## Refactoring Guide
+1. Always maintain backward compatibility
+2. Write tests before refactoring
+3. Use feature flags for gradual rollout
+4. Document architectural decisions
+5. Measure impact with metrics
+
+## Code Standards
+- Complexity limit: 10
+- Method length: 20 lines
+- Class length: 200 lines
+- Test coverage: 80%
+- Documentation: All public APIs
+```
+
+### 8. Success Metrics
+
+Track progress with clear KPIs:
+
+**Monthly Metrics**
+- Debt score reduction: Target -5%
+- New bug rate: Target -20%
+- Deployment frequency: Target +50%
+- Lead time: Target -30%
+- Test coverage: Target +10%
+
+**Quarterly Reviews**
+- Architecture health score
+- Developer satisfaction survey
+- Performance benchmarks
+- Security audit results
+- Cost savings achieved
+
+## Output Format
+
+1. **Debt Inventory**: Comprehensive list categorized by type with metrics
+2. **Impact Analysis**: Cost calculations and risk assessments
+3. **Prioritized Roadmap**: Quarter-by-quarter plan with clear deliverables
+4. **Quick Wins**: Immediate actions for this sprint
+5. **Implementation Guide**: Step-by-step refactoring strategies
+6. **Prevention Plan**: Processes to avoid accumulating new debt
+7. **ROI Projections**: Expected returns on debt reduction investment
+
+Focus on delivering measurable improvements that directly impact development velocity, system reliability, and team morale.

package/skills/commit/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,171 @@
+---
+name: commit
+description: "Create commit messages following Sentry conventions. Use when committing code changes, writing commit messages, or formatting git history. Follows conventional commits with Sentry-specific issue references."
+source: "https://github.com/getsentry/skills/tree/main/plugins/sentry-skills/skills/commit"
+risk: safe
+---
+
+# Sentry Commit Messages
+
+Follow these conventions when creating commits for Sentry projects.
+
+## When to Use This Skill
+
+Use this skill when:
+- Committing code changes
+- Writing commit messages
+- Formatting git history
+- Following Sentry commit conventions
+- Referencing Sentry issues in commits
+
+## Prerequisites
+
+Before committing, ensure you're working on a feature branch, not the main branch.
+
+```bash
+# Check current branch
+git branch --show-current
+```
+
+If you're on `main` or `master`, create a new branch first:
+
+```bash
+# Create and switch to a new branch
+git checkout -b <type>/<short-description>
+```
+
+Branch naming should follow the pattern: `<type>/<short-description>` where type matches the commit type (e.g., `feat/add-user-auth`, `fix/null-pointer-error`, `ref/extract-validation`).
+
+## Format
+
+```
+<type>(<scope>): <subject>
+
+<body>
+
+<footer>
+```
+
+The header is required. Scope is optional. All lines must stay under 100 characters.
+
+## Commit Types
+
+| Type | Purpose |
+|------|---------|
+| `feat` | New feature |
+| `fix` | Bug fix |
+| `ref` | Refactoring (no behavior change) |
+| `perf` | Performance improvement |
+| `docs` | Documentation only |
+| `test` | Test additions or corrections |
+| `build` | Build system or dependencies |
+| `ci` | CI configuration |
+| `chore` | Maintenance tasks |
+| `style` | Code formatting (no logic change) |
+| `meta` | Repository metadata |
+| `license` | License changes |
+
+## Subject Line Rules
+
+- Use imperative, present tense: "Add feature" not "Added feature"
+- Capitalize the first letter
+- No period at the end
+- Maximum 70 characters
+
+## Body Guidelines
+
+- Explain **what** and **why**, not how
+- Use imperative mood and present tense
+- Include motivation for the change
+- Contrast with previous behavior when relevant
+
+## Footer: Issue References
+
+Reference issues in the footer using these patterns:
+
+```
+Fixes GH-1234
+Fixes #1234
+Fixes SENTRY-1234
+Refs LINEAR-ABC-123
+```
+
+- `Fixes` closes the issue when merged
+- `Refs` links without closing
+
+## AI-Generated Changes
+
+When changes were primarily generated by a coding agent (like Claude Code), include the Co-Authored-By attribution in the commit footer:
+
+```
+Co-Authored-By: Claude <noreply@anthropic.com>
+```
+
+This is the only indicator of AI involvement that should appear in commits. Do not add phrases like "Generated by AI", "Written with Claude", or similar markers in the subject, body, or anywhere else in the commit message.
+
+## Examples
+
+### Simple fix
+
+```
+fix(api): Handle null response in user endpoint
+
+The user API could return null for deleted accounts, causing a crash
+in the dashboard. Add null check before accessing user properties.
+
+Fixes SENTRY-5678
+Co-Authored-By: Claude <noreply@anthropic.com>
+```
+
+### Feature with scope
+
+```
+feat(alerts): Add Slack thread replies for alert updates
+
+When an alert is updated or resolved, post a reply to the original
+Slack thread instead of creating a new message. This keeps related
+notifications grouped together.
+
+Refs GH-1234
+```
+
+### Refactor
+
+```
+ref: Extract common validation logic to shared module
+
+Move duplicate validation code from three endpoints into a shared
+validator class. No behavior change.
+```
+
+### Breaking change
+
+```
+feat(api)!: Remove deprecated v1 endpoints
+
+Remove all v1 API endpoints that were deprecated in version 23.1.
+Clients should migrate to v2 endpoints.
+
+BREAKING CHANGE: v1 endpoints no longer available
+Fixes SENTRY-9999
+```
+
+## Revert Format
+
+```
+revert: feat(api): Add new endpoint
+
+This reverts commit abc123def456.
+
+Reason: Caused performance regression in production.
+```
+
+## Principles
+
+- Each commit should be a single, stable change
+- Commits should be independently reviewable
+- The repository should be in a working state after each commit
+
+## References
+
+- [Sentry Commit Messages](https://develop.sentry.dev/engineering-practices/commit-messages/)

package/skills/competitive-landscape/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,34 @@
+---
+name: competitive-landscape
+description: This skill should be used when the user asks to "analyze
+  competitors", "assess competitive landscape", "identify differentiation",
+  "evaluate market positioning", "apply Porter's Five Forces", or requests
+  competitive strategy analysis.
+metadata:
+  version: 1.0.0
+---
+
+# Competitive Landscape Analysis
+
+Comprehensive frameworks for analyzing competition, identifying differentiation opportunities, and developing winning market positioning strategies.
+
+## Use this skill when
+
+- Working on competitive landscape analysis tasks or workflows
+- Needing guidance, best practices, or checklists for competitive landscape analysis
+
+## Do not use this skill when
+
+- The task is unrelated to competitive landscape analysis
+- You need a different domain or tool outside this scope
+
+## Instructions
+
+- Clarify goals, constraints, and required inputs.
+- Apply relevant best practices and validate outcomes.
+- Provide actionable steps and verification.
+- If detailed examples are required, open `resources/implementation-playbook.md`.
+
+## Resources
+
+- `resources/implementation-playbook.md` for detailed patterns and examples.