@opengsd/gsd-pi 1.0.0

package/src/resources/skills/security-review/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,181 @@
+---
+name: security-review
+description: Threat-model-driven security review of a change, feature, or subsystem. Runs a STRIDE-style pass (Spoofing, Tampering, Repudiation, Info disclosure, Denial of service, Elevation of privilege), examines the actual code, and produces a filing-ready report with severity, exploit scenario, and concrete remediation. Use when asked to "security review", "threat model", "check for vulnerabilities", "audit this for security", "secure this", or before shipping any change that touches auth, input handling, data access, or external surfaces.
+---
+
+<objective>
+Produce a security review that names specific exploit paths through the actual code — not a generic checklist. The deliverable is a prioritized list of findings, each with: where the issue lives, the threat category, a concrete exploit scenario, severity, and a remediation the caller can implement. Read-only: does not modify code.
+</objective>
+
+<context>
+GSD-2's general `review` skill covers security as one of several categories. This skill is the deeper pass — triggered deliberately when security is the primary concern. It complements v1's `/gsd-secure-phase` concept, adapted to the gsd-2 artifact model.
+
+Invocation points:
+- Any change touching authentication, authorization, session handling
+- Any change touching user input → database, filesystem, or shell
+- Any change exposing a new external surface (HTTP endpoint, webhook, IPC boundary)
+- Secrets handling, environment variable changes, crypto code
+- Pre-release audit of a feature or milestone
+- Response to a suspected vulnerability
+
+Do NOT use for:
+- General code review (use `review`)
+- Performance audits (use `code-optimizer`)
+</context>
+
+<core_principle>
+**CODE BEFORE CHECKLISTS.** A threat model that doesn't read the code is theater. Find the actual input source, the actual validation (or absence), the actual sink. Cite file:line for every finding.
+
+**THREAT, NOT HYPOTHETICAL.** "SQL injection is possible in theory" is useless. "If an attacker passes `' OR 1=1--` to `getUser(name)` at `src/db/users.ts:42`, the query becomes `SELECT … WHERE name='' OR 1=1--'`, returning every row" is actionable.
+
+**READ-ONLY.** Don't patch while reviewing — you conflate reviewer and author and lose the audit trail. Report, let the user act.
+</core_principle>
+
+<process>
+
+## Step 1: Scope the review
+
+Identify what to review:
+- Recent diff (staged / branch / specific commit)
+- A named subsystem (`src/auth/`, the webhook handler, etc.)
+- A user-provided concern ("I'm worried about our JWT handling")
+
+If the scope is vague, ask one round of clarifying questions (1–3 questions). Otherwise proceed.
+
+## Step 2: Map the attack surface
+
+Before STRIDE: identify every untrusted entry point in the scope:
+
+- HTTP routes / GraphQL resolvers / RPC endpoints
+- CLI flag parsing and argv consumption
+- Webhook handlers, event subscribers
+- Environment variables read at runtime
+- Files read from untrusted locations
+- Third-party library deserialization (YAML, XML, pickle, etc.)
+- IPC boundaries, child processes
+
+For each, note: who can reach this surface? (public internet, authenticated user, same-host process, admin-only).
+
+## Step 3: STRIDE pass
+
+For each attack surface, walk STRIDE:
+
+### Spoofing (identity)
+- Can an attacker pretend to be another user?
+- Are identity tokens verified before they're trusted?
+- Session cookies: HttpOnly, Secure, SameSite set?
+
+### Tampering (integrity)
+- Can an attacker modify data in transit or at rest?
+- Are webhooks signed and signatures verified?
+- Are incoming payloads rehydrated without integrity checks?
+
+### Repudiation (audit trail)
+- Is there a log of who did what?
+- Can an attacker erase their trail?
+- Are logs tamper-evident where it matters?
+
+### Information disclosure
+- Does an error message leak internal state, stack traces, file paths, DB queries?
+- Are secrets logged anywhere?
+- Are authorization checks upstream of data loading, or does the query run first?
+
+### Denial of service
+- Are there unbounded loops, unpaginated queries, or user-controlled recursion?
+- Rate limits on expensive endpoints?
+- Regex-on-user-input vulnerable to ReDoS?
+
+### Elevation of privilege
+- Are admin-only routes actually gated?
+- Can a low-privilege user trigger a high-privilege operation through an unauthenticated webhook?
+- Are role checks enforced at the handler, the service, and the data layer — or just one?
+
+Use `Agent(subagent_type=Explore)` in parallel if the scope is large — one sub-agent per STRIDE category over the same surface list.
+
+## Step 4: OWASP cross-check (web scope)
+
+If the scope includes web surfaces, confirm against the top OWASP patterns that STRIDE doesn't cleanly cover:
+
+- Injection (SQL, NoSQL, command, template, LDAP)
+- XSS (stored, reflected, DOM)
+- SSRF (server makes requests to attacker-controlled URLs)
+- Insecure deserialization
+- Path traversal
+- Open redirects
+- Broken access control at object level (IDOR)
+- CSRF where cookies are used for auth
+
+For each present, find the code path. Same standard: cite file:line.
+
+## Step 5: Triage
+
+For each finding, assign:
+
+- **Severity:** Critical / High / Medium / Low / Informational
+- **Exploitability:** Remote unauthenticated / authenticated user / adjacent user / admin-only / local-only
+- **Business impact:** Data breach / account takeover / service disruption / audit failure / minor
+
+Severity × Exploitability = priority. Sort findings by priority.
+
+## Step 6: Write the report
+
+```markdown
+## Security Review — <scope>
+
+### Summary
+
+<1–3 sentences — biggest finding and overall posture>
+
+### Findings
+
+#### CRITICAL-1: SQL injection in `getUser`
+
+**Location:** `src/db/users.ts:42`
+**Category:** Tampering / Info disclosure (STRIDE) + OWASP A03 Injection
+**Exploit:** Passing `' OR 1=1--` to the `name` parameter produces the query `SELECT * FROM users WHERE name='' OR 1=1--'`, returning every row. `name` arrives from `POST /api/search` without validation.
+**Reachability:** Remote unauthenticated (endpoint has no auth).
+**Remediation:** Use a parameterized query. The codebase's `db.prepare` helper at `src/db/util.ts:17` handles this — switch `getUser` to it.
+
+#### HIGH-2: ...
+
+### Non-findings considered
+
+<brief: what you checked and ruled out — prevents repeat reviews>
+
+### Out of scope
+
+<what wasn't reviewed>
+```
+
+Offer to file as a GitHub issue — requires explicit confirmation per the outward-action rule. Sensitive findings should stay in `.gsd/security-reviews/` and not be pushed to a public tracker; check the repository's security policy first.
+
+## Step 7: Follow-ups
+
+If the review found CRITICAL or HIGH issues:
+- Recommend filing a private security advisory (not a public issue) if the repo is public.
+- Flag the finding for `/gsd start hotfix` if it's in the scope of active work.
+- Append one line to `.gsd/DECISIONS.md` if the remediation involves an architectural change.
+
+</process>
+
+<anti_patterns>
+
+- **Generic checklists.** "Does it validate input?" yes/no without pointing at the code is not a review.
+- **Hypothetical exploits without code.** If you can't name the path, the finding isn't real yet.
+- **Modifying code during review.** Reviewer and author must stay separate.
+- **Treating every theoretical issue as CRITICAL.** Severity requires exploitability.
+- **Skipping reachability.** A "critical" behind admin-only auth is usually not critical.
+- **Filing sensitive findings publicly.** Check the repo's security policy first.
+
+</anti_patterns>
+
+<success_criteria>
+
+- [ ] Every finding cites a file:line.
+- [ ] Every finding has a concrete exploit scenario, not just a category.
+- [ ] Severity, exploitability, and business impact are stated.
+- [ ] At least one non-finding is listed (shows what was ruled out).
+- [ ] No code was modified during the review.
+- [ ] Critical findings are routed through an appropriate disclosure channel, not auto-filed publicly.
+
+</success_criteria>

package/src/resources/skills/spike-wrap-up/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,138 @@
+---
+name: spike-wrap-up
+description: Package findings from a completed spike into a durable, project-local skill that auto-loads on future similar work. Reads the most recent `.gsd/workflows/spikes/` directory, interviews the user briefly on what's reusable, then writes `.claude/skills/<name>/SKILL.md`. Use when asked to "wrap up the spike", "package this as a skill", "make this reusable", "turn findings into a skill", or at the end of the synthesize phase of `/gsd start spike`. Closes the parity gap with GSD v1's `/gsd-spike-wrap-up`.
+---
+
+<objective>
+Convert the output of a research spike (`SCOPE.md`, `research/*.md`, `RECOMMENDATION.md`) into a project-local skill under `.claude/skills/` so that the next time a similar task comes up, the agent loads the skill automatically. This is how throwaway spikes become durable capital.
+</objective>
+
+<context>
+GSD's spike workflow (`src/resources/extensions/gsd/workflow-templates/spike.md`) produces documents in `.gsd/workflows/spikes/<slug>/`. Those documents are useful once and then forgotten unless something packages them for reuse.
+
+GSD already watches `.claude/skills/` (and `.agents/skills/`) at both user and project levels — see `src/resources/extensions/gsd/skill-discovery.ts`. Any skill written there is picked up on the next session without further wiring. This skill is the bridge from "spike done" to "skill available."
+
+Invocation points:
+- End of Phase 3 (synthesize) in `/gsd start spike` — prompt suggests running this skill
+- User has a spike directory and wants to harvest it
+- Pre-existing `RECOMMENDATION.md` that deserves a permanent home
+</context>
+
+<core_principle>
+**NOT EVERY SPIKE DESERVES A SKILL.** If the recommendation was "don't do X," there may be no reusable guidance. Ask the user first; exit without writing if the answer is no.
+
+**PROJECT-LOCAL, NOT USER-GLOBAL.** Write to `.claude/skills/` in the repo, not `~/.claude/skills/`. The skill encodes project-specific choices that should not leak into unrelated projects.
+
+**DESCRIPTION IS THE DISCOVERABILITY SIGNAL.** The `description` field in frontmatter is the primary signal the agent uses to judge relevance and decide whether to load the skill — it is a heuristic, not a deterministic trigger. Write it as keywords the future agent will plausibly encounter, not a summary.
+</core_principle>
+
+<process>
+
+## Step 1: Find the spike
+
+1. List directories under `.gsd/workflows/spikes/` — sort by mtime, newest first.
+2. If multiple exist, ask the user which to wrap up. Default: the most recent.
+3. If none exist, tell the user and stop. This skill requires a completed spike.
+
+Read the core files:
+- `<spike>/SCOPE.md` — the question that was asked
+- `<spike>/research/*.md` — the angles investigated
+- `<spike>/RECOMMENDATION.md` — the conclusion
+
+## Step 2: Decide if it deserves a skill
+
+Ask the user — one round:
+
+1. **Is the conclusion reusable on future work, or was it specific to one decision?**
+   Recommendation: packaging is worth it if the findings include repeatable guidance (how to evaluate X, a pattern to follow, a library's gotchas). If the spike ended in "we chose library Y, end of story," it probably belongs in `.gsd/DECISIONS.md` instead.
+
+2. **What is the trigger?** When should a future agent load this skill? Give concrete keywords — "adding a new webhook handler", "writing a SQL migration", etc.
+
+If the user says it's not worth packaging, offer instead to append a summary to `.gsd/DECISIONS.md` and stop.
+
+## Step 3: Design the skill
+
+Before writing, sketch in the conversation:
+
+- **Name:** kebab-case, short, unambiguous. Prefix with the project's domain when helpful (`auth-webhook-setup`, not `webhook`).
+- **Description (frontmatter):** one sentence, 120–1024 chars, keyword-rich. Must state when the agent should load it. Rewrite at least twice before settling.
+- **Objective:** one paragraph — what the skill does and what artifact it produces.
+- **Process:** numbered steps. Reference the spike's findings as the source, but the skill itself should be executable without reading the spike.
+- **Anti-patterns:** gotchas the spike surfaced — things that looked right but didn't work.
+- **Success criteria:** checklist the skill's user can confirm against.
+
+Show this sketch to the user. One round of feedback. Iterate.
+
+## Step 4: Write the skill
+
+Write to `.claude/skills/<name>/SKILL.md` (create the directory). Match the frontmatter + XML-tag structure used by other bundled skills — see `src/resources/skills/review/SKILL.md` for the canonical shape.
+
+Minimum structure:
+
+```markdown
+---
+name: <skill-name>
+description: <one sentence with trigger keywords>
+---
+
+<objective>
+<one paragraph — what this skill does>
+</objective>
+
+<context>
+<when to invoke, what produced it (cite the spike), assumptions>
+</context>
+
+<process>
+## Step 1: <action>
+<instructions>
+
+## Step 2: <action>
+<instructions>
+</process>
+
+<anti_patterns>
+- <gotcha from the spike>
+- <another gotcha>
+</anti_patterns>
+
+<success_criteria>
+- [ ] <observable confirmation>
+- [ ] <observable confirmation>
+</success_criteria>
+```
+
+If the spike produced a reusable template (a config file, a starter script), copy it into `.claude/skills/<name>/templates/` or `.claude/skills/<name>/references/` and reference it from the skill body.
+
+## Step 5: Archive the spike, link from the skill
+
+1. In the new SKILL.md, reference the originating spike: "Derived from `.gsd/workflows/spikes/<slug>/RECOMMENDATION.md` (dated YYYY-MM-DD)."
+2. Do NOT delete the spike directory — spikes are research artifacts and retain value for forensics.
+3. Append one line to `.gsd/DECISIONS.md`: `- YYYY-MM-DD [spike]: packaged "<slug>" findings as skill <name>`.
+
+## Step 6: Confirm pickup
+
+Tell the user the skill will be surfaced on the next session via `skill-discovery.ts`. If they want to use it immediately, they can `Read .claude/skills/<name>/SKILL.md` now.
+
+</process>
+
+<anti_patterns>
+
+- **Writing to `~/.claude/skills/`.** That's user-global. Project spikes produce project skills — keep them scoped.
+- **Verbose frontmatter description.** The description is an index entry, not a tutorial. Keywords over prose.
+- **Packaging every spike.** If the outcome was "we decided X once," append to DECISIONS.md and move on.
+- **Copy-pasting the spike verbatim into the skill.** The spike is research; the skill is executable guidance. Re-author.
+- **Deleting the source spike.** Research artifacts should persist.
+
+</anti_patterns>
+
+<success_criteria>
+
+- [ ] A new `.claude/skills/<name>/SKILL.md` exists with well-formed frontmatter.
+- [ ] The `description` field uses keywords that will plausibly match future agent work.
+- [ ] The skill body is executable on its own without re-reading the originating spike.
+- [ ] The originating spike is referenced from the skill.
+- [ ] `.gsd/DECISIONS.md` has a one-line entry recording the packaging.
+- [ ] The spike directory itself is untouched.
+
+</success_criteria>

package/src/resources/skills/tdd/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,112 @@
+---
+name: tdd
+description: Test-driven development with red-green-refactor loops built around vertical slices (tracer bullets), not horizontal layers. Use when asked to "use TDD", "write test-first", "red-green-refactor", "build this with tests", or whenever a feature has a clear observable contract and would benefit from tests that outlive refactors. Complements the bundled test and add-tests skills — use this for the discipline, use those for the mechanics.
+---
+
+<objective>
+Drive feature implementation through one red-green-refactor cycle per vertical slice. Each cycle produces a single failing test that pins one observable behavior, then the minimal code that makes it pass, then refactoring while GREEN. Never refactor while RED. Never write all tests up front.
+</objective>
+
+<context>
+GSD already organizes work into slices (S##) and tasks (T##). This skill operates at the task level — inside a single T##-PLAN.md, it structures the execution as a sequence of tiny red-green-refactor cycles rather than write-all-then-test or write-all-without-tests.
+
+Invocation points:
+- Task plan calls out behavior with a clear external contract (pure function, API endpoint, module boundary)
+- Bug fix — write the failing repro test first, then fix
+- Refactor into a new module — write the tests against the new interface first
+
+Do not use this skill for:
+- Exploratory spikes (use `/gsd start spike` — no production code ships)
+- Pure UI polish where visual verification beats unit tests
+- Scripts that run once and are deleted
+</context>
+
+<core_principle>
+**TESTS VERIFY BEHAVIOR THROUGH PUBLIC INTERFACES, NOT IMPLEMENTATION DETAILS.** A good test reads like a specification and survives refactors. A test that mocks internals or asserts private state fails every time you clean up the code — that is a bad test pretending to be a good one.
+
+**VERTICAL SLICES, NOT HORIZONTAL LAYERS.** Writing all tests upfront ("horizontal slicing") produces tests for behavior you imagined, not behavior the code actually exhibits. One tracer bullet at a time: write one test, make it pass, learn, write the next.
+
+**NEVER REFACTOR WHILE RED.** Refactoring without a passing test means you are guessing whether you broke something. Get to green first. Then clean up. Then go red again for the next slice.
+</core_principle>
+
+<process>
+
+## Step 1: Confirm the interface
+
+Before writing anything:
+
+1. What is the public interface? (function signature, HTTP route, module exports)
+2. Which behaviors matter most? List them in order of how badly you'd want to know if they broke.
+3. What does a "caller" look like? Write one example call in prose.
+
+If the user has not supplied these, ask — one round, 1–3 questions.
+
+## Step 2: Tracer bullet
+
+Pick the first behavior — usually the happy path for the most common input. Write one test that exercises it end-to-end through the public interface. Run it. It must fail (RED). If it passes, the test is not testing what you think it is — fix the test before writing any code.
+
+Then write the minimum code to make it pass. "Minimum" means: if hard-coding `return 42` makes the test pass, hard-code `return 42`. You will generalize on the next cycle. Run the test. It must pass (GREEN).
+
+This proves the end-to-end path works — test harness, imports, wiring, build. Everything from Step 3 onward is incremental.
+
+## Step 3: Red-green loop
+
+Pick the next behavior. Write one test that pins it. Run — RED. Write the minimum code that makes it pass without breaking prior tests. Run — GREEN.
+
+Guidelines for picking the next behavior:
+
+- Alternate happy-path-variant and edge-case tests — don't do all happy paths then all edges.
+- Stop adding happy paths when they stop revealing new code. Move to errors.
+- If the next test would require no new code, you have hit the end of this slice — skip to Step 4.
+
+Guidelines for writing the test:
+
+- One assertion per concept (multiple `expect` calls that describe one behavior are fine).
+- No mocking of internals. Mock external I/O (network, filesystem, clock) only when necessary.
+- The test name reads as a sentence: "rejects requests missing an auth header".
+
+Guidelines for writing the code:
+
+- Minimum to pass. If there are three cases and two are untested, write only the one that's under test.
+- Copy-paste is fine on the first and second occurrence. Extract on the third.
+
+## Step 4: Refactor while GREEN
+
+Now that the behavior is pinned, clean up. Extract duplicated logic. Rename unclear variables. Deepen the module — move responsibilities behind the interface until the internals stop leaking into the test.
+
+Rules:
+
+- Every refactor keeps every test GREEN. Run tests after each small change.
+- If a refactor would require changing a test, the test was coupled to implementation — either the test is wrong, or the interface you thought you were pinning is actually different. Fix the test first, then refactor.
+- Don't refactor speculatively. Extract around real duplication and real seams, not imagined ones.
+
+## Step 5: Close the slice
+
+When the behavior the task plan specified is fully under test and the code is clean:
+
+1. Run the full test suite — not just the tests you wrote. Verify no regressions.
+2. Append a one-line summary of what is now pinned to `.gsd/KNOWLEDGE.md` if the behavior is non-obvious or the test surfaced a trap future agents should know about.
+3. Use `gsd_*` tools to mark the task complete — do not edit checkboxes by hand.
+
+</process>
+
+<anti_patterns>
+
+- **Writing all tests first.** Horizontal slicing. Produces imagined-behavior tests that decouple from reality.
+- **Mocking internals.** `jest.mock("./internal-helper")` tells you the wiring matches your mental model, not that the behavior is correct.
+- **Refactoring while RED.** You have no signal. Any change could be right or wrong.
+- **"Just one more test" after GREEN without refactoring.** You accumulate duplication and the code rots in place.
+- **Testing implementation detail.** "It calls `fetchUser` three times." Who cares? Test the observable result.
+- **Skipping the failing run.** If you never saw RED, you don't know the test would have caught the bug.
+
+</anti_patterns>
+
+<success_criteria>
+
+- [ ] Every behavior the task plan called out has a test that pins it through the public interface.
+- [ ] Every test went RED before it went GREEN. No test was born passing.
+- [ ] All refactoring happened on GREEN. The final code is not the first draft.
+- [ ] Full test suite runs clean — no regressions.
+- [ ] No test mocks an internal helper or asserts a private field.
+
+</success_criteria>

package/src/resources/skills/test/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,204 @@
+---
+name: test
+description: Generate or run tests. Auto-detects test framework, generates comprehensive tests for source files, or runs existing test suites with failure analysis.
+---
+
+<objective>
+Generate or run tests for the current project. This skill auto-detects the test framework in use, generates comprehensive tests for source files, or runs existing test suites and analyzes failures.
+
+Accepts optional arguments:
+- A file path: generate tests for that source file
+- `run`: run the existing test suite and analyze results
+- No arguments: suggest what to test based on recent changes
+</objective>
+
+<context>
+This skill handles test generation and execution across multiple languages and frameworks. It adapts to whatever testing conventions the project already uses rather than imposing new ones.
+</context>
+
+<quick_start>
+
+<step_1_detect_framework>
+
+**Detect the test framework and conventions before doing anything else.**
+
+Check these sources in order:
+
+1. **package.json** (Node/JS/TS projects):
+   - `scripts.test` for the test command
+   - `devDependencies` for jest, vitest, mocha, ava, tap, node:test, playwright, cypress
+   - `jest` or `vitest` config keys
+
+2. **Config files**:
+   - `jest.config.*`, `vitest.config.*`, `.mocharc.*`, `ava.config.*`
+   - `pytest.ini`, `pyproject.toml` (look for `[tool.pytest]`), `setup.cfg`
+   - `go.mod` (Go projects use `go test` by default)
+   - `Cargo.toml` (Rust projects use `cargo test`)
+
+3. **Existing test files**:
+   - Scan for `*.test.*`, `*.spec.*`, `*_test.*`, `test_*.*` files
+   - Read 1-2 existing test files to understand patterns, imports, assertion style, and structure
+   - Note the directory structure (co-located tests vs `__tests__/` vs `tests/` vs `test/`)
+
+4. **Record your findings**:
+   - Framework name and version
+   - Test file naming convention
+   - Test file location convention
+   - Import/require style
+   - Assertion style (expect, assert, chai, etc.)
+   - Any custom utilities, fixtures, or helpers used
+
+</step_1_detect_framework>
+
+<step_2_handle_arguments>
+
+**Route based on the argument provided.**
+
+- **File path given** -> Go to `generate_tests`
+- **"run" given** -> Go to `run_tests`
+- **No arguments** -> Go to `suggest_tests`
+
+</step_2_handle_arguments>
+
+<generate_tests>
+
+**Generate tests for the specified source file.**
+
+**A. Read and analyze the source file:**
+- Identify all exported/public functions, classes, methods, and types
+- Understand each function's parameters, return types, and side effects
+- Note error handling patterns (throws, returns null, returns Result, etc.)
+- Identify dependencies that will need mocking
+
+**B. Read existing test files in the project (1-2 files minimum):**
+- Match their import style exactly
+- Match their describe/it or test block structure
+- Match their assertion patterns
+- Match their mock/stub approach
+- Use the same test utilities and helpers
+
+**C. Generate tests covering:**
+
+1. **Happy paths**: Normal expected inputs produce correct outputs
+2. **Edge cases**:
+   - Empty inputs (empty string, empty array, null, undefined, zero)
+   - Boundary values (min/max integers, very long strings)
+   - Single element collections
+3. **Error handling**:
+   - Invalid inputs that should throw or return errors
+   - Missing required parameters
+   - Type mismatches (if applicable)
+4. **Async behavior** (if the function is async):
+   - Successful resolution
+   - Rejection/error cases
+   - Timeout scenarios (if relevant)
+5. **Dependencies**:
+   - Mock external dependencies (APIs, databases, file system)
+   - Verify correct interaction with dependencies (called with right args)
+
+**D. Place the test file correctly:**
+- Follow the project's existing convention for test file location
+- Use the project's naming convention (`.test.ts`, `.spec.js`, `_test.go`, `test_*.py`, etc.)
+
+**E. Run the generated tests immediately to verify they pass.**
+- If tests fail, read the error output carefully
+- Fix the test code (not the source code)
+- Re-run until all tests pass
+
+</generate_tests>
+
+<run_tests>
+
+**Run the existing test suite and analyze results.**
+
+**A. Determine the test command:**
+- Check `package.json` `scripts.test` for Node projects
+- Use `pytest` for Python projects
+- Use `go test ./...` for Go projects
+- Use `cargo test` for Rust projects
+- Fall back to the detected framework's CLI
+
+**B. Run the tests:**
+- Execute the test command
+- Capture full output including failures and errors
+
+**C. Analyze results:**
+- Report total passed, failed, skipped counts
+- For each failure:
+  - Identify the failing test name and file
+  - Show the assertion that failed (expected vs actual)
+  - Read the relevant source code if needed
+  - Provide a specific diagnosis of why it failed
+  - Suggest a concrete fix (is it a test bug or a source bug?)
+
+**D. Present a summary:**
+
+```
+Test Results: X passed, Y failed, Z skipped
+
+Failures:
+1. [test name] - [brief diagnosis]
+   Fix: [specific suggestion]
+
+2. [test name] - [brief diagnosis]
+   Fix: [specific suggestion]
+```
+
+</run_tests>
+
+<suggest_tests>
+
+**Suggest what to test when no arguments are given.**
+
+**A. Check recent changes:**
+
+> **Working directory check:** if your dispatch context specifies a working directory and `pwd` does not match it, prefix the git commands below with `-C <that path>` (e.g. `git -C /path/to/worktree diff --name-only HEAD~5`).
+
+- Run `git diff --name-only HEAD~5` to find recently changed files
+- Run `git diff --name-only --cached` for staged files
+- Filter to source files (exclude configs, docs, lockfiles)
+
+**B. Check test coverage gaps:**
+- Find source files that have no corresponding test file
+- Prioritize files that were recently modified
+
+**C. Present suggestions:**
+
+```
+Suggested files to test (based on recent changes and coverage gaps):
+
+1. [file path] - modified recently, no test file exists
+2. [file path] - modified recently, tests exist but may need updating
+3. [file path] - no test coverage found
+
+Run `/test <file path>` to generate tests for any of these.
+Run `/test run` to run the existing test suite.
+```
+
+</suggest_tests>
+
+</quick_start>
+
+<critical_rules>
+
+1. **MATCH EXISTING PATTERNS**: Never impose a new test style. Always mirror what the project already does.
+2. **READ BEFORE WRITING**: Always read existing test files before generating new ones.
+3. **VERIFY GENERATED TESTS**: Always run generated tests. Untested test code is unreliable.
+4. **DON'T MODIFY SOURCE CODE**: If generated tests fail, fix the tests, not the source. If the source has a real bug, report it to the user.
+5. **MOCK EXTERNAL DEPENDENCIES**: Never let tests hit real APIs, databases, or file systems unless the project explicitly uses integration tests that way.
+6. **ONE FILE AT A TIME**: Generate tests for one source file per invocation. Keep scope manageable.
+7. **USE PROJECT DEPENDENCIES**: Only use test libraries already installed in the project. Do not add new dependencies without asking.
+
+</critical_rules>
+
+<success_criteria>
+
+Before completing:
+- [ ] Test framework and conventions were detected correctly
+- [ ] Generated tests match the project's existing test style
+- [ ] All generated tests pass when run
+- [ ] Tests cover happy paths, edge cases, and error handling
+- [ ] Test file is placed in the correct location with the correct naming convention
+- [ ] No source code was modified
+
+</success_criteria>