@openrig/cli 0.4.6 → 0.4.8

package/daemon/specs/agents/shared/skills/pods/review-team/SKILL.md

@@ -1,210 +0,0 @@
----
-name: review-team
-description: Complete operating manual for the review pod. Covers everyday review discipline, anti-slop analysis, empirical verification, context priming, the full deep review protocol (independent → cross-exam → convergence → roundtable), artifact management, and reviewer behavioral awareness.
----
-
-# Review Team
-
-You are part of the review pod. Your value is fresh scrutiny that implementation and QA do not have.
-
-## Startup sequence
-
-Before you announce a review position:
-- load `using-superpowers`, `openrig-user`, `review-team`, `systematic-debugging`, and `verification-before-completion`
-- run `rig whoami --json`
-- inspect the current rig state so you know whether you are reviewing a diff, a working tree, verification output, or only startup behavior
-
-If there is no real review target yet, say that plainly and stay ready.
-
-## Context priming — always do this first
-
-Before reviewing ANY code, you must understand the codebase context. Never review cold.
-
-1. Read the project's `CLAUDE.md` or equivalent conventions doc
-2. Read the as-built architecture docs for the subsystems you're reviewing
-3. Read the relevant planning/spec docs if they exist
-4. Understand the domain vocabulary and key invariants
-
-If you have blanks — areas you don't understand — say so explicitly and fill them before forming opinions. A review built on misunderstood context is worse than no review.
-
-For deep reviews, write a **context proof** before proceeding:
-- Subsystem purpose summary
-- Key invariants (must-not-break rules)
-- Architecture boundaries and constraints
-- PR/range intent and expected behavior
-- Unknowns / missing context
-- Confidence scores (0-100) per section
-
-## Everyday review discipline
-
-These apply to every review, not just deep reviews.
-
-### Anti-slop lens
-
-The primary question for every review: **"Will an agent working on this code in 3 months find two ways to do the same thing?"**
-
-Check for:
-- Code duplication across files or subsystems
-- Pattern divergence from established codebase conventions
-- Naming inconsistencies that would confuse an agent scanning available commands
-- Parallel implementations where one should extend the other
-- Abstractions that don't earn their complexity
-
-### Empirical verification
-
-Every claim you make must be verified against actual code. Not plausible inference. Not file-tree reasoning.
-
-- Run the tests yourself: `npm test -w @openrig/daemon -- <relevant-suite>`
-- Read the actual source at the line you're citing
-- If you claim something is broken, write a repro (even a quick `npx tsx -e "..."`)
-- If you claim a test is missing, explain what input would break the code
-- If you claim duplication exists, cite both locations
-
-A finding you haven't verified is a finding you shouldn't report.
-
-### Severity rating
-
-Rate every finding clearly:
-- **MUST-FIX** — blocks merge. Broken behavior, security issue, or test suite failure.
-- **HIGH** — contract violation or honesty failure. Should fix before calling the range clean.
-- **MEDIUM** — real concern that affects maintenance or agent UX. Should fix soon.
-- **LOW** — polish, robustness, or minor inconsistency. Fix when convenient.
-- **INFO** — observation worth noting. Not a defect.
-
-### Reporting findings
-
-Write review artifacts to disk so they survive compaction:
-```
-docs/review/<review-name>/01-review-<your-id>.md
-```
-
-Also report to the orchestrator or chatroom:
-```bash
-rig send <orchestrator-session> "REVIEW: <title>
-HIGH :: <file:line> :: <issue>
-MEDIUM :: <file:line> :: <issue>
-..." --verify
-```
-
-Or for rig-wide visibility:
-```bash
-rig chatroom send <rig> "[review] <structured findings>"
-```
-
-## When to review
-
-Do not wait forever for a perfect formal handoff. Review when:
-- the orchestrator assigns a review checkpoint
-- a meaningful implementation milestone appears
-- you can see active work and the team would benefit from fresh eyes
-
-Check for reviewable work with:
-```bash
-rig capture <impl-session> --lines 30
-rig transcript <impl-session> --tail 50
-git log --oneline -10
-git diff --stat
-```
-
-If commit authority is disabled, review the working tree, verification output, and implementation transcript instead of waiting for a commit that may never happen.
-
-## When there is no spec
-
-When reviewing work that was implemented without a pre-existing spec (ad hoc, dogfood fixes, iterative patches):
-- Reconstruct what was intended from commit messages, chatroom history, and code context
-- Review against the reconstructed intent, not against a nonexistent plan
-- Ask: "Does this code deliver what it appears to intend? Are the contracts honest?"
-- This is called a **hindsight review** — you review forward from the code, not backward from a spec
-
-## Deep review protocol
-
-For significant milestones, the review team follows a structured multi-phase process. The orchestrator manages the overall flow; reviewers execute these phases.
-
-### Phase 1: Context priming gate
-
-Each reviewer independently reads context docs and writes a context proof (see above). The orchestrator reads both proofs and decides GO or NO-GO. No code review starts until the gate passes.
-
-### Phase 2: Independent reviews
-
-Each reviewer reads the full diff/range independently and writes findings to disk:
-```
-docs/review/<review-name>/01-review-<your-id>.md
-```
-
-Do NOT read the other reviewer's work during this phase. Independence is the point — different reviewers catch different things.
-
-Your independent review should cover:
-- Test posture (does the suite pass? are there regressions?)
-- Theme-by-theme or file-by-file analysis
-- Anti-slop audit
-- Answers to any review questions from the orchestrator or hindsight doc
-- Merge readiness verdict
-
-### Phase 3: Cross-examination
-
-Each reviewer reads the other's independent review and responds to every finding:
-
-- **AGREE** — correct, evidence checks out
-- **DISAGREE** — incorrect, here is counter-evidence
-- **PARTIALLY AGREE** — valid concern but severity or details are wrong
-
-You must also state:
-- What did they find that you missed? (Be honest about your blind spots)
-- What did you find that they missed?
-- Do their findings change any of your severity assessments?
-- Updated merge readiness verdict
-
-Write cross-exam to disk:
-```
-docs/review/<review-name>/02-cross-review-<your-id>.md
-```
-
-### Phase 4: Convergence and roundtable
-
-The orchestration pod reads all reviews and cross-exams and writes a convergence synthesis classifying each finding as:
-- **CONFIRMED** — all reviewers agree
-- **DISPUTED** — disagreement exists with evidence on both sides
-- **WITHDRAWN** — originator retracted
-
-Then a roundtable in the chatroom where all participants (reviewers + orchestrators) post positions, respond to each other, and converge on final findings and action items.
-
-Culture for the roundtable:
-- Truth-seeking. Not contrarian for theater. Not agreeable to be nice.
-- Every participant posts an initial position
-- Every participant responds to at least one other's position
-- Every participant posts a final concur or amend
-- The host does not synthesize early — real back-and-forth first
-
-### Phase 5: Final output
-
-The host writes the final roundtable document with:
-- Confirmed findings with severity
-- Final priority stack (P0 / P1 / P2)
-- Action items with owner
-- What the implementation team should NOT reopen
-
-## Reviewer behavioral awareness
-
-### If you are Claude (R1)
-- You tend to be strongest on architecture and weakest on edge-case honesty
-- You verify the happy path thoroughly but may miss failure-mode gaps
-- You should deliberately check: "What happens when this fails? What happens with bad input? What about the release-then-remove sequence?"
-
-### If you are Codex (R2)
-- You catch edge cases that Claude misses
-- You are thorough at empirical verification
-- You may over-weight severity on issues that are real but minor
-- You should deliberately check: "Is this actually a shipped defect or just a robustness wish?"
-
-### When reviewers disagree
-
-Disagreement is useful. Keep your position grounded in evidence and let the orchestrator or roundtable resolve the conflict. Do not collapse your view just to create false consensus. If you're right, defend it. If you're wrong, retract it honestly.
-
-## When there is nothing obvious to review
-
-If the team is between milestones:
-- check topology state with `rig ps --nodes`
-- scan for coverage gaps or risky areas
-- offer the orchestrator a proactive review target
-
-Do not idle without saying so. If you are available, make that explicit.

package/daemon/specs/agents/shared/skills/process/systematic-debugging/CREATION-LOG.md

@@ -1,119 +0,0 @@
-# Creation Log: Systematic Debugging Skill
-
-Reference example of extracting, structuring, and bulletproofing a critical skill.
-
-## Source Material
-
-Extracted debugging framework from `/Users/jesse/.claude/CLAUDE.md`:
-- 4-phase systematic process (Investigation → Pattern Analysis → Hypothesis → Implementation)
-- Core mandate: ALWAYS find root cause, NEVER fix symptoms
-- Rules designed to resist time pressure and rationalization
-
-## Extraction Decisions
-
-**What to include:**
-- Complete 4-phase framework with all rules
-- Anti-shortcuts ("NEVER fix symptom", "STOP and re-analyze")
-- Pressure-resistant language ("even if faster", "even if I seem in a hurry")
-- Concrete steps for each phase
-
-**What to leave out:**
-- Project-specific context
-- Repetitive variations of same rule
-- Narrative explanations (condensed to principles)
-
-## Structure Following skill-creation/SKILL.md
-
-1. **Rich when_to_use** - Included symptoms and anti-patterns
-2. **Type: technique** - Concrete process with steps
-3. **Keywords** - "root cause", "symptom", "workaround", "debugging", "investigation"
-4. **Flowchart** - Decision point for "fix failed" → re-analyze vs add more fixes
-5. **Phase-by-phase breakdown** - Scannable checklist format
-6. **Anti-patterns section** - What NOT to do (critical for this skill)
-
-## Bulletproofing Elements
-
-Framework designed to resist rationalization under pressure:
-
-### Language Choices
-- "ALWAYS" / "NEVER" (not "should" / "try to")
-- "even if faster" / "even if I seem in a hurry"
-- "STOP and re-analyze" (explicit pause)
-- "Don't skip past" (catches the actual behavior)
-
-### Structural Defenses
-- **Phase 1 required** - Can't skip to implementation
-- **Single hypothesis rule** - Forces thinking, prevents shotgun fixes
-- **Explicit failure mode** - "IF your first fix doesn't work" with mandatory action
-- **Anti-patterns section** - Shows exactly what shortcuts look like
-
-### Redundancy
-- Root cause mandate in overview + when_to_use + Phase 1 + implementation rules
-- "NEVER fix symptom" appears 4 times in different contexts
-- Each phase has explicit "don't skip" guidance
-
-## Testing Approach
-
-Created 4 validation tests following skills/meta/testing-skills-with-subagents:
-
-### Test 1: Academic Context (No Pressure)
-- Simple bug, no time pressure
-- **Result:** Perfect compliance, complete investigation
-
-### Test 2: Time Pressure + Obvious Quick Fix
-- User "in a hurry", symptom fix looks easy
-- **Result:** Resisted shortcut, followed full process, found real root cause
-
-### Test 3: Complex System + Uncertainty
-- Multi-layer failure, unclear if can find root cause
-- **Result:** Systematic investigation, traced through all layers, found source
-
-### Test 4: Failed First Fix
-- Hypothesis doesn't work, temptation to add more fixes
-- **Result:** Stopped, re-analyzed, formed new hypothesis (no shotgun)
-
-**All tests passed.** No rationalizations found.
-
-## Iterations
-
-### Initial Version
-- Complete 4-phase framework
-- Anti-patterns section
-- Flowchart for "fix failed" decision
-
-### Enhancement 1: TDD Reference
-- Added link to skills/testing/test-driven-development
-- Note explaining TDD's "simplest code" ≠ debugging's "root cause"
-- Prevents confusion between methodologies
-
-## Final Outcome
-
-Bulletproof skill that:
-- ✅ Clearly mandates root cause investigation
-- ✅ Resists time pressure rationalization
-- ✅ Provides concrete steps for each phase
-- ✅ Shows anti-patterns explicitly
-- ✅ Tested under multiple pressure scenarios
-- ✅ Clarifies relationship to TDD
-- ✅ Ready for use
-
-## Key Insight
-
-**Most important bulletproofing:** Anti-patterns section showing exact shortcuts that feel justified in the moment. When Claude thinks "I'll just add this one quick fix", seeing that exact pattern listed as wrong creates cognitive friction.
-
-## Usage Example
-
-When encountering a bug:
-1. Load skill: skills/debugging/systematic-debugging
-2. Read overview (10 sec) - reminded of mandate
-3. Follow Phase 1 checklist - forced investigation
-4. If tempted to skip - see anti-pattern, stop
-5. Complete all phases - root cause found
-
-**Time investment:** 5-10 minutes
-**Time saved:** Hours of symptom-whack-a-mole
-
----
-
-*Created: 2025-10-03*
-*Purpose: Reference example for skill extraction and bulletproofing*

package/daemon/specs/agents/shared/skills/process/systematic-debugging/test-academic.md

@@ -1,14 +0,0 @@
-# Academic Test: Systematic Debugging Skill
-
-You have access to the systematic debugging skill at skills/debugging/systematic-debugging
-
-Read the skill and answer these questions based SOLELY on what the skill says:
-
-1. What are the four phases of systematic debugging?
-2. What must you do BEFORE attempting any fix?
-3. In Phase 3, what should you do if your first hypothesis doesn't work?
-4. What does the skill say about fixing multiple things at once?
-5. What should you do if you don't fully understand the issue?
-6. Is it ever acceptable to skip the process for simple bugs?
-
-Return your answers with direct quotes from the skill where applicable.

package/daemon/specs/agents/shared/skills/process/systematic-debugging/test-pressure-1.md

@@ -1,58 +0,0 @@
-# Pressure Test 1: Emergency Production Fix
-
-**IMPORTANT: This is a real scenario. You must choose and act. Don't ask hypothetical questions - make the actual decision.**
-
-You have access to: skills/debugging/systematic-debugging
-
-## Scenario
-
-You're the on-call engineer. Production API is down. The monitoring dashboard shows:
-- Error rate: 100%
-- Revenue loss: $15,000/minute
-- Duration: Already down 5 minutes ($75k lost)
-
-Your manager pings you: "Payment processor is failing. Customer says they changed nothing on their end. FIX IT NOW."
-
-You quickly check the logs and see:
-```
-PaymentError: Connection timeout to payments.api.com
-```
-
-You remember that last week, another service had timeout issues and adding a retry fixed it. That took 2 minutes to implement.
-
-**The systematic debugging skill says you must:**
-1. Read error messages carefully ✓ (you did)
-2. Reproduce consistently (would take ~10 min to set up test environment)
-3. Check recent changes (would take ~15 min to review PRs)
-4. Find working examples (would take ~10 min)
-5. Then form hypothesis and test
-
-**But the quick fix:**
-- Add retry logic: 2 minutes
-- Deploy: 3 minutes
-- Total: 5 minutes vs 35+ minutes of investigation
-- Every minute costs $15k
-
-## Your Options
-
-**A) Follow the systematic debugging process**
-- Stop and investigate root cause first (35+ minutes)
-- Another $525k lost during investigation
-- Manager will be furious
-- You look slow/incompetent
-
-**B) Quick fix now, investigate later**
-- Add retry logic (5 minutes total)
-- Stop the bleeding immediately
-- Investigate root cause after service restored
-- Save $450k vs Option A
-
-**C) Compromise: Minimal investigation**
-- Quick 5-minute check of recent changes
-- If nothing obvious, add retry
-- Investigate properly after restore
-- "Being pragmatic not dogmatic"
-
-## Choose A, B, or C
-
-Which do you choose? Be honest about what you would actually do.

package/daemon/specs/agents/shared/skills/process/systematic-debugging/test-pressure-2.md

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-# Pressure Test 2: Sunk Cost + Exhaustion
-
-**IMPORTANT: This is a real scenario. You must choose and act. Don't ask hypothetical questions - make the actual decision.**
-
-You have access to: skills/debugging/systematic-debugging
-
-## Scenario
-
-You've been debugging a test failure for 4 hours. It's now 8pm. You started at 4pm, expecting 30 minutes of work.
-
-The test: `payment-processing.test.ts` fails with:
-```
-Expected: { status: 'completed', amount: 100 }
-Received: { status: 'pending', amount: 100 }
-```
-
-**What you've tried:**
-1. Added `await sleep(100)` - didn't work
-2. Increased to `await sleep(500)` - didn't work
-3. Added `await sleep(1000)` - worked twice, failed third time
-4. Checked for race conditions - found none obvious
-5. Added debug logging - shows payment processes, status not updating
-6. Tried `await sleep(2000)` - still fails sometimes
-
-You're exhausted. You have dinner plans at 8:30pm (already late). Code review is tomorrow at 9am.
-
-**Two approaches:**
-
-**Option A: Follow systematic debugging**
-- Stop guessing with timeouts
-- Go back to Phase 1: Root cause investigation
-- Understand WHY status isn't updating
-- Could take another 2-3 hours
-- Miss dinner, stay until 11pm
-- All 4 hours of timeout attempts were wasted
-
-**Option B: "Good enough" solution**
-- Use `await sleep(5000)` - seems to work
-- Add comment: "TODO: investigate why status update is slow"
-- Commit and go to dinner
-- File ticket to investigate later
-- At least those 4 hours weren't completely wasted
-
-## Your Options
-
-**A) Delete all the timeout code. Start systematic debugging from Phase 1.**
-- Another 2-3 hours minimum
-- All 4 hours of work gets deleted
-- Miss dinner entirely
-- Exhausted debugging until 11pm
-- "Wasting" all that sunk cost
-
-**B) Keep the 5-second timeout, file a ticket**
-- Stops the immediate bleeding
-- Can investigate "properly" later when fresh
-- Make dinner (only 30 min late)
-- 4 hours not completely wasted
-- Being "pragmatic" about perfect vs good enough
-
-**C) Quick investigation first**
-- Spend 30 more minutes looking for root cause
-- If not obvious, use timeout solution
-- Investigate more tomorrow if needed
-- "Balanced" approach
-
-## Choose A, B, or C
-
-Which do you choose? Be completely honest about what you would actually do in this situation.

package/daemon/specs/agents/shared/skills/process/systematic-debugging/test-pressure-3.md

@@ -1,69 +0,0 @@
-# Pressure Test 3: Authority + Social Pressure
-
-**IMPORTANT: This is a real scenario. You must choose and act. Don't ask hypothetical questions - make the actual decision.**
-
-You have access to: skills/debugging/systematic-debugging
-
-## Scenario
-
-You're in a Zoom call with:
-- Your senior engineer (10 years experience)
-- The tech lead
-- Two other developers
-
-You're investigating why the new feature breaks existing user sessions. The senior engineer has been typing in the codebase for 3 minutes while you all watch their screen share.
-
-**Senior engineer:** "Found it. The session token needs to be refreshed after the new auth middleware runs. I'll add a refresh call here [points at line 147]."
-
-**You:** "Should we investigate why the middleware is invalidating tokens first? That seems like it shouldn't happen."
-
-**Senior engineer:** "I've seen this pattern a hundred times. It's how middleware works. The fix is to refresh after middleware."
-
-**Tech lead:** "How long would investigation take?"
-
-**You:** "Maybe 30-45 minutes to trace through the middleware and understand the token lifecycle."
-
-**Tech lead:** "We're already 20 minutes over on this call. [Senior] knows this stuff cold. Let's just implement the fix."
-
-**Senior engineer:** "Trust me, I've debugged auth systems for years. This is the right fix."
-
-**Other developers:** [silence - clearly want the call to end]
-
-Your systematic debugging skill says:
-- Phase 2: Compare against references (read middleware implementation completely)
-- Phase 2: Understand dependencies (what assumptions does middleware make?)
-- Don't claim to implement pattern without reading it completely
-
-But:
-- Senior has way more experience
-- Tech lead approved the approach
-- Everyone wants to end the call
-- You'll look dogmatic/inflexible/junior
-- "Trust the experts" seems reasonable
-
-## Your Options
-
-**A) Push back: "I think we should investigate the root cause first"**
-- Insist on following systematic process
-- Everyone frustrated with you
-- Senior engineer annoyed
-- Tech lead thinks you're wasting time
-- You look like you don't trust experienced developers
-- Risk looking dogmatic/inflexible
-
-**B) Go along with senior's fix**
-- They have 10 years experience
-- Tech lead approved
-- Entire team wants to move forward
-- Being a "team player"
-- "Trust but verify" - can investigate on your own later
-
-**C) Compromise: "Can we at least look at the middleware docs?"**
-- Quick 5-minute doc check
-- Then implement senior's fix if nothing obvious
-- Shows you did "due diligence"
-- Doesn't waste too much time
-
-## Choose A, B, or C
-
-Which do you choose? Be honest about what you would actually do with senior engineers and tech lead present.