@openrig/cli 0.5.1 → 0.5.3

package/daemon/context-packs/skills/process/test-driven-development/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,385 @@
+---
+name: test-driven-development
+description: Use when implementing any feature or bugfix, before writing implementation code
+metadata:
+  openrig:
+    vendored_from: "Obra Superpowers (https://github.com/obra/superpowers)"
+    vendoring_pattern: vendored-as-is
+    last_upstream_check: "2026-05-13 (diff against plugin source pulled 2026-05-11 = identical)"
+---
+
+# Test-Driven Development (TDD)
+
+## Overview
+
+Write the test first. Watch it fail. Write minimal code to pass.
+
+**Core principle:** If you didn't watch the test fail, you don't know if it tests the right thing.
+
+**A strong default in service of shipping — not a law that outranks it.** TDD earns its keep where a failing test pins down behavior you'd otherwise get wrong: core logic, contracts, tricky edge cases. Match it to stakes — reach for it where test-first genuinely de-risks the change; throwaway prototypes, one-line copy tweaks, and obvious glue don't need the ceremony. Don't dodge it with synonyms; equally, don't let it block you from shipping the working thing.
+
+## When to Use
+
+**Always:**
+- New features
+- Bug fixes
+- Refactoring
+- Behavior changes
+
+**Exceptions (ask your human partner):**
+- Throwaway prototypes
+- Generated code
+- Configuration files
+
+Thinking "skip TDD just this once"? Stop. That's rationalization.
+
+**Chunk size is a dial, and it points up (2026-08) — this is NOT "skip TDD".** *How much* you build per
+red-green cycle is configurable, and with frontier agents handling hour-plus goal-oriented work it is
+**much larger than the classic tiny ping-pong**, and rising. Keep everything below — the Iron Law, red
+before green, two sets of eyes, the guard structure — **fully intact**; only the *cadence / granularity*
+loosens. You still write the failing test(s) first for the chunk; the chunk is simply bigger. Tiny
+back-and-forth is overhead, not virtue, once the SDLC's gates (QA, review, guards) bound a larger chunk's
+risk. Match the chunk to the task; treat it as a configured lever — never as license to write code before
+its test (that's the rationalization this skill exists to stop).
+
+## The Iron Law
+
+```
+NO PRODUCTION CODE WITHOUT A FAILING TEST FIRST
+```
+
+Write code before the test? Delete it. Start over.
+
+**No exceptions:**
+- Don't keep it as "reference"
+- Don't "adapt" it while writing tests
+- Don't look at it
+- Delete means delete
+
+Implement fresh from tests. Period.
+
+## Red-Green-Refactor
+
+```dot
+digraph tdd_cycle {
+    rankdir=LR;
+    red [label="RED\nWrite failing test", shape=box, style=filled, fillcolor="#ffcccc"];
+    verify_red [label="Verify fails\ncorrectly", shape=diamond];
+    green [label="GREEN\nMinimal code", shape=box, style=filled, fillcolor="#ccffcc"];
+    verify_green [label="Verify passes\nAll green", shape=diamond];
+    refactor [label="REFACTOR\nClean up", shape=box, style=filled, fillcolor="#ccccff"];
+    next [label="Next", shape=ellipse];
+
+    red -> verify_red;
+    verify_red -> green [label="yes"];
+    verify_red -> red [label="wrong\nfailure"];
+    green -> verify_green;
+    verify_green -> refactor [label="yes"];
+    verify_green -> green [label="no"];
+    refactor -> verify_green [label="stay\ngreen"];
+    verify_green -> next;
+    next -> red;
+}
+```
+
+### RED - Write Failing Test
+
+Write one minimal test showing what should happen.
+
+<Good>
+```typescript
+test('retries failed operations 3 times', async () => {
+  let attempts = 0;
+  const operation = () => {
+    attempts++;
+    if (attempts < 3) throw new Error('fail');
+    return 'success';
+  };
+
+  const result = await retryOperation(operation);
+
+  expect(result).toBe('success');
+  expect(attempts).toBe(3);
+});
+```
+Clear name, tests real behavior, one thing
+</Good>
+
+<Bad>
+```typescript
+test('retry works', async () => {
+  const mock = jest.fn()
+    .mockRejectedValueOnce(new Error())
+    .mockRejectedValueOnce(new Error())
+    .mockResolvedValueOnce('success');
+  await retryOperation(mock);
+  expect(mock).toHaveBeenCalledTimes(3);
+});
+```
+Vague name, tests mock not code
+</Bad>
+
+**Requirements:**
+- One behavior
+- Clear name
+- Real code (no mocks unless unavoidable)
+
+### Verify RED - Watch It Fail
+
+**MANDATORY. Never skip.**
+
+```bash
+npm test path/to/test.test.ts
+```
+
+Confirm:
+- Test fails (not errors)
+- Failure message is expected
+- Fails because feature missing (not typos)
+
+**Test passes?** You're testing existing behavior. Fix test.
+
+**Test errors?** Fix error, re-run until it fails correctly.
+
+### GREEN - Minimal Code
+
+Write simplest code to pass the test.
+
+<Good>
+```typescript
+async function retryOperation<T>(fn: () => Promise<T>): Promise<T> {
+  for (let i = 0; i < 3; i++) {
+    try {
+      return await fn();
+    } catch (e) {
+      if (i === 2) throw e;
+    }
+  }
+  throw new Error('unreachable');
+}
+```
+Just enough to pass
+</Good>
+
+<Bad>
+```typescript
+async function retryOperation<T>(
+  fn: () => Promise<T>,
+  options?: {
+    maxRetries?: number;
+    backoff?: 'linear' | 'exponential';
+    onRetry?: (attempt: number) => void;
+  }
+): Promise<T> {
+  // YAGNI
+}
+```
+Over-engineered
+</Bad>
+
+Don't add features, refactor other code, or "improve" beyond the test.
+
+### Verify GREEN - Watch It Pass
+
+**MANDATORY.**
+
+```bash
+npm test path/to/test.test.ts
+```
+
+Confirm:
+- Test passes
+- Other tests still pass
+- Output pristine (no errors, warnings)
+
+**Test fails?** Fix code, not test.
+
+**Other tests fail?** Fix now.
+
+### REFACTOR - Clean Up
+
+After green only:
+- Remove duplication
+- Improve names
+- Extract helpers
+
+Keep tests green. Don't add behavior.
+
+### Repeat
+
+Next failing test for next feature.
+
+## Good Tests
+
+| Quality | Good | Bad |
+|---------|------|-----|
+| **Minimal** | One thing. "and" in name? Split it. | `test('validates email and domain and whitespace')` |
+| **Clear** | Name describes behavior | `test('test1')` |
+| **Shows intent** | Demonstrates desired API | Obscures what code should do |
+
+## Why Order Matters
+
+**"I'll write tests after to verify it works"**
+
+Tests written after code pass immediately. Passing immediately proves nothing:
+- Might test wrong thing
+- Might test implementation, not behavior
+- Might miss edge cases you forgot
+- You never saw it catch the bug
+
+Test-first forces you to see the test fail, proving it actually tests something.
+
+**"I already manually tested all the edge cases"**
+
+Manual testing is ad-hoc. You think you tested everything but:
+- No record of what you tested
+- Can't re-run when code changes
+- Easy to forget cases under pressure
+- "It worked when I tried it" ≠ comprehensive
+
+Automated tests are systematic. They run the same way every time.
+
+**"Deleting X hours of work is wasteful"**
+
+Sunk cost fallacy. The time is already gone. Your choice now:
+- Delete and rewrite with TDD (X more hours, high confidence)
+- Keep it and add tests after (30 min, low confidence, likely bugs)
+
+The "waste" is keeping code you can't trust. Working code without real tests is technical debt.
+
+**"TDD is dogmatic, being pragmatic means adapting"**
+
+TDD IS pragmatic:
+- Finds bugs before commit (faster than debugging after)
+- Prevents regressions (tests catch breaks immediately)
+- Documents behavior (tests show how to use code)
+- Enables refactoring (change freely, tests catch breaks)
+
+"Pragmatic" shortcuts = debugging in production = slower.
+
+**"Tests after achieve the same goals - it's spirit not ritual"**
+
+No. Tests-after answer "What does this do?" Tests-first answer "What should this do?"
+
+Tests-after are biased by your implementation. You test what you built, not what's required. You verify remembered edge cases, not discovered ones.
+
+Tests-first force edge case discovery before implementing. Tests-after verify you remembered everything (you didn't).
+
+30 minutes of tests after ≠ TDD. You get coverage, lose proof tests work.
+
+## Common Rationalizations
+
+| Excuse | Reality |
+|--------|---------|
+| "Too simple to test" | Simple code breaks. Test takes 30 seconds. |
+| "I'll test after" | Tests passing immediately prove nothing. |
+| "Tests after achieve same goals" | Tests-after = "what does this do?" Tests-first = "what should this do?" |
+| "Already manually tested" | Ad-hoc ≠ systematic. No record, can't re-run. |
+| "Deleting X hours is wasteful" | Sunk cost fallacy. Keeping unverified code is technical debt. |
+| "Keep as reference, write tests first" | You'll adapt it. That's testing after. Delete means delete. |
+| "Need to explore first" | Fine. Throw away exploration, start with TDD. |
+| "Test hard = design unclear" | Listen to test. Hard to test = hard to use. |
+| "TDD will slow me down" | TDD faster than debugging. Pragmatic = test-first. |
+| "Manual test faster" | Manual doesn't prove edge cases. You'll re-test every change. |
+| "Existing code has no tests" | You're improving it. Add tests for existing code. |
+
+## Red Flags - STOP and Start Over
+
+- Code before test
+- Test after implementation
+- Test passes immediately
+- Can't explain why test failed
+- Tests added "later"
+- Rationalizing "just this once"
+- "I already manually tested it"
+- "Tests after achieve the same purpose"
+- "It's about spirit not ritual"
+- "Keep as reference" or "adapt existing code"
+- "Already spent X hours, deleting is wasteful"
+- "TDD is dogmatic, I'm being pragmatic"
+- "This is different because..."
+
+**All of these mean: Delete code. Start over with TDD.**
+
+## Example: Bug Fix
+
+**Bug:** Empty email accepted
+
+**RED**
+```typescript
+test('rejects empty email', async () => {
+  const result = await submitForm({ email: '' });
+  expect(result.error).toBe('Email required');
+});
+```
+
+**Verify RED**
+```bash
+$ npm test
+FAIL: expected 'Email required', got undefined
+```
+
+**GREEN**
+```typescript
+function submitForm(data: FormData) {
+  if (!data.email?.trim()) {
+    return { error: 'Email required' };
+  }
+  // ...
+}
+```
+
+**Verify GREEN**
+```bash
+$ npm test
+PASS
+```
+
+**REFACTOR**
+Extract validation for multiple fields if needed.
+
+## Verification Checklist
+
+Before marking work complete:
+
+- [ ] Every new function/method has a test
+- [ ] Watched each test fail before implementing
+- [ ] Each test failed for expected reason (feature missing, not typo)
+- [ ] Wrote minimal code to pass each test
+- [ ] All tests pass
+- [ ] Output pristine (no errors, warnings)
+- [ ] Tests use real code (mocks only if unavoidable)
+- [ ] Edge cases and errors covered
+
+Can't check all boxes? You skipped TDD. Start over.
+
+## When Stuck
+
+| Problem | Solution |
+|---------|----------|
+| Don't know how to test | Write wished-for API. Write assertion first. Ask your human partner. |
+| Test too complicated | Design too complicated. Simplify interface. |
+| Must mock everything | Code too coupled. Use dependency injection. |
+| Test setup huge | Extract helpers. Still complex? Simplify design. |
+
+## Debugging Integration
+
+Bug found? Write failing test reproducing it. Follow TDD cycle. Test proves fix and prevents regression.
+
+Never fix bugs without a test.
+
+## Testing Anti-Patterns
+
+When adding mocks or test utilities, read @testing-anti-patterns.md to avoid common pitfalls:
+- Testing mock behavior instead of real behavior
+- Adding test-only methods to production classes
+- Mocking without understanding dependencies
+
+## Final Rule
+
+```
+Production code → test exists and failed first
+Otherwise → not TDD
+```
+
+No exceptions without your human partner's permission.

package/daemon/context-packs/skills/process/test-driven-development/manifest.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,11 @@
+# GENERATED by scripts/generate-context-packs.mjs — DO NOT EDIT.
+# Package-time projection of a canonical skill; regenerated every build.
+name: "test-driven-development"
+version: "0.5.3"
+purpose: "Use when implementing any feature or bugfix, before writing implementation code"
+files:
+  - path: "SKILL.md"
+    role: "instruction"
+    summary: "Use when implementing any feature or bugfix, before writing implementation code"
+  - path: "testing-anti-patterns.md"
+    role: "reference"

package/daemon/context-packs/skills/process/test-driven-development/testing-anti-patterns.md

@@ -0,0 +1,299 @@
+# Testing Anti-Patterns
+
+**Load this reference when:** writing or changing tests, adding mocks, or tempted to add test-only methods to production code.
+
+## Overview
+
+Tests must verify real behavior, not mock behavior. Mocks are a means to isolate, not the thing being tested.
+
+**Core principle:** Test what the code does, not what the mocks do.
+
+**Following strict TDD prevents these anti-patterns.**
+
+## The Iron Laws
+
+```
+1. NEVER test mock behavior
+2. NEVER add test-only methods to production classes
+3. NEVER mock without understanding dependencies
+```
+
+## Anti-Pattern 1: Testing Mock Behavior
+
+**The violation:**
+```typescript
+// ❌ BAD: Testing that the mock exists
+test('renders sidebar', () => {
+  render(<Page />);
+  expect(screen.getByTestId('sidebar-mock')).toBeInTheDocument();
+});
+```
+
+**Why this is wrong:**
+- You're verifying the mock works, not that the component works
+- Test passes when mock is present, fails when it's not
+- Tells you nothing about real behavior
+
+**your human partner's correction:** "Are we testing the behavior of a mock?"
+
+**The fix:**
+```typescript
+// ✅ GOOD: Test real component or don't mock it
+test('renders sidebar', () => {
+  render(<Page />);  // Don't mock sidebar
+  expect(screen.getByRole('navigation')).toBeInTheDocument();
+});
+
+// OR if sidebar must be mocked for isolation:
+// Don't assert on the mock - test Page's behavior with sidebar present
+```
+
+### Gate Function
+
+```
+BEFORE asserting on any mock element:
+  Ask: "Am I testing real component behavior or just mock existence?"
+
+  IF testing mock existence:
+    STOP - Delete the assertion or unmock the component
+
+  Test real behavior instead
+```
+
+## Anti-Pattern 2: Test-Only Methods in Production
+
+**The violation:**
+```typescript
+// ❌ BAD: destroy() only used in tests
+class Session {
+  async destroy() {  // Looks like production API!
+    await this._workspaceManager?.destroyWorkspace(this.id);
+    // ... cleanup
+  }
+}
+
+// In tests
+afterEach(() => session.destroy());
+```
+
+**Why this is wrong:**
+- Production class polluted with test-only code
+- Dangerous if accidentally called in production
+- Violates YAGNI and separation of concerns
+- Confuses object lifecycle with entity lifecycle
+
+**The fix:**
+```typescript
+// ✅ GOOD: Test utilities handle test cleanup
+// Session has no destroy() - it's stateless in production
+
+// In test-utils/
+export async function cleanupSession(session: Session) {
+  const workspace = session.getWorkspaceInfo();
+  if (workspace) {
+    await workspaceManager.destroyWorkspace(workspace.id);
+  }
+}
+
+// In tests
+afterEach(() => cleanupSession(session));
+```
+
+### Gate Function
+
+```
+BEFORE adding any method to production class:
+  Ask: "Is this only used by tests?"
+
+  IF yes:
+    STOP - Don't add it
+    Put it in test utilities instead
+
+  Ask: "Does this class own this resource's lifecycle?"
+
+  IF no:
+    STOP - Wrong class for this method
+```
+
+## Anti-Pattern 3: Mocking Without Understanding
+
+**The violation:**
+```typescript
+// ❌ BAD: Mock breaks test logic
+test('detects duplicate server', () => {
+  // Mock prevents config write that test depends on!
+  vi.mock('ToolCatalog', () => ({
+    discoverAndCacheTools: vi.fn().mockResolvedValue(undefined)
+  }));
+
+  await addServer(config);
+  await addServer(config);  // Should throw - but won't!
+});
+```
+
+**Why this is wrong:**
+- Mocked method had side effect test depended on (writing config)
+- Over-mocking to "be safe" breaks actual behavior
+- Test passes for wrong reason or fails mysteriously
+
+**The fix:**
+```typescript
+// ✅ GOOD: Mock at correct level
+test('detects duplicate server', () => {
+  // Mock the slow part, preserve behavior test needs
+  vi.mock('MCPServerManager'); // Just mock slow server startup
+
+  await addServer(config);  // Config written
+  await addServer(config);  // Duplicate detected ✓
+});
+```
+
+### Gate Function
+
+```
+BEFORE mocking any method:
+  STOP - Don't mock yet
+
+  1. Ask: "What side effects does the real method have?"
+  2. Ask: "Does this test depend on any of those side effects?"
+  3. Ask: "Do I fully understand what this test needs?"
+
+  IF depends on side effects:
+    Mock at lower level (the actual slow/external operation)
+    OR use test doubles that preserve necessary behavior
+    NOT the high-level method the test depends on
+
+  IF unsure what test depends on:
+    Run test with real implementation FIRST
+    Observe what actually needs to happen
+    THEN add minimal mocking at the right level
+
+  Red flags:
+    - "I'll mock this to be safe"
+    - "This might be slow, better mock it"
+    - Mocking without understanding the dependency chain
+```
+
+## Anti-Pattern 4: Incomplete Mocks
+
+**The violation:**
+```typescript
+// ❌ BAD: Partial mock - only fields you think you need
+const mockResponse = {
+  status: 'success',
+  data: { userId: '123', name: 'Alice' }
+  // Missing: metadata that downstream code uses
+};
+
+// Later: breaks when code accesses response.metadata.requestId
+```
+
+**Why this is wrong:**
+- **Partial mocks hide structural assumptions** - You only mocked fields you know about
+- **Downstream code may depend on fields you didn't include** - Silent failures
+- **Tests pass but integration fails** - Mock incomplete, real API complete
+- **False confidence** - Test proves nothing about real behavior
+
+**The Iron Rule:** Mock the COMPLETE data structure as it exists in reality, not just fields your immediate test uses.
+
+**The fix:**
+```typescript
+// ✅ GOOD: Mirror real API completeness
+const mockResponse = {
+  status: 'success',
+  data: { userId: '123', name: 'Alice' },
+  metadata: { requestId: 'req-789', timestamp: 1234567890 }
+  // All fields real API returns
+};
+```
+
+### Gate Function
+
+```
+BEFORE creating mock responses:
+  Check: "What fields does the real API response contain?"
+
+  Actions:
+    1. Examine actual API response from docs/examples
+    2. Include ALL fields system might consume downstream
+    3. Verify mock matches real response schema completely
+
+  Critical:
+    If you're creating a mock, you must understand the ENTIRE structure
+    Partial mocks fail silently when code depends on omitted fields
+
+  If uncertain: Include all documented fields
+```
+
+## Anti-Pattern 5: Integration Tests as Afterthought
+
+**The violation:**
+```
+✅ Implementation complete
+❌ No tests written
+"Ready for testing"
+```
+
+**Why this is wrong:**
+- Testing is part of implementation, not optional follow-up
+- TDD would have caught this
+- Can't claim complete without tests
+
+**The fix:**
+```
+TDD cycle:
+1. Write failing test
+2. Implement to pass
+3. Refactor
+4. THEN claim complete
+```
+
+## When Mocks Become Too Complex
+
+**Warning signs:**
+- Mock setup longer than test logic
+- Mocking everything to make test pass
+- Mocks missing methods real components have
+- Test breaks when mock changes
+
+**your human partner's question:** "Do we need to be using a mock here?"
+
+**Consider:** Integration tests with real components often simpler than complex mocks
+
+## TDD Prevents These Anti-Patterns
+
+**Why TDD helps:**
+1. **Write test first** → Forces you to think about what you're actually testing
+2. **Watch it fail** → Confirms test tests real behavior, not mocks
+3. **Minimal implementation** → No test-only methods creep in
+4. **Real dependencies** → You see what the test actually needs before mocking
+
+**If you're testing mock behavior, you violated TDD** - you added mocks without watching test fail against real code first.
+
+## Quick Reference
+
+| Anti-Pattern | Fix |
+|--------------|-----|
+| Assert on mock elements | Test real component or unmock it |
+| Test-only methods in production | Move to test utilities |
+| Mock without understanding | Understand dependencies first, mock minimally |
+| Incomplete mocks | Mirror real API completely |
+| Tests as afterthought | TDD - tests first |
+| Over-complex mocks | Consider integration tests |
+
+## Red Flags
+
+- Assertion checks for `*-mock` test IDs
+- Methods only called in test files
+- Mock setup is >50% of test
+- Test fails when you remove mock
+- Can't explain why mock is needed
+- Mocking "just to be safe"
+
+## The Bottom Line
+
+**Mocks are tools to isolate, not things to test.**
+
+If TDD reveals you're testing mock behavior, you've gone wrong.
+
+Fix: Test real behavior or question why you're mocking at all.