@openrig/cli 0.5.9 → 0.5.11

package/daemon/context-packs/skills/process/systematic-debugging/find-polluter.sh

@@ -3,12 +3,14 @@
 # Usage: ./find-polluter.sh <file_or_dir_to_check> <test_pattern>
 # Example: ./find-polluter.sh '.git' 'src/**/*.test.ts'
 
-set -e
+# Exit 0: every selected test succeeded without pollution; 1: polluter found;
+# 2: no result (invalid input, selection failure, or incomplete test runs).
+set -eo pipefail
 
 if [ $# -ne 2 ]; then
   echo "Usage: $0 <file_to_check> <test_pattern>"
   echo "Example: $0 '.git' 'src/**/*.test.ts'"
-  exit 1
+  exit 2
 fi
 
 POLLUTION_CHECK="$1"
@@ -19,27 +21,35 @@ echo "Test pattern: $TEST_PATTERN"
 echo ""
 
 # Get list of test files
-TEST_FILES=$(find . -path "$TEST_PATTERN" | sort)
-TOTAL=$(echo "$TEST_FILES" | wc -l | tr -d ' ')
+if ! TEST_FILES=$(find . -type f -path "./${TEST_PATTERN#./}" | sort); then
+  echo "Test selection failed; no tests ran."
+  exit 2
+fi
+if [ -z "$TEST_FILES" ]; then
+  echo "No test files matched; no tests ran."
+  exit 2
+fi
+TOTAL=$(printf '%s\n' "$TEST_FILES" | wc -l | tr -d ' ')
 
 echo "Found $TOTAL test files"
 echo ""
 
 COUNT=0
-for TEST_FILE in $TEST_FILES; do
+FAILED=0
+if [ -e "$POLLUTION_CHECK" ]; then
+  echo "Pollution already exists before testing; no tests ran."
+  exit 2
+fi
+while IFS= read -r TEST_FILE; do
   COUNT=$((COUNT + 1))
 
-  # Skip if pollution already exists
-  if [ -e "$POLLUTION_CHECK" ]; then
-    echo "⚠️  Pollution already exists before test $COUNT/$TOTAL"
-    echo "   Skipping: $TEST_FILE"
-    continue
-  fi
-
   echo "[$COUNT/$TOTAL] Testing: $TEST_FILE"
 
   # Run the test
-  npm test "$TEST_FILE" > /dev/null 2>&1 || true
+  if ! npm test "$TEST_FILE" > /dev/null 2>&1; then
+    FAILED=$((FAILED + 1))
+    echo "Test run failed: $TEST_FILE"
+  fi
 
   # Check if pollution appeared
   if [ -e "$POLLUTION_CHECK" ]; then
@@ -56,8 +66,12 @@ for TEST_FILE in $TEST_FILES; do
     echo "  cat $TEST_FILE         # Review test code"
     exit 1
   fi
-done
+done <<< "$TEST_FILES"
 
 echo ""
-echo "✅ No polluter found - all tests clean!"
+if [ "$FAILED" -gt 0 ]; then
+  echo "Incomplete: $FAILED test runs failed; no polluter observed."
+  exit 2
+fi
+echo "✅ No polluter found - $COUNT test runs succeeded without pollution."
 exit 0

package/daemon/context-packs/skills/process/systematic-debugging/manifest.yaml

@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
 # GENERATED by scripts/generate-context-packs.mjs — DO NOT EDIT.
 # Package-time projection of a canonical skill; regenerated every build.
 name: "systematic-debugging"
-version: "0.5.9"
+version: "0.5.11"
 taxonomy: "skills"
 purpose: "Use when encountering any bug, test failure, or unexpected behavior, before proposing fixes"
 files:

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

@@ -4,8 +4,8 @@ description: Use when implementing any feature or bugfix, before writing impleme
 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)"
+    vendoring_pattern: modify-the-file
+    last_upstream_check: "2026-05-13 (historical upstream comparison; local scope and preservation adaptations made since)"
 ---
 
 # Test-Driven Development (TDD)
@@ -20,43 +20,41 @@ Write the test first. Watch it fail. Write minimal code to pass.
 
 ## When to Use
 
-**Always:**
+**Use test-first for selected behavior where regression risk warrants it:**
 - New features
 - Bug fixes
 - Refactoring
 - Behavior changes
 
-**Exceptions (ask your human partner):**
+**Choose proportionate verification for work such as:**
 - Throwaway prototypes
 - Generated code
 - Configuration files
 
-Thinking "skip TDD just this once"? Stop. That's rationalization.
+Resolve the task's selected project/mission/slice procedure first. A required
+TDD step remains required within that scope; changing it needs the authority
+named by that selection. Outside it, choose verification that can detect the
+failure without adding a human approval ritual. The procedure below describes
+TDD when selected, not a completion gate for every kind of work.
 
-**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).
+**Chunk size follows the outcome.** Keep red → green → refactor for the behavior
+being changed and build a coherent chunk. TDD does not require two people,
+pre-edit permission or a guard: independence and review cadence come from the
+project/mission/slice component or wave selection. An explicitly selected gate
+still applies; an unselected role cannot add one.
 
-## The Iron Law
+
+## Test-First Contract for Selected Behavior
 
 ```
-NO PRODUCTION CODE WITHOUT A FAILING TEST FIRST
+Selected TDD behavior: observe the expected failure before implementing the fix.
 ```
 
-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.
+Already wrote the implementation? Preserve existing and others' bytes. Establish
+the failing baseline in an isolated copy or by reversibly setting aside only
+your owned change, then implement from the behavioral test. This skill grants
+no authority to delete code. If a failing baseline cannot be demonstrated,
+record that limit and follow the selected procedure; do not call tests-after TDD.
 
 ## Red-Green-Refactor
 
@@ -126,7 +124,7 @@ Vague name, tests mock not code
 
 ### Verify RED - Watch It Fail
 
-**MANDATORY. Never skip.**
+**Required to establish RED in the selected TDD cycle.**
 
 ```bash
 npm test path/to/test.test.ts
@@ -181,7 +179,7 @@ Don't add features, refactor other code, or "improve" beyond the test.
 
 ### Verify GREEN - Watch It Pass
 
-**MANDATORY.**
+**Required to establish GREEN in the selected TDD cycle.**
 
 ```bash
 npm test path/to/test.test.ts
@@ -239,13 +237,11 @@ Manual testing is ad-hoc. You think you tested everything but:
 
 Automated tests are systematic. They run the same way every time.
 
-**"Deleting X hours of work is wasteful"**
+**"I already spent X hours on the implementation"**
 
-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.
+Time spent does not prove behavior. Preserve the work and demonstrate that the
+test detects the missing behavior on a baseline without the owned change.
+Then verify the implementation against it. Report the actual sequence honestly.
 
 **"TDD is dogmatic, being pragmatic means adapting"**
 
@@ -269,21 +265,24 @@ Tests-first force edge case discovery before implementing. Tests-after verify yo
 
 ## Common Rationalizations
 
+These challenges apply within selected TDD work, not to an authorized choice
+of another verification method.
+
 | Excuse | Reality |
 |--------|---------|
-| "Too simple to test" | Simple code breaks. Test takes 30 seconds. |
+| "Too simple to test" | Simplicity alone does not waive a selected behavioral check. |
 | "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. |
+| "Already spent X hours" | Time spent is not evidence; preserve the work and prove the failing baseline. |
+| "Keep as reference, write tests first" | Tests derived from the implementation risk repeating its assumptions; use the required behavior and a failing baseline. |
+| "Need to explore first" | Keep exploration separate from the implementation and begin the selected TDD cycle when the behavior is understood. |
 | "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
+## Red Flags in Selected TDD Work
 
 - Code before test
 - Test after implementation
@@ -295,11 +294,13 @@ Tests-first force edge case discovery before implementing. Tests-after verify yo
 - "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"
+- "Already spent X hours, so verification can wait"
 - "TDD is dogmatic, I'm being pragmatic"
 - "This is different because..."
 
-**All of these mean: Delete code. Start over with TDD.**
+Check whether the claimed RED → GREEN sequence actually happened. Repair the
+missing evidence using the preservation rule above; these signals never
+authorize deleting existing work.
 
 ## Example: Bug Fix
 
@@ -340,9 +341,9 @@ Extract validation for multiple fields if needed.
 
 ## Verification Checklist
 
-Before marking work complete:
+Before claiming the selected TDD work complete:
 
-- [ ] Every new function/method has a test
+- [ ] Tests cover the selected behavioral outcomes
 - [ ] Watched each test fail before implementing
 - [ ] Each test failed for expected reason (feature missing, not typo)
 - [ ] Wrote minimal code to pass each test
@@ -351,22 +352,25 @@ Before marking work complete:
 - [ ] Tests use real code (mocks only if unavoidable)
 - [ ] Edge cases and errors covered
 
-Can't check all boxes? You skipped TDD. Start over.
+An unmet selected check remains visible. Address it or obtain the disposition
+required by the selected procedure; do not turn this checklist into a gate on
+unselected work or erase code to make the history look test-first.
 
 ## When Stuck
 
 | Problem | Solution |
 |---------|----------|
-| Don't know how to test | Write wished-for API. Write assertion first. Ask your human partner. |
+| Don't know how to test | Write the desired API and assertion first. Consult the relevant peer or work owner if the behavior is unclear. |
 | 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.
+For a bug in selected TDD scope, write a failing test reproducing it. Follow the
+TDD cycle to demonstrate the fix and prevent regression.
 
-Never fix bugs without a test.
+Outside that scope, choose a proportionate regression check and retain its evidence.
 
 ## Testing Anti-Patterns
 
@@ -378,8 +382,9 @@ When adding mocks or test utilities, read @testing-anti-patterns.md to avoid com
 ## Final Rule
 
 ```
-Production code → test exists and failed first
-Otherwise → not TDD
+Selected TDD behavior → test exists and failed first
+Otherwise → do not claim a test-first sequence
 ```
 
-No exceptions without your human partner's permission.
+Honor explicitly selected gates and their decision owner. This skill adds no
+universal human permission step, deletion authority or gate on unselected work.

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

@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
 # 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: "0.5.9"
+version: "0.5.11"
 taxonomy: "skills"
 purpose: "Use when implementing any feature or bugfix, before writing implementation code"
 files:

package/daemon/context-packs/skills/process/verification-before-completion/SKILL.md

@@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ description: Use when about to claim work is complete, fixed, or passing, before
 metadata:
   openrig:
     vendored_from: "Obra Superpowers (https://github.com/obra/superpowers)"
-    vendoring_pattern: vendored-as-is
+    vendoring_pattern: modify-the-file
     last_upstream_check: "2026-05-13 (diff against plugin source pulled 2026-05-11 = identical)"
 ---
 
@@ -116,10 +116,10 @@ Running a verification is necessary but not sufficient: a check can exit clean a
 
 - **Assert on CONTENT, never shape or count.** Output that *looks* like success — a non-zero count, a clean exit, no error text — can carry failure as its content. Before trusting a check, ask what its output looks like *when it fails*: if failure and success are indistinguishable at a glance, the check proves nothing. (`[1 lines]` and `No matches found` both read as "a match" to a line-count.)
 - **Compare the returned value to the value you PASSED — never to a description of it.** A confident label (`evidenceRef NOW SET:` printed above the untouched original) is indistinguishable from a verification in a transcript. Diff the actual result against your actual input, not against a claim about it.
-- **Find the untested axis.** Thorough coverage of ONE axis reads as thorough coverage overall. Ask what every one of your tests shares — a healthy manifest, a default option value, the happy path — and treat that shared assumption as the dimension you never tested. (A 15-case "exhaustive" harness whose only defect lived on the one axis every case held constant.)
+- **Find the untested axis.** Thorough coverage of ONE axis reads as thorough coverage overall. Ask what every one of your tests shares — a healthy manifest, a default option value, the happy path — and treat that shared assumption as the dimension you never tested.
 - **A syntax check proves parseability and nothing else.** A clean `node --check` / lint / parse pass is the *covered* axis; boot and runtime are the untested one. Parseable ≠ sound.
 - **A failure whose shape is a HANG reports nothing.** A bare `await` against a stated deadline that never re-checks cannot fail loudly. Race it against a timer so failure has a shape you can see.
-- **A completeness inventory read through a truncating display is worthless.** When deciding *which occurrences to change*, count with `grep -c` / `grep -o` / full-line output — never `cut`, `head`, or a pager, which can hide a match *past* the cut (a doc pointer on a ~540-char line sat just past `cut -c1-180` and nearly shipped the defect inside its own fix). Distinguish *"I found N"* (a count) from *"I saw N"* (a display). Audit multiline prose **by paragraph, not by line** — a line filter both misses long-line matches and false-flags paragraphs whose companion text is on the next line. Then re-audit with a **different method** than the one that built the inventory — same-method re-checking reproduces the blind spot. (Empty/short output is a claim about your COMMAND until re-proven a second way.)
+- **A completeness inventory read through a truncating display is worthless.** When deciding *which occurrences to change*, count with `grep -c` / `grep -o` / full-line output — never `cut`, `head`, or a pager, which can hide a match *past* the cut. Distinguish *"I found N"* (a count) from *"I saw N"* (a display). Audit multiline prose **by paragraph, not by line** — a line filter both misses long-line matches and false-flags paragraphs whose companion text is on the next line. Then re-audit with a **different method** than the one that built the inventory — same-method re-checking reproduces the blind spot. (Empty/short output is a claim about your COMMAND until re-proven a second way.)
 
 ## Why This Matters
 

package/daemon/context-packs/skills/process/verification-before-completion/manifest.yaml

@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
 # GENERATED by scripts/generate-context-packs.mjs — DO NOT EDIT.
 # Package-time projection of a canonical skill; regenerated every build.
 name: "verification-before-completion"
-version: "0.5.9"
+version: "0.5.11"
 taxonomy: "skills"
 purpose: "Use when about to claim work is complete, fixed, or passing, before committing or creating PRs - requires running verification commands and confirming output before making any success claims; evidence before assertions always"
 files:

package/daemon/context-packs/skills/queue-handoff/SKILL.md

@@ -139,9 +139,8 @@ recipient.
   into a qitem body. **Link the artifact PATH** (e.g.
   `missions/<m>/<slice>/proof.md`) or **summarize in prose**, then point
   at the file for the detail. A pasted dump makes `rig queue show <id>
-  --json` huge — a second-order token bloat: bloated DATA living in the
-  queue, distinct from the command-default output bombs the token-burn
-  emergency pack covers.
+  --full --json` large. Compact defaults limit a preview, but the stored body
+  still costs readers who need full detail. Keep evidence in its durable artifact.
 - **Substantive bodies go through `--body-file`, not inline `--body`.**
   For anything beyond a short line, write the body to a file and pass
   `--body-file <path>` (or `-` for stdin). Inline `--body` with shell
@@ -155,10 +154,10 @@ Heuristic: if the thing you want to include is more than a few lines or
 contains shell metacharacters (backticks, `$`, quotes, newlines-with-pipes),
 it belongs in a file you LINK, not in the body you paste.
 
-Product backstop (defense-in-depth, NOT a substitute for this discipline):
-`rig queue show` oversized-body truncation/preview is tracked separately
-as slice OPR.0.4.1.3. The behavioral rule here is the primary, durable
-cure; the product truncation is the safety net.
+The current `rig queue show` returns a bounded body preview by default;
+`--full` returns the complete body and chain fields. Preview truncation does
+not truncate the stored work. Check `bodyTruncated` and `bodyBytes`, then request
+full content when needed; keep large supporting evidence in linked artifacts.
 
 ## Failure modes (6; verbatim)
 
@@ -167,14 +166,14 @@ cure; the product truncation is the safety net.
 3. Queue item is too small and turns work into bureaucracy.
 4. Queue item is too broad and loses ownership, proof, or closure criteria.
 5. Human escalation happens in chat but not as a durable attention item.
-6. Agent pastes a large command dump (ps/nodes, big JSON, proof blob) into the qitem body, bloating the stored DATA so every future `rig queue show --json` read is huge. Link the proof PATH or summarize in prose; substantive bodies go through `--body-file`; no raw backticks inline.
+6. Agent pastes a large command dump (ps/nodes, big JSON, proof blob) into the qitem body, bloating the stored DATA so every full-body read is large. Link the proof PATH or summarize in prose; substantive bodies go through `--body-file`; no raw backticks inline.
 
 ## Durable handoff field shape
 
 Every qitem carries:
 
 - `handed_off_to` — destination session (qualified `pod-member@rig` form)
-- `handed_off_from` — source session
+- `handed_off_from` — predecessor qitem id (the source session is `source_session`)
 - `state` — one of: `pending | in-progress | done | blocked | failed | denied | canceled | handed-off`
 - `closure_reason` + `closure_target` — set on terminal closure per hot-potato rule
 

package/daemon/context-packs/skills/queue-handoff/manifest.yaml

@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
 # GENERATED by scripts/generate-context-packs.mjs — DO NOT EDIT.
 # Package-time projection of a canonical skill; regenerated every build.
 name: "queue-handoff"
-version: "0.5.9"
+version: "0.5.11"
 taxonomy: "skills"
 purpose: "Use when ending a turn, finishing a slice, blocked on another agent's work, or escalating to a human — durable work handoff via queue items so the system keeps moving across compactions, missed messages, and interruptions. Covers the hot-potato terminal-turn-rule (active work ends by passing the ball, not by going idle), default-nudge semantics, and when `--no-nudge` is appropriate for intentional cold park or human gate."
 files:

package/daemon/context-packs/skills/refocusing/manifest.yaml

@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
 # GENERATED by scripts/generate-context-packs.mjs — DO NOT EDIT.
 # Package-time projection of a canonical skill; regenerated every build.
 name: "refocusing"
-version: "0.5.9"
+version: "0.5.11"
 taxonomy: "skills"
 purpose: "Use when a long-running agent may have lost the product outcome, when context was compacted, when work has crossed a major boundary, or when a fresh path-based trace is needed before the next consequential action. Not for fresh-session orientation, waking an idle seat, or checkpoints."
 files:

package/daemon/context-packs/skills/retiring-and-inheriting-a-seat/CHANGELOG.md

@@ -1,48 +1,22 @@
 # Changelog — retiring-and-inheriting-a-seat
 
-**`SKILL.md` carries the mechanic; this file carries how it got there.** Rationale, superseded
-designs, and the incidents that produced a rule live here so the instruction surface stays
-instructional.
-
----
-
-## 2026-08-13 — wake is a verb now, and the packet must not bound the channel (Wake v0)
-
-### Two corrections to the same section
-
-**1 · The mechanism claim was stale.** The section read *"In v0 this is a practice + skill, not a
-`rig` verb — wrap it in a verb only when convenience and consistency earn it."* `rig ask --wake`
-had since shipped in CLI 0.5.1, with `--runtime` and `--wake-timeout` (default 180s). A retiring
-agent reading the old line would have told its successor a verb existed only in principle.
-
-The verb is a thin wrapper over the harness resume and is **not yet well-exercised** (mission owner,
-2026-08-13), so the fallback to `claude -p --resume` is stated inline rather than left implied. **A
-failing wrapper must never be read as a closed channel** — that inference was made once already and
-cost a successor several turns.
-
-**2 · The retiring side is where the reach-back failure is caused.** Across lineages on record, the
-successor consulting its predecessor has almost never happened, and the packet is what suppresses
-it. Two shapes, both observed in real packets on this rig:
-
-- **Bounding the channel in time** — *"ask while the window is open"*, *"after this I am a
-  transcript, not a conversation"*. Neither is true: a retired tenure stays resumable while its
-  session record exists, and the only real bound is its own context wall hit while answering. The
-  second phrasing measurably cost a successor a capability it had (see
-  `orienting-to-an-inherited-seat/CHANGELOG.md`, 2026-08-13).
-- **Offering access without a trigger** — *"predecessor consultation: not needed"* and *"you may
-  consult your predecessor"* each produced **zero consultations** from otherwise capable successors.
-
-The distinction worth preserving, because retiring agents keep collapsing it: *"treat my answers as
-testimony"* is a **posture** claim and it is correct. *"You can no longer converse with me"* is a
-**capability** claim and it is false. They get written as the same sentence.
-
-### Why the guidance is phrased as what to write
-
-Stated positively (*state that the channel does not expire; give your verbatim handle; pre-form the
-questions*) rather than as a list of forbidden sentences. A prohibition list in `SKILL.md` would
-draw attention to phrasings a retiring agent would otherwise never produce.
-
-### Standing
-
-The fix is unverified. The measurable outcome is whether the next successor asks unprompted, and
-more than once — the baseline is zero.
+The skill carries the current handover practice. This changelog records public
+mechanism and wording changes without substituting local experiments for product
+verification.
+
+## 2026-08-13 — record the wake surface and actionable reach-back instructions
+
+`rig ask --wake`, introduced in CLI 0.5.1, provides explicit bounded consultation
+of a retained session. The packet guidance therefore includes the exact resume
+handle and questions that only the predecessor can help answer. Check current
+`rig ask --help` for runtime selection and timeout options.
+
+A predecessor's answers are testimony; that does not mean its retained history
+became unavailable at retirement. Record the history's actual location and known
+limits. If the wrapper cannot answer, distinguish missing history, runtime failure,
+timeout and context exhaustion; use a supported runtime resume path only when
+its prerequisites and the requested authority permit it.
+
+Give the successor triggers for consultation, such as an unexplained tradeoff or
+conflicting artifact, instead of requiring a consultation count. This rationale
+is not a current end-to-end wake test or proof of successor behavior.