@oyolincc/create 0.4.0 → 0.5.1

package/templates/monorepo/.agents/skills/ship-documentation-and-adrs/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,298 @@
+---
+name: ship-documentation-and-adrs
+description: Records decisions and documentation. Use when you need to document an architecture decision (ADR) or the reasoning behind a design choice, when changing public APIs, shipping features, or when you need to record context that future engineers and agents will need to understand the codebase.
+---
+
+# Documentation and ADRs
+
+## Overview
+
+Document decisions, not just code. The most valuable documentation captures the *why* — the context, constraints, and trade-offs that led to a decision. Code shows *what* was built; documentation explains *why it was built this way* and *what alternatives were considered*. This context is essential for future humans and agents working in the codebase.
+
+## When to Use
+
+- Making a significant architectural decision
+- Choosing between competing approaches
+- Adding or changing a public API
+- Shipping a feature that changes user-facing behavior
+- Onboarding new team members (or agents) to the project
+- When you find yourself explaining the same thing repeatedly
+
+**When NOT to use:** Don't document obvious code. Don't add comments that restate what the code already says. Don't write docs for throwaway prototypes.
+
+## Architecture Decision Records (ADRs)
+
+ADRs capture the reasoning behind significant technical decisions. They're the highest-value documentation you can write.
+
+### When to Write an ADR
+
+- Choosing a framework, library, or major dependency
+- Designing a data model or database schema
+- Selecting an authentication strategy
+- Deciding on an API architecture (REST vs. GraphQL vs. tRPC)
+- Choosing between build tools, hosting platforms, or infrastructure
+- Any decision that would be expensive to reverse
+
+### Match the existing convention first
+
+Before creating an ADR, inspect the available repository context for an established convention — existing ADRs, project instructions, and ADR-related configuration or tooling (e.g. an `.adr-dir` file). An established convention overrides the defaults below. Match:
+
+- **Location and format** — e.g. `docs/adr/*.md`, `Documentation/Decisions/*.rst`, a MADR layout, or an `adr-tools` setup. Match the existing directory, file extension, and markup (Markdown vs reStructuredText).
+- **Numbering and naming** — continue the existing sequence and filename pattern (`ADR-004-Title.rst`, `0004-title.md`, …); don't restart at 001 or introduce a second scheme.
+- **Section headings** — reuse the project's heading set rather than imposing this template's.
+
+If the available evidence conflicts, surface the conflict rather than silently introducing another scheme. Only when no convention can be established do you apply the default below.
+
+### ADR Template
+
+Store ADRs in `docs/decisions/` with sequential numbering (unless the project already uses another location — see above):
+
+```markdown
+# ADR-001: Use PostgreSQL for primary database
+
+## Status
+Proposed | Accepted | Superseded by ADR-XXX | Deprecated
+
+## Date
+2025-01-15
+
+## Context
+We need a primary database for the task management application. Key requirements:
+- Relational data model (users, tasks, teams with relationships)
+- ACID transactions for task state changes
+- Support for full-text search on task content
+- Managed hosting available (for small team, limited ops capacity)
+
+## Decision
+Use PostgreSQL with Prisma ORM.
+
+## Alternatives Considered
+
+### MongoDB
+- Pros: Flexible schema, easy to start with
+- Cons: Our data is inherently relational; would need to manage relationships manually
+- Rejected: Relational data in a document store leads to complex joins or data duplication
+
+### SQLite
+- Pros: Zero configuration, embedded, fast for reads
+- Cons: Limited concurrent write support, no managed hosting for production
+- Rejected: Not suitable for multi-user web application in production
+
+### MySQL
+- Pros: Mature, widely supported
+- Cons: PostgreSQL has better JSON support, full-text search, and ecosystem tooling
+- Rejected: PostgreSQL is the better fit for our feature requirements
+
+## Consequences
+- Prisma provides type-safe database access and migration management
+- We can use PostgreSQL's full-text search instead of adding Elasticsearch
+- Team needs PostgreSQL knowledge (standard skill, low risk)
+- Hosting on managed service (Supabase, Neon, or RDS)
+```
+
+### ADR Lifecycle
+
+```
+PROPOSED → ACCEPTED → (SUPERSEDED or DEPRECATED)
+```
+
+- **Don't delete old ADRs.** They capture historical context.
+- When a decision changes, write a new ADR that references and supersedes the old one.
+
+## Inline Documentation
+
+### When to Comment
+
+Comment the *why*, not the *what*:
+
+```typescript
+// BAD: Restates the code
+// Increment counter by 1
+counter += 1;
+
+// GOOD: Explains non-obvious intent
+// Rate limit uses a fixed window that opens on the first request after the
+// previous one expires, not on a clock schedule. Known gap: a client can spend
+// the full limit just before a reset and again just after (2x in a moment)
+if (now - windowStart > WINDOW_SIZE_MS) {
+  counter = 0;
+  windowStart = now;
+}
+```
+
+### When NOT to Comment
+
+```typescript
+// Don't comment self-explanatory code
+function calculateTotal(items: CartItem[]): number {
+  return items.reduce((sum, item) => sum + item.price * item.quantity, 0);
+}
+
+// Don't leave TODO comments for things you should just do now
+// TODO: add error handling  ← Just add it
+
+// Don't leave commented-out code
+// const oldImplementation = () => { ... }  ← Delete it, git has history
+```
+
+### Document Known Gotchas
+
+```typescript
+/**
+ * IMPORTANT: This function must be called before the first render.
+ * If called after hydration, it causes a flash of unstyled content
+ * because the theme context isn't available during SSR.
+ *
+ * See ADR-003 for the full design rationale.
+ */
+export function initializeTheme(theme: Theme): void {
+  // ...
+}
+```
+
+## API Documentation
+
+For public APIs (REST, GraphQL, library interfaces):
+
+### Inline with Types (Preferred for TypeScript)
+
+```typescript
+/**
+ * Creates a new task.
+ *
+ * @param input - Task creation data (title required, description optional)
+ * @returns The created task with server-generated ID and timestamps
+ * @throws {ValidationError} If title is empty or exceeds 200 characters
+ * @throws {AuthenticationError} If the user is not authenticated
+ *
+ * @example
+ * const task = await createTask({ title: 'Buy groceries' });
+ * console.log(task.id); // "task_abc123"
+ */
+export async function createTask(input: CreateTaskInput): Promise<Task> {
+  // ...
+}
+```
+
+### OpenAPI / Swagger for REST APIs
+
+```yaml
+paths:
+  /api/tasks:
+    post:
+      summary: Create a task
+      requestBody:
+        required: true
+        content:
+          application/json:
+            schema:
+              $ref: '#/components/schemas/CreateTaskInput'
+      responses:
+        '201':
+          description: Task created
+          content:
+            application/json:
+              schema:
+                $ref: '#/components/schemas/Task'
+        '422':
+          description: Validation error
+```
+
+## README Structure
+
+Every project should have a README that covers:
+
+```markdown
+# Project Name
+
+One-paragraph description of what this project does.
+
+## Quick Start
+1. Clone the repo
+2. Install dependencies: `npm install`
+3. Set up environment: `cp .env.example .env`
+4. Run the dev server: `npm run dev`
+
+## Commands
+| Command | Description |
+|---------|-------------|
+| `npm run dev` | Start development server |
+| `npm test` | Run tests |
+| `npm run build` | Production build |
+| `npm run lint` | Run linter |
+
+## Architecture
+Brief overview of the project structure and key design decisions.
+Link to ADRs for details.
+
+## Contributing
+How to contribute, coding standards, PR process.
+```
+
+## Changelog Maintenance
+
+For shipped features:
+
+```markdown
+# Changelog
+
+## [1.2.0] - 2025-01-20
+### Added
+- Task sharing: users can share tasks with team members (#123)
+- Email notifications for task assignments (#124)
+
+### Fixed
+- Duplicate tasks appearing when rapidly clicking create button (#125)
+
+### Changed
+- Task list now loads 50 items per page (was 20) for better UX (#126)
+```
+
+## Documentation for Agents
+
+Special consideration for AI agent context:
+
+- **CLAUDE.md / rules files** — Document project conventions so agents follow them
+- **Spec files** — Keep specs updated so agents build the right thing
+- **ADRs** — Help agents understand why past decisions were made (prevents re-deciding)
+- **Inline gotchas** — Prevent agents from falling into known traps
+
+## Prose Review
+
+After checking the technical content, review the prose for the people who will use it. Clearer wording must not change the decision or its limits.
+
+1. Mark the details that must survive the edit: names, numbers and units, commands, paths, links, conditions, trade-offs, and uncertainty. Check them against the available code and decision context; flag anything you cannot substantiate.
+2. Replace stock introductions, promotional adjectives, and repeated summaries with the concrete information the reader needs. Do not replace an unsupported claim with an invented example or a stronger guarantee. Keep necessary technical repetition and the project's established terminology.
+3. Compare the edited document with the original and its sources. Restore any lost qualifier or caveat, verify command and code examples still work as documented, and explain any unresolved factual question rather than polishing it away.
+
+## Common Rationalizations
+
+| Rationalization | Reality |
+|---|---|
+| "The code is self-documenting" | Code shows what. It doesn't show why, what alternatives were rejected, or what constraints apply. |
+| "We'll write docs when the API stabilizes" | APIs stabilize faster when you document them. The doc is the first test of the design. |
+| "Nobody reads docs" | Agents do. Future engineers do. Your 3-months-later self does. |
+| "ADRs are overhead" | A 10-minute ADR prevents a 2-hour debate about the same decision six months later. |
+| "Comments get outdated" | Comments on *why* are stable. Comments on *what* get outdated — that's why you only write the former. |
+
+## Red Flags
+
+- Architectural decisions with no written rationale
+- Public APIs with no documentation or types
+- README that doesn't explain how to run the project
+- Commented-out code instead of deletion
+- TODO comments that have been there for weeks
+- No ADRs in a project with significant architectural choices
+- Documentation that restates the code instead of explaining intent
+
+## Verification
+
+After documenting:
+
+- [ ] ADRs exist for all significant architectural decisions
+- [ ] README covers quick start, commands, and architecture overview
+- [ ] API functions have parameter and return type documentation
+- [ ] Known gotchas are documented inline where they matter
+- [ ] No commented-out code remains
+- [ ] Rules files (CLAUDE.md etc.) are current and accurate
+- [ ] Prose edits preserve source details, decision trade-offs, and qualifiers without adding unsupported guarantees

package/templates/monorepo/.agents/skills/ship-git-workflow-and-versioning/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,355 @@
+---
+name: ship-git-workflow-and-versioning
+description: Structures git workflow practices. Use when making any code change. Use when committing, branching, resolving conflicts, splitting uncommitted work in a messy working tree into clean atomic commits, opening or reviewing a pull request (PR), pushing to a remote, or when you need to organize work across multiple parallel streams. Use when cutting a release, choosing a semantic version bump, tagging, or writing a changelog. Use when asked to write a commit message or a changelog entry for a change, or to split a change into commits, even when the diff is pasted inline and the message seems easy to write from it.
+---
+
+# Git Workflow and Versioning
+
+## Overview
+
+Git is your safety net. Treat commits as save points, branches as sandboxes, and history as documentation. With AI agents generating code at high speed, disciplined version control is the mechanism that keeps changes manageable, reviewable, and reversible.
+
+## When to Use
+
+Always. Every code change flows through git.
+
+## Core Principles
+
+### Trunk-Based Development (Recommended)
+
+Keep `main` always deployable. Work in short-lived feature branches that merge back within 1-3 days. Long-lived development branches are hidden costs — they diverge, create merge conflicts, and delay integration. DORA research consistently shows trunk-based development correlates with high-performing engineering teams.
+
+```
+main ──●──●──●──●──●──●──●──●──●──  (always deployable)
+        ╲      ╱  ╲    ╱
+         ●──●─╱    ●──╱    ← short-lived feature branches (1-3 days)
+```
+
+This is the recommended default. Teams using gitflow or long-lived branches can adapt the principles (atomic commits, small changes, descriptive messages) to their branching model — the commit discipline matters more than the specific branching strategy.
+
+- **Dev branches are costs.** Every day a branch lives, it accumulates merge risk.
+- **Release branches are acceptable.** When you need to stabilize a release while main moves forward.
+- **Feature flags > long branches.** Prefer deploying incomplete work behind flags rather than keeping it on a branch for weeks.
+
+### 1. Commit Early, Commit Often
+
+Each successful increment gets its own commit. Don't accumulate large uncommitted changes.
+
+```
+Work pattern:
+  Implement slice → Test → Verify → Commit → Next slice
+
+Not this:
+  Implement everything → Hope it works → Giant commit
+```
+
+Commits are save points. If the next change breaks something, you can revert to the last known-good state instantly.
+
+### 2. Atomic Commits
+
+Each commit does one logical thing:
+
+```
+# Good: Each commit is self-contained
+git log --oneline
+a1b2c3d Add task creation endpoint with validation
+d4e5f6g Add task creation form component
+h7i8j9k Connect form to API and add loading state
+m1n2o3p Add task creation tests (unit + integration)
+
+# Bad: Everything mixed together
+git log --oneline
+x1y2z3a Add task feature, fix sidebar, update deps, refactor utils
+```
+
+### 3. Descriptive Messages
+
+Commit messages explain the *why*, not just the *what*:
+
+```
+# Good: Explains intent
+feat: add email validation to registration endpoint
+
+Prevents invalid email formats from reaching the database.
+Uses Zod schema validation at the route handler level,
+consistent with existing validation patterns in auth.ts.
+
+# Bad: Describes what's obvious from the diff
+update auth.ts
+```
+
+**Format:**
+```
+<type>: <short description>
+
+<optional body explaining why, not what>
+```
+
+**Types:**
+- `feat` — New feature
+- `fix` — Bug fix
+- `refactor` — Code change that neither fixes a bug nor adds a feature
+- `test` — Adding or updating tests
+- `docs` — Documentation only
+- `chore` — Tooling, dependencies, config
+
+### 4. Keep Concerns Separate
+
+Don't combine formatting changes with behavior changes. Don't combine refactors with features. Each type of change should be a separate commit — and ideally a separate PR:
+
+```
+# Good: Separate concerns
+git commit -m "refactor: extract validation logic to shared utility"
+git commit -m "feat: add phone number validation to registration"
+
+# Bad: Mixed concerns
+git commit -m "refactor validation and add phone number field"
+```
+
+**Separate refactoring from feature work.** A refactoring change and a feature change are two different changes — submit them separately. This makes each change easier to review, revert, and understand in history. Small cleanups (renaming a variable) can be included in a feature commit at reviewer discretion.
+
+### 5. Size Your Changes
+
+Target ~100 lines per commit/PR. Changes over ~1000 lines should be split. See the splitting strategies in `review-code-review-and-quality` for how to break down large changes.
+
+```
+~100 lines  → Easy to review, easy to revert
+~300 lines  → Acceptable for a single logical change
+~1000 lines → Split into smaller changes
+```
+
+## Branching Strategy
+
+### Feature Branches
+
+```
+main (always deployable)
+  │
+  ├── feature/task-creation    ← One feature per branch
+  ├── feature/user-settings    ← Parallel work
+  └── fix/duplicate-tasks      ← Bug fixes
+```
+
+- Branch from `main` (or the team's default branch)
+- Keep branches short-lived (merge within 1-3 days) — long-lived branches are hidden costs
+- Delete branches after merge
+- Prefer feature flags over long-lived branches for incomplete features
+
+### Branch Naming
+
+```
+feature/<short-description>   → feature/task-creation
+fix/<short-description>       → fix/duplicate-tasks
+chore/<short-description>     → chore/update-deps
+refactor/<short-description>  → refactor/auth-module
+```
+
+## Working with Worktrees
+
+For parallel AI agent work, use git worktrees to run multiple branches simultaneously:
+
+```bash
+# Create a worktree for a feature branch
+git worktree add ../project-feature-a feature/task-creation
+git worktree add ../project-feature-b feature/user-settings
+
+# Each worktree is a separate directory with its own branch
+# Agents can work in parallel without interfering
+ls ../
+  project/              ← main branch
+  project-feature-a/    ← task-creation branch
+  project-feature-b/    ← user-settings branch
+
+# When done, merge and clean up
+git worktree remove ../project-feature-a
+```
+
+Benefits:
+- Multiple agents can work on different features simultaneously
+- No branch switching needed (each directory has its own branch)
+- If one experiment fails, delete the worktree — nothing is lost
+- Changes are isolated until explicitly merged
+
+## The Save Point Pattern
+
+```
+Agent starts work
+    │
+    ├── Makes a change
+    │   ├── Test passes? → Commit → Continue
+    │   └── Test fails? → Revert to last commit → Investigate
+    │
+    ├── Makes another change
+    │   ├── Test passes? → Commit → Continue
+    │   └── Test fails? → Revert to last commit → Investigate
+    │
+    └── Feature complete → All commits form a clean history
+```
+
+This pattern means you never lose more than one increment of work. If an agent goes off the rails, `git reset --hard HEAD` takes you back to the last successful state.
+
+## Change Summaries
+
+After any modification, provide a structured summary. This makes review easier, documents scope discipline, and surfaces unintended changes:
+
+```
+CHANGES MADE:
+- src/routes/tasks.ts: Added validation middleware to POST endpoint
+- src/lib/validation.ts: Added TaskCreateSchema using Zod
+
+THINGS I DIDN'T TOUCH (intentionally):
+- src/routes/auth.ts: Has similar validation gap but out of scope
+- src/middleware/error.ts: Error format could be improved (separate task)
+
+POTENTIAL CONCERNS:
+- The Zod schema is strict — rejects extra fields. Confirm this is desired.
+- Added zod as a dependency (72KB gzipped) — already in package.json
+```
+
+This pattern catches wrong assumptions early and gives reviewers a clear map of the change. The "DIDN'T TOUCH" section is especially important — it shows you exercised scope discipline and didn't go on an unsolicited renovation.
+
+## Pre-Commit Hygiene
+
+Before every commit:
+
+```bash
+# 1. Check what you're about to commit
+git diff --staged
+
+# 2. Ensure no secrets (lists matching file names only — any output means review them)
+git diff --staged -i -G'password|secret|api_key|token' --name-only
+
+# 3. Run tests
+npm test
+
+# 4. Run linting
+npm run lint
+
+# 5. Run type checking
+npx tsc --noEmit
+```
+
+Automate this with git hooks:
+
+```json
+// package.json (using lint-staged + husky)
+{
+  "lint-staged": {
+    "*.{ts,tsx}": ["eslint --fix", "prettier --write"],
+    "*.{json,md}": ["prettier --write"]
+  }
+}
+```
+
+## Handling Generated Files
+
+- **Commit generated files** only if the project expects them (e.g., `package-lock.json`, Prisma migrations)
+- **Don't commit** build output (`dist/`, `.next/`), environment files (`.env`), or IDE config (`.vscode/settings.json` unless shared)
+- **Have a `.gitignore`** that covers: `node_modules/`, `dist/`, `.env`, `.env.local`, `*.pem`
+
+## Using Git for Debugging
+
+```bash
+# Find which commit introduced a bug
+git bisect start
+git bisect bad HEAD
+git bisect good <known-good-commit>
+# Git checkouts midpoints; run your test at each to narrow down
+
+# View what changed recently
+git log --oneline -20
+git diff HEAD~5..HEAD -- src/
+
+# Find who last changed a specific line
+git blame src/services/task.ts
+
+# Search commit messages for a keyword
+git log --grep="validation" --oneline
+```
+
+## Release & Versioning
+
+Commits are how *you* track change; a **version** is how your *consumers* track it. The moment anything else depends on your code — another team, a published package, a deployed client — "latest on main" stops being a sufficient answer to "what am I running, and is it safe to upgrade?" A version number and a changelog are the contract that answers it.
+
+### Semantic Versioning
+
+For anything with consumers, version `MAJOR.MINOR.PATCH` and let the number carry meaning:
+
+```
+  MAJOR  breaking change — consumers must change their code to upgrade
+  MINOR  new functionality, backward-compatible — safe to upgrade
+  PATCH  bug fix, backward-compatible — safe to upgrade
+```
+
+The number is a promise, so make the code match it. A "patch" that changes behavior consumers relied on is a major change wearing a disguise (Hyrum's Law — see the `build-api-and-interface-design` skill). When unsure whether a change is breaking, assume it is; a surprise major is far cheaper than a broken consumer.
+
+### Tag the release, and let the tag be the source of truth
+
+A release is an immutable point in history, not a moving branch. Tag it so it can always be reproduced:
+
+```bash
+git tag -a v1.4.0 -m "Release 1.4.0"
+git push origin v1.4.0
+```
+
+Derive the version from the tag rather than hand-editing it in scattered files, so the artifact, the tag, and the changelog can never disagree.
+
+### Keep a changelog written for humans
+
+A changelog is not `git log`. It's the curated, consumer-facing answer to "what changed and do I care?" — grouped by `Added / Changed / Fixed / Deprecated / Removed / Security`, newest on top, every entry phrased around user impact, not internal mechanics.
+
+```markdown
+## [1.4.0] - 2025-06-12
+### Added
+- Bulk task import via CSV
+### Fixed
+- Timezone drift in recurring task due dates
+### Deprecated
+- `GET /v1/tasks/all` — use the paginated `GET /v1/tasks` (removal in 2.0)
+```
+
+Write the entry in the same change that makes the change, while the impact is fresh — not reconstructed from commit archaeology at release time. Breaking changes get a migration note and a deprecation window (follow the `ship-deprecation-and-migration` skill); shipping the actual release is the `ship-shipping-and-launch` skill's job — this section is the versioning contract that feeds it.
+
+## Common Rationalizations
+
+| Rationalization | Reality |
+|---|---|
+| "I'll commit when the feature is done" | One giant commit is impossible to review, debug, or revert. Commit each slice. |
+| "The message doesn't matter" | Messages are documentation. Future you (and future agents) will need to understand what changed and why. |
+| "I'll squash it all later" | Squashing destroys the development narrative. Prefer clean incremental commits from the start. |
+| "Branches add overhead" | Short-lived branches are free and prevent conflicting work from colliding. Long-lived branches are the problem — merge within 1-3 days. |
+| "I'll split this change later" | Large changes are harder to review, riskier to deploy, and harder to revert. Split before submitting, not after. |
+| "I don't need a .gitignore" | Until `.env` with production secrets gets committed. Set it up immediately. |
+| "It's just a small fix, bump the patch" | Check what consumers can observe. A behavior change they relied on is a major, whatever the diff size. |
+| "The changelog is just the commit log" | Commits are for you; the changelog is for consumers, curated by impact. Generating one from raw commits buries what matters. |
+| "We'll write the changelog at release time" | By then the impact is reconstructed from memory and half of it is missing. Write the entry with the change. |
+
+## Red Flags
+
+- Large uncommitted changes accumulating
+- Commit messages like "fix", "update", "misc"
+- Formatting changes mixed with behavior changes
+- No `.gitignore` in the project
+- Committing `node_modules/`, `.env`, or build artifacts
+- Long-lived branches that diverge significantly from main
+- Force-pushing to shared branches
+- A breaking change shipped under a minor or patch version bump
+- A release with no tag, or a version number hand-edited out of sync with the tag
+- A user-facing release with no changelog entry, or a changelog that's just dumped commit messages
+
+## Verification
+
+For every commit:
+
+- [ ] Commit does one logical thing
+- [ ] Message explains the why, follows type conventions
+- [ ] Tests pass before committing
+- [ ] No secrets in the diff
+- [ ] No formatting-only changes mixed with behavior changes
+- [ ] `.gitignore` covers standard exclusions
+
+For every release (anything with consumers):
+
+- [ ] The version bump matches the change: breaking → major, additive → minor, fix → patch
+- [ ] The release is tagged, and the version is derived from the tag, not hand-edited out of sync
+- [ ] The changelog has a curated, human-readable entry grouped by impact for this version