@rune-kit/rune 2.2.6 → 2.3.1

package/skills/rescue/SKILL.md

@@ -40,6 +40,7 @@ Legacy refactoring orchestrator for safely modernizing messy codebases. Rescue r
 - `session-bridge` (L3): save rescue state between sessions
 - `onboard` (L2): generate context for unfamiliar legacy project
 - `dependency-doctor` (L3): audit dependencies in legacy project
+- `context-pack` (L3): create structured handoff briefings before spawning subagents
 - `neural-memory` | Phase start + phase end | Recall past refactoring patterns, capture new ones
 
 ## Called By (inbound)
@@ -413,6 +414,16 @@ Rollback point: git tag rune-rescue-baseline (set in Phase 0)
 - **Rollback Tag**: [git tag name]
 ```
 
+## Returns
+
+| Artifact | Format | Location |
+|----------|--------|----------|
+| Rescue state | Markdown | `RESCUE-STATE.md` (updated each session) |
+| Characterization tests | Source files | Written by `rune:safeguard` per module |
+| Refactored modules | Source files | Modified in-place, committed per surgery session |
+| Health score comparison | Inline (Rescue Report) | Baseline vs final autopsy scores |
+| Rescue Report | Markdown (inline) | Emitted at session end (per module and final) |
+
 ## Sharp Edges
 
 Known failure modes for this skill. Check these before declaring done.

package/skills/research/SKILL.md

@@ -1,150 +1,149 @@
----
-name: research
-description: Web search and external knowledge lookup. Gathers data on technologies, libraries, best practices, and competitor solutions.
-metadata:
-  author: runedev
-  version: "0.3.0"
-  layer: L3
-  model: haiku
-  group: knowledge
-  tools: "Read, Glob, Grep, WebFetch, WebSearch"
----
-
-# research
-
-## Purpose
-
-Web research utility. Receives a research question, executes targeted searches, deep-dives into top results, and returns structured findings with sources. Stateless — no memory between calls.
-
-## Calls (outbound)
-
-None — pure L3 utility using `WebSearch` and `WebFetch` tools directly.
-
-## Called By (inbound)
-
-- `plan` (L2): external knowledge for architecture decisions
-- `brainstorm` (L2): data for informed ideation
-- `marketing` (L2): competitor analysis, SEO data
-- `hallucination-guard` (L3): verify package existence on npm/pypi
-- `autopsy` (L2): research best practices for legacy patterns
-
-## Execution
-
-### Input
-
-```
-research_question: string   — what to research
-focus: string (optional)    — narrow the scope (e.g., "security", "performance")
-```
-
-### Step 1 — Formulate Queries
-
-Generate 2-3 targeted search queries from the research question. Vary phrasing to cover different angles:
-- Primary: direct question as search terms
-- Secondary: "[topic] best practices 2026" or "[topic] vs alternatives"
-- Tertiary: "[topic] example" or "[topic] tutorial" if implementation detail needed
-
-### Step 2 — Search (Minimum 3 Complementary Sources)
-
-<HARD-GATE>
-Every research conclusion MUST be backed by at minimum 3 complementary sources from DIFFERENT source types.
-Single-source conclusions are flagged as `low` confidence regardless of source authority.
-</HARD-GATE>
-
-Call `WebSearch` for each query. Collect result titles, URLs, and snippets. Identify the top 3-5 most relevant URLs prioritizing **source diversity**:
-
-| Source Type | Examples | Why |
-|-------------|----------|-----|
-| **Official docs** | Framework docs, API reference, RFC | Authoritative but may lag behind reality |
-| **Community** | Stack Overflow, GitHub Issues, Reddit | Real-world pain points, edge cases |
-| **Technical blogs** | Dev.to, Medium engineering blogs, personal blogs | Practical experience, tutorials |
-| **Repositories** | GitHub repos, npm packages, example code | Working implementations |
-
-**Selection rules:**
-- Source authority (official docs > major blogs > personal blogs)
-- Recency (prefer 2025-2026)
-- Relevance to the query
-- **Diversity: never select 3+ URLs from the same domain** — spread across source types
-
-> Source: K-Dense claude-scientific-skills (literature-review "minimum 3 complementary databases" pattern), adapted for software research.
-
-### Step 3 — Deep Dive
-
-Call `WebFetch` on the top 3-5 URLs identified in Step 2. Hard limit: **max 5 WebFetch calls** per research invocation. For each fetched page:
-- Extract key facts, API signatures, code examples
-- Note the source URL and publication date if visible
-- Tag the source type (official/community/blog/repo) for Step 4 triangulation
-
-### Step 4 — Synthesize (Triangulation)
-
-Across all fetched content, **triangulate** — don't just aggregate:
-- Identify points of consensus across sources (≥3 sources = strong signal)
-- Flag any conflicting information explicitly (e.g., "Source A says X, Source B says Y")
-- Check if conflicts are temporal (old vs new info) or genuine disagreement
-- Assign confidence using source diversity:
-
-| Confidence | Criteria |
-|------------|----------|
-| `high` | 3+ sources from different types agree |
-| `medium` | 2 sources agree, or 3+ from same type |
-| `low` | Single source, or sources conflict without resolution |
-| `unverified` | No sources found — report this explicitly, NEVER fabricate |
-
-### Step 5 — Report
-
-Return structured findings in the output format below.
-
-## Constraints
-
-- Always cite source URL for every finding
-- Flag conflicting information — never silently pick one side
-- Max 5 WebFetch calls per invocation
-- If no useful results found, report that explicitly rather than fabricating
-
-## Output Format
-
-```
-## Research Results: [Query]
-- **Sources fetched**: [n]
-- **Confidence**: high | medium | low
-
-### Key Findings
-- [finding] — [source URL]
-- [finding] — [source URL]
-
-### Conflicts / Caveats
-- [Source A] says X. [Source B] says Y. Recommend verifying against [authority].
-
-### Code Examples
-```[lang]
-[relevant snippet]
-```
-
-### Recommendations
-- [actionable suggestion based on findings]
-```
-
-## Sharp Edges
-
-Known failure modes for this skill. Check these before declaring done.
-
-| Failure Mode | Severity | Mitigation |
-|---|---|---|
-| Fabricating findings when no useful results found | CRITICAL | Constraint: report "no useful results found" explicitly — never invent citations |
-| Reporting conflicting sources without flagging the conflict | HIGH | Constraint: flag conflicting information explicitly, never silently pick one side |
-| Assigning "high" confidence from a single source | MEDIUM | High = 3+ sources agree; 1-2 sources = medium confidence |
-| Exceeding 5 WebFetch calls per invocation | MEDIUM | Hard limit: prioritize top 3-5 URLs from search, fetch only the most relevant |
-| Single-source conclusions presented as fact | HIGH | HARD-GATE: minimum 3 complementary sources from different source types. Single source = `low` confidence |
-| All sources from same domain (e.g., 3 Stack Overflow links) | MEDIUM | Source diversity rule: never 3+ URLs from the same domain. Spread across official/community/blog/repo |
-
-## Done When
-
-- 2-3 search queries formulated and executed
-- Top 3-5 URLs identified and fetched (max 5 WebFetch calls)
-- Conflicting information between sources explicitly flagged
-- Confidence level assigned (high/medium/low) with rationale
-- Research Results emitted with source URLs for every key finding
-
-## Cost Profile
-
-~300-800 tokens input, ~200-500 tokens output. Haiku. Fast and cheap.
+---
+name: research
+description: Web search and external knowledge lookup. Gathers data on technologies, libraries, best practices, and competitor solutions.
+metadata:
+  author: runedev
+  version: "0.3.0"
+  layer: L3
+  model: haiku
+  group: knowledge
+  tools: "Read, Glob, Grep, WebFetch, WebSearch"
+---
+
+# research
+
+## Purpose
+
+Web research utility. Receives a research question, executes targeted searches, deep-dives into top results, and returns structured findings with sources. Stateless — no memory between calls.
+
+## Calls (outbound)
+
+None — pure L3 utility using `WebSearch` and `WebFetch` tools directly.
+
+## Called By (inbound)
+
+- `plan` (L2): external knowledge for architecture decisions
+- `brainstorm` (L2): data for informed ideation
+- `marketing` (L2): competitor analysis, SEO data
+- `hallucination-guard` (L3): verify package existence on npm/pypi
+- `autopsy` (L2): research best practices for legacy patterns
+
+## Execution
+
+### Input
+
+```
+research_question: string   — what to research
+focus: string (optional)    — narrow the scope (e.g., "security", "performance")
+```
+
+### Step 1 — Formulate Queries
+
+Generate 2-3 targeted search queries from the research question. Vary phrasing to cover different angles:
+- Primary: direct question as search terms
+- Secondary: "[topic] best practices 2026" or "[topic] vs alternatives"
+- Tertiary: "[topic] example" or "[topic] tutorial" if implementation detail needed
+
+### Step 2 — Search (Minimum 3 Complementary Sources)
+
+<HARD-GATE>
+Every research conclusion MUST be backed by at minimum 3 complementary sources from DIFFERENT source types.
+Single-source conclusions are flagged as `low` confidence regardless of source authority.
+</HARD-GATE>
+
+Call `WebSearch` for each query. Collect result titles, URLs, and snippets. Identify the top 3-5 most relevant URLs prioritizing **source diversity**:
+
+| Source Type | Examples | Why |
+|-------------|----------|-----|
+| **Official docs** | Framework docs, API reference, RFC | Authoritative but may lag behind reality |
+| **Community** | Stack Overflow, GitHub Issues, Reddit | Real-world pain points, edge cases |
+| **Technical blogs** | Dev.to, Medium engineering blogs, personal blogs | Practical experience, tutorials |
+| **Repositories** | GitHub repos, npm packages, example code | Working implementations |
+
+**Selection rules:**
+- Source authority (official docs > major blogs > personal blogs)
+- Recency (prefer 2025-2026)
+- Relevance to the query
+- **Diversity: never select 3+ URLs from the same domain** — spread across source types
+
+
+### Step 3 — Deep Dive
+
+Call `WebFetch` on the top 3-5 URLs identified in Step 2. Hard limit: **max 5 WebFetch calls** per research invocation. For each fetched page:
+- Extract key facts, API signatures, code examples
+- Note the source URL and publication date if visible
+- Tag the source type (official/community/blog/repo) for Step 4 triangulation
+
+### Step 4 — Synthesize (Triangulation)
+
+Across all fetched content, **triangulate** — don't just aggregate:
+- Identify points of consensus across sources (≥3 sources = strong signal)
+- Flag any conflicting information explicitly (e.g., "Source A says X, Source B says Y")
+- Check if conflicts are temporal (old vs new info) or genuine disagreement
+- Assign confidence using source diversity:
+
+| Confidence | Criteria |
+|------------|----------|
+| `high` | 3+ sources from different types agree |
+| `medium` | 2 sources agree, or 3+ from same type |
+| `low` | Single source, or sources conflict without resolution |
+| `unverified` | No sources found — report this explicitly, NEVER fabricate |
+
+### Step 5 — Report
+
+Return structured findings in the output format below.
+
+## Constraints
+
+- Always cite source URL for every finding
+- Flag conflicting information — never silently pick one side
+- Max 5 WebFetch calls per invocation
+- If no useful results found, report that explicitly rather than fabricating
+
+## Output Format
+
+```
+## Research Results: [Query]
+- **Sources fetched**: [n]
+- **Confidence**: high | medium | low
+
+### Key Findings
+- [finding] — [source URL]
+- [finding] — [source URL]
+
+### Conflicts / Caveats
+- [Source A] says X. [Source B] says Y. Recommend verifying against [authority].
+
+### Code Examples
+```[lang]
+[relevant snippet]
+```
+
+### Recommendations
+- [actionable suggestion based on findings]
+```
+
+## Sharp Edges
+
+Known failure modes for this skill. Check these before declaring done.
+
+| Failure Mode | Severity | Mitigation |
+|---|---|---|
+| Fabricating findings when no useful results found | CRITICAL | Constraint: report "no useful results found" explicitly — never invent citations |
+| Reporting conflicting sources without flagging the conflict | HIGH | Constraint: flag conflicting information explicitly, never silently pick one side |
+| Assigning "high" confidence from a single source | MEDIUM | High = 3+ sources agree; 1-2 sources = medium confidence |
+| Exceeding 5 WebFetch calls per invocation | MEDIUM | Hard limit: prioritize top 3-5 URLs from search, fetch only the most relevant |
+| Single-source conclusions presented as fact | HIGH | HARD-GATE: minimum 3 complementary sources from different source types. Single source = `low` confidence |
+| All sources from same domain (e.g., 3 Stack Overflow links) | MEDIUM | Source diversity rule: never 3+ URLs from the same domain. Spread across official/community/blog/repo |
+
+## Done When
+
+- 2-3 search queries formulated and executed
+- Top 3-5 URLs identified and fetched (max 5 WebFetch calls)
+- Conflicting information between sources explicitly flagged
+- Confidence level assigned (high/medium/low) with rationale
+- Research Results emitted with source URLs for every key finding
+
+## Cost Profile
+
+~300-800 tokens input, ~200-500 tokens output. Haiku. Fast and cheap.

package/skills/retro/SKILL.md

@@ -309,6 +309,17 @@ SELF-VALIDATION (run before emitting report):
 - Narrative report emitted
 - No code was modified
 
+## Returns
+
+| Artifact | Format | Location |
+|----------|--------|----------|
+| Retrospective narrative report | Markdown (~800-1500 words) | inline |
+| Retro JSON snapshot | JSON | `.rune/retros/{YYYY-MM-DD}.json` |
+| Per-person breakdown | Markdown sections | inline |
+| Action items + habits | Ordered lists | inline |
+
 ## Cost Profile
 
 ~3000-5000 tokens input (git history parsing), ~2000-4000 tokens output (narrative). Sonnet for analysis quality. Runs infrequently (weekly/sprint cadence).
+
+**Scope guardrail:** retro is read-only — it analyzes and reports. It does NOT modify code, create PRs, or change any files except its own output artifacts in `.rune/retros/`.