@ryuenn3123/agentic-senior-core 5.8.21 → 5.8.22

package/skills/asc-debt/SKILL.md

@@ -1,72 +0,0 @@
----
-name: asc-debt
-description: >
-  Track deferred enforcement violations. When an ASC ladder nudge fires and the shortcut is accepted rather than fixed, log it here for later resolution. Use this skill when user wants to log technical debt, track skipped rules, defer a fix, note a code smell for later, or manage deferred violations.
----
-
-# Debt Ledger
-
-Track deferred enforcement violations. When an ASC ladder nudge fires and the shortcut is accepted rather than fixed, log it here for later resolution.
-
-Grounded in: Cunningham's technical debt metaphor (1992). Entry format (ladder step + violation + status lifecycle) is an ASC-specific implementation.
-
-## Storage
-
-Entries persist in `.agent-context/state/debt-ledger.json` via MCP `state_read`/`state_write`. The ledger is a JSON array of entry objects.
-
-## Entry Format
-
-```json
-{
-  "id": "sequential integer",
-  "file": "path/to/file.ts",
-  "ladderStep": "3",
-  "violation": "Added axios — stdlib fetch covers this",
-  "addedAt": "ISO-8601 timestamp",
-  "status": "open | resolved",
-  "resolvedAt": "ISO-8601 timestamp or null"
-}
-```
-
-## Operations
-
-### Add Entry
-
-When an enforcement nudge fires and the violation is deferred:
-
-1. Read the current ledger via `state_read` (path: `debt-ledger.json`). If missing, start with `[]`.
-2. Append a new entry with the next sequential `id`, the file path, ladder step, and a one-line violation summary.
-3. Write the updated ledger via `state_write` (path: `debt-ledger.json`, mode: `overwrite`).
-4. Confirm: "Logged to debt ledger: [violation summary]"
-
-### List Open Debt
-
-1. Read the ledger via `state_read`.
-2. Filter to entries where `status` is `"open"`.
-3. Display as a table: ID, file, ladder step, violation, age.
-4. If no open entries, say so explicitly.
-
-### Resolve Entry
-
-When a deferred violation has been addressed:
-
-1. Read the ledger.
-2. Set the matching entry's `status` to `"resolved"` and `resolvedAt` to the current timestamp.
-3. Write the updated ledger.
-4. Confirm: "Resolved debt #[id]: [violation summary]"
-
-### Summary
-
-1. Read the ledger.
-2. Report: total entries, open count, resolved count, oldest open entry age.
-
-## When to Log
-
-Log a debt entry when ALL of these are true:
-- The PostToolUse enforcement hook fired a nudge
-- The agent acknowledged the nudge but proceeded without fixing the violation
-- The violation is deferrable (not a security issue — security violations must be fixed immediately)
-
-## Integration
-
-The `/asc` skill documents the enforcement loop. This ledger captures what enforcement flags but the session defers. Use `/asc-debt` at session end or before commits to review outstanding shortcuts.

package/skills/asc-new-project/SKILL.md

@@ -1,62 +0,0 @@
----
-name: asc-new-project
-description: >
-  Structured greenfield workflow. Prevents building before alignment on what to build. Use this skill for greenfield projects, scaffolding new repositories, bootstrapping apps, starting from scratch, planning new system architectures, or creating a new project.
----
-
-# New Project Workflow
-
-Structured greenfield workflow. Prevents building before alignment on what to build.
-
-Grounded in: Spec-Driven Development (SDD) with scaffolding-spec approach. Core spec documents guide greenfield implementation (`PRD.md`, `Architecture.md`, `Design.md`, `Schema.md`). Once implemented, the code becomes the primary ground truth, while docs are updated on structural changes.
-
-## Gate Mechanism & 4 Spec Document Requirement
-
-This workflow nudges the agent to stop at each phase boundary, same enforcement tier as the existing decision ladder — not a hard block. Bypasses are logged to the debt ledger.
-
-For greenfield projects (`asc-new-project`), Phase 2 requires creating the **4 Core SDD Documents** in `docs/` or project root:
-1. `PRD.md` — Product intent, goals, non-goals, and user problems.
-2. `Architecture.md` — System structure, module boundaries, and tech stack choices.
-3. `Design.md` — UX / UI layout, component hierarchy, interaction rules.
-4. `Schema.md` — Data contracts, database entities, API endpoints.
-
-*Note on Rules:* Coding conventions and project constraints are automatically loaded from global plugin rules (`agentic-senior-core.md`) or workspace `AGENTS.md`. No duplicate `docs/Rules.md` file is required.
-
-To track phase, write to `workflow-gate.json` via the `state_write` MCP tool.
-Format:
-```json
-{
-  "workflow": "asc-new-project",
-  "phase": "<current_phase>",
-  "updatedAt": "<ISO-timestamp>"
-}
-```
-
-## Phase 1: Define (No Code)
-
-1. Write `workflow-gate.json` with phase `research`.
-2. Clarify with the user: tech stack, target platform, constraints, non-goals.
-3. Propose a directory structure and module boundaries.
-4. Output a project brief summarizing decisions.
-5. **STOP and wait for user approval.** Do not write specs or code.
-
-## Phase 2: Spec (No Implementation Code)
-
-1. On approval of Phase 1, update `workflow-gate.json` phase to `plan`.
-2. Generate the 4 core SDD documents from templates (`docs/PRD.md`, `docs/Architecture.md`, `docs/Design.md`, `docs/Schema.md`).
-3. Verify exact file naming — check for typos like `Architectyre.md`.
-4. Output specs for review.
-5. **STOP and wait for user approval.** Do not implement code.
-
-## Phase 3: Implement
-
-1. On approval of Phase 2, update `workflow-gate.json` phase to `implement`.
-2. Run Anti Context-Blindness check: verify entities/tables mentioned in `Schema.md` or `Architecture.md` align with proposed code targets.
-3. Build against the approved specs. Apply the ASC decision ladder on every file.
-4. Run the decision ladder: does this need to exist? Does stdlib cover it? One function or full module?
-
-## Phase 4: Validate
-
-1. Run tests. Check each spec's acceptance criteria.
-2. Confirm nothing was over-built beyond what the specs required.
-3. On completion, clear the state in `workflow-gate.json` by overwriting it with `{}`.

package/skills/asc-refactor/SKILL.md

@@ -1,62 +0,0 @@
----
-name: asc-refactor
-description: >
-  Structured refactoring workflow. Preserves existing behavior while improving structure. Use this skill when user asks to refactor code, clean up code, improve code structure, rewrite legacy code, extract components, reduce technical debt, apply SOLID/DRY principles, or migrate codebases.
----
-
-# Refactor Skill
-
-Structured refactoring workflow. Preserves existing behavior while improving structure.
-
-Grounded in: Fowler's Refactoring (read-understand-smallest scope-preserve behavior), Rule of Three (abstraction threshold), YAGNI principle (XP/Kent Beck). Empirical evidence: agents dominate low-level refactors (rename, extract, type changes) but struggle with multi-file architectural changes (arXiv, 15k+ instance study).
-
-## YAGNI Scan (Before Any Restructuring)
-
-Before changing structure, scan for speculative code to remove:
-- "Just in case" logic, unused feature flags, dead branches behind config toggles.
-- Abstractions wrapping a single implementation with no second consumer.
-- Premature extension points (plugin hooks, strategy patterns) with one concrete path.
-
-Removing speculative code is the highest-value, lowest-risk refactor type.
-
-## Classify Before Proceeding
-
-After reading the target code, classify the refactor:
-
-- **Low-level** (rename, extract method, type safety, dead code removal): proceed after explaining the change. No approval gate needed.
-- **High-level** (move module, change architecture, redesign abstractions, multi-file structural changes): output a plan with specific files and rationale, then **stop and wait for user approval** before implementing.
-
-**Known limitation:** The high-level refactor gate is a skill-text instruction — the agent self-classifies and self-stops. Unlike `/asc-add-feature` and `/asc-new-project`, this gate is not backed by the PostToolUse hook or workflow-gate.json. If the agent bypasses the gate, there is no automated nudge.
-
-## Before Editing
-
-1. Read the target code and understand existing patterns.
-2. Identify the smallest relevant scope for the refactor.
-3. Classify the refactor (see above). If high-level, stop and present a plan.
-4. If the change touches UI, check accessibility and responsive behavior.
-5. If the change touches dependencies, verify current official docs.
-
-## Refactor Rules
-
-- Improve clarity, boundaries, naming, validation, error handling, and tests.
-- Prioritize maintainability over compressed one-liners.
-- Keep the main flow traceable. Use early returns where they reduce nesting.
-- Introduce abstractions only when the repeated pattern is real and visible.
-- Split large files when the split makes the flow easier to understand.
-- Remove code that does not carry behavior, safety, clarity, maintainability, or test value.
-- Prefer the shorter implementation only when it keeps the same guarantees.
-- Run a final simplification pass before completion.
-- Update tests and docs whenever behavior contracts, public APIs, data shape, or UI contracts change.
-
-## For Every Change, Explain
-
-- What risk or friction existed.
-- What changed.
-- Why the new shape is safer or easier to maintain.
-
-## Validation
-
-- Existing behavior is preserved unless the user approved a change.
-- Edge cases, empty states, error paths, and rollback paths are handled.
-- Public contracts remain stable or are versioned.
-- Tests pass.

package/skills/asc-reference/SKILL.md

@@ -1,59 +0,0 @@
----
-name: asc-reference
-description: >
-  Domain-specific coding rules for testing, API design, database queries, frontend components, infrastructure configs, and service resilience. Load this skill when working on any of these domains. Use this skill for guidance on writing unit tests, designing REST/GraphQL APIs, optimizing SQL queries, writing React/frontend components, setting up Docker/CI/CD infrastructure, or improving backend service resilience.
----
-
-# ASC Domain Reference
-
-Domain-specific coding rules for testing, API design, database queries, frontend components, infrastructure configs, and service resilience. Load this skill when working on any of these domains.
-
-Grounded in: WCAG 2.2 AA (accessibility), Fowler's Money Pattern (monetary types), Nygard's Release It! (resilience patterns), AWS Well-Architected Reliability Pillar (backoff/circuit breakers), OWASP Secure Coding Practices (input validation, logging).
-
-## Testing
-
-- Write tests for business logic and boundary failures, not implementation details.
-- Cover happy path, error paths, edge cases, and empty states.
-- Tests must be fast, isolated, deterministic.
-- Integration tests for critical data paths.
-- Sensitive mutations need idempotency or duplicate-submit coverage.
-- CI pipelines block on test failures.
-
-## API Design
-
-- Consistent resource naming and HTTP semantics.
-- Bounded list reads: always paginate or set explicit limits.
-- Idempotent for side-effect mutations. Document retry behavior.
-- Backward-compatible by default. Version breaking changes explicitly.
-- Sync docs in the same commit when changing API, CLI, or schema.
-
-## Database
-
-- Use eager loading or batching to eliminate N+1 queries.
-- Paginate all growable datasets. No unbounded queries.
-- Multi-table mutations run inside transactions.
-- Monetary amounts: integer minor units or exact decimal. Never floats.
-- Timestamps in UTC. No naive timestamps.
-- Schema changes require versioned, reversible migrations.
-- Never modify merged migrations. Create new ones.
-
-## Frontend
-
-- Semantic HTML before custom components.
-- WCAG 2.2 AA is the accessibility floor.
-- Responsive by default. Handle empty, loading, error, and offline states.
-- No placeholder, lorem, or TODO content in production UI.
-
-## Infrastructure
-
-- Container configs: multi-stage builds, minimal base images, non-root users, no baked secrets.
-- Configuration from environment, validated at startup. Fail fast if invalid.
-- Structured logging with correlation IDs. No PII in logs.
-
-## Resilience
-
-- Every outbound network call has a strict timeout.
-- Retries use exponential backoff with jitter and max attempt limits.
-- Only retry idempotent operations.
-- Circuit breakers for unhealthy dependencies.
-- Graceful degradation on non-critical dependency failure.

package/skills/asc-review/SKILL.md

@@ -1,63 +0,0 @@
----
-name: asc-review
-description: >
-  Production-risk code review. Prioritize findings by severity. Use this skill when user asks to review a pull request, perform code review, check for production risks, critique code, analyze recent changes, or provide feedback on code quality.
----
-
-# Review Skill
-
-Production-risk code review. Prioritize findings by severity.
-
-Grounded in: OWASP Risk Rating Methodology, Google Engineering Practices (code review guide), Clean Architecture (transport vs business layer separation).
-
-## Before Reviewing
-
-1. Read the changed files and understand the scope.
-2. For UI changes, check accessibility and design consistency.
-3. For API changes, check contract stability and documentation sync.
-4. Walk the decision ladder for each new file or dependency: does this need to exist, could the stdlib or an existing dependency handle it?
-
-## Finding Priority Order
-
-1. Correctness, data loss, security, privacy, auth, and permission risks.
-2. Public contract drift: APIs, events, CLI behavior, data model, UI contract, docs.
-3. Missing tests for changed behavior.
-4. Architecture boundary drift and maintainability risk.
-5. Performance and accessibility issues with concrete impact.
-
-## For Every Finding
-
-- Include file and line reference.
-- Explain the real risk.
-- Propose the smallest safe fix.
-
-## Checklist
-
-### Correctness
-- Changed behavior matches the user request.
-- Existing behavior preserved unless user approved a change.
-- Edge cases, empty states, error paths handled.
-
-### Security
-- External input validated at trust boundaries.
-- Secrets, tokens, credentials not committed or logged.
-- Authorization enforced at a trusted boundary.
-- Error responses keep internal details out of client responses.
-
-### Architecture
-- Layer boundaries clear. Controllers handle protocol translation only; business logic stays in services.
-- Abstractions backed by real duplication, not prediction. Straightforward code over clever solutions.
-- Complexity budget applied: fewer moving parts without losing safety.
-
-### Testing
-- Changed behavior has appropriate tests.
-- Tests assert behavior and contracts, not implementation trivia.
-- Critical flows include failure-path coverage.
-
-### Documentation
-- API, event, CLI, and data contract changes update docs in the same commit.
-- Root README exists and stays current.
-
-## Output
-
-Report findings ordered by severity with file/line references and concrete fixes. If no findings, say so explicitly and name any residual risk.