@selesai/code 0.13.30-beta.0 → 0.13.31

package/dist/skills/code-simplification/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,331 @@
+---
+name: code-simplification
+description: Simplifies code for clarity. Use when refactoring code for clarity without changing behavior. Use when code works but is harder to read, maintain, or extend than it should be. Use when reviewing code that has accumulated unnecessary complexity.
+---
+
+# Code Simplification
+
+> Inspired by the [Claude Code Simplifier plugin](https://github.com/anthropics/claude-plugins-official/blob/main/plugins/code-simplifier/agents/code-simplifier.md). Adapted here as a model-agnostic, process-driven skill for any AI coding agent.
+
+## Overview
+
+Simplify code by reducing complexity while preserving exact behavior. The goal is not fewer lines — it's code that is easier to read, understand, modify, and debug. Every simplification must pass a simple test: "Would a new team member understand this faster than the original?"
+
+## When to Use
+
+- After a feature is working and tests pass, but the implementation feels heavier than it needs to be
+- During code review when readability or complexity issues are flagged
+- When you encounter deeply nested logic, long functions, or unclear names
+- When refactoring code written under time pressure
+- When consolidating related logic scattered across files
+- After merging changes that introduced duplication or inconsistency
+
+**When NOT to use:**
+
+- Code is already clean and readable — don't simplify for the sake of it
+- You don't understand what the code does yet — comprehend before you simplify
+- The code is performance-critical and the "simpler" version would be measurably slower
+- You're about to rewrite the module entirely — simplifying throwaway code wastes effort
+
+## The Five Principles
+
+### 1. Preserve Behavior Exactly
+
+Don't change what the code does — only how it expresses it. All inputs, outputs, side effects, error behavior, and edge cases must remain identical. If you're not sure a simplification preserves behavior, don't make it.
+
+```
+ASK BEFORE EVERY CHANGE:
+→ Does this produce the same output for every input?
+→ Does this maintain the same error behavior?
+→ Does this preserve the same side effects and ordering?
+→ Do all existing tests still pass without modification?
+```
+
+### 2. Follow Project Conventions
+
+Simplification means making code more consistent with the codebase, not imposing external preferences. Before simplifying:
+
+```
+1. Read CLAUDE.md / project conventions
+2. Study how neighboring code handles similar patterns
+3. Match the project's style for:
+   - Import ordering and module system
+   - Function declaration style
+   - Naming conventions
+   - Error handling patterns
+   - Type annotation depth
+```
+
+Simplification that breaks project consistency is not simplification — it's churn.
+
+### 3. Prefer Clarity Over Cleverness
+
+Explicit code is better than compact code when the compact version requires a mental pause to parse.
+
+```typescript
+// UNCLEAR: Dense ternary chain
+const label = isNew ? 'New' : isUpdated ? 'Updated' : isArchived ? 'Archived' : 'Active';
+
+// CLEAR: Readable mapping
+function getStatusLabel(item: Item): string {
+  if (item.isNew) return 'New';
+  if (item.isUpdated) return 'Updated';
+  if (item.isArchived) return 'Archived';
+  return 'Active';
+}
+```
+
+```typescript
+// UNCLEAR: Chained reduces with inline logic
+const result = items.reduce((acc, item) => ({
+  ...acc,
+  [item.id]: { ...acc[item.id], count: (acc[item.id]?.count ?? 0) + 1 }
+}), {});
+
+// CLEAR: Named intermediate step
+const countById = new Map<string, number>();
+for (const item of items) {
+  countById.set(item.id, (countById.get(item.id) ?? 0) + 1);
+}
+```
+
+### 4. Maintain Balance
+
+Simplification has a failure mode: over-simplification. Watch for these traps:
+
+- **Inlining too aggressively** — removing a helper that gave a concept a name makes the call site harder to read
+- **Combining unrelated logic** — two simple functions merged into one complex function is not simpler
+- **Removing "unnecessary" abstraction** — some abstractions exist for extensibility or testability, not complexity
+- **Optimizing for line count** — fewer lines is not the goal; easier comprehension is
+
+### 5. Scope to What Changed
+
+Default to simplifying recently modified code. Avoid drive-by refactors of unrelated code unless explicitly asked to broaden scope. Unscoped simplification creates noise in diffs and risks unintended regressions.
+
+## The Simplification Process
+
+### Step 1: Understand Before Touching (Chesterton's Fence)
+
+Before changing or removing anything, understand why it exists. This is Chesterton's Fence: if you see a fence across a road and don't understand why it's there, don't tear it down. First understand the reason, then decide if the reason still applies.
+
+```
+BEFORE SIMPLIFYING, ANSWER:
+- What is this code's responsibility?
+- What calls it? What does it call?
+- What are the edge cases and error paths?
+- Are there tests that define the expected behavior?
+- Why might it have been written this way? (Performance? Platform constraint? Historical reason?)
+- Check git blame: what was the original context for this code?
+```
+
+If you can't answer these, you're not ready to simplify. Read more context first.
+
+### Step 2: Identify Simplification Opportunities
+
+Scan for these patterns — each one is a concrete signal, not a vague smell:
+
+**Structural complexity:**
+
+| Pattern | Signal | Simplification |
+|---------|--------|----------------|
+| Deep nesting (3+ levels) | Hard to follow control flow | Extract conditions into guard clauses or helper functions |
+| Long functions (50+ lines) | Multiple responsibilities | Split into focused functions with descriptive names |
+| Nested ternaries | Requires mental stack to parse | Replace with if/else chains, switch, or lookup objects |
+| Boolean parameter flags | `doThing(true, false, true)` | Replace with options objects or separate functions |
+| Repeated conditionals | Same `if` check in multiple places | Extract to a well-named predicate function |
+
+**Naming and readability:**
+
+| Pattern | Signal | Simplification |
+|---------|--------|----------------|
+| Generic names | `data`, `result`, `temp`, `val`, `item` | Rename to describe the content: `userProfile`, `validationErrors` |
+| Abbreviated names | `usr`, `cfg`, `btn`, `evt` | Use full words unless the abbreviation is universal (`id`, `url`, `api`) |
+| Misleading names | Function named `get` that also mutates state | Rename to reflect actual behavior |
+| Comments explaining "what" | `// increment counter` above `count++` | Delete the comment — the code is clear enough |
+| Comments explaining "why" | `// Retry because the API is flaky under load` | Keep these — they carry intent the code can't express |
+
+**Redundancy:**
+
+| Pattern | Signal | Simplification |
+|---------|--------|----------------|
+| Duplicated logic | Same 5+ lines in multiple places | Extract to a shared function |
+| Dead code | Unreachable branches, unused variables, commented-out blocks | Remove (after confirming it's truly dead) |
+| Unnecessary abstractions | Wrapper that adds no value | Inline the wrapper, call the underlying function directly |
+| Over-engineered patterns | Factory-for-a-factory, strategy-with-one-strategy | Replace with the simple direct approach |
+| Redundant type assertions | Casting to a type that's already inferred | Remove the assertion |
+
+### Step 3: Apply Changes Incrementally
+
+Make one simplification at a time. Run tests after each change. **Submit refactoring changes separately from feature or bug fix changes.** A PR that refactors and adds a feature is two PRs — split them.
+
+```
+FOR EACH SIMPLIFICATION:
+1. Make the change
+2. Run the test suite
+3. If tests pass → commit (or continue to next simplification)
+4. If tests fail → revert and reconsider
+```
+
+Avoid batching multiple simplifications into a single untested change. If something breaks, you need to know which simplification caused it.
+
+**The Rule of 500:** If a refactoring would touch more than 500 lines, invest in automation (codemods, sed scripts, AST transforms) rather than making the changes by hand. Manual edits at that scale are error-prone and exhausting to review.
+
+### Step 4: Verify the Result
+
+After all simplifications, step back and evaluate the whole:
+
+```
+COMPARE BEFORE AND AFTER:
+- Is the simplified version genuinely easier to understand?
+- Did you introduce any new patterns inconsistent with the codebase?
+- Is the diff clean and reviewable?
+- Would a teammate approve this change?
+```
+
+If the "simplified" version is harder to understand or review, revert. Not every simplification attempt succeeds.
+
+## Language-Specific Guidance
+
+### TypeScript / JavaScript
+
+```typescript
+// SIMPLIFY: Unnecessary async wrapper
+// Before
+async function getUser(id: string): Promise<User> {
+  return await userService.findById(id);
+}
+// After
+function getUser(id: string): Promise<User> {
+  return userService.findById(id);
+}
+
+// SIMPLIFY: Verbose conditional assignment
+// Before
+let displayName: string;
+if (user.nickname) {
+  displayName = user.nickname;
+} else {
+  displayName = user.fullName;
+}
+// After
+const displayName = user.nickname || user.fullName;
+
+// SIMPLIFY: Manual array building
+// Before
+const activeUsers: User[] = [];
+for (const user of users) {
+  if (user.isActive) {
+    activeUsers.push(user);
+  }
+}
+// After
+const activeUsers = users.filter((user) => user.isActive);
+
+// SIMPLIFY: Redundant boolean return
+// Before
+function isValid(input: string): boolean {
+  if (input.length > 0 && input.length < 100) {
+    return true;
+  }
+  return false;
+}
+// After
+function isValid(input: string): boolean {
+  return input.length > 0 && input.length < 100;
+}
+```
+
+### Python
+
+```python
+# SIMPLIFY: Verbose dictionary building
+# Before
+result = {}
+for item in items:
+    result[item.id] = item.name
+# After
+result = {item.id: item.name for item in items}
+
+# SIMPLIFY: Nested conditionals with early return
+# Before
+def process(data):
+    if data is not None:
+        if data.is_valid():
+            if data.has_permission():
+                return do_work(data)
+            else:
+                raise PermissionError("No permission")
+        else:
+            raise ValueError("Invalid data")
+    else:
+        raise TypeError("Data is None")
+# After
+def process(data):
+    if data is None:
+        raise TypeError("Data is None")
+    if not data.is_valid():
+        raise ValueError("Invalid data")
+    if not data.has_permission():
+        raise PermissionError("No permission")
+    return do_work(data)
+```
+
+### React / JSX
+
+```tsx
+// SIMPLIFY: Verbose conditional rendering
+// Before
+function UserBadge({ user }: Props) {
+  if (user.isAdmin) {
+    return <Badge variant="admin">Admin</Badge>;
+  } else {
+    return <Badge variant="default">User</Badge>;
+  }
+}
+// After
+function UserBadge({ user }: Props) {
+  const variant = user.isAdmin ? 'admin' : 'default';
+  const label = user.isAdmin ? 'Admin' : 'User';
+  return <Badge variant={variant}>{label}</Badge>;
+}
+
+// SIMPLIFY: Prop drilling through intermediate components
+// Before — consider whether context or composition solves this better.
+// This is a judgment call — flag it, don't auto-refactor.
+```
+
+## Common Rationalizations
+
+| Rationalization | Reality |
+|---|---|
+| "It's working, no need to touch it" | Working code that's hard to read will be hard to fix when it breaks. Simplifying now saves time on every future change. |
+| "Fewer lines is always simpler" | A 1-line nested ternary is not simpler than a 5-line if/else. Simplicity is about comprehension speed, not line count. |
+| "I'll just quickly simplify this unrelated code too" | Unscoped simplification creates noisy diffs and risks regressions in code you didn't intend to change. Stay focused. |
+| "The types make it self-documenting" | Types document structure, not intent. A well-named function explains *why* better than a type signature explains *what*. |
+| "This abstraction might be useful later" | Don't preserve speculative abstractions. If it's not used now, it's complexity without value. Remove it and re-add when needed. |
+| "The original author must have had a reason" | Maybe. Check git blame — apply Chesterton's Fence. But accumulated complexity often has no reason; it's just the residue of iteration under pressure. |
+| "I'll refactor while adding this feature" | Separate refactoring from feature work. Mixed changes are harder to review, revert, and understand in history. |
+
+## Red Flags
+
+- Simplification that requires modifying tests to pass (you likely changed behavior)
+- "Simplified" code that is longer and harder to follow than the original
+- Renaming things to match your preferences rather than project conventions
+- Removing error handling because "it makes the code cleaner"
+- Simplifying code you don't fully understand
+- Batching many simplifications into one large, hard-to-review commit
+- Refactoring code outside the scope of the current task without being asked
+
+## Verification
+
+After completing a simplification pass:
+
+- [ ] All existing tests pass without modification
+- [ ] Build succeeds with no new warnings
+- [ ] Linter/formatter passes (no style regressions)
+- [ ] Each simplification is a reviewable, incremental change
+- [ ] The diff is clean — no unrelated changes mixed in
+- [ ] Simplified code follows project conventions (checked against CLAUDE.md or equivalent)
+- [ ] No error handling was removed or weakened
+- [ ] No dead code was left behind (unused imports, unreachable branches)
+- [ ] A teammate or review agent would approve the change as a net improvement

package/dist/skills/incremental-implementation/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,249 @@
+---
+name: incremental-implementation
+description: Delivers changes incrementally in thin, verifiable slices. Use when implementing any feature or change that touches more than one file, or when picking up the next task from a plan. Use when rolling a change out behind a feature flag, when you're about to write a large amount of code at once, or when a task feels too big to land in one step.
+---
+
+# Incremental Implementation
+
+## Overview
+
+Build in thin vertical slices — implement one piece, test it, verify it, then expand. Avoid implementing an entire feature in one pass. Each increment should leave the system in a working, testable state. This is the execution discipline that makes large features manageable.
+
+## When to Use
+
+- Implementing any multi-file change
+- Building a new feature from a task breakdown
+- Refactoring existing code
+- Any time you're tempted to write more than ~100 lines before testing
+
+**When NOT to use:** Single-file, single-function changes where the scope is already minimal.
+
+## The Increment Cycle
+
+```
+┌──────────────────────────────────────┐
+│                                      │
+│   Implement ──→ Test ──→ Verify ──┐  │
+│       ▲                           │  │
+│       └───── Commit ◄─────────────┘  │
+│              │                       │
+│              ▼                       │
+│          Next slice                  │
+│                                      │
+└──────────────────────────────────────┘
+```
+
+For each slice:
+
+1. **Implement** the smallest complete piece of functionality
+2. **Test** — run the test suite (or write a test if none exists)
+3. **Verify** — confirm the slice works as expected (tests pass, build succeeds, manual check)
+4. **Commit** -- save your progress with a descriptive message (see `git-workflow-and-versioning` for atomic commit guidance)
+5. **Move to the next slice** — carry forward, don't restart
+
+## Slicing Strategies
+
+### Vertical Slices (Preferred)
+
+Build one complete path through the stack:
+
+```
+Slice 1: Create a task (DB + API + basic UI)
+    → Tests pass, user can create a task via the UI
+
+Slice 2: List tasks (query + API + UI)
+    → Tests pass, user can see their tasks
+
+Slice 3: Edit a task (update + API + UI)
+    → Tests pass, user can modify tasks
+
+Slice 4: Delete a task (delete + API + UI + confirmation)
+    → Tests pass, full CRUD complete
+```
+
+Each slice delivers working end-to-end functionality.
+
+### Contract-First Slicing
+
+When backend and frontend need to develop in parallel:
+
+```
+Slice 0: Define the API contract (types, interfaces, OpenAPI spec)
+Slice 1a: Implement backend against the contract + API tests
+Slice 1b: Implement frontend against mock data matching the contract
+Slice 2: Integrate and test end-to-end
+```
+
+### Risk-First Slicing
+
+Tackle the riskiest or most uncertain piece first:
+
+```
+Slice 1: Prove the WebSocket connection works (highest risk)
+Slice 2: Build real-time task updates on the proven connection
+Slice 3: Add offline support and reconnection
+```
+
+If Slice 1 fails, you discover it before investing in Slices 2 and 3.
+
+## Implementation Rules
+
+### Rule 0: Simplicity First
+
+Before writing any code, ask: "What is the simplest thing that could work?"
+
+After writing code, review it against these checks:
+- Can this be done in fewer lines?
+- Are these abstractions earning their complexity?
+- Would a staff engineer look at this and say "why didn't you just..."?
+- Am I building for hypothetical future requirements, or the current task?
+
+```
+SIMPLICITY CHECK:
+✗ Generic EventBus with middleware pipeline for one notification
+✓ Simple function call
+
+✗ Abstract factory pattern for two similar components
+✓ Two straightforward components with shared utilities
+
+✗ Config-driven form builder for three forms
+✓ Three form components
+```
+
+Three similar lines of code is better than a premature abstraction. Implement the naive, obviously-correct version first. Optimize only after correctness is proven with tests.
+
+### Rule 0.5: Scope Discipline
+
+Touch only what the task requires.
+
+Do NOT:
+- "Clean up" code adjacent to your change
+- Refactor imports in files you're not modifying
+- Remove comments you don't fully understand
+- Add features not in the spec because they "seem useful"
+- Modernize syntax in files you're only reading
+
+If you notice something worth improving outside your task scope, note it — don't fix it:
+
+```
+NOTICED BUT NOT TOUCHING:
+- src/utils/format.ts has an unused import (unrelated to this task)
+- The auth middleware could use better error messages (separate task)
+→ Want me to create tasks for these?
+```
+
+### Rule 1: One Thing at a Time
+
+Each increment changes one logical thing. Don't mix concerns:
+
+**Bad:** One commit that adds a new component, refactors an existing one, and updates the build config.
+
+**Good:** Three separate commits — one for each change.
+
+### Rule 2: Keep It Compilable
+
+After each increment, the project must build and existing tests must pass. Don't leave the codebase in a broken state between slices.
+
+### Rule 3: Feature Flags for Incomplete Features
+
+If a feature isn't ready for users but you need to merge increments:
+
+```typescript
+// Feature flag for work-in-progress
+const ENABLE_TASK_SHARING = process.env.FEATURE_TASK_SHARING === 'true';
+
+if (ENABLE_TASK_SHARING) {
+  // New sharing UI
+}
+```
+
+This lets you merge small increments to the main branch without exposing incomplete work.
+
+### Rule 4: Safe Defaults
+
+New code should default to safe, conservative behavior:
+
+```typescript
+// Safe: disabled by default, opt-in
+export function createTask(data: TaskInput, options?: { notify?: boolean }) {
+  const shouldNotify = options?.notify ?? false;
+  // ...
+}
+```
+
+### Rule 5: Rollback-Friendly
+
+Each increment should be independently revertable:
+
+- Additive changes (new files, new functions) are easy to revert
+- Modifications to existing code should be minimal and focused
+- Database migrations should have corresponding rollback migrations
+- Avoid deleting something in one commit and replacing it in the same commit — separate them
+
+## Working with Agents
+
+When directing an agent to implement incrementally:
+
+```
+"Let's implement Task 3 from the plan.
+
+Start with just the database schema change and the API endpoint.
+Don't touch the UI yet — we'll do that in the next increment.
+
+After implementing, run the repository's test and build commands to
+verify nothing is broken."
+```
+
+Be explicit about what's in scope and what's NOT in scope for each increment.
+
+## Increment Checklist
+
+After each increment, verify with the repository's own commands (see the test-driven-development skill's Discover the Stack First section):
+
+- [ ] The change does one thing and does it completely
+- [ ] All existing tests still pass (the repository's test command: `npm test`, `./gradlew test`, `pytest`, ...)
+- [ ] The build succeeds (the repository's build command)
+- [ ] Type checking passes, where the stack has one (`npx tsc --noEmit`, `mypy`, ...)
+- [ ] Linting passes (the repository's lint command)
+- [ ] The new functionality works as expected
+- [ ] The change is committed with a descriptive message
+
+**Note:** Run each verification command after a change that could affect it. After a successful run, don't repeat the same command unless the code has changed since — re-running on unchanged code adds no information.
+
+## Common Rationalizations
+
+| Rationalization | Reality |
+|---|---|
+| "I'll test it all at the end" | Bugs compound. A bug in Slice 1 makes Slices 2-5 wrong. Test each slice. |
+| "It's faster to do it all at once" | It *feels* faster until something breaks and you can't find which of 500 changed lines caused it. |
+| "These changes are too small to commit separately" | Small commits are free. Large commits hide bugs and make rollbacks painful. |
+| "I'll add the feature flag later" | If the feature isn't complete, it shouldn't be user-visible. Add the flag now. |
+| "This refactor is small enough to include" | Refactors mixed with features make both harder to review and debug. Separate them. |
+| "Let me run the build command again just to be sure" | After a successful run, repeating the same command adds nothing unless the code has changed since. Run it again after subsequent edits, not as reassurance. |
+
+## Red Flags
+
+- More than 100 lines of code written without running tests
+- Multiple unrelated changes in a single increment
+- "Let me just quickly add this too" scope expansion
+- Skipping the test/verify step to move faster
+- Build or tests broken between increments
+- Large uncommitted changes accumulating
+- Building abstractions before the third use case demands it
+- Touching files outside the task scope "while I'm here"
+- Creating new utility files for one-time operations
+- Running the same build/test command twice in a row without any intervening code change
+
+## Verification
+
+After completing all increments for a task:
+
+- [ ] Each increment was individually tested and committed
+- [ ] The full test suite passes
+- [ ] The build is clean
+- [ ] The feature works end-to-end as specified
+- [ ] No uncommitted changes remain
+
+## See Also
+
+Per-increment verification is the local check. Before declaring a task done, apply the project-wide Definition of Done as the final gate, the standing bar every increment clears regardless of the task. See `../references/definition-of-done.md`.