@simplysm/sd-claude 13.0.78 → 13.0.81

package/claude/skills/sd-skill/writing-guide.md

@@ -1,159 +0,0 @@
-# Skill Writing Guide
-
-**Load this reference when:** writing or editing skill content, organizing skill files, or bulletproofing discipline-enforcing skills against rationalization.
-
-## Flowchart Usage
-
-Use Mermaid (`flowchart`) when there are decision branches or non-obvious process flows.
-
-```mermaid
-flowchart TD
-    A{"Need to show information?"} -->|yes| B{"Decision where I might go wrong?"}
-    B -->|yes| C[Small inline flowchart]
-    B -->|no| D[Use markdown]
-```
-
-**Use flowcharts ONLY for:**
-
-- Non-obvious decision points
-- Process loops where you might stop too early
-- "When to use A vs B" decisions
-
-**Never use flowcharts for:**
-
-- Reference material -> Tables, lists
-- Code examples -> Markdown blocks
-- Linear instructions -> Numbered lists
-- Labels without semantic meaning (step1, helper2)
-
-## Code Examples
-
-**One excellent example beats many mediocre ones**
-
-Choose most relevant language:
-
-- Testing techniques -> TypeScript/JavaScript
-- System debugging -> Shell/Python
-- Data processing -> Python
-
-**Good example:**
-
-- Complete and runnable
-- Well-commented explaining WHY
-- From real scenario
-- Shows pattern clearly
-- Ready to adapt (not generic template)
-
-**Don't:**
-
-- Implement in 5+ languages
-- Create fill-in-the-blank templates
-- Write contrived examples
-
-You're good at porting - one great example is enough.
-
-## File Organization
-
-### Self-Contained Skill
-
-```
-defense-in-depth/
-  SKILL.md    # Everything inline
-```
-
-When: All content fits, no heavy reference needed
-
-### Skill with Reusable Tool
-
-```
-condition-based-waiting/
-  SKILL.md    # Overview + patterns
-  example.ts  # Working helpers to adapt
-```
-
-When: Tool is reusable code, not just narrative
-
-### Skill with Heavy Reference
-
-```
-pptx/
-  SKILL.md       # Overview + workflows
-  pptxgenjs.md   # 600 lines API reference
-  ooxml.md       # 500 lines XML structure
-  scripts/       # Executable tools
-```
-
-When: Reference material too large for inline
-
-## Bulletproofing Skills Against Rationalization
-
-Skills that enforce discipline (like TDD) need to resist rationalization. Agents are smart and will find loopholes when under pressure.
-
-**Psychology note:** Understanding WHY persuasion techniques work helps you apply them systematically. See persuasion-principles.md for research foundation (Cialdini, 2021; Meincke et al., 2025) on authority, commitment, scarcity, social proof, and unity principles.
-
-### Close Every Loophole Explicitly
-
-Don't just state the rule - forbid specific workarounds:
-
-Bad:
-```markdown
-Write code before test? Delete it.
-```
-
-Good:
-```markdown
-Write code before 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
-```
-
-### Address "Spirit vs Letter" Arguments
-
-Add foundational principle early:
-
-```markdown
-**Violating the letter of the rules is violating the spirit of the rules.**
-```
-
-This cuts off entire class of "I'm following the spirit" rationalizations.
-
-### Build Rationalization Table
-
-Capture rationalizations from baseline testing. Every excuse agents make goes in the table:
-
-```markdown
-| Excuse                           | Reality                                                                 |
-| -------------------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------- |
-| "Too simple to test"             | Simple code breaks. Test takes 30 seconds.                              |
-| "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?" |
-```
-
-### Create Red Flags List
-
-Make it easy for agents to self-check when rationalizing:
-
-```markdown
-## Red Flags - STOP and Start Over
-
-- Code before test
-- "I already manually tested it"
-- "Tests after achieve the same purpose"
-- "It's about spirit not ritual"
-- "This is different because..."
-
-**All of these mean: Delete code. Start over with TDD.**
-```
-
-### Update CSO for Violation Symptoms
-
-Add to description: symptoms of when you're ABOUT to violate the rule:
-
-```yaml
-description: use when implementing any feature or bugfix, before writing implementation code
-```

package/claude/skills/sd-tdd/SKILL.md

@@ -1,385 +0,0 @@
----
-name: sd-tdd
-description: "TDD - failing test first, then implement (explicit invocation only)"
-user-invocable: false
----
-
-# Test-Driven Development (TDD)
-
-## Overview
-
-Write the test first. Watch it fail. Write minimal code to pass.
-
-**Core principle:** If you didn't watch the test fail, you don't know if it tests the right thing.
-
-**Violating the letter of the rules is violating the spirit of the rules.**
-
-## When to Use
-
-**Always:**
-
-- New features
-- Bug fixes
-- Refactoring
-- Behavior changes
-
-**Exceptions (ask your human partner):**
-
-- Throwaway prototypes
-- Generated code
-- Configuration files
-
-Thinking "skip TDD just this once"? Stop. That's rationalization.
-
-## The Iron Law
-
-```
-NO PRODUCTION CODE WITHOUT A FAILING TEST FIRST
-```
-
-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.
-
-## Red-Green-Refactor
-
-```mermaid
-flowchart LR
-    A["RED<br>Write failing test"]:::red --> B{"Verify fails<br>correctly"}
-    B -->|yes| C["GREEN<br>Minimal code"]:::green
-    B -->|"wrong failure"| A
-    C --> D{"Verify passes<br>All green"}
-    D -->|yes| E["REFACTOR<br>Clean up"]:::blue
-    D -->|no| C
-    E -->|"stay green"| D
-    D --> F(["Next"])
-    F --> A
-
-    classDef red fill:#ffcccc
-    classDef green fill:#ccffcc
-    classDef blue fill:#ccccff
-```
-
-### RED - Write Failing Test
-
-Write one minimal test showing what should happen.
-
-<Good>
-```typescript
-test('retries failed operations 3 times', async () => {
-  let attempts = 0;
-  const operation = () => {
-    attempts++;
-    if (attempts < 3) throw new Error('fail');
-    return 'success';
-  };
-
-const result = await retryOperation(operation);
-
-expect(result).toBe('success');
-expect(attempts).toBe(3);
-});
-
-````
-Clear name, tests real behavior, one thing
-</Good>
-
-<Bad>
-```typescript
-test('retry works', async () => {
-  const mock = jest.fn()
-    .mockRejectedValueOnce(new Error())
-    .mockRejectedValueOnce(new Error())
-    .mockResolvedValueOnce('success');
-  await retryOperation(mock);
-  expect(mock).toHaveBeenCalledTimes(3);
-});
-````
-
-Vague name, tests mock not code
-</Bad>
-
-**Requirements:**
-
-- One behavior
-- Clear name
-- Real code (no mocks unless unavoidable)
-
-### Verify RED - Watch It Fail
-
-**MANDATORY. Never skip.**
-
-```bash
-npx vitest path/to/test.spec.ts --run
-```
-
-Confirm:
-
-- Test fails (not errors)
-- Failure message is expected
-- Fails because feature missing (not typos)
-
-**Test passes?** You're testing existing behavior. Fix test.
-
-**Test errors?** Fix error, re-run until it fails correctly.
-
-### GREEN - Minimal Code
-
-Write simplest code to pass the test.
-
-<Good>
-```typescript
-async function retryOperation<T>(fn: () => Promise<T>): Promise<T> {
-  for (let i = 0; i < 3; i++) {
-    try {
-      return await fn();
-    } catch (e) {
-      if (i === 2) throw e;
-    }
-  }
-  throw new Error('unreachable');
-}
-```
-Just enough to pass
-</Good>
-
-<Bad>
-```typescript
-async function retryOperation<T>(
-  fn: () => Promise<T>,
-  options?: {
-    maxRetries?: number;
-    backoff?: 'linear' | 'exponential';
-    onRetry?: (attempt: number) => void;
-  }
-): Promise<T> {
-  // YAGNI
-}
-```
-Over-engineered
-</Bad>
-
-Don't add features, refactor other code, or "improve" beyond the test.
-
-### Verify GREEN - Watch It Pass
-
-**MANDATORY.**
-
-```bash
-npx vitest path/to/test.spec.ts --run
-```
-
-Confirm:
-
-- Test passes
-- Other tests still pass
-- Output pristine (no errors, warnings)
-
-**Test fails?** Fix code, not test.
-
-**Other tests fail?** Fix now.
-
-### REFACTOR - Clean Up
-
-After green only:
-
-- Remove duplication
-- Improve names
-- Extract helpers
-
-Keep tests green. Don't add behavior.
-
-### Repeat
-
-Next failing test for next feature.
-
-## Good Tests
-
-| Quality          | Good                                | Bad                                                 |
-| ---------------- | ----------------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------- |
-| **Minimal**      | One thing. "and" in name? Split it. | `test('validates email and domain and whitespace')` |
-| **Clear**        | Name describes behavior             | `test('test1')`                                     |
-| **Shows intent** | Demonstrates desired API            | Obscures what code should do                        |
-
-## Why Order Matters
-
-**"I'll write tests after to verify it works"**
-
-Tests written after code pass immediately. Passing immediately proves nothing:
-
-- Might test wrong thing
-- Might test implementation, not behavior
-- Might miss edge cases you forgot
-- You never saw it catch the bug
-
-Test-first forces you to see the test fail, proving it actually tests something.
-
-**"I already manually tested all the edge cases"**
-
-Manual testing is ad-hoc. You think you tested everything but:
-
-- No record of what you tested
-- Can't re-run when code changes
-- Easy to forget cases under pressure
-- "It worked when I tried it" ≠ comprehensive
-
-Automated tests are systematic. They run the same way every time.
-
-**"Deleting X hours of work is wasteful"**
-
-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.
-
-**"TDD is dogmatic, being pragmatic means adapting"**
-
-TDD IS pragmatic:
-
-- Finds bugs before commit (faster than debugging after)
-- Prevents regressions (tests catch breaks immediately)
-- Documents behavior (tests show how to use code)
-- Enables refactoring (change freely, tests catch breaks)
-
-"Pragmatic" shortcuts = debugging in production = slower.
-
-**"Tests after achieve the same goals - it's spirit not ritual"**
-
-No. Tests-after answer "What does this do?" Tests-first answer "What should this do?"
-
-Tests-after are biased by your implementation. You test what you built, not what's required. You verify remembered edge cases, not discovered ones.
-
-Tests-first force edge case discovery before implementing. Tests-after verify you remembered everything (you didn't).
-
-30 minutes of tests after ≠ TDD. You get coverage, lose proof tests work.
-
-## Common Rationalizations
-
-| Excuse                                 | Reality                                                                 |
-| -------------------------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------- |
-| "Too simple to test"                   | Simple code breaks. Test takes 30 seconds.                              |
-| "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.                           |
-| "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
-
-- Code before test
-- Test after implementation
-- Test passes immediately
-- Can't explain why test failed
-- Tests added "later"
-- Rationalizing "just this once"
-- "I already manually tested it"
-- "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"
-- "TDD is dogmatic, I'm being pragmatic"
-- "This is different because..."
-
-**All of these mean: Delete code. Start over with TDD.**
-
-## Example: Bug Fix
-
-**Bug:** Empty email accepted
-
-**RED**
-
-```typescript
-test("rejects empty email", async () => {
-  const result = await submitForm({ email: "" });
-  expect(result.error).toBe("Email required");
-});
-```
-
-**Verify RED**
-
-```bash
-$ npx vitest path/to/test.spec.ts --run
-FAIL: expected 'Email required', got undefined
-```
-
-**GREEN**
-
-```typescript
-function submitForm(data: FormData) {
-  if (!data.email?.trim()) {
-    return { error: "Email required" };
-  }
-  // ...
-}
-```
-
-**Verify GREEN**
-
-```bash
-$ npx vitest path/to/test.spec.ts --run
-PASS
-```
-
-**REFACTOR**
-Extract validation for multiple fields if needed.
-
-## Verification Checklist
-
-Before marking work complete:
-
-- [ ] Every new function/method has a test
-- [ ] Watched each test fail before implementing
-- [ ] Each test failed for expected reason (feature missing, not typo)
-- [ ] Wrote minimal code to pass each test
-- [ ] All tests pass
-- [ ] Output pristine (no errors, warnings)
-- [ ] Tests use real code (mocks only if unavoidable)
-- [ ] Edge cases and errors covered
-
-Can't check all boxes? You skipped TDD. Start over.
-
-## When Stuck
-
-| Problem                | Solution                                                             |
-| ---------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------- |
-| Don't know how to test | Write wished-for API. Write assertion first. Ask your human partner. |
-| 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.
-
-Never fix bugs without a test.
-
-## Testing Anti-Patterns
-
-When adding mocks or test utilities, read testing-anti-patterns.md to avoid common pitfalls:
-
-- Testing mock behavior instead of real behavior
-- Adding test-only methods to production classes
-- Mocking without understanding dependencies
-
-## Final Rule
-
-```
-Production code → test exists and failed first
-Otherwise → not TDD
-```
-
-No exceptions without your human partner's permission.