@soleri/cli 1.7.0 → 1.9.0

package/code-reviewer/skills/second-opinion/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,142 @@
+---
+name: second-opinion
+description: Use when the user asks "should I", "what do you think about", "which approach", "compare options", "what would you recommend", "pros and cons", "trade-offs", or faces any technical decision and wants an informed recommendation backed by vault knowledge, brain patterns, and web research.
+---
+
+# Second Opinion — Decision Support From All Sources
+
+Before making any technical decision, get an informed recommendation that synthesizes vault knowledge, brain patterns, cross-project experience, and web research. Never decide in a vacuum.
+
+## When to Use
+
+- "Should I use Redis or Memcached?"
+- "What's the best way to handle auth?"
+- "Which testing framework?"
+- "Microservices or monolith?"
+- Any fork-in-the-road technical decision
+
+## The Magic: Multi-Source Decision Intelligence
+
+### Step 1: Understand the Decision
+
+Classify the intent to understand what kind of decision this is:
+
+```
+code-reviewer_core op:route_intent
+  params: { prompt: "<user's question>" }
+```
+
+### Step 2: Search All Knowledge Sources (in order)
+
+**Vault — has this been decided before?**
+```
+code-reviewer_core op:search_intelligent
+  params: { query: "<the decision or options being considered>" }
+```
+
+Look specifically for:
+- Previous decisions on this topic (type: "decision")
+- Patterns that favor one approach
+- Anti-patterns that warn against an approach
+
+**Brain — what's proven to work?**
+```
+code-reviewer_core op:brain_strengths
+```
+
+```
+code-reviewer_core op:brain_recommend
+  params: { projectName: "<current project>" }
+```
+
+**Cross-project — what did other projects choose?**
+```
+code-reviewer_core op:memory_cross_project_search
+  params: { query: "<the decision topic>", crossProject: true }
+```
+
+**Memory — any relevant context from past sessions?**
+```
+code-reviewer_core op:memory_search
+  params: { query: "<decision topic>" }
+```
+
+**Web — what does the broader community say?**
+Search the web for:
+- Comparison articles (X vs Y for [use case])
+- Benchmarks and performance data
+- Community consensus on best practices
+- Known limitations and gotchas
+
+### Step 3: Synthesize and Present
+
+Format the recommendation as a decision brief:
+
+```
+## Decision: [Question]
+
+### What the Vault Says
+[Existing decisions, patterns, and anti-patterns from vault]
+
+### What the Brain Recommends
+[Proven patterns, cross-project insights]
+
+### What the Web Says
+[Community consensus, benchmarks, comparison data]
+
+### Options Analysis
+
+| Criteria | Option A | Option B | Option C |
+|----------|----------|----------|----------|
+| [criteria 1] | ... | ... | ... |
+| [criteria 2] | ... | ... | ... |
+| Vault support | [existing patterns?] | [existing patterns?] | — |
+| Brain confidence | [strength score] | [strength score] | — |
+
+### Recommendation
+[Clear recommendation with reasoning]
+
+### Risks
+[What could go wrong with the recommended approach]
+```
+
+### Step 4: Capture the Decision
+
+Once the user decides, capture it to the vault for future reference:
+
+```
+code-reviewer_core op:capture_knowledge
+  params: {
+    title: "<decision title>",
+    description: "<chosen option, rationale, rejected alternatives and why>",
+    type: "decision",
+    category: "<relevant domain>",
+    tags: ["<option-a>", "<option-b>", "decision", "<domain>"]
+  }
+```
+
+This is critical — the next person who faces the same decision will find it in the vault.
+
+## The Magic
+
+This feels like magic because the user asks "should I use X?" and instead of a generic AI opinion, they get:
+1. What their own project decided before (vault)
+2. What's proven to work across projects (brain)
+3. What other linked projects chose (cross-project)
+4. What the broader community recommends (web)
+5. A synthesized recommendation with trade-offs
+6. The decision captured for the next person who asks
+
+It's like having a senior architect who remembers every decision ever made.
+
+## Agent Tools Reference
+
+| Op | When to Use |
+|----|-------------|
+| `route_intent` | Classify the decision type |
+| `search_intelligent` | Find previous decisions and patterns |
+| `brain_strengths` | Proven approaches |
+| `brain_recommend` | Project-specific recommendations |
+| `memory_cross_project_search` | What other projects decided |
+| `memory_search` | Session context for this decision |
+| `capture_knowledge` | Persist the final decision |

package/code-reviewer/skills/systematic-debugging/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,230 @@
+---
+name: systematic-debugging
+description: Use when encountering any bug, test failure, or unexpected behavior, before proposing fixes
+---
+
+<!-- Adapted from superpowers (MIT License) -->
+
+# Systematic Debugging
+
+## Overview
+
+Random fixes waste time and create new bugs. Quick patches mask underlying issues.
+
+**Core principle:** ALWAYS find root cause before attempting fixes. Symptom fixes are failure.
+
+**Violating the letter of this process is violating the spirit of debugging.**
+
+## The Iron Law
+
+```
+NO FIXES WITHOUT ROOT CAUSE INVESTIGATION FIRST
+```
+
+If you haven't completed Phase 1, you cannot propose fixes.
+
+## When to Use
+
+Use for ANY technical issue:
+- Test failures
+- Bugs in production
+- Unexpected behavior
+- Performance problems
+- Build failures
+- Integration issues
+
+**Use this ESPECIALLY when:**
+- Under time pressure (emergencies make guessing tempting)
+- "Just one quick fix" seems obvious
+- You've already tried multiple fixes
+- Previous fix didn't work
+- You don't fully understand the issue
+
+## Phase 0: Search Before Investigating
+
+**BEFORE touching any code**, search for existing solutions. Follow this order:
+
+### Vault First
+```
+code-reviewer_core op:search_intelligent
+  params: { query: "<description of the bug or error message>" }
+```
+
+If the vault has a matching anti-pattern or previous fix, it likely contains the root cause and solution — apply it directly. This can save hours of investigation.
+
+Also check brain strengths for relevant debugging patterns:
+
+```
+code-reviewer_core op:brain_strengths
+```
+
+Check memory for similar bugs across sessions:
+
+```
+code-reviewer_core op:memory_search
+  params: { query: "<error or symptom>" }
+```
+
+### Web Search Second
+If the vault has nothing, search the web before investigating from scratch:
+- **Paste the exact error message** — someone likely hit this before
+- **Check GitHub issues** on relevant libraries
+- **Check Stack Overflow** for the error + framework/library combination
+- **Check official docs** — is this a known limitation or misconfiguration?
+
+A 30-second search that finds "this is a known issue in v3.2, upgrade to v3.3" saves hours of root cause investigation.
+
+### Then Investigate
+Only if vault and web search produce no answer, proceed to Phase 1.
+
+## Start a Debug Loop
+
+For complex bugs, start a validation loop to track investigation iterations:
+
+```
+code-reviewer_core op:loop_start
+  params: { prompt: "Debug: <bug description>", mode: "custom" }
+```
+
+## The Four Phases
+
+You MUST complete each phase before proceeding to the next.
+
+### Phase 1: Root Cause Investigation
+
+**BEFORE attempting ANY fix:**
+
+1. Read Error Messages Carefully
+2. Reproduce Consistently
+3. Check Recent Changes
+4. Gather Evidence in Multi-Component Systems (add diagnostic instrumentation at each component boundary)
+5. Trace Data Flow backward through call stack
+
+Track each investigation step:
+```
+code-reviewer_core op:loop_iterate
+```
+
+### Phase 2: Pattern Analysis
+
+1. Find Working Examples
+2. Compare Against References (read completely, don't skim)
+3. Identify Differences
+4. Understand Dependencies
+
+Search vault for working patterns to compare against:
+```
+code-reviewer_core op:search_intelligent
+  params: { query: "<working feature similar to broken one>" }
+```
+
+### Phase 3: Hypothesis and Testing
+
+1. Form Single Hypothesis ("I think X is the root cause because Y")
+2. Test Minimally (one variable at a time)
+3. Verify Before Continuing
+4. When You Don't Know — say so, ask for help
+
+### Phase 4: Implementation
+
+1. Create Failing Test Case (use test-driven-development skill)
+2. Implement Single Fix (root cause only, one change at a time)
+3. Verify Fix
+4. If Fix Doesn't Work: count attempts. If < 3, return to Phase 1. If >= 3, STOP and question architecture.
+5. If 3+ Fixes Failed: Question Architecture — discuss with human partner before attempting more fixes.
+
+## Phase 5: Capture the Learning
+
+Complete the debug loop:
+```
+code-reviewer_core op:loop_complete
+```
+
+**MANDATORY after every resolved bug.** A fix without a capture is an incomplete fix.
+
+```
+code-reviewer_core op:capture_knowledge
+  params: {
+    title: "<short bug description>",
+    description: "<root cause, solution, and what made it hard to find>",
+    type: "anti-pattern",
+    category: "<relevant domain>",
+    tags: ["<relevant>", "<tags>"]
+  }
+```
+
+For quick captures when the fix is straightforward:
+
+```
+code-reviewer_core op:capture_quick
+  params: {
+    title: "<bug description>",
+    description: "<root cause and fix>"
+  }
+```
+
+Capture a session summary:
+```
+code-reviewer_core op:session_capture
+  params: { summary: "<bug, root cause, fix, files modified>" }
+```
+
+This is what makes the agent smarter over time. Next time someone hits a similar bug, Phase 0 vault search will surface your solution immediately.
+
+## Red Flags - STOP and Follow Process
+
+- "Quick fix for now, investigate later"
+- "Just try changing X and see if it works"
+- "Add multiple changes, run tests"
+- "Skip the test, I'll manually verify"
+- "It's probably X, let me fix that"
+- "I don't fully understand but this might work"
+- Proposing solutions before tracing data flow
+- "One more fix attempt" (when already tried 2+)
+- Each fix reveals new problem in different place
+
+**ALL of these mean: STOP. Return to Phase 1.**
+
+## Common Rationalizations
+
+| Excuse | Reality |
+|--------|---------|
+| "Issue is simple, don't need process" | Simple issues have root causes too. |
+| "Emergency, no time for process" | Systematic is FASTER than guess-and-check thrashing. |
+| "Just try this first, then investigate" | First fix sets the pattern. Do it right from the start. |
+| "I'll write test after confirming fix works" | Untested fixes don't stick. Test first proves it. |
+| "Multiple fixes at once saves time" | Can't isolate what worked. Causes new bugs. |
+| "Reference too long, I'll adapt the pattern" | Partial understanding guarantees bugs. Read it completely. |
+| "I see the problem, let me fix it" | Seeing symptoms ≠ understanding root cause. |
+| "One more fix attempt" (after 2+ failures) | 3+ failures = architectural problem. Question pattern, don't fix again. |
+| "Skip the vault, I know this one" | The vault may know it better. 30 seconds to check saves hours. |
+
+## Quick Reference
+
+| Phase | Key Activities | Agent Tools |
+|-------|---------------|-------------|
+| **0. Search First** | Vault search, web search, memory | `search_intelligent`, `brain_strengths`, `memory_search` |
+| **1. Root Cause** | Read errors, reproduce, trace | `loop_iterate` |
+| **2. Pattern** | Find working examples, compare | `search_intelligent` |
+| **3. Hypothesis** | Form theory, test minimally | `loop_iterate` |
+| **4. Implementation** | Create test, fix, verify | `loop_iterate` |
+| **5. Capture** | Persist root cause, close loop | `capture_knowledge`, `loop_complete`, `session_capture` |
+
+## Agent Tools Reference
+
+| Op | When to Use |
+|----|-------------|
+| `search_intelligent` | Search vault for known bugs and patterns |
+| `brain_strengths` | Check proven debugging patterns |
+| `memory_search` | Search across session memories |
+| `loop_start` | Begin iterative debug cycle |
+| `loop_iterate` | Track each investigation/fix attempt |
+| `loop_complete` | Finish debug cycle |
+| `capture_knowledge` | Full anti-pattern capture |
+| `capture_quick` | Fast capture for simple fixes |
+| `session_capture` | Persist session context |
+
+**Related skills:**
+- test-driven-development
+- verification-before-completion
+- fix-and-learn (combines debugging + capture in one workflow)

package/code-reviewer/skills/verification-before-completion/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,170 @@
+---
+name: verification-before-completion
+description: Use when about to claim work is complete, fixed, or passing, before committing or creating PRs - requires running verification commands and confirming output before making any success claims; evidence before assertions always
+---
+
+<!-- Adapted from superpowers (MIT License) -->
+
+# Verification Before Completion
+
+## Overview
+
+Claiming work is complete without verification is dishonesty, not efficiency.
+
+**Core principle:** Evidence before claims, always.
+
+**Violating the letter of this rule is violating the spirit of this rule.**
+
+## The Iron Law
+
+```
+NO COMPLETION CLAIMS WITHOUT FRESH VERIFICATION EVIDENCE
+```
+
+If you haven't run the verification command in this message, you cannot claim it passes.
+
+## The Gate Function
+
+```
+BEFORE claiming any status or expressing satisfaction:
+
+1. IDENTIFY: What command proves this claim?
+2. RUN: Execute the FULL command (fresh, complete)
+3. READ: Full output, check exit code, count failures
+4. VERIFY: Does output confirm the claim?
+   - If NO: State actual status with evidence
+   - If YES: State claim WITH evidence
+5. AGENT CHECK: Run system diagnostics
+6. ONLY THEN: Make the claim
+
+Skip any step = lying, not verifying
+```
+
+## Agent System Checks
+
+After passing all verification commands, run system diagnostics:
+
+### Health Check
+```
+code-reviewer_core op:admin_health
+```
+Catches issues tests might miss — vault corruption, stale caches, configuration drift.
+
+### Full Diagnostic
+```
+code-reviewer_core op:admin_diagnostic
+```
+Comprehensive system check — module status, database integrity, cache health, configuration validity.
+
+### Vault Analytics
+```
+code-reviewer_core op:admin_vault_analytics
+```
+Verify knowledge quality metrics — are capture rates healthy? Any degradation?
+
+If any check reports problems, address them before claiming completion.
+
+## Common Failures
+
+| Claim | Requires | Not Sufficient |
+|-------|----------|----------------|
+| Tests pass | Test command output: 0 failures | Previous run, "should pass" |
+| Linter clean | Linter output: 0 errors | Partial check, extrapolation |
+| Build succeeds | Build command: exit 0 | Linter passing, logs look good |
+| Bug fixed | Test original symptom: passes | Code changed, assumed fixed |
+| Regression test works | Red-green cycle verified | Test passes once |
+| Agent completed | VCS diff shows changes | Agent reports "success" |
+| Requirements met | Line-by-line checklist | Tests passing |
+| Agent healthy | `admin_diagnostic` clean | "No errors in logs" |
+
+## Red Flags - STOP
+
+- Using "should", "probably", "seems to"
+- Expressing satisfaction before verification ("Great!", "Perfect!", "Done!", etc.)
+- About to commit/push/PR without verification
+- Trusting agent success reports
+- Relying on partial verification
+- Thinking "just this once"
+- Tired and wanting work over
+- ANY wording implying success without having run verification
+
+## Rationalization Prevention
+
+| Excuse | Reality |
+|--------|---------|
+| "Should work now" | RUN the verification |
+| "I'm confident" | Confidence ≠ evidence |
+| "Just this once" | No exceptions |
+| "Linter passed" | Linter ≠ compiler |
+| "Agent said success" | Verify independently |
+| "I'm tired" | Exhaustion ≠ excuse |
+| "Partial check is enough" | Partial proves nothing |
+| "Different words so rule doesn't apply" | Spirit over letter |
+
+## Key Patterns
+
+**Tests:**
+```
+[Run test command] [See: 34/34 pass] "All tests pass"
+NOT: "Should pass now" / "Looks correct"
+```
+
+**Regression tests (TDD Red-Green):**
+```
+Write -> Run (pass) -> Revert fix -> Run (MUST FAIL) -> Restore -> Run (pass)
+NOT: "I've written a regression test" (without red-green verification)
+```
+
+**Build:**
+```
+[Run build] [See: exit 0] "Build passes"
+NOT: "Linter passed" (linter doesn't check compilation)
+```
+
+**Requirements:**
+```
+Re-read plan -> Create checklist -> Verify each -> Report gaps or completion
+NOT: "Tests pass, phase complete"
+```
+
+**Agent delegation:**
+```
+Agent reports success -> Check VCS diff -> Verify changes -> Report actual state
+NOT: Trust agent report
+```
+
+## After Verification — Capture Session
+
+Once work is verified complete, capture a session summary so context persists:
+
+```
+code-reviewer_core op:session_capture
+  params: {
+    summary: "<what was accomplished, files modified, key decisions>"
+  }
+```
+
+This ensures the next session has context about what was verified and completed.
+
+## When To Apply
+
+**ALWAYS before:**
+- ANY variation of success/completion claims
+- ANY expression of satisfaction
+- ANY positive statement about work state
+- Committing, PR creation, task completion
+- Moving to next task
+- Delegating to agents
+
+## The Bottom Line
+
+Run the command. Read the output. THEN claim the result. This is non-negotiable.
+
+## Agent Tools Reference
+
+| Op | When to Use |
+|----|-------------|
+| `admin_health` | Quick system health check |
+| `admin_diagnostic` | Comprehensive system diagnostic |
+| `admin_vault_analytics` | Knowledge quality metrics |
+| `session_capture` | Persist verified completion context |