@soleri/cli 1.9.0 → 1.10.1

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

@@ -1,142 +0,0 @@
----
-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

@@ -1,230 +0,0 @@
----
-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

@@ -1,170 +0,0 @@
----
-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 |