@su-record/vibe 2.7.11 → 2.7.13

package/skills/characterization-test/SKILL.md

@@ -1,206 +1,206 @@
----
-name: characterization-test
-description: "Lock existing behavior with characterization tests before modifying code."
-triggers: [legacy, characterization test, lock behavior, regression prevention, before refactor, large file]
-priority: 65
----
-
-# Characterization Test Skill
-
-> **Philosophy: "Never change what you cannot verify"**
-
-Lock existing behavior with snapshot/characterization tests before modifying code. This prevents regressions in legacy, complex, or unfamiliar codebases.
-
-## Pre-check (K1)
-
-> Are you modifying existing code with uncertain behavior? If the code is new (you just wrote it), well-tested, or trivially simple, skip characterization tests and write regular unit tests instead.
-
-## When to Use
-
-| Scenario | Signal |
-|----------|--------|
-| Legacy file (>500 lines) | Large files with accumulated behavior |
-| Complex branching | Multiple if/else, switch, ternary chains |
-| API endpoint modification | Request/response contract must be preserved |
-| Database schema change | Migration must preserve existing data semantics |
-| Refactoring request | "refactor", "clean up", "simplify" keywords |
-| Unfamiliar code | No prior context about the module |
-
-## Core Workflow
-
-```
-ANALYZE → GENERATE → VERIFY → CHANGE → REGRESS → RECONCILE
-```
-
-### Step 1: ANALYZE
-
-Explore the target code to understand its current behavior.
-
-**Parallel exploration** (use sub-agents when available):
-- Read the target file(s)
-- Identify all public exports / API surface
-- Map branching paths (if/else, switch, try/catch)
-- List external dependencies and side effects
-- Check for existing tests
-
-**Analysis checklist:**
-- [ ] All public functions identified
-- [ ] Input parameter ranges documented
-- [ ] Edge cases listed (null, empty, boundary values)
-- [ ] Side effects cataloged (DB writes, file I/O, network calls)
-- [ ] Error paths mapped
-
-### Step 2: GENERATE
-
-Create characterization tests that capture current behavior as-is.
-
-**TypeScript template:**
-```typescript
-import { describe, it, expect } from 'vitest';
-
-describe('[ModuleName] characterization tests', () => {
-  // Happy path - capture normal behavior
-  it('should [describe current behavior]', () => {
-    const result = targetFunction(normalInput);
-    // Snapshot the ACTUAL output, not what you THINK it should be
-    expect(result).toMatchSnapshot();
-  });
-
-  // Edge cases - capture boundary behavior
-  it('should handle empty input', () => {
-    const result = targetFunction('');
-    expect(result).toMatchSnapshot();
-  });
-
-  // Error paths - capture failure modes
-  it('should handle invalid input', () => {
-    expect(() => targetFunction(null)).toThrowErrorMatchingSnapshot();
-  });
-});
-```
-
-**Python template:**
-```python
-import pytest
-
-class TestModuleNameCharacterization:
-    """Lock existing behavior before modification."""
-
-    def test_normal_behavior(self, snapshot):
-        result = target_function(normal_input)
-        assert result == snapshot
-
-    def test_empty_input(self, snapshot):
-        result = target_function("")
-        assert result == snapshot
-
-    def test_invalid_input(self):
-        with pytest.raises(Exception) as exc_info:
-            target_function(None)
-        assert str(exc_info.value)  # Capture error message
-```
-
-**Key principles:**
-- Test ACTUAL behavior, not expected behavior
-- Use `toMatchSnapshot()` / snapshot assertions
-- Cover every public function
-- Include edge cases and error paths
-- Do NOT fix bugs in characterization tests
-
-### Step 3: VERIFY
-
-Run the characterization tests to confirm they pass with current code.
-
-```bash
-# TypeScript
-npx vitest run --reporter=verbose [test-file]
-
-# Python
-pytest -v [test-file]
-```
-
-- All tests MUST pass before proceeding
-- If any test fails, the characterization is wrong — fix the test, not the code
-- Update snapshots if needed: `npx vitest run -u [test-file]`
-
-### Step 4: CHANGE
-
-Now implement the requested modification.
-
-- Make changes incrementally
-- Run characterization tests after each change
-- Any unexpected test failure = potential regression
-
-### Step 5: REGRESS
-
-Run full characterization test suite after all changes.
-
-```bash
-npx vitest run [characterization-test-file]
-```
-
-- **All passing**: Changes preserve existing behavior
-- **Expected failures**: Tests for intentionally changed behavior
-- **Unexpected failures**: STOP — investigate regression
-
-### Step 6: RECONCILE
-
-Update characterization tests to match new intended behavior.
-
-- Review each failing test individually
-- Confirm the failure is due to intentional change
-- Update snapshot: `npx vitest run -u`
-- Add NEW tests for new behavior
-- Document why each test changed
-
-## Scenario-Specific Workflows
-
-### Legacy File (>500 lines)
-
-1. Generate function-level characterization tests
-2. Focus on public API surface first
-3. Add integration tests for cross-function flows
-4. Refactor in small increments
-
-### Complex Branching
-
-1. Map all branches with a decision tree
-2. Write one test per branch path
-3. Include boundary values for each condition
-4. Test combinations of related conditions
-
-### API Endpoint
-
-1. Capture request/response pairs for all routes
-2. Test all HTTP methods, status codes, headers
-3. Include authentication/authorization paths
-4. Test error responses and validation messages
-
-### Database Schema
-
-1. Create fixtures with representative data
-2. Test queries before and after migration
-3. Verify data integrity post-migration
-4. Test rollback scenarios
-
-## Integration with VIBE Workflow
-
-### With `/vibe.spec`
-Add characterization test phase to SPEC before implementation:
-```
-## Pre-Implementation
-- [ ] Characterization tests written for affected modules
-- [ ] All characterization tests passing
-```
-
-### With `/vibe.run`
-The implementation agent should:
-1. Check for characterization tests before modifying files
-2. Run them before and after changes
-3. Flag any unexpected failures
-
-### With `/vibe.review`
-Review agents verify:
-- Characterization tests exist for modified legacy code
-- No regressions in existing behavior
-- New behavior has corresponding new tests
+---
+name: characterization-test
+description: "Lock existing behavior with characterization tests before modifying code."
+triggers: [legacy, characterization test, lock behavior, regression prevention, before refactor, large file]
+priority: 65
+---
+
+# Characterization Test Skill
+
+> **Philosophy: "Never change what you cannot verify"**
+
+Lock existing behavior with snapshot/characterization tests before modifying code. This prevents regressions in legacy, complex, or unfamiliar codebases.
+
+## Pre-check (K1)
+
+> Are you modifying existing code with uncertain behavior? If the code is new (you just wrote it), well-tested, or trivially simple, skip characterization tests and write regular unit tests instead.
+
+## When to Use
+
+| Scenario | Signal |
+|----------|--------|
+| Legacy file (>500 lines) | Large files with accumulated behavior |
+| Complex branching | Multiple if/else, switch, ternary chains |
+| API endpoint modification | Request/response contract must be preserved |
+| Database schema change | Migration must preserve existing data semantics |
+| Refactoring request | "refactor", "clean up", "simplify" keywords |
+| Unfamiliar code | No prior context about the module |
+
+## Core Workflow
+
+```
+ANALYZE → GENERATE → VERIFY → CHANGE → REGRESS → RECONCILE
+```
+
+### Step 1: ANALYZE
+
+Explore the target code to understand its current behavior.
+
+**Parallel exploration** (use sub-agents when available):
+- Read the target file(s)
+- Identify all public exports / API surface
+- Map branching paths (if/else, switch, try/catch)
+- List external dependencies and side effects
+- Check for existing tests
+
+**Analysis checklist:**
+- [ ] All public functions identified
+- [ ] Input parameter ranges documented
+- [ ] Edge cases listed (null, empty, boundary values)
+- [ ] Side effects cataloged (DB writes, file I/O, network calls)
+- [ ] Error paths mapped
+
+### Step 2: GENERATE
+
+Create characterization tests that capture current behavior as-is.
+
+**TypeScript template:**
+```typescript
+import { describe, it, expect } from 'vitest';
+
+describe('[ModuleName] characterization tests', () => {
+  // Happy path - capture normal behavior
+  it('should [describe current behavior]', () => {
+    const result = targetFunction(normalInput);
+    // Snapshot the ACTUAL output, not what you THINK it should be
+    expect(result).toMatchSnapshot();
+  });
+
+  // Edge cases - capture boundary behavior
+  it('should handle empty input', () => {
+    const result = targetFunction('');
+    expect(result).toMatchSnapshot();
+  });
+
+  // Error paths - capture failure modes
+  it('should handle invalid input', () => {
+    expect(() => targetFunction(null)).toThrowErrorMatchingSnapshot();
+  });
+});
+```
+
+**Python template:**
+```python
+import pytest
+
+class TestModuleNameCharacterization:
+    """Lock existing behavior before modification."""
+
+    def test_normal_behavior(self, snapshot):
+        result = target_function(normal_input)
+        assert result == snapshot
+
+    def test_empty_input(self, snapshot):
+        result = target_function("")
+        assert result == snapshot
+
+    def test_invalid_input(self):
+        with pytest.raises(Exception) as exc_info:
+            target_function(None)
+        assert str(exc_info.value)  # Capture error message
+```
+
+**Key principles:**
+- Test ACTUAL behavior, not expected behavior
+- Use `toMatchSnapshot()` / snapshot assertions
+- Cover every public function
+- Include edge cases and error paths
+- Do NOT fix bugs in characterization tests
+
+### Step 3: VERIFY
+
+Run the characterization tests to confirm they pass with current code.
+
+```bash
+# TypeScript
+npx vitest run --reporter=verbose [test-file]
+
+# Python
+pytest -v [test-file]
+```
+
+- All tests MUST pass before proceeding
+- If any test fails, the characterization is wrong — fix the test, not the code
+- Update snapshots if needed: `npx vitest run -u [test-file]`
+
+### Step 4: CHANGE
+
+Now implement the requested modification.
+
+- Make changes incrementally
+- Run characterization tests after each change
+- Any unexpected test failure = potential regression
+
+### Step 5: REGRESS
+
+Run full characterization test suite after all changes.
+
+```bash
+npx vitest run [characterization-test-file]
+```
+
+- **All passing**: Changes preserve existing behavior
+- **Expected failures**: Tests for intentionally changed behavior
+- **Unexpected failures**: STOP — investigate regression
+
+### Step 6: RECONCILE
+
+Update characterization tests to match new intended behavior.
+
+- Review each failing test individually
+- Confirm the failure is due to intentional change
+- Update snapshot: `npx vitest run -u`
+- Add NEW tests for new behavior
+- Document why each test changed
+
+## Scenario-Specific Workflows
+
+### Legacy File (>500 lines)
+
+1. Generate function-level characterization tests
+2. Focus on public API surface first
+3. Add integration tests for cross-function flows
+4. Refactor in small increments
+
+### Complex Branching
+
+1. Map all branches with a decision tree
+2. Write one test per branch path
+3. Include boundary values for each condition
+4. Test combinations of related conditions
+
+### API Endpoint
+
+1. Capture request/response pairs for all routes
+2. Test all HTTP methods, status codes, headers
+3. Include authentication/authorization paths
+4. Test error responses and validation messages
+
+### Database Schema
+
+1. Create fixtures with representative data
+2. Test queries before and after migration
+3. Verify data integrity post-migration
+4. Test rollback scenarios
+
+## Integration with VIBE Workflow
+
+### With `/vibe.spec`
+Add characterization test phase to SPEC before implementation:
+```
+## Pre-Implementation
+- [ ] Characterization tests written for affected modules
+- [ ] All characterization tests passing
+```
+
+### With `/vibe.run`
+The implementation agent should:
+1. Check for characterization tests before modifying files
+2. Run them before and after changes
+3. Flag any unexpected failures
+
+### With `/vibe.review`
+Review agents verify:
+- Characterization tests exist for modified legacy code
+- No regressions in existing behavior
+- New behavior has corresponding new tests

package/skills/commerce-patterns/SKILL.md

@@ -1,59 +1,59 @@
----
-name: commerce-patterns
-description: "E-commerce domain patterns - cart, payment, inventory with transaction safety"
-triggers: [commerce, ecommerce, cart, payment, checkout, inventory, stock, order, pg, toss, stripe]
-priority: 70
----
-
-# Commerce Patterns
-
-## Pre-check (K1)
-
-> Is this an e-commerce transaction flow? If building simple CRUD without payment/stock management, this skill is not needed.
-
-## Gotchas & Traps
-
-These are the non-obvious failure modes LLMs typically miss:
-
-### Payment
-
-| Trap | Consequence | Prevention |
-|------|-------------|------------|
-| No idempotency key | User double-clicks → charged twice | `idempotencyKey: order_${orderId}_${timestamp}` on every payment request |
-| Webhook not idempotent | Retry delivers duplicate events | Check `eventId` before processing, store processed events |
-| Missing webhook signature verification | Attacker forges payment confirmation | Always verify HMAC signature before processing |
-| No payment state machine | Order stuck in limbo | `PENDING → PROCESSING → AUTHORIZED → CAPTURED → COMPLETED` (+ FAILED, CANCELED, REFUNDED) |
-
-### Inventory
-
-| Trap | Consequence | Prevention |
-|------|-------------|------------|
-| Non-atomic stock decrement | Race condition → negative stock | `UPDATE SET stock = stock - $1 WHERE stock >= $1` (atomic with check) |
-| No reservation TTL | Stock locked forever on abandoned checkout | 15-min reservation + scheduled cleanup job |
-| Commit without reservation | Stock sold twice | Two-phase: RESERVE (checkout start) → COMMIT (payment success) / RELEASE (failure) |
-| Optimistic lock without retry | Fails silently under contention | Use `version` column or `FOR UPDATE` for high-contention products |
-
-### Cart & Pricing
-
-| Trap | Consequence | Prevention |
-|------|-------------|------------|
-| No price snapshot | Price changes between add and checkout | Store `price` at add time, revalidate at checkout entry |
-| No guest→user cart merge | Guest loses cart on login | Merge by `sessionId` on login, user cart takes priority for duplicates |
-| No cart expiration | Abandoned carts accumulate forever | TTL-based cleanup (e.g., 7 days) |
-
-## Checkout Flow (Reference)
-
-```
-Cart Validation → Order Creation (PENDING) → Stock Reservation (15min) → Payment
-  ├─ Success → Order PAID, Stock COMMIT, Send Confirmation
-  └─ Failure → Order FAILED, Stock RELEASE
-```
-
-## Done Criteria (K4)
-
-- [ ] Idempotency key on all payment requests
-- [ ] Webhook handler is idempotent (dedup by eventId)
-- [ ] Stock updates are atomic (SQL-level check)
-- [ ] Two-phase reservation implemented with TTL
-- [ ] Prices snapshot at cart add, revalidated at checkout
-- [ ] Payment state machine covers all transitions
+---
+name: commerce-patterns
+description: "E-commerce domain patterns - cart, payment, inventory with transaction safety"
+triggers: [commerce, ecommerce, cart, payment, checkout, inventory, stock, order, pg, toss, stripe]
+priority: 70
+---
+
+# Commerce Patterns
+
+## Pre-check (K1)
+
+> Is this an e-commerce transaction flow? If building simple CRUD without payment/stock management, this skill is not needed.
+
+## Gotchas & Traps
+
+These are the non-obvious failure modes LLMs typically miss:
+
+### Payment
+
+| Trap | Consequence | Prevention |
+|------|-------------|------------|
+| No idempotency key | User double-clicks → charged twice | `idempotencyKey: order_${orderId}_${timestamp}` on every payment request |
+| Webhook not idempotent | Retry delivers duplicate events | Check `eventId` before processing, store processed events |
+| Missing webhook signature verification | Attacker forges payment confirmation | Always verify HMAC signature before processing |
+| No payment state machine | Order stuck in limbo | `PENDING → PROCESSING → AUTHORIZED → CAPTURED → COMPLETED` (+ FAILED, CANCELED, REFUNDED) |
+
+### Inventory
+
+| Trap | Consequence | Prevention |
+|------|-------------|------------|
+| Non-atomic stock decrement | Race condition → negative stock | `UPDATE SET stock = stock - $1 WHERE stock >= $1` (atomic with check) |
+| No reservation TTL | Stock locked forever on abandoned checkout | 15-min reservation + scheduled cleanup job |
+| Commit without reservation | Stock sold twice | Two-phase: RESERVE (checkout start) → COMMIT (payment success) / RELEASE (failure) |
+| Optimistic lock without retry | Fails silently under contention | Use `version` column or `FOR UPDATE` for high-contention products |
+
+### Cart & Pricing
+
+| Trap | Consequence | Prevention |
+|------|-------------|------------|
+| No price snapshot | Price changes between add and checkout | Store `price` at add time, revalidate at checkout entry |
+| No guest→user cart merge | Guest loses cart on login | Merge by `sessionId` on login, user cart takes priority for duplicates |
+| No cart expiration | Abandoned carts accumulate forever | TTL-based cleanup (e.g., 7 days) |
+
+## Checkout Flow (Reference)
+
+```
+Cart Validation → Order Creation (PENDING) → Stock Reservation (15min) → Payment
+  ├─ Success → Order PAID, Stock COMMIT, Send Confirmation
+  └─ Failure → Order FAILED, Stock RELEASE
+```
+
+## Done Criteria (K4)
+
+- [ ] Idempotency key on all payment requests
+- [ ] Webhook handler is idempotent (dedup by eventId)
+- [ ] Stock updates are atomic (SQL-level check)
+- [ ] Two-phase reservation implemented with TTL
+- [ ] Prices snapshot at cart add, revalidated at checkout
+- [ ] Payment state machine covers all transitions