@su-record/vibe 2.8.49 → 2.8.50

package/skills/design-teach/rubrics/brand-personality.md

@@ -1,73 +1,73 @@
-# Brand Personality Assessment Framework
-
-Use this rubric to evaluate whether the current UI implementation reflects the stated brand personality. Score each axis 0–4.
-
----
-
-## Personality Axes
-
-### Axis 1: Formality (Casual ↔ Professional)
-
-| Score | Indicators |
-|-------|------------|
-| **4** | Typography is structured, spacing generous, copy is precise; no playful shapes or informal microcopy |
-| **3** | Mostly formal with 1–2 informal touches (e.g., friendly empty state copy) |
-| **2** | Mixed signals: formal layout but casual copy, or vice versa |
-| **1** | Predominantly informal when brand requires professional tone |
-| **0** | Completely misaligned (e.g., bounce animations and emoji icons on a financial compliance tool) |
-
-### Axis 2: Energy (Calm ↔ Bold)
-
-| Score | Indicators |
-|-------|------------|
-| **4** | Color saturation, animation speed, and typographic weight all consistent with stated energy level |
-| **3** | One outlier element (e.g., a single high-saturation call-to-action in an otherwise calm palette) |
-| **2** | Energy inconsistent across pages or components |
-| **1** | Dominant energy contradicts brand intent |
-| **0** | Extreme mismatch (e.g., muted monochrome palette on an "energetic, vibrant" brand) |
-
-### Axis 3: Warmth (Cold/Technical ↔ Warm/Human)
-
-| Score | Indicators |
-|-------|------------|
-| **4** | Color temperature, illustration style, and copy voice all aligned to warmth target |
-| **3** | Mostly aligned; one section feels tonally off |
-| **2** | Neutral — neither warm nor cold, no clear personality signal |
-| **1** | Opposite of intended (e.g., cool blues throughout a "warm and approachable" consumer product) |
-| **0** | Severely misaligned — creates user trust issues or tonal dissonance |
-
-### Axis 4: Complexity (Minimal ↔ Rich)
-
-| Score | Indicators |
-|-------|------------|
-| **4** | Visual density, number of elements per screen, and information hierarchy match stated style |
-| **3** | Correct overall density with 1–2 overcrowded or overly sparse areas |
-| **2** | Inconsistent density — some screens minimal, others overwhelming |
-| **1** | Density clearly wrong for product type (e.g., a consumer app with an enterprise-dense layout) |
-| **0** | Completely unrelated to brand intent |
-
----
-
-## Reference: Personality → Design Signal Mapping
-
-| Personality Word | Typography | Color | Spacing | Motion |
-|-----------------|------------|-------|---------|--------|
-| Professional | Geometric sans, weight contrast | Desaturated, cool neutrals | Generous, consistent | Subtle, linear ease |
-| Playful | Rounded, variable weight | High saturation, warm | Tight or expressive | Bouncy, spring ease |
-| Minimal | Single typeface, tight scale | Monochromatic or 2-color | Very generous | None or fade only |
-| Bold | High contrast, expressive display | Primary-heavy, high contrast | Dramatic gaps | Fast, snappy |
-| Warm | Humanist typeface | Warm neutrals, amber/terracotta | Comfortable | Gentle, ease-in-out |
-| Technical | Monospace or geometric | Low saturation, functional | Dense, structured | None or immediate |
-
----
-
-## Overall Brand Alignment Score
-
-Average the four axis scores. Thresholds:
-
-| Average | Assessment |
-|---------|------------|
-| 3.5–4.0 | Strong brand alignment — personality comes through clearly |
-| 2.5–3.4 | Adequate — personality visible but inconsistent in places |
-| 1.5–2.4 | Weak — personality signals mixed or absent in key areas |
-| 0–1.4 | Misaligned — redesign brand expression before shipping |
+# Brand Personality Assessment Framework
+
+Use this rubric to evaluate whether the current UI implementation reflects the stated brand personality. Score each axis 0–4.
+
+---
+
+## Personality Axes
+
+### Axis 1: Formality (Casual ↔ Professional)
+
+| Score | Indicators |
+|-------|------------|
+| **4** | Typography is structured, spacing generous, copy is precise; no playful shapes or informal microcopy |
+| **3** | Mostly formal with 1–2 informal touches (e.g., friendly empty state copy) |
+| **2** | Mixed signals: formal layout but casual copy, or vice versa |
+| **1** | Predominantly informal when brand requires professional tone |
+| **0** | Completely misaligned (e.g., bounce animations and emoji icons on a financial compliance tool) |
+
+### Axis 2: Energy (Calm ↔ Bold)
+
+| Score | Indicators |
+|-------|------------|
+| **4** | Color saturation, animation speed, and typographic weight all consistent with stated energy level |
+| **3** | One outlier element (e.g., a single high-saturation call-to-action in an otherwise calm palette) |
+| **2** | Energy inconsistent across pages or components |
+| **1** | Dominant energy contradicts brand intent |
+| **0** | Extreme mismatch (e.g., muted monochrome palette on an "energetic, vibrant" brand) |
+
+### Axis 3: Warmth (Cold/Technical ↔ Warm/Human)
+
+| Score | Indicators |
+|-------|------------|
+| **4** | Color temperature, illustration style, and copy voice all aligned to warmth target |
+| **3** | Mostly aligned; one section feels tonally off |
+| **2** | Neutral — neither warm nor cold, no clear personality signal |
+| **1** | Opposite of intended (e.g., cool blues throughout a "warm and approachable" consumer product) |
+| **0** | Severely misaligned — creates user trust issues or tonal dissonance |
+
+### Axis 4: Complexity (Minimal ↔ Rich)
+
+| Score | Indicators |
+|-------|------------|
+| **4** | Visual density, number of elements per screen, and information hierarchy match stated style |
+| **3** | Correct overall density with 1–2 overcrowded or overly sparse areas |
+| **2** | Inconsistent density — some screens minimal, others overwhelming |
+| **1** | Density clearly wrong for product type (e.g., a consumer app with an enterprise-dense layout) |
+| **0** | Completely unrelated to brand intent |
+
+---
+
+## Reference: Personality → Design Signal Mapping
+
+| Personality Word | Typography | Color | Spacing | Motion |
+|-----------------|------------|-------|---------|--------|
+| Professional | Geometric sans, weight contrast | Desaturated, cool neutrals | Generous, consistent | Subtle, linear ease |
+| Playful | Rounded, variable weight | High saturation, warm | Tight or expressive | Bouncy, spring ease |
+| Minimal | Single typeface, tight scale | Monochromatic or 2-color | Very generous | None or fade only |
+| Bold | High contrast, expressive display | Primary-heavy, high contrast | Dramatic gaps | Fast, snappy |
+| Warm | Humanist typeface | Warm neutrals, amber/terracotta | Comfortable | Gentle, ease-in-out |
+| Technical | Monospace or geometric | Low saturation, functional | Dense, structured | None or immediate |
+
+---
+
+## Overall Brand Alignment Score
+
+Average the four axis scores. Thresholds:
+
+| Average | Assessment |
+|---------|------------|
+| 3.5–4.0 | Strong brand alignment — personality comes through clearly |
+| 2.5–3.4 | Adequate — personality visible but inconsistent in places |
+| 1.5–2.4 | Weak — personality signals mixed or absent in key areas |
+| 0–1.4 | Misaligned — redesign brand expression before shipping |

package/skills/design-teach/templates/design-context.json

@@ -1,36 +1,36 @@
-{
-  "$schema": "design-context-v1",
-  "createdAt": "{{ISO_DATE}}",
-  "updatedAt": "{{ISO_DATE}}",
-  "audience": {
-    "primary": "B2B SaaS — product managers and engineers at mid-size tech companies",
-    "context": "desktop",
-    "expertise": "intermediate"
-  },
-  "brand": {
-    "personality": ["professional", "clean", "trustworthy", "efficient"],
-    "tone": "professional",
-    "existingAssets": ".claude/vibe/brand/brand-guide.pdf"
-  },
-  "aesthetic": {
-    "style": "minimal",
-    "colorMood": "cool",
-    "typographyMood": "modern",
-    "references": [
-      "https://linear.app",
-      "https://vercel.com"
-    ]
-  },
-  "constraints": {
-    "accessibility": "AA",
-    "performance": "core-web-vitals",
-    "browsers": ["chrome", "safari", "firefox", "edge"],
-    "devices": ["desktop", "tablet"]
-  },
-  "detectedStack": {
-    "framework": "Next.js 15",
-    "componentLibrary": "shadcn/ui",
-    "styling": "Tailwind CSS",
-    "fonts": ["Inter"]
-  }
-}
+{
+  "$schema": "design-context-v1",
+  "createdAt": "{{ISO_DATE}}",
+  "updatedAt": "{{ISO_DATE}}",
+  "audience": {
+    "primary": "B2B SaaS — product managers and engineers at mid-size tech companies",
+    "context": "desktop",
+    "expertise": "intermediate"
+  },
+  "brand": {
+    "personality": ["professional", "clean", "trustworthy", "efficient"],
+    "tone": "professional",
+    "existingAssets": ".claude/vibe/brand/brand-guide.pdf"
+  },
+  "aesthetic": {
+    "style": "minimal",
+    "colorMood": "cool",
+    "typographyMood": "modern",
+    "references": [
+      "https://linear.app",
+      "https://vercel.com"
+    ]
+  },
+  "constraints": {
+    "accessibility": "AA",
+    "performance": "core-web-vitals",
+    "browsers": ["chrome", "safari", "firefox", "edge"],
+    "devices": ["desktop", "tablet"]
+  },
+  "detectedStack": {
+    "framework": "Next.js 15",
+    "componentLibrary": "shadcn/ui",
+    "styling": "Tailwind CSS",
+    "fonts": ["Inter"]
+  }
+}

package/skills/e2e-commerce/SKILL.md

@@ -1,62 +1,62 @@
----
-name: e2e-commerce
-tier: core
-description: "E2E test scenarios for commerce checkout and payment flows. Provides ready-made Playwright test templates for cart→checkout→payment→confirmation flows, including PG sandbox testing (Toss/Stripe), error scenarios (payment failure, timeout, stock exhaustion), and idempotency verification. Use when writing E2E tests for any e-commerce feature — checkout, payment, order status, or refund flows."
-triggers: [e2e commerce, checkout test, payment test, order flow test]
-priority: 65
----
-
-# E2E Commerce Test Scenarios
-
-## Pre-check (K1)
-
-> Are you testing a checkout/payment/order flow? If testing simple CRUD or non-transactional features, standard E2E patterns suffice — this skill is not needed.
-
-## Must-Test Scenarios
-
-### P0 — Blocks Deployment
-
-| Scenario | What to Verify | Gotcha |
-|----------|---------------|--------|
-| **Happy path checkout** | Cart → Shipping → Payment → Order confirmation | Verify order status text, not just URL change |
-| **Payment failure** | Error message shown, stock released | Check stock is RELEASED after failure, not just error displayed |
-| **Duplicate payment** | Only 1 order created on double-click | `Promise.all([click(), click()])` then verify order count via API |
-| **Out of stock** | Blocks checkout with clear message | Simulate stock depletion mid-checkout via test API |
-
-### P1 — Should Pass
-
-| Scenario | What to Verify | Gotcha |
-|----------|---------------|--------|
-| **Coupon calculation** | Discount amount and total correct | Test percentage AND fixed amount coupons separately |
-| **Webhook resilience** | Order completes even with delayed webhook | Configure 5s delay, verify processing→complete transition |
-| **Cart merge on login** | Guest cart merged into user cart | User cart takes priority for duplicate items |
-| **Partial refund** | Refunded amount correct, order updated | Verify remaining amount, not just refund event |
-
-### P2 — Nice to Have
-
-| Scenario | What to Verify |
-|----------|---------------|
-| Multiple payment methods | Each method completes checkout |
-| Guest checkout | Full flow without login |
-| Order cancellation | Refund triggered, stock restored |
-
-## Test Environment Gotchas
-
-| Gotcha | Fix |
-|--------|-----|
-| Using real PG sandbox in CI | Use MSW (`setupServer`) for mock PG responses |
-| Flaky tests from timing | Use `waitForSelector`/`waitForURL`, never `sleep` |
-| Test data leaks between tests | Seed in `beforeAll`, clean in `afterAll` |
-| Hardcoded test card numbers | Document: `4000000000000002` = decline |
-
-## Related
-
-See `commerce-patterns` skill for implementation gotchas (idempotency, atomic stock, payment state machine) that these tests verify.
-
-## Done Criteria (K4)
-
-- [ ] All P0 scenarios pass in CI
-- [ ] P1 scenarios written and tracked
-- [ ] Test data seeded/cleaned per suite
-- [ ] No flaky tests (no arbitrary waits)
-- [ ] Mock PG server configured for CI
+---
+name: e2e-commerce
+tier: core
+description: "E2E test scenarios for commerce checkout and payment flows. Provides ready-made Playwright test templates for cart→checkout→payment→confirmation flows, including PG sandbox testing (Toss/Stripe), error scenarios (payment failure, timeout, stock exhaustion), and idempotency verification. Use when writing E2E tests for any e-commerce feature — checkout, payment, order status, or refund flows."
+triggers: [e2e commerce, checkout test, payment test, order flow test]
+priority: 65
+---
+
+# E2E Commerce Test Scenarios
+
+## Pre-check (K1)
+
+> Are you testing a checkout/payment/order flow? If testing simple CRUD or non-transactional features, standard E2E patterns suffice — this skill is not needed.
+
+## Must-Test Scenarios
+
+### P0 — Blocks Deployment
+
+| Scenario | What to Verify | Gotcha |
+|----------|---------------|--------|
+| **Happy path checkout** | Cart → Shipping → Payment → Order confirmation | Verify order status text, not just URL change |
+| **Payment failure** | Error message shown, stock released | Check stock is RELEASED after failure, not just error displayed |
+| **Duplicate payment** | Only 1 order created on double-click | `Promise.all([click(), click()])` then verify order count via API |
+| **Out of stock** | Blocks checkout with clear message | Simulate stock depletion mid-checkout via test API |
+
+### P1 — Should Pass
+
+| Scenario | What to Verify | Gotcha |
+|----------|---------------|--------|
+| **Coupon calculation** | Discount amount and total correct | Test percentage AND fixed amount coupons separately |
+| **Webhook resilience** | Order completes even with delayed webhook | Configure 5s delay, verify processing→complete transition |
+| **Cart merge on login** | Guest cart merged into user cart | User cart takes priority for duplicate items |
+| **Partial refund** | Refunded amount correct, order updated | Verify remaining amount, not just refund event |
+
+### P2 — Nice to Have
+
+| Scenario | What to Verify |
+|----------|---------------|
+| Multiple payment methods | Each method completes checkout |
+| Guest checkout | Full flow without login |
+| Order cancellation | Refund triggered, stock restored |
+
+## Test Environment Gotchas
+
+| Gotcha | Fix |
+|--------|-----|
+| Using real PG sandbox in CI | Use MSW (`setupServer`) for mock PG responses |
+| Flaky tests from timing | Use `waitForSelector`/`waitForURL`, never `sleep` |
+| Test data leaks between tests | Seed in `beforeAll`, clean in `afterAll` |
+| Hardcoded test card numbers | Document: `4000000000000002` = decline |
+
+## Related
+
+See `commerce-patterns` skill for implementation gotchas (idempotency, atomic stock, payment state machine) that these tests verify.
+
+## Done Criteria (K4)
+
+- [ ] All P0 scenarios pass in CI
+- [ ] P1 scenarios written and tracked
+- [ ] Test data seeded/cleaned per suite
+- [ ] No flaky tests (no arbitrary waits)
+- [ ] Mock PG server configured for CI