@sylphx/flow 2.29.3 → 3.0.0
This diff represents the content of publicly available package versions that have been released to one of the supported registries. The information contained in this diff is provided for informational purposes only and reflects changes between package versions as they appear in their respective public registries.
- package/CHANGELOG.md +30 -0
- package/assets/agents/builder.md +73 -1
- package/assets/slash-commands/issues.md +46 -0
- package/assets/slash-commands/refactor.md +60 -0
- package/package.json +1 -1
- package/src/config/servers.ts +1 -1
- package/assets/agents/coder.md +0 -128
- package/assets/agents/reviewer.md +0 -123
- package/assets/agents/writer.md +0 -120
- package/assets/skills/abuse-prevention/SKILL.md +0 -33
- package/assets/skills/account-security/SKILL.md +0 -35
- package/assets/skills/admin/SKILL.md +0 -37
- package/assets/skills/appsec/SKILL.md +0 -35
- package/assets/skills/auth/SKILL.md +0 -34
- package/assets/skills/billing/SKILL.md +0 -35
- package/assets/skills/code-quality/SKILL.md +0 -34
- package/assets/skills/competitive-analysis/SKILL.md +0 -29
- package/assets/skills/data-modeling/SKILL.md +0 -34
- package/assets/skills/database/SKILL.md +0 -34
- package/assets/skills/delivery/SKILL.md +0 -36
- package/assets/skills/deployments/SKILL.md +0 -33
- package/assets/skills/growth/SKILL.md +0 -31
- package/assets/skills/i18n/SKILL.md +0 -35
- package/assets/skills/ledger/SKILL.md +0 -32
- package/assets/skills/observability/SKILL.md +0 -32
- package/assets/skills/performance/SKILL.md +0 -33
- package/assets/skills/pricing/SKILL.md +0 -32
- package/assets/skills/privacy/SKILL.md +0 -36
- package/assets/skills/pwa/SKILL.md +0 -36
- package/assets/skills/referral/SKILL.md +0 -30
- package/assets/skills/seo/SKILL.md +0 -40
- package/assets/skills/storage/SKILL.md +0 -33
- package/assets/skills/support/SKILL.md +0 -31
- package/assets/skills/uiux/SKILL.md +0 -40
- package/assets/slash-commands/cleanup.md +0 -59
- package/assets/slash-commands/continue.md +0 -94
- package/assets/slash-commands/continue2.md +0 -61
- package/assets/slash-commands/improve.md +0 -153
- package/assets/slash-commands/init.md +0 -34
- package/assets/slash-commands/polish.md +0 -87
- package/assets/slash-commands/quality.md +0 -181
- package/assets/slash-commands/release.md +0 -103
- package/assets/slash-commands/review.md +0 -44
|
@@ -1,40 +0,0 @@
|
|
|
1
|
-
---
|
|
2
|
-
name: seo
|
|
3
|
-
description: SEO - meta tags, structured data. Use when optimizing for search.
|
|
4
|
-
---
|
|
5
|
-
|
|
6
|
-
# SEO Guideline
|
|
7
|
-
|
|
8
|
-
## Tech Stack
|
|
9
|
-
|
|
10
|
-
* **Framework**: Next.js (with Turbopack, SSR-first)
|
|
11
|
-
|
|
12
|
-
## Non-Negotiables
|
|
13
|
-
|
|
14
|
-
* Every page must have complete metadata (title, description, canonical, OG, Twitter Cards)
|
|
15
|
-
* Canonical URLs must be correct (no duplicate content)
|
|
16
|
-
* Complete favicon set (ico, svg, apple-touch-icon, PWA icons)
|
|
17
|
-
* Structured data (JSON-LD) for rich results where applicable
|
|
18
|
-
* Security headers configured (CSP, HSTS, X-Frame-Options, X-Content-Type-Options)
|
|
19
|
-
|
|
20
|
-
## Required Files
|
|
21
|
-
|
|
22
|
-
* `robots.txt` — search engine crawling rules
|
|
23
|
-
* `sitemap.xml` — page discovery for search engines
|
|
24
|
-
* `llms.txt` — LLM/AI crawler guidance
|
|
25
|
-
* `security.txt` — security vulnerability reporting (at `/.well-known/security.txt`)
|
|
26
|
-
* `ads.txt` — if ads exist
|
|
27
|
-
* `app-ads.txt` — if mobile ads exist
|
|
28
|
-
|
|
29
|
-
## Context
|
|
30
|
-
|
|
31
|
-
SEO is about being found when people are looking for what you offer. Good SEO isn't tricks — it's making content genuinely useful and technically accessible to search engines and AI crawlers.
|
|
32
|
-
|
|
33
|
-
## Driving Questions
|
|
34
|
-
|
|
35
|
-
* Is every page's head complete with all required meta tags?
|
|
36
|
-
* Are Open Graph and Twitter Cards generating correct previews?
|
|
37
|
-
* Is structured data present and validated?
|
|
38
|
-
* Do all required files exist and pass validation?
|
|
39
|
-
* Is the site accessible to both search engines and LLM crawlers?
|
|
40
|
-
* Are security headers properly configured?
|
|
@@ -1,33 +0,0 @@
|
|
|
1
|
-
---
|
|
2
|
-
name: storage
|
|
3
|
-
description: File storage - uploads, CDN, blobs. Use when handling files.
|
|
4
|
-
---
|
|
5
|
-
|
|
6
|
-
# Storage Guideline
|
|
7
|
-
|
|
8
|
-
## Tech Stack
|
|
9
|
-
|
|
10
|
-
* **Storage**: Vercel Blob
|
|
11
|
-
* **Framework**: Next.js (with Turbopack)
|
|
12
|
-
* **Platform**: Vercel
|
|
13
|
-
|
|
14
|
-
## Non-Negotiables
|
|
15
|
-
|
|
16
|
-
* All file uploads must be validated (type, size, content)
|
|
17
|
-
* Signed URLs for private content access
|
|
18
|
-
* No user-uploaded content served from main domain (XSS prevention)
|
|
19
|
-
* File deletion must cascade with parent entity deletion
|
|
20
|
-
|
|
21
|
-
## Context
|
|
22
|
-
|
|
23
|
-
File storage is deceptively complex. Users expect uploads to just work, but there are many ways for it to fail — large files, slow connections, wrong formats, malicious content.
|
|
24
|
-
|
|
25
|
-
Vercel Blob is the SSOT for file storage. No custom implementations.
|
|
26
|
-
|
|
27
|
-
## Driving Questions
|
|
28
|
-
|
|
29
|
-
* What happens when an upload fails halfway?
|
|
30
|
-
* How are large files handled without blocking?
|
|
31
|
-
* What file types are allowed and how is it enforced?
|
|
32
|
-
* How long are files retained after entity deletion?
|
|
33
|
-
* What's the storage cost and is it sustainable?
|
|
@@ -1,31 +0,0 @@
|
|
|
1
|
-
---
|
|
2
|
-
name: support
|
|
3
|
-
description: Support - help center, tickets, docs. Use when building support.
|
|
4
|
-
---
|
|
5
|
-
|
|
6
|
-
# Support Guideline
|
|
7
|
-
|
|
8
|
-
## Tech Stack
|
|
9
|
-
|
|
10
|
-
* **Framework**: Next.js (with Turbopack)
|
|
11
|
-
* **Email**: Resend
|
|
12
|
-
|
|
13
|
-
## Non-Negotiables
|
|
14
|
-
|
|
15
|
-
* Self-service must be prioritized over contact forms
|
|
16
|
-
* Support context must include user state (plan, usage, recent actions)
|
|
17
|
-
* Response time expectations must be set and met
|
|
18
|
-
|
|
19
|
-
## Context
|
|
20
|
-
|
|
21
|
-
Support is where trust is won or lost. Users who need help are often frustrated — the support experience either deepens their trust or confirms their fears.
|
|
22
|
-
|
|
23
|
-
Great support isn't just fast responses — it's making users not need support in the first place. Every support ticket is a signal that something in the product could be clearer.
|
|
24
|
-
|
|
25
|
-
## Driving Questions
|
|
26
|
-
|
|
27
|
-
* What are the most common support requests and can they be self-served?
|
|
28
|
-
* What context does support need that they don't have?
|
|
29
|
-
* Where does the product create confusion that leads to support tickets?
|
|
30
|
-
* How would we handle a surge in support volume?
|
|
31
|
-
* What would make users feel supported before they ask for help?
|
|
@@ -1,40 +0,0 @@
|
|
|
1
|
-
---
|
|
2
|
-
name: uiux
|
|
3
|
-
description: UI/UX - design system, accessibility. Use when building interfaces.
|
|
4
|
-
---
|
|
5
|
-
|
|
6
|
-
# UI/UX Guideline
|
|
7
|
-
|
|
8
|
-
## Tech Stack
|
|
9
|
-
|
|
10
|
-
* **Framework**: Next.js (with Turbopack)
|
|
11
|
-
* **Components**: Radix UI (mandatory)
|
|
12
|
-
* **Styling**: Tailwind CSS
|
|
13
|
-
* **Icons**: @iconify-icon/react
|
|
14
|
-
|
|
15
|
-
## Radix UI (Mandatory)
|
|
16
|
-
|
|
17
|
-
If Radix has a primitive for it, you MUST use it. No exceptions. No custom implementations.
|
|
18
|
-
Any custom implementation of something Radix already provides is a bug.
|
|
19
|
-
|
|
20
|
-
## Non-Negotiables
|
|
21
|
-
|
|
22
|
-
* WCAG 2.1 AA compliance (keyboard navigation, screen readers, contrast)
|
|
23
|
-
* Touch targets minimum 44x44px on mobile
|
|
24
|
-
* Responsive design (mobile-first)
|
|
25
|
-
* Loading states for all async operations
|
|
26
|
-
* Error states must be actionable
|
|
27
|
-
* No layout shift on content load
|
|
28
|
-
|
|
29
|
-
## Context
|
|
30
|
-
|
|
31
|
-
UI/UX is about removing friction between users and value. Bad UX doesn't just feel bad — it costs conversion, retention, and trust.
|
|
32
|
-
|
|
33
|
-
## Driving Questions
|
|
34
|
-
|
|
35
|
-
* Where do users get confused or frustrated?
|
|
36
|
-
* What would a first-time user struggle with?
|
|
37
|
-
* Where are loading states missing or unhelpful?
|
|
38
|
-
* What accessibility issues exist?
|
|
39
|
-
* Where does the UI feel inconsistent?
|
|
40
|
-
* What would make the product feel more polished?
|
|
@@ -1,59 +0,0 @@
|
|
|
1
|
-
---
|
|
2
|
-
name: cleanup
|
|
3
|
-
description: Clean technical debt, refactor, optimize, and simplify codebase
|
|
4
|
-
---
|
|
5
|
-
|
|
6
|
-
# Cleanup & Refactor
|
|
7
|
-
|
|
8
|
-
Scan codebase for technical debt and code smells. Clean, refactor, optimize.
|
|
9
|
-
|
|
10
|
-
## Scope
|
|
11
|
-
|
|
12
|
-
**Code Smells:**
|
|
13
|
-
- Functions >20 lines → extract
|
|
14
|
-
- Duplication (3+ occurrences) → DRY
|
|
15
|
-
- Complexity (>3 nesting levels) → flatten
|
|
16
|
-
- Unused code/imports/variables → remove
|
|
17
|
-
- Commented code → delete
|
|
18
|
-
- Magic numbers → named constants
|
|
19
|
-
- Poor naming → clarify
|
|
20
|
-
|
|
21
|
-
**Technical Debt:**
|
|
22
|
-
- TODOs/FIXMEs → implement or delete
|
|
23
|
-
- Deprecated APIs → upgrade
|
|
24
|
-
- Outdated patterns → modernize
|
|
25
|
-
- Performance bottlenecks → optimize
|
|
26
|
-
- Memory leaks → fix
|
|
27
|
-
- Lint warnings → resolve
|
|
28
|
-
|
|
29
|
-
**Optimization:**
|
|
30
|
-
- Algorithm complexity → reduce
|
|
31
|
-
- N+1 queries → batch
|
|
32
|
-
- Unnecessary re-renders → memoize
|
|
33
|
-
- Large bundles → code split
|
|
34
|
-
- Unused dependencies → remove
|
|
35
|
-
|
|
36
|
-
## Execution
|
|
37
|
-
|
|
38
|
-
1. **Scan** entire codebase systematically
|
|
39
|
-
2. **Prioritize** by impact (critical → major → minor)
|
|
40
|
-
3. **Clean** incrementally with atomic commits
|
|
41
|
-
4. **Test** after every change
|
|
42
|
-
5. **Report** what was cleaned and impact
|
|
43
|
-
|
|
44
|
-
## Commit Strategy
|
|
45
|
-
|
|
46
|
-
One commit per logical cleanup:
|
|
47
|
-
- `refactor(auth): extract validateToken function`
|
|
48
|
-
- `perf(db): batch user queries to fix N+1`
|
|
49
|
-
- `chore: remove unused imports and commented code`
|
|
50
|
-
|
|
51
|
-
## Exit Criteria
|
|
52
|
-
|
|
53
|
-
- [ ] No code smells remain
|
|
54
|
-
- [ ] All tests pass
|
|
55
|
-
- [ ] Lint clean
|
|
56
|
-
- [ ] Performance improved (measure before/after)
|
|
57
|
-
- [ ] Technical debt reduced measurably
|
|
58
|
-
|
|
59
|
-
Report: Lines removed, complexity reduced, performance gains.
|
|
@@ -1,94 +0,0 @@
|
|
|
1
|
-
---
|
|
2
|
-
name: continue
|
|
3
|
-
description: Trigger autonomous product iteration - think, improve, ship
|
|
4
|
-
---
|
|
5
|
-
|
|
6
|
-
# Continue
|
|
7
|
-
|
|
8
|
-
Continuously commit.
|
|
9
|
-
|
|
10
|
-
The entire system — not limited to data — must strictly obey a Single Source of Truth (SSOT) principle.
|
|
11
|
-
Every state, behavior, flow, permission, architecture decision, UI behavior, and side effect
|
|
12
|
-
must have exactly one authoritative source, one interpretation, and one correct path.
|
|
13
|
-
|
|
14
|
-
The system must be fully reason-able end to end.
|
|
15
|
-
There must be no implicit behavior, hidden assumptions, magic defaults, or silent fallbacks.
|
|
16
|
-
|
|
17
|
-
Continuously and repeatedly review, validate, and correct the entire system:
|
|
18
|
-
- Membership and identity correctness and completeness
|
|
19
|
-
- Consistency across state, permissions, flows, and lifecycle
|
|
20
|
-
- Architectural boundaries, modularity, and separation of responsibilities
|
|
21
|
-
- UI behavior matching system intent, state, and permissions
|
|
22
|
-
- Alignment with modern industry standards and best practices
|
|
23
|
-
|
|
24
|
-
No workarounds.
|
|
25
|
-
No hacks.
|
|
26
|
-
No temporary solutions.
|
|
27
|
-
No backward compatibility.
|
|
28
|
-
No deprecated logic.
|
|
29
|
-
No TODOs.
|
|
30
|
-
No dead code.
|
|
31
|
-
No unused code.
|
|
32
|
-
No incorrect or misleading code.
|
|
33
|
-
|
|
34
|
-
Every feature must be built intent-first:
|
|
35
|
-
- The correct model must exist before implementation
|
|
36
|
-
- No duplicated concepts, parallel truths, or shadow logic
|
|
37
|
-
- Any feature must be removable or refactorable without destabilizing the system
|
|
38
|
-
|
|
39
|
-
Continuously perform:
|
|
40
|
-
- Deduplication
|
|
41
|
-
- Refactoring
|
|
42
|
-
- Polishing
|
|
43
|
-
- Modularity enforcement
|
|
44
|
-
- Responsibility separation
|
|
45
|
-
- Architectural correction
|
|
46
|
-
|
|
47
|
-
The system must remain:
|
|
48
|
-
- Stateless
|
|
49
|
-
- Serverless-friendly
|
|
50
|
-
- Scalable
|
|
51
|
-
- Reasonable
|
|
52
|
-
- Testable
|
|
53
|
-
- Observable
|
|
54
|
-
|
|
55
|
-
## Radix UI (Mandatory)
|
|
56
|
-
|
|
57
|
-
If Radix has a primitive for it, you MUST use it. No exceptions. No custom implementations.
|
|
58
|
-
Any custom implementation of something Radix already provides is a bug.
|
|
59
|
-
|
|
60
|
-
## Bootstrap
|
|
61
|
-
|
|
62
|
-
Admin bootstrap via INITIAL_SUPERADMIN_EMAIL only. One-time, non-reentrant, non-bypassable.
|
|
63
|
-
|
|
64
|
-
## Platform-Led Integrations
|
|
65
|
-
|
|
66
|
-
Platform is source of truth. Third-party services sync FROM platform, never reverse.
|
|
67
|
-
All configuration in code. No manual third-party dashboard configuration.
|
|
68
|
-
Platform can switch providers without architectural change.
|
|
69
|
-
|
|
70
|
-
## Re-authentication
|
|
71
|
-
|
|
72
|
-
Sensitive actions require step-up re-authentication (password or email OTP).
|
|
73
|
-
Verified session state must be scoped, time-bound, never implicitly reused.
|
|
74
|
-
|
|
75
|
-
## Technologies
|
|
76
|
-
|
|
77
|
-
tRPC, Next.js (with Turbopack), Radix UI, next-intl, Drizzle,
|
|
78
|
-
Better Auth, Stripe, Upstash, Neon, Vercel,
|
|
79
|
-
Resend (email), Vercel Blob (storage),
|
|
80
|
-
AI SDK with OpenRouter provider,
|
|
81
|
-
Tailwind CSS (styling), @iconify-icon/react (icons),
|
|
82
|
-
Bun, Biome, Bun test,
|
|
83
|
-
Responsive Web Design.
|
|
84
|
-
|
|
85
|
-
---
|
|
86
|
-
|
|
87
|
-
Any ambiguity, inconsistency, incompleteness, or undefined behavior
|
|
88
|
-
must be treated as a bug, not a feature.
|
|
89
|
-
|
|
90
|
-
The system must withstand repeated review, rejection, refactor, and redesign,
|
|
91
|
-
and after every correction,
|
|
92
|
-
become simpler, more consistent, and closer to the correct model.
|
|
93
|
-
|
|
94
|
-
Ultrathink.
|
|
@@ -1,61 +0,0 @@
|
|
|
1
|
-
---
|
|
2
|
-
name: continue2
|
|
3
|
-
description: Iterative codebase review - apply each skill guideline to audit and fix the project
|
|
4
|
-
---
|
|
5
|
-
|
|
6
|
-
# Continue2: Guideline-Driven Codebase Review
|
|
7
|
-
|
|
8
|
-
Use skill guidelines to audit and improve the project codebase.
|
|
9
|
-
|
|
10
|
-
**Important**: You are reviewing the PROJECT CODE against the guidelines, NOT reviewing the guidelines themselves.
|
|
11
|
-
|
|
12
|
-
## Process
|
|
13
|
-
|
|
14
|
-
### Phase 1: Sequential Audit
|
|
15
|
-
|
|
16
|
-
For each skill guideline:
|
|
17
|
-
|
|
18
|
-
1. Use the Skill tool to load the guideline (e.g., `skill: "auth"`)
|
|
19
|
-
2. Audit the project codebase against that guideline's non-negotiables
|
|
20
|
-
3. Fix any violations found in the project code
|
|
21
|
-
4. Move to next skill
|
|
22
|
-
|
|
23
|
-
Skills to audit against (25 total):
|
|
24
|
-
- auth, account-security, admin, appsec
|
|
25
|
-
- billing, pricing, ledger
|
|
26
|
-
- database, data-modeling
|
|
27
|
-
- delivery, deployments, observability
|
|
28
|
-
- privacy, seo, performance, pwa
|
|
29
|
-
- uiux, i18n, growth
|
|
30
|
-
- storage, support, referral
|
|
31
|
-
- abuse-prevention, competitive-analysis, code-quality
|
|
32
|
-
|
|
33
|
-
### Phase 2: Delegate Full Audit
|
|
34
|
-
|
|
35
|
-
After Phase 1, delegate a comprehensive review to a worker agent:
|
|
36
|
-
|
|
37
|
-
```
|
|
38
|
-
Task: Audit the project codebase against all 25 skill guidelines.
|
|
39
|
-
|
|
40
|
-
For each skill:
|
|
41
|
-
1. Load the guideline using Skill tool (e.g., skill: "auth")
|
|
42
|
-
2. Check if the project code complies with the non-negotiables
|
|
43
|
-
3. Report any violations found
|
|
44
|
-
|
|
45
|
-
Return: List of specific violations in the codebase, or "No violations found."
|
|
46
|
-
```
|
|
47
|
-
|
|
48
|
-
### Phase 3: Fix and Repeat
|
|
49
|
-
|
|
50
|
-
If reviewer found violations:
|
|
51
|
-
1. Fix all violations in the project code
|
|
52
|
-
2. Return to Phase 2
|
|
53
|
-
|
|
54
|
-
If no violations found:
|
|
55
|
-
- Done. Commit and release.
|
|
56
|
-
|
|
57
|
-
## Exit Condition
|
|
58
|
-
|
|
59
|
-
The loop terminates when:
|
|
60
|
-
- A reviewer agent returns "No violations found"
|
|
61
|
-
- The project codebase fully complies with all skill guidelines
|
|
@@ -1,153 +0,0 @@
|
|
|
1
|
-
---
|
|
2
|
-
name: improve
|
|
3
|
-
description: Proactively discover and implement improvements
|
|
4
|
-
---
|
|
5
|
-
|
|
6
|
-
# Proactive Improvement
|
|
7
|
-
|
|
8
|
-
Analyze project comprehensively. Discover improvement opportunities. Prioritize and execute.
|
|
9
|
-
|
|
10
|
-
## Discovery Areas
|
|
11
|
-
|
|
12
|
-
**Code Quality:**
|
|
13
|
-
- Code complexity hotspots
|
|
14
|
-
- Duplication patterns
|
|
15
|
-
- Test coverage gaps
|
|
16
|
-
- Error handling weaknesses
|
|
17
|
-
- Type safety improvements
|
|
18
|
-
- Naming inconsistencies
|
|
19
|
-
|
|
20
|
-
**Architecture:**
|
|
21
|
-
- Tight coupling
|
|
22
|
-
- Missing abstractions
|
|
23
|
-
- Scalability bottlenecks
|
|
24
|
-
- State management issues
|
|
25
|
-
- API design improvements
|
|
26
|
-
- Module organization
|
|
27
|
-
|
|
28
|
-
**Performance:**
|
|
29
|
-
- Slow algorithms (profiling data)
|
|
30
|
-
- Database query inefficiencies
|
|
31
|
-
- Bundle size optimization
|
|
32
|
-
- Memory usage patterns
|
|
33
|
-
- Network request optimization
|
|
34
|
-
- Caching opportunities
|
|
35
|
-
|
|
36
|
-
**Security:**
|
|
37
|
-
- Vulnerability scan (dependencies)
|
|
38
|
-
- Input validation gaps
|
|
39
|
-
- Authentication/authorization weaknesses
|
|
40
|
-
- Sensitive data exposure
|
|
41
|
-
- OWASP top 10 check
|
|
42
|
-
- Security best practices
|
|
43
|
-
|
|
44
|
-
**Developer Experience:**
|
|
45
|
-
- Development setup complexity
|
|
46
|
-
- Build time optimization
|
|
47
|
-
- Testing speed
|
|
48
|
-
- Debugging capabilities
|
|
49
|
-
- Error messages clarity
|
|
50
|
-
- Documentation gaps
|
|
51
|
-
|
|
52
|
-
**Maintenance:**
|
|
53
|
-
- Outdated dependencies
|
|
54
|
-
- Deprecated API usage
|
|
55
|
-
- Missing tests
|
|
56
|
-
- Incomplete documentation
|
|
57
|
-
- Configuration complexity
|
|
58
|
-
- Technical debt accumulation
|
|
59
|
-
|
|
60
|
-
**Features:**
|
|
61
|
-
- Missing functionality (user feedback)
|
|
62
|
-
- Integration opportunities
|
|
63
|
-
- Automation potential
|
|
64
|
-
- Monitoring/observability
|
|
65
|
-
- Error recovery
|
|
66
|
-
- User experience improvements
|
|
67
|
-
|
|
68
|
-
## Analysis Process
|
|
69
|
-
|
|
70
|
-
1. **Scan** codebase comprehensively
|
|
71
|
-
2. **Profile** performance bottlenecks
|
|
72
|
-
3. **Check** security vulnerabilities
|
|
73
|
-
4. **Review** dependencies for updates
|
|
74
|
-
5. **Analyze** test coverage
|
|
75
|
-
6. **Assess** documentation completeness
|
|
76
|
-
7. **Evaluate** architectural patterns
|
|
77
|
-
8. **Identify** missing features
|
|
78
|
-
|
|
79
|
-
## Prioritization Matrix
|
|
80
|
-
|
|
81
|
-
**Impact vs Effort:**
|
|
82
|
-
- **High Impact + Low Effort** → Do first
|
|
83
|
-
- **High Impact + High Effort** → Plan carefully
|
|
84
|
-
- **Low Impact + Low Effort** → Quick wins
|
|
85
|
-
- **Low Impact + High Effort** → Skip or defer
|
|
86
|
-
|
|
87
|
-
**Categories:**
|
|
88
|
-
- **Critical:** Security, data loss, crashes
|
|
89
|
-
- **High:** Performance degradation, poor UX
|
|
90
|
-
- **Medium:** Code quality, maintainability
|
|
91
|
-
- **Low:** Nice-to-haves, polish
|
|
92
|
-
|
|
93
|
-
## Execution Plan
|
|
94
|
-
|
|
95
|
-
For each improvement:
|
|
96
|
-
1. **Describe** what and why
|
|
97
|
-
2. **Estimate** effort (small/medium/large)
|
|
98
|
-
3. **Assess** impact (low/medium/high)
|
|
99
|
-
4. **Prioritize** using matrix
|
|
100
|
-
5. **Create** implementation plan
|
|
101
|
-
|
|
102
|
-
Then execute top priorities:
|
|
103
|
-
- Start with high-impact, low-effort
|
|
104
|
-
- Make atomic commits
|
|
105
|
-
- Test thoroughly
|
|
106
|
-
- Document changes
|
|
107
|
-
|
|
108
|
-
## Output Format
|
|
109
|
-
|
|
110
|
-
```markdown
|
|
111
|
-
## Improvement Opportunities
|
|
112
|
-
|
|
113
|
-
### Critical (Do Now)
|
|
114
|
-
1. [Security] Update vulnerable dependency X (CVE-XXXX)
|
|
115
|
-
- Impact: High (prevents exploit)
|
|
116
|
-
- Effort: Low (5 min)
|
|
117
|
-
- Action: `npm update X`
|
|
118
|
-
|
|
119
|
-
### High Priority
|
|
120
|
-
1. [Performance] Optimize user query (N+1 problem)
|
|
121
|
-
- Impact: High (10x speedup)
|
|
122
|
-
- Effort: Medium (2 hrs)
|
|
123
|
-
- Action: Batch queries with JOIN
|
|
124
|
-
|
|
125
|
-
### Quick Wins
|
|
126
|
-
1. [DX] Add pre-commit hooks
|
|
127
|
-
- Impact: Medium (catch errors early)
|
|
128
|
-
- Effort: Low (30 min)
|
|
129
|
-
- Action: Setup husky + lint-staged
|
|
130
|
-
|
|
131
|
-
### Planned Improvements
|
|
132
|
-
1. [Feature] Add caching layer
|
|
133
|
-
- Impact: High (reduce server load)
|
|
134
|
-
- Effort: High (1 week)
|
|
135
|
-
- Action: Design cache strategy, implement Redis
|
|
136
|
-
|
|
137
|
-
## Execution Plan
|
|
138
|
-
1. Fix security vulnerability (now)
|
|
139
|
-
2. Optimize query performance (today)
|
|
140
|
-
3. Add pre-commit hooks (today)
|
|
141
|
-
4. Plan caching implementation (next sprint)
|
|
142
|
-
```
|
|
143
|
-
|
|
144
|
-
## Exit Criteria
|
|
145
|
-
|
|
146
|
-
- [ ] Comprehensive analysis completed
|
|
147
|
-
- [ ] Opportunities prioritized
|
|
148
|
-
- [ ] High-priority improvements implemented
|
|
149
|
-
- [ ] Tests pass
|
|
150
|
-
- [ ] Impact measured
|
|
151
|
-
- [ ] Documentation updated
|
|
152
|
-
|
|
153
|
-
Report: Improvements discovered, implemented, impact metrics.
|
|
@@ -1,34 +0,0 @@
|
|
|
1
|
-
---
|
|
2
|
-
name: init
|
|
3
|
-
description: Initialize project docs - create PRODUCT.md and ARCHITECTURE.md
|
|
4
|
-
---
|
|
5
|
-
|
|
6
|
-
# Init Project Docs
|
|
7
|
-
|
|
8
|
-
Create project documentation if missing:
|
|
9
|
-
|
|
10
|
-
1. **Check** if `PRODUCT.md` exists in project root
|
|
11
|
-
- If missing → Create with structure:
|
|
12
|
-
- Vision / Mission
|
|
13
|
-
- Success Metrics (revenue, users, growth)
|
|
14
|
-
- Target Users
|
|
15
|
-
- Value Propositions
|
|
16
|
-
- Key Features
|
|
17
|
-
- Competitive Landscape
|
|
18
|
-
- Roadmap (Now / Next / Later)
|
|
19
|
-
|
|
20
|
-
2. **Check** if `ARCHITECTURE.md` exists in project root
|
|
21
|
-
- If missing → Create with structure:
|
|
22
|
-
- Tech Stack (with rationale)
|
|
23
|
-
- System Design
|
|
24
|
-
- Key Patterns
|
|
25
|
-
- Data Models
|
|
26
|
-
- Integrations
|
|
27
|
-
- Technical Decisions
|
|
28
|
-
- Known Limitations
|
|
29
|
-
|
|
30
|
-
3. **If files exist**, read them and suggest improvements based on current codebase.
|
|
31
|
-
|
|
32
|
-
**Fill in details** based on what you can learn from the codebase. Ask user for what you can't infer.
|
|
33
|
-
|
|
34
|
-
Product = WHAT and WHY. Architecture = HOW.
|
|
@@ -1,87 +0,0 @@
|
|
|
1
|
-
---
|
|
2
|
-
name: polish
|
|
3
|
-
description: Polish project presentation - docs, README, packaging, metadata
|
|
4
|
-
---
|
|
5
|
-
|
|
6
|
-
# Polish Project
|
|
7
|
-
|
|
8
|
-
Make project professional, welcoming, and well-documented.
|
|
9
|
-
|
|
10
|
-
## Scope
|
|
11
|
-
|
|
12
|
-
**README:**
|
|
13
|
-
- Clear project description (what, why, how)
|
|
14
|
-
- Installation instructions (tested)
|
|
15
|
-
- Quick start example (copy-paste ready)
|
|
16
|
-
- Key features (3-5 bullet points)
|
|
17
|
-
- API overview
|
|
18
|
-
- Links to full docs
|
|
19
|
-
- Badges (build status, coverage, version, license)
|
|
20
|
-
- Contributing guidelines link
|
|
21
|
-
- License
|
|
22
|
-
|
|
23
|
-
**Documentation:**
|
|
24
|
-
- API reference (all public functions)
|
|
25
|
-
- Usage examples (common scenarios)
|
|
26
|
-
- Tutorials (step-by-step guides)
|
|
27
|
-
- Architecture overview
|
|
28
|
-
- Troubleshooting guide
|
|
29
|
-
- FAQ
|
|
30
|
-
- Migration guides (if applicable)
|
|
31
|
-
|
|
32
|
-
**Code Comments:**
|
|
33
|
-
- JSDoc for public APIs
|
|
34
|
-
- Complex logic explained (WHY not WHAT)
|
|
35
|
-
- Non-obvious decisions documented
|
|
36
|
-
- Examples in comments where helpful
|
|
37
|
-
|
|
38
|
-
**Packaging (package.json):**
|
|
39
|
-
- Accurate description
|
|
40
|
-
- Relevant keywords (10-15)
|
|
41
|
-
- Repository URL
|
|
42
|
-
- Homepage URL
|
|
43
|
-
- Bug tracker URL
|
|
44
|
-
- Author info
|
|
45
|
-
- License
|
|
46
|
-
- Engines specified
|
|
47
|
-
- Files field (only ship necessary)
|
|
48
|
-
|
|
49
|
-
**GitHub Metadata:**
|
|
50
|
-
- Topics/tags (10-20 relevant tags)
|
|
51
|
-
- Description (concise, searchable)
|
|
52
|
-
- Website URL
|
|
53
|
-
- Social preview image (if applicable)
|
|
54
|
-
|
|
55
|
-
**Changelog:**
|
|
56
|
-
- Update CHANGELOG.md
|
|
57
|
-
- Clear version history
|
|
58
|
-
- Breaking changes highlighted
|
|
59
|
-
- Migration instructions
|
|
60
|
-
|
|
61
|
-
**Contributing:**
|
|
62
|
-
- CONTRIBUTING.md
|
|
63
|
-
- Code of conduct
|
|
64
|
-
- Development setup
|
|
65
|
-
- Testing guidelines
|
|
66
|
-
- PR process
|
|
67
|
-
|
|
68
|
-
## Execution
|
|
69
|
-
|
|
70
|
-
1. **Audit** what exists vs what's missing
|
|
71
|
-
2. **Update** outdated content
|
|
72
|
-
3. **Create** missing documentation
|
|
73
|
-
4. **Test** all code examples
|
|
74
|
-
5. **Verify** all links work
|
|
75
|
-
6. **Ensure** consistency across docs
|
|
76
|
-
|
|
77
|
-
## Quality Checks
|
|
78
|
-
|
|
79
|
-
- [ ] README explains project in <5 min read
|
|
80
|
-
- [ ] New user can get started in <10 min
|
|
81
|
-
- [ ] All examples tested and work
|
|
82
|
-
- [ ] No broken links
|
|
83
|
-
- [ ] Search-friendly keywords
|
|
84
|
-
- [ ] Professional presentation
|
|
85
|
-
- [ ] Beginner-friendly
|
|
86
|
-
|
|
87
|
-
Report: What was added/updated, coverage improved.
|