@tianhai/pi-workflow-kit 0.5.3 → 0.6.0

package/skills/test-driven-development/SKILL.md

@@ -1,266 +0,0 @@
----
-name: test-driven-development
-description: Use when implementing any feature or bugfix, before writing implementation code
----
-
-> **Related skills:** Before claiming done, use `/skill:executing-tasks` to verify tests actually pass.
-
-# Test-Driven Development (TDD)
-
-## Overview
-
-Write the test first. Watch it fail. Write minimal code to pass.
-
-**Core principle:** If you didn't watch the test fail, you don't know if it tests the right thing.
-
-**Violating the letter of the rules is violating the spirit of the rules.**
-
-## Prerequisites
-- Active branch (not main) or user-confirmed intent to work on main
-- Approved plan or clear task scope
-
-## When to Use — Three Scenarios
-
-Not every change requires the same TDD approach. Determine which scenario applies:
-
-### Scenario 1: New Feature / New File
-
-Full TDD cycle. No shortcuts.
-
-1. Write a failing test
-2. Watch it fail
-3. Write minimal code to pass
-4. Watch it pass
-5. Refactor
-6. Repeat
-
-**This is the default.** If in doubt, use this scenario.
-
-### Scenario 2: Modifying Code with Existing Tests
-
-When changing code that already has test coverage:
-
-1. Run existing tests — confirm green
-2. Make your change
-3. Run tests again — confirm still green
-4. If your change isn't covered by existing tests, add a test for it
-5. If existing tests already cover the changed behavior, you're done
-
-**Key:** You must verify existing tests pass *before* and *after* your change. If you can't confirm test coverage, fall back to Scenario 1.
-
-### Scenario 3: Trivial Change
-
-For typo fixes, config tweaks, string changes, renames:
-
-- Use judgment
-- If relevant tests exist, run them after your change
-- Don't write a new test for a string literal change
-
-**Be honest:** If the change touches logic, it's not trivial. Use Scenario 1 or 2.
-
-### Scenario 4: If You See a ⚠️ TDD Warning
-
-The workflow monitor detected a potential TDD violation. Pause and assess:
-
-1. **Identify your scenario** — which of 1, 2, or 3 applies to this change?
-2. **Scenario 1 (new file):** If no test exists yet, stop, delete any written source code, write a failing test first, then re-implement.
-3. **Scenario 2 (existing tests):** Run the existing tests now. Confirm they're green. Then proceed with your change. Run them again after.
-4. **Scenario 3 (trivial):** If the change truly is trivial, run relevant tests after and continue.
-
-The warning is a signal to think, not a hard stop. But if you can't clearly identify which scenario applies, default to Scenario 1.
-
-## Interpreting Runtime Warnings
-
-The workflow monitor tracks your TDD phase and may inject warnings like:
-
-```
-⚠️ TDD: Writing source code (src/foo.ts) without a failing test.
-```
-
-**When you see this, pause and assess:**
-- Which scenario applies to this change?
-- If Scenario 2: run existing tests to confirm coverage, then proceed
-- If Scenario 1: write a failing test first
-- If Scenario 3: proceed, run tests after
-
-The warning is a signal to think, not a hard stop.
-
-## The Iron Law (Scenario 1)
-
-```
-NO PRODUCTION CODE WITHOUT A FAILING TEST FIRST
-```
-
-Write code before the test? Delete it. Start over.
-- Don't keep it as "reference"
-- Don't "adapt" it while writing tests
-- Delete means delete. Implement fresh from tests.
-
-## Red-Green-Refactor
-
-### RED — Write Failing Test
-
-Write one minimal test showing what should happen.
-
-**Requirements:**
-- One behavior per test
-- Clear name describing behavior (if the name contains "and", split it)
-- Real code (no mocks unless unavoidable)
-- Shows desired API — demonstrates how code should be called
-
-**Good:**
-```typescript
-test('retries failed operations 3 times', async () => {
-  let attempts = 0;
-  const operation = () => {
-    attempts++;
-    if (attempts < 3) throw new Error('fail');
-    return 'success';
-  };
-  const result = await retryOperation(operation);
-  expect(result).toBe('success');
-  expect(attempts).toBe(3);
-});
-```
-
-**Bad:**
-```typescript
-test('retry works', async () => {
-  const mock = jest.fn().mockRejectedValueOnce(new Error()).mockResolvedValueOnce('ok');
-  await retryOperation(mock);
-  expect(mock).toHaveBeenCalledTimes(2);
-});
-```
-
-### Verify RED — Watch It Fail
-
-**MANDATORY. Never skip.**
-
-Run the test. Confirm:
-- Test **fails** (not errors from syntax/import issues)
-- Failure message matches expectation
-- Fails because the feature is missing (not because of typos)
-
-**Test passes immediately?** You're testing existing behavior. Fix the test.
-**Test errors instead of failing?** Fix the error, re-run until it fails correctly.
-
-### GREEN — Minimal Code
-
-Write the simplest code to pass the test. Nothing more.
-
-Don't add features, refactor other code, or "improve" beyond what the test requires. If you're writing code that no test exercises, stop.
-
-**Good:** Just enough to pass the test.
-**Bad:** Adding options, config, generalization that no test asks for (YAGNI).
-
-### Verify GREEN — Watch It Pass
-
-**MANDATORY.**
-
-Run the test. Confirm:
-- New test passes
-- All other tests still pass
-- Output is pristine (no errors, no warnings)
-
-**Test fails?** Fix code, not test.
-**Other tests fail?** Fix now — don't move on with broken tests.
-
-### REFACTOR — Clean Up
-
-Only after green:
-- Remove duplication
-- Improve names
-- Extract helpers
-
-Keep tests green throughout. Don't add new behavior during refactor.
-
-### Repeat
-
-Next failing test for next behavior.
-
-## Common Rationalizations
-
-| Excuse | Reality |
-|--------|---------|
-| "Too simple to test" | Simple code breaks. Test takes 30 seconds. |
-| "I'll test after" | Tests passing immediately prove nothing. |
-| "Tests after achieve same goals" | Tests-after = "what does this do?" Tests-first = "what should this do?" |
-| "Already manually tested" | Ad-hoc ≠ systematic. No record, can't re-run. |
-| "Deleting X hours is wasteful" | Sunk cost fallacy. Keeping unverified code is technical debt. |
-| "Keep as reference, write tests first" | You'll adapt it. That's testing after. Delete means delete. |
-| "Need to explore first" | Fine. Throw away exploration, start with TDD. |
-| "Test hard = design unclear" | Listen to test. Hard to test = hard to use. |
-| "TDD will slow me down" | TDD faster than debugging. Pragmatic = test-first. |
-| "Existing code has no tests" | You're improving it. Add tests for the code you're changing. |
-| "This is different because..." | It's not. Follow the process. |
-
-## Red Flags — STOP and Start Over
-
-If you catch yourself doing any of these, stop immediately:
-
-- Writing production code before the test
-- Writing tests after implementation
-- Test passes immediately (didn't catch the bug)
-- Can't explain why test failed
-- Rationalizing "just this once"
-- "I already manually tested it"
-- "Keep as reference" or "adapt existing code"
-- "Already spent X hours, deleting is wasteful"
-- "TDD is dogmatic, I'm being pragmatic"
-
-**All of these mean: Delete code. Start over with TDD.**
-
-## Verification Checklist
-
-Before marking work complete:
-
-- [ ] Every new function/method has a test
-- [ ] Watched each test fail before implementing
-- [ ] Each test failed for expected reason (feature missing, not typo)
-- [ ] Wrote minimal code to pass each test
-- [ ] All tests pass
-- [ ] Output pristine (no errors, warnings)
-- [ ] Tests use real code (mocks only if unavoidable)
-- [ ] Edge cases and errors covered
-
-Can't check all boxes? You skipped TDD. Start over.
-
-## When Stuck
-
-| Problem | Solution |
-|---------|----------|
-| Don't know how to test | Write wished-for API. Write assertion first. Ask your human partner. |
-| Test too complicated | Design too complicated. Simplify interface. |
-| Must mock everything | Code too coupled. Use dependency injection. |
-| Test setup huge | Extract helpers. Still complex? Simplify design. |
-
-## Debugging Integration
-
-Bug found? Write failing test reproducing it. Follow TDD cycle. Test proves fix and prevents regression. Never fix bugs without a test.
-
-## Testing Anti-Patterns
-
-When adding mocks or test utilities, read `testing-anti-patterns.md` in this skill directory to avoid common pitfalls:
-- Testing mock behavior instead of real behavior
-- Adding test-only methods to production classes
-- Mocking without understanding dependencies
-
-## Reference
-
-Use `workflow_reference` for additional detail:
-- `tdd-rationalizations` — Extended rationalization discussion
-- `tdd-examples` — More good/bad code examples, bug fix walkthrough
-- `tdd-when-stuck` — Extended solutions for common blockers
-- `tdd-anti-patterns` — Mock pitfalls, test-only methods, incomplete mocks
-
-## Final Rule
-
-```
-Production code → test exists and failed first (Scenario 1)
-Modifying tested code → existing tests verified before and after (Scenario 2)
-Trivial change → relevant tests run after (Scenario 3)
-```
-
-No exceptions without your human partner's permission.
-
-When the TDD implementation cycle is complete (all tests green, code committed), the orchestrating agent updates `plan_tracker` for the current task as part of the executing-tasks lifecycle.

package/skills/test-driven-development/reference/examples.md

@@ -1,101 +0,0 @@
-# TDD Examples Reference
-
-**Load via:** `workflow_reference({ topic: "tdd-examples" })`
-
-## Good vs Bad Tests
-
-### RED — Write Failing Test
-
-<Good>
-```typescript
-test('retries failed operations 3 times', async () => {
-  let attempts = 0;
-  const operation = () => {
-    attempts++;
-    if (attempts < 3) throw new Error('fail');
-    return 'success';
-  };
-  const result = await retryOperation(operation);
-  expect(result).toBe('success');
-  expect(attempts).toBe(3);
-});
-```
-Clear name, tests real behavior, one thing
-</Good>
-
-<Bad>
-```typescript
-test('retry works', async () => {
-  const mock = jest.fn()
-    .mockRejectedValueOnce(new Error())
-    .mockRejectedValueOnce(new Error())
-    .mockResolvedValueOnce('success');
-  await retryOperation(mock);
-  expect(mock).toHaveBeenCalledTimes(3);
-});
-```
-Vague name, tests mock not code
-</Bad>
-
-### GREEN — Minimal Code
-
-<Good>
-```typescript
-async function retryOperation<T>(fn: () => Promise<T>): Promise<T> {
-  for (let i = 0; i < 3; i++) {
-    try { return await fn(); }
-    catch (e) { if (i === 2) throw e; }
-  }
-  throw new Error('unreachable');
-}
-```
-Just enough to pass
-</Good>
-
-<Bad>
-```typescript
-async function retryOperation<T>(
-  fn: () => Promise<T>,
-  options?: { maxRetries?: number; backoff?: 'linear' | 'exponential'; onRetry?: (attempt: number) => void }
-): Promise<T> { /* YAGNI */ }
-```
-Over-engineered
-</Bad>
-
-## Good Tests Table
-
-| Quality | Good | Bad |
-|---------|------|-----|
-| **Minimal** | One thing. "and" in name? Split it. | `test('validates email and domain and whitespace')` |
-| **Clear** | Name describes behavior | `test('test1')` |
-| **Shows intent** | Demonstrates desired API | Obscures what code should do |
-
-## Bug Fix Example
-
-**Bug:** Empty email accepted
-
-**RED**
-```typescript
-test('rejects empty email', async () => {
-  const result = await submitForm({ email: '' });
-  expect(result.error).toBe('Email required');
-});
-```
-
-**Verify RED**
-```bash
-$ npm test
-FAIL: expected 'Email required', got undefined
-```
-
-**GREEN**
-```typescript
-function submitForm(data: FormData) {
-  if (!data.email?.trim()) return { error: 'Email required' };
-  // ...
-}
-```
-
-**Verify GREEN** → PASS
-
-**REFACTOR** — Extract validation for multiple fields if needed.

package/skills/test-driven-development/reference/rationalizations.md

@@ -1,67 +0,0 @@
-# TDD Rationalizations Reference
-
-**Load via:** `workflow_reference({ topic: "tdd-rationalizations" })`
-
-## Why Order Matters
-
-**"I'll write tests after to verify it works"**
-Tests written after code pass immediately. Passing immediately proves nothing:
-- Might test wrong thing
-- Might test implementation, not behavior
-- Might miss edge cases you forgot
-- You never saw it catch the bug
-
-Test-first forces you to see the test fail, proving it actually tests something.
-
-**"I already manually tested all the edge cases"**
-Manual testing is ad-hoc. You think you tested everything but:
-- No record of what you tested
-- Can't re-run when code changes
-- Easy to forget cases under pressure
-- "It worked when I tried it" ≠ comprehensive
-
-**"Deleting X hours of work is wasteful"**
-Sunk cost fallacy. The time is already gone. Your choice:
-- Delete and rewrite with TDD (X more hours, high confidence)
-- Keep it and add tests after (30 min, low confidence, likely bugs)
-
-**"TDD is dogmatic, being pragmatic means adapting"**
-TDD IS pragmatic. "Pragmatic" shortcuts = debugging in production = slower.
-
-**"Tests after achieve the same goals - it's spirit not ritual"**
-Tests-after answer "What does this do?" Tests-first answer "What should this do?"
-Tests-after are biased by your implementation. 30 minutes of tests after ≠ TDD.
-
-## Common Rationalizations Table
-
-| Excuse | Reality |
-|--------|---------|
-| "Too simple to test" | Simple code breaks. Test takes 30 seconds. |
-| "I'll test after" | Tests passing immediately prove nothing. |
-| "Tests after achieve same goals" | Tests-after = "what does this do?" Tests-first = "what should this do?" |
-| "Already manually tested" | Ad-hoc ≠ systematic. No record, can't re-run. |
-| "Deleting X hours is wasteful" | Sunk cost fallacy. Keeping unverified code is technical debt. |
-| "Keep as reference, write tests first" | You'll adapt it. That's testing after. Delete means delete. |
-| "Need to explore first" | Fine. Throw away exploration, start with TDD. |
-| "Test hard = design unclear" | Listen to test. Hard to test = hard to use. |
-| "TDD will slow me down" | TDD faster than debugging. Pragmatic = test-first. |
-| "Manual test faster" | Manual doesn't prove edge cases. You'll re-test every change. |
-| "Existing code has no tests" | You're improving it. Add tests for existing code. |
-
-## Red Flags — STOP and Start Over
-
-- Code before test
-- Test after implementation
-- Test passes immediately
-- Can't explain why test failed
-- Tests added "later"
-- Rationalizing "just this once"
-- "I already manually tested it"
-- "Tests after achieve the same purpose"
-- "It's about spirit not ritual"
-- "Keep as reference" or "adapt existing code"
-- "Already spent X hours, deleting is wasteful"
-- "TDD is dogmatic, I'm being pragmatic"
-- "This is different because..."
-
-**All of these mean: Delete code. Start over with TDD.**

package/skills/test-driven-development/reference/when-stuck.md

@@ -1,33 +0,0 @@
-# TDD When Stuck Reference
-
-**Load via:** `workflow_reference({ topic: "tdd-when-stuck" })`
-
-## When Stuck
-
-| Problem | Solution |
-|---------|----------|
-| Don't know how to test | Write wished-for API. Write assertion first. Ask your human partner. |
-| Test too complicated | Design too complicated. Simplify interface. |
-| Must mock everything | Code too coupled. Use dependency injection. |
-| Test setup huge | Extract helpers. Still complex? Simplify design. |
-
-## Verification Checklist
-
-Before marking work complete:
-
-- [ ] Every new function/method has a test
-- [ ] Watched each test fail before implementing
-- [ ] Each test failed for expected reason (feature missing, not typo)
-- [ ] Wrote minimal code to pass each test
-- [ ] All tests pass
-- [ ] Output pristine (no errors, warnings)
-- [ ] Tests use real code (mocks only if unavoidable)
-- [ ] Edge cases and errors covered
-
-Can't check all boxes? You skipped TDD. Start over.
-
-## Debugging Integration
-
-Bug found? Write failing test reproducing it. Follow TDD cycle. Test proves fix and prevents regression.
-
-Never fix bugs without a test.