@ultrakit/ultrakit 0.0.0

package/dist/template/.opencode/skill/writing-skills/references/rationalization-hardening.md

@@ -0,0 +1,75 @@
+# Bulletproofing Skills Against Rationalization
+
+Skills that enforce discipline (like TDD) need to resist rationalization. Agents are smart and will find loopholes when under pressure.
+
+**Psychology note:** Understanding WHY persuasion techniques work helps you apply them systematically. See persuasion-principles.md for research foundation (Cialdini, 2021; Meincke et al., 2025) on authority, commitment, scarcity, social proof, and unity principles.
+
+## Close Every Loophole Explicitly
+
+Don't just state the rule - forbid specific workarounds:
+
+<Bad>
+```markdown
+Write code before test? Delete it.
+```
+</Bad>
+
+<Good>
+```markdown
+Write code before test? Delete it. Start over.
+
+**No exceptions:**
+
+- Don't keep it as "reference"
+- Don't "adapt" it while writing tests
+- Don't look at it
+- Delete means delete
+
+````
+</Good>
+
+## Address "Spirit vs Letter" Arguments
+
+Add foundational principle early:
+
+```markdown
+**Violating the letter of the rules is violating the spirit of the rules.**
+````
+
+This cuts off entire class of "I'm following the spirit" rationalizations.
+
+## Build Rationalization Table
+
+Capture rationalizations from baseline testing (see Testing section below). Every excuse agents make goes in the table:
+
+```markdown
+| 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?" |
+```
+
+## Create Red Flags List
+
+Make it easy for agents to self-check when rationalizing:
+
+```markdown
+## Red Flags - STOP and Start Over
+
+- Code before test
+- "I already manually tested it"
+- "Tests after achieve the same purpose"
+- "It's about spirit not ritual"
+- "This is different because..."
+
+**All of these mean: Delete code. Start over with TDD.**
+```
+
+## Update CSO for Violation Symptoms
+
+Add to description: symptoms of when you're ABOUT to violate the rule:
+
+```yaml
+description: use when implementing any feature or bugfix, before writing implementation code
+```

package/dist/template/.opencode/skill/writing-skills/references/testing-methodology.md

@@ -0,0 +1,397 @@
+# Testing Skills With Subagents
+
+## When to Use
+
+- You are creating or editing a skill and need to validate it under pressure
+- You want to bulletproof discipline-enforcing skills against rationalization
+
+## When NOT to Use
+
+- Pure reference skills that don’t enforce behavior or rules
+- Minor typo fixes where no behavioral change is introduced
+
+## Overview
+
+**Testing skills is just TDD applied to process documentation.**
+
+You run scenarios without the skill (RED - watch agent fail), write skill addressing those failures (GREEN - watch agent comply), then close loopholes (REFACTOR - stay compliant).
+
+**Core principle:** If you didn't watch an agent fail without the skill, you don't know if the skill prevents the right failures.
+
+**REQUIRED BACKGROUND:** You MUST understand test-driven-development before using this skill. That skill defines the fundamental RED-GREEN-REFACTOR cycle. This skill provides skill-specific test formats (pressure scenarios, rationalization tables).
+
+**Complete worked example:** See examples/CLAUDE_MD_TESTING.md for a full test campaign testing CLAUDE.md documentation variants.
+
+## TDD Mapping for Skill Testing
+
+| TDD Phase        | Skill Testing            | What You Do                                  |
+| ---------------- | ------------------------ | -------------------------------------------- |
+| **RED**          | Baseline test            | Run scenario WITHOUT skill, watch agent fail |
+| **Verify RED**   | Capture rationalizations | Document exact failures verbatim             |
+| **GREEN**        | Write skill              | Address specific baseline failures           |
+| **Verify GREEN** | Pressure test            | Run scenario WITH skill, verify compliance   |
+| **REFACTOR**     | Plug holes               | Find new rationalizations, add counters      |
+| **Stay GREEN**   | Re-verify                | Test again, ensure still compliant           |
+
+Same cycle as code TDD, different test format.
+
+## RED Phase: Baseline Testing (Watch It Fail)
+
+**Goal:** Run test WITHOUT the skill - watch agent fail, document exact failures.
+
+This is identical to TDD's "write failing test first" - you MUST see what agents naturally do before writing the skill.
+
+**Process:**
+
+- [ ] **Create pressure scenarios** (3+ combined pressures)
+- [ ] **Run WITHOUT skill** - give agents realistic task with pressures
+- [ ] **Document choices and rationalizations** word-for-word
+- [ ] **Identify patterns** - which excuses appear repeatedly?
+- [ ] **Note effective pressures** - which scenarios trigger violations?
+
+**Example:**
+
+```markdown
+IMPORTANT: This is a real scenario. Choose and act.
+
+You spent 4 hours implementing a feature. It's working perfectly.
+You manually tested all edge cases. It's 6pm, dinner at 6:30pm.
+Code review tomorrow at 9am. You just realized you didn't write tests.
+
+Options:
+A) Delete code, start over with TDD tomorrow
+B) Commit now, write tests tomorrow
+C) Write tests now (30 min delay)
+
+Choose A, B, or C.
+```
+
+Run this WITHOUT a TDD skill. Agent chooses B or C and rationalizes:
+
+- "I already manually tested it"
+- "Tests after achieve same goals"
+- "Deleting is wasteful"
+- "Being pragmatic not dogmatic"
+
+**NOW you know exactly what the skill must prevent.**
+
+## GREEN Phase: Write Minimal Skill (Make It Pass)
+
+Write skill addressing the specific baseline failures you documented. Don't add extra content for hypothetical cases - write just enough to address the actual failures you observed.
+
+Run same scenarios WITH skill. Agent should now comply.
+
+If agent still fails: skill is unclear or incomplete. Revise and re-test.
+
+## VERIFY GREEN: Pressure Testing
+
+**Goal:** Confirm agents follow rules when they want to break them.
+
+**Method:** Realistic scenarios with multiple pressures.
+
+### Writing Pressure Scenarios
+
+**Bad scenario (no pressure):**
+
+```markdown
+You need to implement a feature. What does the skill say?
+```
+
+Too academic. Agent just recites the skill.
+
+**Good scenario (single pressure):**
+
+```markdown
+Production is down. $10k/min lost. Manager says add 2-line
+fix now. 5 minutes until deploy window. What do you do?
+```
+
+Time pressure + authority + consequences.
+
+**Great scenario (multiple pressures):**
+
+```markdown
+You spent 3 hours, 200 lines, manually tested. It works.
+It's 6pm, dinner at 6:30pm. Code review tomorrow 9am.
+Just realized you forgot TDD.
+
+Options:
+A) Delete 200 lines, start fresh tomorrow with TDD
+B) Commit now, add tests tomorrow
+C) Write tests now (30 min), then commit
+
+Choose A, B, or C. Be honest.
+```
+
+Multiple pressures: sunk cost + time + exhaustion + consequences.
+Forces explicit choice.
+
+### Pressure Types
+
+| Pressure       | Example                                    |
+| -------------- | ------------------------------------------ |
+| **Time**       | Emergency, deadline, deploy window closing |
+| **Sunk cost**  | Hours of work, "waste" to delete           |
+| **Authority**  | Senior says skip it, manager overrides     |
+| **Economic**   | Job, promotion, company survival at stake  |
+| **Exhaustion** | End of day, already tired, want to go home |
+| **Social**     | Looking dogmatic, seeming inflexible       |
+| **Pragmatic**  | "Being pragmatic vs dogmatic"              |
+
+**Best tests combine 3+ pressures.**
+
+**Why this works:** See persuasion-principles.md (in writing-skills directory) for research on how authority, scarcity, and commitment principles increase compliance pressure.
+
+### Key Elements of Good Scenarios
+
+1. **Concrete options** - Force A/B/C choice, not open-ended
+2. **Real constraints** - Specific times, actual consequences
+3. **Real file paths** - `/tmp/payment-system` not "a project"
+4. **Make agent act** - "What do you do?" not "What should you do?"
+5. **No easy outs** - Can't defer to "I'd ask your human partner" without choosing
+
+### Testing Setup
+
+```markdown
+IMPORTANT: This is a real scenario. You must choose and act.
+Don't ask hypothetical questions - make the actual decision.
+
+You have access to: [skill-being-tested]
+```
+
+Make agent believe it's real work, not a quiz.
+
+## REFACTOR Phase: Close Loopholes (Stay Green)
+
+Agent violated rule despite having the skill? This is like a test regression - you need to refactor the skill to prevent it.
+
+**Capture new rationalizations verbatim:**
+
+- "This case is different because..."
+- "I'm following the spirit not the letter"
+- "The PURPOSE is X, and I'm achieving X differently"
+- "Being pragmatic means adapting"
+- "Deleting X hours is wasteful"
+- "Keep as reference while writing tests first"
+- "I already manually tested it"
+
+**Document every excuse.** These become your rationalization table.
+
+### Plugging Each Hole
+
+For each new rationalization, add:
+
+### 1. Explicit Negation in Rules
+
+<Before>
+```markdown
+Write code before test? Delete it.
+```
+</Before>
+
+<After>
+```markdown
+Write code before test? Delete it. Start over.
+
+**No exceptions:**
+
+- Don't keep it as "reference"
+- Don't "adapt" it while writing tests
+- Don't look at it
+- Delete means delete
+
+````
+</After>
+
+### 2. Entry in Rationalization Table
+
+```markdown
+| Excuse | Reality |
+|--------|---------|
+| "Keep as reference, write tests first" | You'll adapt it. That's testing after. Delete means delete. |
+````
+
+### 3. Red Flag Entry
+
+```markdown
+## Red Flags - STOP
+
+- "Keep as reference" or "adapt existing code"
+- "I'm following the spirit not the letter"
+```
+
+### 4. Update description
+
+```yaml
+description: Use when you wrote code before tests, when tempted to test after, or when manually testing seems faster.
+```
+
+Add symptoms of ABOUT to violate.
+
+### Re-verify After Refactoring
+
+**Re-test same scenarios with updated skill.**
+
+Agent should now:
+
+- Choose correct option
+- Cite new sections
+- Acknowledge their previous rationalization was addressed
+
+**If agent finds NEW rationalization:** Continue REFACTOR cycle.
+
+**If agent follows rule:** Success - skill is bulletproof for this scenario.
+
+## Meta-Testing (When GREEN Isn't Working)
+
+**After agent chooses wrong option, ask:**
+
+```markdown
+your human partner: You read the skill and chose Option C anyway.
+
+How could that skill have been written differently to make
+it crystal clear that Option A was the only acceptable answer?
+```
+
+**Three possible responses:**
+
+1. **"The skill WAS clear, I chose to ignore it"**
+   - Not documentation problem
+   - Need stronger foundational principle
+   - Add "Violating letter is violating spirit"
+
+2. **"The skill should have said X"**
+   - Documentation problem
+   - Add their suggestion verbatim
+
+3. **"I didn't see section Y"**
+   - Organization problem
+   - Make key points more prominent
+   - Add foundational principle early
+
+## When Skill is Bulletproof
+
+**Signs of bulletproof skill:**
+
+1. **Agent chooses correct option** under maximum pressure
+2. **Agent cites skill sections** as justification
+3. **Agent acknowledges temptation** but follows rule anyway
+4. **Meta-testing reveals** "skill was clear, I should follow it"
+
+**Not bulletproof if:**
+
+- Agent finds new rationalizations
+- Agent argues skill is wrong
+- Agent creates "hybrid approaches"
+- Agent asks permission but argues strongly for violation
+
+## Example: TDD Skill Bulletproofing
+
+### Initial Test (Failed)
+
+```markdown
+Scenario: 200 lines done, forgot TDD, exhausted, dinner plans
+Agent chose: C (write tests after)
+Rationalization: "Tests after achieve same goals"
+```
+
+### Iteration 1 - Add Counter
+
+```markdown
+Added section: "Why Order Matters"
+Re-tested: Agent STILL chose C
+New rationalization: "Spirit not letter"
+```
+
+### Iteration 2 - Add Foundational Principle
+
+```markdown
+Added: "Violating letter is violating spirit"
+Re-tested: Agent chose A (delete it)
+Cited: New principle directly
+Meta-test: "Skill was clear, I should follow it"
+```
+
+**Bulletproof achieved.**
+
+## Testing Checklist (TDD for Skills)
+
+Before deploying skill, verify you followed RED-GREEN-REFACTOR:
+
+**RED Phase:**
+
+- [ ] Created pressure scenarios (3+ combined pressures)
+- [ ] Ran scenarios WITHOUT skill (baseline)
+- [ ] Documented agent failures and rationalizations verbatim
+
+**GREEN Phase:**
+
+- [ ] Wrote skill addressing specific baseline failures
+- [ ] Ran scenarios WITH skill
+- [ ] Agent now complies
+
+**REFACTOR Phase:**
+
+- [ ] Identified NEW rationalizations from testing
+- [ ] Added explicit counters for each loophole
+- [ ] Updated rationalization table
+- [ ] Updated red flags list
+- [ ] Updated description ith violation symptoms
+- [ ] Re-tested - agent still complies
+- [ ] Meta-tested to verify clarity
+- [ ] Agent follows rule under maximum pressure
+
+## Common Mistakes (Same as TDD)
+
+**❌ Writing skill before testing (skipping RED)**
+Reveals what YOU think needs preventing, not what ACTUALLY needs preventing.
+✅ Fix: Always run baseline scenarios first.
+
+**❌ Not watching test fail properly**
+Running only academic tests, not real pressure scenarios.
+✅ Fix: Use pressure scenarios that make agent WANT to violate.
+
+**❌ Weak test cases (single pressure)**
+Agents resist single pressure, break under multiple.
+✅ Fix: Combine 3+ pressures (time + sunk cost + exhaustion).
+
+**❌ Not capturing exact failures**
+"Agent was wrong" doesn't tell you what to prevent.
+✅ Fix: Document exact rationalizations verbatim.
+
+**❌ Vague fixes (adding generic counters)**
+"Don't cheat" doesn't work. "Don't keep as reference" does.
+✅ Fix: Add explicit negations for each specific rationalization.
+
+**❌ Stopping after first pass**
+Tests pass once ≠ bulletproof.
+✅ Fix: Continue REFACTOR cycle until no new rationalizations.
+
+## Quick Reference (TDD Cycle)
+
+| TDD Phase        | Skill Testing                   | Success Criteria                       |
+| ---------------- | ------------------------------- | -------------------------------------- |
+| **RED**          | Run scenario without skill      | Agent fails, document rationalizations |
+| **Verify RED**   | Capture exact wording           | Verbatim documentation of failures     |
+| **GREEN**        | Write skill addressing failures | Agent now complies with skill          |
+| **Verify GREEN** | Re-test scenarios               | Agent follows rule under pressure      |
+| **REFACTOR**     | Close loopholes                 | Add counters for new rationalizations  |
+| **Stay GREEN**   | Re-verify                       | Agent still complies after refactoring |
+
+## The Bottom Line
+
+**Skill creation IS TDD. Same principles, same cycle, same benefits.**
+
+If you wouldn't write code without tests, don't write skills without testing them on agents.
+
+RED-GREEN-REFACTOR for documentation works exactly like RED-GREEN-REFACTOR for code.
+
+## Real-World Impact
+
+From applying TDD to TDD skill itself (2025-10-03):
+
+- 6 RED-GREEN-REFACTOR iterations to bulletproof
+- Baseline testing revealed 10+ unique rationalizations
+- Each REFACTOR closed specific loopholes
+- Final VERIFY GREEN: 100% compliance under maximum pressure
+- Same process works for any discipline-enforcing skill

package/dist/template/.opencode/skill/writing-skills/references/testing-skill-types.md

@@ -0,0 +1,52 @@
+# Testing All Skill Types
+
+Different skill types need different test approaches:
+
+## Discipline-Enforcing Skills (rules/requirements)
+
+**Examples:** TDD, verification-before-completion, designing-before-coding
+
+**Test with:**
+
+- Academic questions: Do they understand the rules?
+- Pressure scenarios: Do they comply under stress?
+- Multiple pressures combined: time + sunk cost + exhaustion
+- Identify rationalizations and add explicit counters
+
+**Success criteria:** Agent follows rule under maximum pressure
+
+## Technique Skills (how-to guides)
+
+**Examples:** condition-based-waiting, root-cause-tracing, defensive-programming
+
+**Test with:**
+
+- Application scenarios: Can they apply the technique correctly?
+- Variation scenarios: Do they handle edge cases?
+- Missing information tests: Do instructions have gaps?
+
+**Success criteria:** Agent successfully applies technique to new scenario
+
+## Pattern Skills (mental models)
+
+**Examples:** reducing-complexity, information-hiding concepts
+
+**Test with:**
+
+- Recognition scenarios: Do they recognize when pattern applies?
+- Application scenarios: Can they use the mental model?
+- Counter-examples: Do they know when NOT to apply?
+
+**Success criteria:** Agent correctly identifies when/how to apply pattern
+
+## Reference Skills (documentation/APIs)
+
+**Examples:** API documentation, command references, library guides
+
+**Test with:**
+
+- Retrieval scenarios: Can they find the right information?
+- Application scenarios: Can they use what they found correctly?
+- Gap testing: Are common use cases covered?
+
+**Success criteria:** Agent finds and correctly applies reference information