@vodailoc/kilo-kit-mcp 1.1.0 → 1.1.1

package/skills/problem-solving/defense-in-depth/SKILL.md

@@ -1,130 +1,130 @@
----
-name: Defense-in-Depth Validation
-description: Validate at every layer data passes through to make bugs impossible
-when_to_use: when invalid data causes failures deep in execution, requiring validation at multiple system layers
-version: 1.1.0
-languages: all
----
-
-# Defense-in-Depth Validation
-
-## Overview
-
-When you fix a bug caused by invalid data, adding validation at one place feels sufficient. But that single check can be bypassed by different code paths, refactoring, or mocks.
-
-**Core principle:** Validate at EVERY layer data passes through. Make the bug structurally impossible.
-
-## Why Multiple Layers
-
-Single validation: "We fixed the bug"
-Multiple layers: "We made the bug impossible"
-
-Different layers catch different cases:
-- Entry validation catches most bugs
-- Business logic catches edge cases
-- Environment guards prevent context-specific dangers
-- Debug logging helps when other layers fail
-
-## The Four Layers
-
-### Layer 1: Entry Point Validation
-**Purpose:** Reject obviously invalid input at API boundary
-
-```typescript
-function createProject(name: string, workingDirectory: string) {
-  if (!workingDirectory || workingDirectory.trim() === '') {
-    throw new Error('workingDirectory cannot be empty');
-  }
-  if (!existsSync(workingDirectory)) {
-    throw new Error(`workingDirectory does not exist: ${workingDirectory}`);
-  }
-  if (!statSync(workingDirectory).isDirectory()) {
-    throw new Error(`workingDirectory is not a directory: ${workingDirectory}`);
-  }
-  // ... proceed
-}
-```
-
-### Layer 2: Business Logic Validation
-**Purpose:** Ensure data makes sense for this operation
-
-```typescript
-function initializeWorkspace(projectDir: string, sessionId: string) {
-  if (!projectDir) {
-    throw new Error('projectDir required for workspace initialization');
-  }
-  // ... proceed
-}
-```
-
-### Layer 3: Environment Guards
-**Purpose:** Prevent dangerous operations in specific contexts
-
-```typescript
-async function gitInit(directory: string) {
-  // In tests, refuse git init outside temp directories
-  if (process.env.NODE_ENV === 'test') {
-    const normalized = normalize(resolve(directory));
-    const tmpDir = normalize(resolve(tmpdir()));
-
-    if (!normalized.startsWith(tmpDir)) {
-      throw new Error(
-        `Refusing git init outside temp dir during tests: ${directory}`
-      );
-    }
-  }
-  // ... proceed
-}
-```
-
-### Layer 4: Debug Instrumentation
-**Purpose:** Capture context for forensics
-
-```typescript
-async function gitInit(directory: string) {
-  const stack = new Error().stack;
-  logger.debug('About to git init', {
-    directory,
-    cwd: process.cwd(),
-    stack,
-  });
-  // ... proceed
-}
-```
-
-## Applying the Pattern
-
-When you find a bug:
-
-1. **Trace the data flow** - Where does bad value originate? Where used?
-2. **Map all checkpoints** - List every point data passes through
-3. **Add validation at each layer** - Entry, business, environment, debug
-4. **Test each layer** - Try to bypass layer 1, verify layer 2 catches it
-
-## Example from Session
-
-Bug: Empty `projectDir` caused `git init` in source code
-
-**Data flow:**
-1. Test setup → empty string
-2. `Project.create(name, '')`
-3. `WorkspaceManager.createWorkspace('')`
-4. `git init` runs in `process.cwd()`
-
-**Four layers added:**
-- Layer 1: `Project.create()` validates not empty/exists/writable
-- Layer 2: `WorkspaceManager` validates projectDir not empty
-- Layer 3: `WorktreeManager` refuses git init outside tmpdir in tests
-- Layer 4: Stack trace logging before git init
-
-**Result:** All 1847 tests passed, bug impossible to reproduce
-
-## Key Insight
-
-All four layers were necessary. During testing, each layer caught bugs the others missed:
-- Different code paths bypassed entry validation
-- Mocks bypassed business logic checks
-- Edge cases on different platforms needed environment guards
-- Debug logging identified structural misuse
-
-**Don't stop at one validation point.** Add checks at every layer.
+---
+name: Defense-in-Depth Validation
+description: Validate at every layer data passes through to make bugs impossible
+when_to_use: when invalid data causes failures deep in execution, requiring validation at multiple system layers
+version: 1.1.0
+languages: all
+---
+
+# Defense-in-Depth Validation
+
+## Overview
+
+When you fix a bug caused by invalid data, adding validation at one place feels sufficient. But that single check can be bypassed by different code paths, refactoring, or mocks.
+
+**Core principle:** Validate at EVERY layer data passes through. Make the bug structurally impossible.
+
+## Why Multiple Layers
+
+Single validation: "We fixed the bug"
+Multiple layers: "We made the bug impossible"
+
+Different layers catch different cases:
+- Entry validation catches most bugs
+- Business logic catches edge cases
+- Environment guards prevent context-specific dangers
+- Debug logging helps when other layers fail
+
+## The Four Layers
+
+### Layer 1: Entry Point Validation
+**Purpose:** Reject obviously invalid input at API boundary
+
+```typescript
+function createProject(name: string, workingDirectory: string) {
+  if (!workingDirectory || workingDirectory.trim() === '') {
+    throw new Error('workingDirectory cannot be empty');
+  }
+  if (!existsSync(workingDirectory)) {
+    throw new Error(`workingDirectory does not exist: ${workingDirectory}`);
+  }
+  if (!statSync(workingDirectory).isDirectory()) {
+    throw new Error(`workingDirectory is not a directory: ${workingDirectory}`);
+  }
+  // ... proceed
+}
+```
+
+### Layer 2: Business Logic Validation
+**Purpose:** Ensure data makes sense for this operation
+
+```typescript
+function initializeWorkspace(projectDir: string, sessionId: string) {
+  if (!projectDir) {
+    throw new Error('projectDir required for workspace initialization');
+  }
+  // ... proceed
+}
+```
+
+### Layer 3: Environment Guards
+**Purpose:** Prevent dangerous operations in specific contexts
+
+```typescript
+async function gitInit(directory: string) {
+  // In tests, refuse git init outside temp directories
+  if (process.env.NODE_ENV === 'test') {
+    const normalized = normalize(resolve(directory));
+    const tmpDir = normalize(resolve(tmpdir()));
+
+    if (!normalized.startsWith(tmpDir)) {
+      throw new Error(
+        `Refusing git init outside temp dir during tests: ${directory}`
+      );
+    }
+  }
+  // ... proceed
+}
+```
+
+### Layer 4: Debug Instrumentation
+**Purpose:** Capture context for forensics
+
+```typescript
+async function gitInit(directory: string) {
+  const stack = new Error().stack;
+  logger.debug('About to git init', {
+    directory,
+    cwd: process.cwd(),
+    stack,
+  });
+  // ... proceed
+}
+```
+
+## Applying the Pattern
+
+When you find a bug:
+
+1. **Trace the data flow** - Where does bad value originate? Where used?
+2. **Map all checkpoints** - List every point data passes through
+3. **Add validation at each layer** - Entry, business, environment, debug
+4. **Test each layer** - Try to bypass layer 1, verify layer 2 catches it
+
+## Example from Session
+
+Bug: Empty `projectDir` caused `git init` in source code
+
+**Data flow:**
+1. Test setup → empty string
+2. `Project.create(name, '')`
+3. `WorkspaceManager.createWorkspace('')`
+4. `git init` runs in `process.cwd()`
+
+**Four layers added:**
+- Layer 1: `Project.create()` validates not empty/exists/writable
+- Layer 2: `WorkspaceManager` validates projectDir not empty
+- Layer 3: `WorktreeManager` refuses git init outside tmpdir in tests
+- Layer 4: Stack trace logging before git init
+
+**Result:** All 1847 tests passed, bug impossible to reproduce
+
+## Key Insight
+
+All four layers were necessary. During testing, each layer caught bugs the others missed:
+- Different code paths bypassed entry validation
+- Mocks bypassed business logic checks
+- Edge cases on different platforms needed environment guards
+- Debug logging identified structural misuse
+
+**Don't stop at one validation point.** Add checks at every layer.

package/skills/problem-solving/inversion-exercise/SKILL.md

@@ -1,58 +1,58 @@
----
-name: Inversion Exercise
-description: Flip core assumptions to reveal hidden constraints and alternative approaches - "what if the opposite were true?"
-when_to_use: when stuck on unquestioned assumptions or feeling forced into "the only way" to do something
-version: 1.1.0
----
-
-# Inversion Exercise
-
-## Overview
-
-Flip every assumption and see what still works. Sometimes the opposite reveals the truth.
-
-**Core principle:** Inversion exposes hidden assumptions and alternative approaches.
-
-## Quick Reference
-
-| Normal Assumption | Inverted | What It Reveals |
-|-------------------|----------|-----------------|
-| Cache to reduce latency | Add latency to enable caching | Debouncing patterns |
-| Pull data when needed | Push data before needed | Prefetching, eager loading |
-| Handle errors when occur | Make errors impossible | Type systems, contracts |
-| Build features users want | Remove features users don't need | Simplicity >> addition |
-| Optimize for common case | Optimize for worst case | Resilience patterns |
-
-## Process
-
-1. **List core assumptions** - What "must" be true?
-2. **Invert each systematically** - "What if opposite were true?"
-3. **Explore implications** - What would we do differently?
-4. **Find valid inversions** - Which actually work somewhere?
-
-## Example
-
-**Problem:** Users complain app is slow
-
-**Normal approach:** Make everything faster (caching, optimization, CDN)
-
-**Inverted:** Make things intentionally slower in some places
-- Debounce search (add latency → enable better results)
-- Rate limit requests (add friction → prevent abuse)
-- Lazy load content (delay → reduce initial load)
-
-**Insight:** Strategic slowness can improve UX
-
-## Red Flags You Need This
-
-- "There's only one way to do this"
-- Forcing solution that feels wrong
-- Can't articulate why approach is necessary
-- "This is just how it's done"
-
-## Remember
-
-- Not all inversions work (test boundaries)
-- Valid inversions reveal context-dependence
-- Sometimes opposite is the answer
-- Question "must be" statements
+---
+name: Inversion Exercise
+description: Flip core assumptions to reveal hidden constraints and alternative approaches - "what if the opposite were true?"
+when_to_use: when stuck on unquestioned assumptions or feeling forced into "the only way" to do something
+version: 1.1.0
+---
+
+# Inversion Exercise
+
+## Overview
+
+Flip every assumption and see what still works. Sometimes the opposite reveals the truth.
+
+**Core principle:** Inversion exposes hidden assumptions and alternative approaches.
+
+## Quick Reference
+
+| Normal Assumption | Inverted | What It Reveals |
+|-------------------|----------|-----------------|
+| Cache to reduce latency | Add latency to enable caching | Debouncing patterns |
+| Pull data when needed | Push data before needed | Prefetching, eager loading |
+| Handle errors when occur | Make errors impossible | Type systems, contracts |
+| Build features users want | Remove features users don't need | Simplicity >> addition |
+| Optimize for common case | Optimize for worst case | Resilience patterns |
+
+## Process
+
+1. **List core assumptions** - What "must" be true?
+2. **Invert each systematically** - "What if opposite were true?"
+3. **Explore implications** - What would we do differently?
+4. **Find valid inversions** - Which actually work somewhere?
+
+## Example
+
+**Problem:** Users complain app is slow
+
+**Normal approach:** Make everything faster (caching, optimization, CDN)
+
+**Inverted:** Make things intentionally slower in some places
+- Debounce search (add latency → enable better results)
+- Rate limit requests (add friction → prevent abuse)
+- Lazy load content (delay → reduce initial load)
+
+**Insight:** Strategic slowness can improve UX
+
+## Red Flags You Need This
+
+- "There's only one way to do this"
+- Forcing solution that feels wrong
+- Can't articulate why approach is necessary
+- "This is just how it's done"
+
+## Remember
+
+- Not all inversions work (test boundaries)
+- Valid inversions reveal context-dependence
+- Sometimes opposite is the answer
+- Question "must be" statements

package/skills/problem-solving/meta-pattern-recognition/SKILL.md

@@ -1,54 +1,54 @@
----
-name: Meta-Pattern Recognition
-description: Spot patterns appearing in 3+ domains to find universal principles
-when_to_use: when noticing the same pattern across 3+ different domains or experiencing déjà vu in problem-solving
-version: 1.1.0
----
-
-# Meta-Pattern Recognition
-
-## Overview
-
-When the same pattern appears in 3+ domains, it's probably a universal principle worth extracting.
-
-**Core principle:** Find patterns in how patterns emerge.
-
-## Quick Reference
-
-| Pattern Appears In | Abstract Form | Where Else? |
-|-------------------|---------------|-------------|
-| CPU/DB/HTTP/DNS caching | Store frequently-accessed data closer | LLM prompt caching, CDN |
-| Layering (network/storage/compute) | Separate concerns into abstraction levels | Architecture, organization |
-| Queuing (message/task/request) | Decouple producer from consumer with buffer | Event systems, async processing |
-| Pooling (connection/thread/object) | Reuse expensive resources | Memory management, resource governance |
-
-## Process
-
-1. **Spot repetition** - See same shape in 3+ places
-2. **Extract abstract form** - Describe independent of any domain
-3. **Identify variations** - How does it adapt per domain?
-4. **Check applicability** - Where else might this help?
-
-## Example
-
-**Pattern spotted:** Rate limiting in API throttling, traffic shaping, circuit breakers, admission control
-
-**Abstract form:** Bound resource consumption to prevent exhaustion
-
-**Variation points:** What resource, what limit, what happens when exceeded
-
-**New application:** LLM token budgets (same pattern - prevent context window exhaustion)
-
-## Red Flags You're Missing Meta-Patterns
-
-- "This problem is unique" (probably not)
-- Multiple teams independently solving "different" problems identically
-- Reinventing wheels across domains
-- "Haven't we done something like this?" (yes, find it)
-
-## Remember
-
-- 3+ domains = likely universal
-- Abstract form reveals new applications
-- Variations show adaptation points
-- Universal patterns are battle-tested
+---
+name: Meta-Pattern Recognition
+description: Spot patterns appearing in 3+ domains to find universal principles
+when_to_use: when noticing the same pattern across 3+ different domains or experiencing déjà vu in problem-solving
+version: 1.1.0
+---
+
+# Meta-Pattern Recognition
+
+## Overview
+
+When the same pattern appears in 3+ domains, it's probably a universal principle worth extracting.
+
+**Core principle:** Find patterns in how patterns emerge.
+
+## Quick Reference
+
+| Pattern Appears In | Abstract Form | Where Else? |
+|-------------------|---------------|-------------|
+| CPU/DB/HTTP/DNS caching | Store frequently-accessed data closer | LLM prompt caching, CDN |
+| Layering (network/storage/compute) | Separate concerns into abstraction levels | Architecture, organization |
+| Queuing (message/task/request) | Decouple producer from consumer with buffer | Event systems, async processing |
+| Pooling (connection/thread/object) | Reuse expensive resources | Memory management, resource governance |
+
+## Process
+
+1. **Spot repetition** - See same shape in 3+ places
+2. **Extract abstract form** - Describe independent of any domain
+3. **Identify variations** - How does it adapt per domain?
+4. **Check applicability** - Where else might this help?
+
+## Example
+
+**Pattern spotted:** Rate limiting in API throttling, traffic shaping, circuit breakers, admission control
+
+**Abstract form:** Bound resource consumption to prevent exhaustion
+
+**Variation points:** What resource, what limit, what happens when exceeded
+
+**New application:** LLM token budgets (same pattern - prevent context window exhaustion)
+
+## Red Flags You're Missing Meta-Patterns
+
+- "This problem is unique" (probably not)
+- Multiple teams independently solving "different" problems identically
+- Reinventing wheels across domains
+- "Haven't we done something like this?" (yes, find it)
+
+## Remember
+
+- 3+ domains = likely universal
+- Abstract form reveals new applications
+- Variations show adaptation points
+- Universal patterns are battle-tested