@vodailoc/kilo-kit-mcp 1.1.0

package/skills/productivity/grill-with-docs/ADR-FORMAT.md

@@ -0,0 +1,47 @@
+# ADR Format
+
+ADRs live in `docs/adr/` and use sequential numbering: `0001-slug.md`, `0002-slug.md`, etc.
+
+Create the `docs/adr/` directory lazily — only when the first ADR is needed.
+
+## Template
+
+```md
+# {Short title of the decision}
+
+{1-3 sentences: what's the context, what did we decide, and why.}
+```
+
+That's it. An ADR can be a single paragraph. The value is in recording *that* a decision was made and *why* — not in filling out sections.
+
+## Optional sections
+
+Only include these when they add genuine value. Most ADRs won't need them.
+
+- **Status** frontmatter (`proposed | accepted | deprecated | superseded by ADR-NNNN`) — useful when decisions are revisited
+- **Considered Options** — only when the rejected alternatives are worth remembering
+- **Consequences** — only when non-obvious downstream effects need to be called out
+
+## Numbering
+
+Scan `docs/adr/` for the highest existing number and increment by one.
+
+## When to offer an ADR
+
+All three of these must be true:
+
+1. **Hard to reverse** — the cost of changing your mind later is meaningful
+2. **Surprising without context** — a future reader will look at the code and wonder "why on earth did they do it this way?"
+3. **The result of a real trade-off** — there were genuine alternatives and you picked one for specific reasons
+
+If a decision is easy to reverse, skip it — you'll just reverse it. If it's not surprising, nobody will wonder why. If there was no real alternative, there's nothing to record beyond "we did the obvious thing."
+
+### What qualifies
+
+- **Architectural shape.** "We're using a monorepo." "The write model is event-sourced, the read model is projected into Postgres."
+- **Integration patterns between contexts.** "Ordering and Billing communicate via domain events, not synchronous HTTP."
+- **Technology choices that carry lock-in.** Database, message bus, auth provider, deployment target. Not every library — just the ones that would take a quarter to swap out.
+- **Boundary and scope decisions.** "Customer data is owned by the Customer context; other contexts reference it by ID only." The explicit no-s are as valuable as the yes-s.
+- **Deliberate deviations from the obvious path.** "We're using manual SQL instead of an ORM because X." Anything where a reasonable reader would assume the opposite. These stop the next engineer from "fixing" something that was deliberate.
+- **Constraints not visible in the code.** "We can't use AWS because of compliance requirements." "Response times must be under 200ms because of the partner API contract."
+- **Rejected alternatives when the rejection is non-obvious.** If you considered GraphQL and picked REST for subtle reasons, record it — otherwise someone will suggest GraphQL again in six months.

package/skills/productivity/grill-with-docs/CONTEXT-FORMAT.md

@@ -0,0 +1,77 @@
+# CONTEXT.md Format
+
+## Structure
+
+```md
+# {Context Name}
+
+{One or two sentence description of what this context is and why it exists.}
+
+## Language
+
+**Order**:
+{A concise description of the term}
+_Avoid_: Purchase, transaction
+
+**Invoice**:
+A request for payment sent to a customer after delivery.
+_Avoid_: Bill, payment request
+
+**Customer**:
+A person or organization that places orders.
+_Avoid_: Client, buyer, account
+
+## Relationships
+
+- An **Order** produces one or more **Invoices**
+- An **Invoice** belongs to exactly one **Customer**
+
+## Example dialogue
+
+> **Dev:** "When a **Customer** places an **Order**, do we create the **Invoice** immediately?"
+> **Domain expert:** "No — an **Invoice** is only generated once a **Fulfillment** is confirmed."
+
+## Flagged ambiguities
+
+- "account" was used to mean both **Customer** and **User** — resolved: these are distinct concepts.
+```
+
+## Rules
+
+- **Be opinionated.** When multiple words exist for the same concept, pick the best one and list the others as aliases to avoid.
+- **Flag conflicts explicitly.** If a term is used ambiguously, call it out in "Flagged ambiguities" with a clear resolution.
+- **Keep definitions tight.** One sentence max. Define what it IS, not what it does.
+- **Show relationships.** Use bold term names and express cardinality where obvious.
+- **Only include terms specific to this project's context.** General programming concepts (timeouts, error types, utility patterns) don't belong even if the project uses them extensively. Before adding a term, ask: is this a concept unique to this context, or a general programming concept? Only the former belongs.
+- **Group terms under subheadings** when natural clusters emerge. If all terms belong to a single cohesive area, a flat list is fine.
+- **Write an example dialogue.** A conversation between a dev and a domain expert that demonstrates how the terms interact naturally and clarifies boundaries between related concepts.
+
+## Single vs multi-context repos
+
+**Single context (most repos):** One `CONTEXT.md` at the repo root.
+
+**Multiple contexts:** A `CONTEXT-MAP.md` at the repo root lists the contexts, where they live, and how they relate to each other:
+
+```md
+# Context Map
+
+## Contexts
+
+- [Ordering](./src/ordering/CONTEXT.md) — receives and tracks customer orders
+- [Billing](./src/billing/CONTEXT.md) — generates invoices and processes payments
+- [Fulfillment](./src/fulfillment/CONTEXT.md) — manages warehouse picking and shipping
+
+## Relationships
+
+- **Ordering → Fulfillment**: Ordering emits `OrderPlaced` events; Fulfillment consumes them to start picking
+- **Fulfillment → Billing**: Fulfillment emits `ShipmentDispatched` events; Billing consumes them to generate invoices
+- **Ordering ↔ Billing**: Shared types for `CustomerId` and `Money`
+```
+
+The skill infers which structure applies:
+
+- If `CONTEXT-MAP.md` exists, read it to find contexts
+- If only a root `CONTEXT.md` exists, single context
+- If neither exists, create a root `CONTEXT.md` lazily when the first term is resolved
+
+When multiple contexts exist, infer which one the current topic relates to. If unclear, ask.

package/skills/productivity/grill-with-docs/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,88 @@
+---
+name: grill-with-docs
+description: Grilling session that challenges your plan against the existing domain model, sharpens terminology, and updates documentation (CONTEXT.md, ADRs) inline as decisions crystallise. Use when user wants to stress-test a plan against their project's language and documented decisions.
+---
+
+<what-to-do>
+
+Interview me relentlessly about every aspect of this plan until we reach a shared understanding. Walk down each branch of the design tree, resolving dependencies between decisions one-by-one. For each question, provide your recommended answer.
+
+Ask the questions one at a time, waiting for feedback on each question before continuing.
+
+If a question can be answered by exploring the codebase, explore the codebase instead.
+
+</what-to-do>
+
+<supporting-info>
+
+## Domain awareness
+
+During codebase exploration, also look for existing documentation:
+
+### File structure
+
+Most repos have a single context:
+
+```
+/
+├── CONTEXT.md
+├── docs/
+│   └── adr/
+│       ├── 0001-event-sourced-orders.md
+│       └── 0002-postgres-for-write-model.md
+└── src/
+```
+
+If a `CONTEXT-MAP.md` exists at the root, the repo has multiple contexts. The map points to where each one lives:
+
+```
+/
+├── CONTEXT-MAP.md
+├── docs/
+│   └── adr/                          ← system-wide decisions
+├── src/
+│   ├── ordering/
+│   │   ├── CONTEXT.md
+│   │   └── docs/adr/                 ← context-specific decisions
+│   └── billing/
+│       ├── CONTEXT.md
+│       └── docs/adr/
+```
+
+Create files lazily — only when you have something to write. If no `CONTEXT.md` exists, create one when the first term is resolved. If no `docs/adr/` exists, create it when the first ADR is needed.
+
+## During the session
+
+### Challenge against the glossary
+
+When the user uses a term that conflicts with the existing language in `CONTEXT.md`, call it out immediately. "Your glossary defines 'cancellation' as X, but you seem to mean Y — which is it?"
+
+### Sharpen fuzzy language
+
+When the user uses vague or overloaded terms, propose a precise canonical term. "You're saying 'account' — do you mean the Customer or the User? Those are different things."
+
+### Discuss concrete scenarios
+
+When domain relationships are being discussed, stress-test them with specific scenarios. Invent scenarios that probe edge cases and force the user to be precise about the boundaries between concepts.
+
+### Cross-reference with code
+
+When the user states how something works, check whether the code agrees. If you find a contradiction, surface it: "Your code cancels entire Orders, but you just said partial cancellation is possible — which is right?"
+
+### Update CONTEXT.md inline
+
+When a term is resolved, update `CONTEXT.md` right there. Don't batch these up — capture them as they happen. Use the format in [CONTEXT-FORMAT.md](./CONTEXT-FORMAT.md).
+
+Don't couple `CONTEXT.md` to implementation details. Only include terms that are meaningful to domain experts.
+
+### Offer ADRs sparingly
+
+Only offer to create an ADR when all three are true:
+
+1. **Hard to reverse** — the cost of changing your mind later is meaningful
+2. **Surprising without context** — a future reader will wonder "why did they do it this way?"
+3. **The result of a real trade-off** — there were genuine alternatives and you picked one for specific reasons
+
+If any of the three is missing, skip the ADR. Use the format in [ADR-FORMAT.md](./ADR-FORMAT.md).
+
+</supporting-info>

package/skills/productivity/parallel-agents/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,175 @@
+---
+name: parallel-agents
+description: Multi-agent orchestration patterns. Use when multiple independent tasks can run with different domain expertise or when comprehensive analysis requires multiple perspectives.
+allowed-tools: Read, Glob, Grep
+---
+
+# Native Parallel Agents
+
+> Orchestration through Claude Code's built-in Agent Tool
+
+## Overview
+
+This skill enables coordinating multiple specialized agents through Claude Code's native agent system. Unlike external scripts, this approach keeps all orchestration within Claude's control.
+
+## When to Use Orchestration
+
+✅ **Good for:**
+- Complex tasks requiring multiple expertise domains
+- Code analysis from security, performance, and quality perspectives
+- Comprehensive reviews (architecture + security + testing)
+- Feature implementation needing backend + frontend + database work
+
+❌ **Not for:**
+- Simple, single-domain tasks
+- Quick fixes or small changes
+- Tasks where one agent suffices
+
+---
+
+## Native Agent Invocation
+
+### Single Agent
+```
+Use the security-auditor agent to review authentication
+```
+
+### Sequential Chain
+```
+First, use the explorer-agent to discover project structure.
+Then, use the backend-specialist to review API endpoints.
+Finally, use the test-engineer to identify test gaps.
+```
+
+### With Context Passing
+```
+Use the frontend-specialist to analyze React components.
+Based on those findings, have the test-engineer generate component tests.
+```
+
+### Resume Previous Work
+```
+Resume agent [agentId] and continue with additional requirements.
+```
+
+---
+
+## Orchestration Patterns
+
+### Pattern 1: Comprehensive Analysis
+```
+Agents: explorer-agent → [domain-agents] → synthesis
+
+1. explorer-agent: Map codebase structure
+2. security-auditor: Security posture
+3. backend-specialist: API quality
+4. frontend-specialist: UI/UX patterns
+5. test-engineer: Test coverage
+6. Synthesize all findings
+```
+
+### Pattern 2: Feature Review
+```
+Agents: affected-domain-agents → test-engineer
+
+1. Identify affected domains (backend? frontend? both?)
+2. Invoke relevant domain agents
+3. test-engineer verifies changes
+4. Synthesize recommendations
+```
+
+### Pattern 3: Security Audit
+```
+Agents: security-auditor → penetration-tester → synthesis
+
+1. security-auditor: Configuration and code review
+2. penetration-tester: Active vulnerability testing
+3. Synthesize with prioritized remediation
+```
+
+---
+
+## Available Agents
+
+| Agent | Expertise | Trigger Phrases |
+|-------|-----------|-----------------|
+| `orchestrator` | Coordination | "comprehensive", "multi-perspective" |
+| `security-auditor` | Security | "security", "auth", "vulnerabilities" |
+| `penetration-tester` | Security Testing | "pentest", "red team", "exploit" |
+| `backend-specialist` | Backend | "API", "server", "Node.js", "Express" |
+| `frontend-specialist` | Frontend | "React", "UI", "components", "Next.js" |
+| `test-engineer` | Testing | "tests", "coverage", "TDD" |
+| `devops-engineer` | DevOps | "deploy", "CI/CD", "infrastructure" |
+| `database-architect` | Database | "schema", "Prisma", "migrations" |
+| `mobile-developer` | Mobile | "React Native", "Flutter", "mobile" |
+| `api-designer` | API Design | "REST", "GraphQL", "OpenAPI" |
+| `debugger` | Debugging | "bug", "error", "not working" |
+| `explorer-agent` | Discovery | "explore", "map", "structure" |
+| `documentation-writer` | Documentation | "write docs", "create README", "generate API docs" |
+| `performance-optimizer` | Performance | "slow", "optimize", "profiling" |
+| `project-planner` | Planning | "plan", "roadmap", "milestones" |
+| `seo-specialist` | SEO | "SEO", "meta tags", "search ranking" |
+| `game-developer` | Game Development | "game", "Unity", "Godot", "Phaser" |
+
+---
+
+## Claude Code Built-in Agents
+
+These work alongside custom agents:
+
+| Agent | Model | Purpose |
+|-------|-------|---------|
+| **Explore** | Haiku | Fast read-only codebase search |
+| **Plan** | Sonnet | Research during plan mode |
+| **General-purpose** | Sonnet | Complex multi-step modifications |
+
+Use **Explore** for quick searches, **custom agents** for domain expertise.
+
+---
+
+## Synthesis Protocol
+
+After all agents complete, synthesize:
+
+```markdown
+## Orchestration Synthesis
+
+### Task Summary
+[What was accomplished]
+
+### Agent Contributions
+| Agent | Finding |
+|-------|---------|
+| security-auditor | Found X |
+| backend-specialist | Identified Y |
+
+### Consolidated Recommendations
+1. **Critical**: [Issue from Agent A]
+2. **Important**: [Issue from Agent B]
+3. **Nice-to-have**: [Enhancement from Agent C]
+
+### Action Items
+- [ ] Fix critical security issue
+- [ ] Refactor API endpoint
+- [ ] Add missing tests
+```
+
+---
+
+## Best Practices
+
+1. **Available agents** - 17 specialized agents can be orchestrated
+2. **Logical order** - Discovery → Analysis → Implementation → Testing
+3. **Share context** - Pass relevant findings to subsequent agents
+4. **Single synthesis** - One unified report, not separate outputs
+5. **Verify changes** - Always include test-engineer for code modifications
+
+---
+
+## Key Benefits
+
+- ✅ **Single session** - All agents share context
+- ✅ **AI-controlled** - Claude orchestrates autonomously
+- ✅ **Native integration** - Works with built-in Explore, Plan agents
+- ✅ **Resume support** - Can continue previous agent work
+- ✅ **Context passing** - Findings flow between agents

package/skills/productivity/plan-writing/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,152 @@
+---
+name: plan-writing
+description: Structured task planning with clear breakdowns, dependencies, and verification criteria. Use when implementing features, refactoring, or any multi-step work.
+allowed-tools: Read, Glob, Grep
+---
+
+# Plan Writing
+
+> Source: obra/superpowers
+
+## Overview
+This skill provides a framework for breaking down work into clear, actionable tasks with verification criteria.
+
+## Task Breakdown Principles
+
+### 1. Small, Focused Tasks
+- Each task should take 2-5 minutes
+- One clear outcome per task
+- Independently verifiable
+
+### 2. Clear Verification
+- How do you know it's done?
+- What can you check/test?
+- What's the expected output?
+
+### 3. Logical Ordering
+- Dependencies identified
+- Parallel work where possible
+- Critical path highlighted
+- **Phase X: Verification is always LAST**
+
+### 4. Dynamic Naming in Project Root
+- Plan files are saved as `{task-slug}.md` in the PROJECT ROOT
+- Name derived from task (e.g., "add auth" → `auth-feature.md`)
+- **NEVER** inside `.claude/`, `docs/`, or temp folders
+
+## Planning Principles (NOT Templates!)
+
+> 🔴 **NO fixed templates. Each plan is UNIQUE to the task.**
+
+### Principle 1: Keep It SHORT
+
+| ❌ Wrong | ✅ Right |
+|----------|----------|
+| 50 tasks with sub-sub-tasks | 5-10 clear tasks max |
+| Every micro-step listed | Only actionable items |
+| Verbose descriptions | One-line per task |
+
+> **Rule:** If plan is longer than 1 page, it's too long. Simplify.
+
+---
+
+### Principle 2: Be SPECIFIC, Not Generic
+
+| ❌ Wrong | ✅ Right |
+|----------|----------|
+| "Set up project" | "Run `npx create-next-app`" |
+| "Add authentication" | "Install next-auth, create `/api/auth/[...nextauth].ts`" |
+| "Style the UI" | "Add Tailwind classes to `Header.tsx`" |
+
+> **Rule:** Each task should have a clear, verifiable outcome.
+
+---
+
+### Principle 3: Dynamic Content Based on Project Type
+
+**For NEW PROJECT:**
+- What tech stack? (decide first)
+- What's the MVP? (minimal features)
+- What's the file structure?
+
+**For FEATURE ADDITION:**
+- Which files are affected?
+- What dependencies needed?
+- How to verify it works?
+
+**For BUG FIX:**
+- What's the root cause?
+- What file/line to change?
+- How to test the fix?
+
+---
+
+### Principle 4: Scripts Are Project-Specific
+
+> 🔴 **DO NOT copy-paste script commands. Choose based on project type.**
+
+| Project Type | Relevant Scripts |
+|--------------|------------------|
+| Frontend/React | `ux_audit.py`, `accessibility_checker.py` |
+| Backend/API | `api_validator.py`, `security_scan.py` |
+| Mobile | `mobile_audit.py` |
+| Database | `schema_validator.py` |
+| Full-stack | Mix of above based on what you touched |
+
+**Wrong:** Adding all scripts to every plan
+**Right:** Only scripts relevant to THIS task
+
+---
+
+### Principle 5: Verification is Simple
+
+| ❌ Wrong | ✅ Right |
+|----------|----------|
+| "Verify the component works correctly" | "Run `npm run dev`, click button, see toast" |
+| "Test the API" | "curl localhost:3000/api/users returns 200" |
+| "Check styles" | "Open browser, verify dark mode toggle works" |
+
+---
+
+## Plan Structure (Flexible, Not Fixed!)
+
+```
+# [Task Name]
+
+## Goal
+One sentence: What are we building/fixing?
+
+## Tasks
+- [ ] Task 1: [Specific action] → Verify: [How to check]
+- [ ] Task 2: [Specific action] → Verify: [How to check]
+- [ ] Task 3: [Specific action] → Verify: [How to check]
+
+## Done When
+- [ ] [Main success criteria]
+```
+
+> **That's it.** No phases, no sub-sections unless truly needed.
+> Keep it minimal. Add complexity only when required.
+
+## Notes
+[Any important considerations]
+```
+
+---
+
+## Best Practices (Quick Reference)
+
+1. **Start with goal** - What are we building/fixing?
+2. **Max 10 tasks** - If more, break into multiple plans
+3. **Each task verifiable** - Clear "done" criteria
+4. **Project-specific** - No copy-paste templates
+5. **Update as you go** - Mark `[x]` when complete
+
+---
+
+## When to Use
+
+- New project from scratch
+- Adding a feature
+- Fixing a bug (if complex)
+- Refactoring multiple files