@vodailoc/kilo-kit-mcp 1.1.0

package/skills/engineering/code-review/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,140 @@
+---
+name: code-review
+description: Use when receiving code review feedback (especially if unclear or technically questionable), when completing tasks or major features requiring review before proceeding, or before making any completion/success claims. Covers three practices - receiving feedback with technical rigor over performative agreement, requesting reviews via code-reviewer subagent, and verification gates requiring evidence before any status claims. Essential for subagent-driven development, pull requests, and preventing false completion claims.
+---
+
+# Code Review
+
+Guide proper code review practices emphasizing technical rigor, evidence-based claims, and verification over performative responses.
+
+## Overview
+
+Code review requires three distinct practices:
+
+1. **Receiving feedback** - Technical evaluation over performative agreement
+2. **Requesting reviews** - Systematic review via code-reviewer subagent
+3. **Verification gates** - Evidence before any completion claims
+
+Each practice has specific triggers and protocols detailed in reference files.
+
+## Core Principle
+
+**Technical correctness over social comfort.** Verify before implementing. Ask before assuming. Evidence before claims.
+
+## When to Use This Skill
+
+### Receiving Feedback
+Trigger when:
+- Receiving code review comments from any source
+- Feedback seems unclear or technically questionable
+- Multiple review items need prioritization
+- External reviewer lacks full context
+- Suggestion conflicts with existing decisions
+
+**Reference:** `references/code-review-reception.md`
+
+### Requesting Review
+Trigger when:
+- Completing tasks in subagent-driven development (after EACH task)
+- Finishing major features or refactors
+- Before merging to main branch
+- Stuck and need fresh perspective
+- After fixing complex bugs
+
+**Reference:** `references/requesting-code-review.md`
+
+### Verification Gates
+Trigger when:
+- About to claim tests pass, build succeeds, or work is complete
+- Before committing, pushing, or creating PRs
+- Moving to next task
+- Any statement suggesting success/completion
+- Expressing satisfaction with work
+
+**Reference:** `references/verification-before-completion.md`
+
+## Quick Decision Tree
+
+```
+SITUATION?
+│
+├─ Received feedback
+│  ├─ Unclear items? → STOP, ask for clarification first
+│  ├─ From human partner? → Understand, then implement
+│  └─ From external reviewer? → Verify technically before implementing
+│
+├─ Completed work
+│  ├─ Major feature/task? → Request code-reviewer subagent review
+│  └─ Before merge? → Request code-reviewer subagent review
+│
+└─ About to claim status
+   ├─ Have fresh verification? → State claim WITH evidence
+   └─ No fresh verification? → RUN verification command first
+```
+
+## Receiving Feedback Protocol
+
+### Response Pattern
+READ → UNDERSTAND → VERIFY → EVALUATE → RESPOND → IMPLEMENT
+
+### Key Rules
+- ❌ No performative agreement: "You're absolutely right!", "Great point!", "Thanks for [anything]"
+- ❌ No implementation before verification
+- ✅ Restate requirement, ask questions, push back with technical reasoning, or just start working
+- ✅ If unclear: STOP and ask for clarification on ALL unclear items first
+- ✅ YAGNI check: grep for usage before implementing suggested "proper" features
+
+### Source Handling
+- **Human partner:** Trusted - implement after understanding, no performative agreement
+- **External reviewers:** Verify technically correct, check for breakage, push back if wrong
+
+**Full protocol:** `references/code-review-reception.md`
+
+## Requesting Review Protocol
+
+### When to Request
+- After each task in subagent-driven development
+- After major feature completion
+- Before merge to main
+
+### Process
+1. Get git SHAs: `BASE_SHA=$(git rev-parse HEAD~1)` and `HEAD_SHA=$(git rev-parse HEAD)`
+2. Dispatch code-reviewer subagent via Task tool with: WHAT_WAS_IMPLEMENTED, PLAN_OR_REQUIREMENTS, BASE_SHA, HEAD_SHA, DESCRIPTION
+3. Act on feedback: Fix Critical immediately, Important before proceeding, note Minor for later
+
+**Full protocol:** `references/requesting-code-review.md`
+
+## Verification Gates Protocol
+
+### The Iron Law
+**NO COMPLETION CLAIMS WITHOUT FRESH VERIFICATION EVIDENCE**
+
+### Gate Function
+IDENTIFY command → RUN full command → READ output → VERIFY confirms claim → THEN claim
+
+Skip any step = lying, not verifying
+
+### Requirements
+- Tests pass: Test output shows 0 failures
+- Build succeeds: Build command exit 0
+- Bug fixed: Test original symptom passes
+- Requirements met: Line-by-line checklist verified
+
+### Red Flags - STOP
+Using "should"/"probably"/"seems to", expressing satisfaction before verification, committing without verification, trusting agent reports, ANY wording implying success without running verification
+
+**Full protocol:** `references/verification-before-completion.md`
+
+## Integration with Workflows
+
+- **Subagent-Driven:** Review after EACH task, verify before moving to next
+- **Pull Requests:** Verify tests pass, request code-reviewer review before merge
+- **General:** Apply verification gates before any status claims, push back on invalid feedback
+
+## Bottom Line
+
+1. Technical rigor over social performance - No performative agreement
+2. Systematic review processes - Use code-reviewer subagent
+3. Evidence before claims - Verification gates always
+
+Verify. Question. Then implement. Evidence. Then claim.

package/skills/engineering/code-review/references/code-review-reception.md

@@ -0,0 +1,209 @@
+---
+name: receiving-code-review
+description: Use when receiving code review feedback, before implementing suggestions, especially if feedback seems unclear or technically questionable - requires technical rigor and verification, not performative agreement or blind implementation
+---
+
+# Code Review Reception
+
+## Overview
+
+Code review requires technical evaluation, not emotional performance.
+
+**Core principle:** Verify before implementing. Ask before assuming. Technical correctness over social comfort.
+
+## The Response Pattern
+
+```
+WHEN receiving code review feedback:
+
+1. READ: Complete feedback without reacting
+2. UNDERSTAND: Restate requirement in own words (or ask)
+3. VERIFY: Check against codebase reality
+4. EVALUATE: Technically sound for THIS codebase?
+5. RESPOND: Technical acknowledgment or reasoned pushback
+6. IMPLEMENT: One item at a time, test each
+```
+
+## Forbidden Responses
+
+**NEVER:**
+- "You're absolutely right!" (explicit CLAUDE.md violation)
+- "Great point!" / "Excellent feedback!" (performative)
+- "Let me implement that now" (before verification)
+
+**INSTEAD:**
+- Restate the technical requirement
+- Ask clarifying questions
+- Push back with technical reasoning if wrong
+- Just start working (actions > words)
+
+## Handling Unclear Feedback
+
+```
+IF any item is unclear:
+  STOP - do not implement anything yet
+  ASK for clarification on unclear items
+
+WHY: Items may be related. Partial understanding = wrong implementation.
+```
+
+**Example:**
+```
+your human partner: "Fix 1-6"
+You understand 1,2,3,6. Unclear on 4,5.
+
+❌ WRONG: Implement 1,2,3,6 now, ask about 4,5 later
+✅ RIGHT: "I understand items 1,2,3,6. Need clarification on 4 and 5 before proceeding."
+```
+
+## Source-Specific Handling
+
+### From your human partner
+- **Trusted** - implement after understanding
+- **Still ask** if scope unclear
+- **No performative agreement**
+- **Skip to action** or technical acknowledgment
+
+### From External Reviewers
+```
+BEFORE implementing:
+  1. Check: Technically correct for THIS codebase?
+  2. Check: Breaks existing functionality?
+  3. Check: Reason for current implementation?
+  4. Check: Works on all platforms/versions?
+  5. Check: Does reviewer understand full context?
+
+IF suggestion seems wrong:
+  Push back with technical reasoning
+
+IF can't easily verify:
+  Say so: "I can't verify this without [X]. Should I [investigate/ask/proceed]?"
+
+IF conflicts with your human partner's prior decisions:
+  Stop and discuss with your human partner first
+```
+
+**your human partner's rule:** "External feedback - be skeptical, but check carefully"
+
+## YAGNI Check for "Professional" Features
+
+```
+IF reviewer suggests "implementing properly":
+  grep codebase for actual usage
+
+  IF unused: "This endpoint isn't called. Remove it (YAGNI)?"
+  IF used: Then implement properly
+```
+
+**your human partner's rule:** "You and reviewer both report to me. If we don't need this feature, don't add it."
+
+## Implementation Order
+
+```
+FOR multi-item feedback:
+  1. Clarify anything unclear FIRST
+  2. Then implement in this order:
+     - Blocking issues (breaks, security)
+     - Simple fixes (typos, imports)
+     - Complex fixes (refactoring, logic)
+  3. Test each fix individually
+  4. Verify no regressions
+```
+
+## When To Push Back
+
+Push back when:
+- Suggestion breaks existing functionality
+- Reviewer lacks full context
+- Violates YAGNI (unused feature)
+- Technically incorrect for this stack
+- Legacy/compatibility reasons exist
+- Conflicts with your human partner's architectural decisions
+
+**How to push back:**
+- Use technical reasoning, not defensiveness
+- Ask specific questions
+- Reference working tests/code
+- Involve your human partner if architectural
+
+**Signal if uncomfortable pushing back out loud:** "Strange things are afoot at the Circle K"
+
+## Acknowledging Correct Feedback
+
+When feedback IS correct:
+```
+✅ "Fixed. [Brief description of what changed]"
+✅ "Good catch - [specific issue]. Fixed in [location]."
+✅ [Just fix it and show in the code]
+
+❌ "You're absolutely right!"
+❌ "Great point!"
+❌ "Thanks for catching that!"
+❌ "Thanks for [anything]"
+❌ ANY gratitude expression
+```
+
+**Why no thanks:** Actions speak. Just fix it. The code itself shows you heard the feedback.
+
+**If you catch yourself about to write "Thanks":** DELETE IT. State the fix instead.
+
+## Gracefully Correcting Your Pushback
+
+If you pushed back and were wrong:
+```
+✅ "You were right - I checked [X] and it does [Y]. Implementing now."
+✅ "Verified this and you're correct. My initial understanding was wrong because [reason]. Fixing."
+
+❌ Long apology
+❌ Defending why you pushed back
+❌ Over-explaining
+```
+
+State the correction factually and move on.
+
+## Common Mistakes
+
+| Mistake | Fix |
+|---------|-----|
+| Performative agreement | State requirement or just act |
+| Blind implementation | Verify against codebase first |
+| Batch without testing | One at a time, test each |
+| Assuming reviewer is right | Check if breaks things |
+| Avoiding pushback | Technical correctness > comfort |
+| Partial implementation | Clarify all items first |
+| Can't verify, proceed anyway | State limitation, ask for direction |
+
+## Real Examples
+
+**Performative Agreement (Bad):**
+```
+Reviewer: "Remove legacy code"
+❌ "You're absolutely right! Let me remove that..."
+```
+
+**Technical Verification (Good):**
+```
+Reviewer: "Remove legacy code"
+✅ "Checking... build target is 10.15+, this API needs 13+. Need legacy for backward compat. Current impl has wrong bundle ID - fix it or drop pre-13 support?"
+```
+
+**YAGNI (Good):**
+```
+Reviewer: "Implement proper metrics tracking with database, date filters, CSV export"
+✅ "Grepped codebase - nothing calls this endpoint. Remove it (YAGNI)? Or is there usage I'm missing?"
+```
+
+**Unclear Item (Good):**
+```
+your human partner: "Fix items 1-6"
+You understand 1,2,3,6. Unclear on 4,5.
+✅ "Understand 1,2,3,6. Need clarification on 4 and 5 before implementing."
+```
+
+## The Bottom Line
+
+**External feedback = suggestions to evaluate, not orders to follow.**
+
+Verify. Question. Then implement.
+
+No performative agreement. Technical rigor always.

package/skills/engineering/code-review/references/requesting-code-review.md

@@ -0,0 +1,105 @@
+---
+name: requesting-code-review
+description: Use when completing tasks, implementing major features, or before merging to verify work meets requirements - dispatches code-reviewer subagent to review implementation against plan or requirements before proceeding
+---
+
+# Requesting Code Review
+
+Dispatch code-reviewer subagent to catch issues before they cascade.
+
+**Core principle:** Review early, review often.
+
+## When to Request Review
+
+**Mandatory:**
+- After each task in subagent-driven development
+- After completing major feature
+- Before merge to main
+
+**Optional but valuable:**
+- When stuck (fresh perspective)
+- Before refactoring (baseline check)
+- After fixing complex bug
+
+## How to Request
+
+**1. Get git SHAs:**
+```bash
+BASE_SHA=$(git rev-parse HEAD~1)  # or origin/main
+HEAD_SHA=$(git rev-parse HEAD)
+```
+
+**2. Dispatch code-reviewer subagent:**
+
+Use Task tool with `code-reviewer` type, fill template at `code-reviewer.md`
+
+**Placeholders:**
+- `{WHAT_WAS_IMPLEMENTED}` - What you just built
+- `{PLAN_OR_REQUIREMENTS}` - What it should do
+- `{BASE_SHA}` - Starting commit
+- `{HEAD_SHA}` - Ending commit
+- `{DESCRIPTION}` - Brief summary
+
+**3. Act on feedback:**
+- Fix Critical issues immediately
+- Fix Important issues before proceeding
+- Note Minor issues for later
+- Push back if reviewer is wrong (with reasoning)
+
+## Example
+
+```
+[Just completed Task 2: Add verification function]
+
+You: Let me request code review before proceeding.
+
+BASE_SHA=$(git log --oneline | grep "Task 1" | head -1 | awk '{print $1}')
+HEAD_SHA=$(git rev-parse HEAD)
+
+[Dispatch code-reviewer subagent]
+  WHAT_WAS_IMPLEMENTED: Verification and repair functions for conversation index
+  PLAN_OR_REQUIREMENTS: Task 2 from docs/plans/deployment-plan.md
+  BASE_SHA: a7981ec
+  HEAD_SHA: 3df7661
+  DESCRIPTION: Added verifyIndex() and repairIndex() with 4 issue types
+
+[Subagent returns]:
+  Strengths: Clean architecture, real tests
+  Issues:
+    Important: Missing progress indicators
+    Minor: Magic number (100) for reporting interval
+  Assessment: Ready to proceed
+
+You: [Fix progress indicators]
+[Continue to Task 3]
+```
+
+## Integration with Workflows
+
+**Subagent-Driven Development:**
+- Review after EACH task
+- Catch issues before they compound
+- Fix before moving to next task
+
+**Executing Plans:**
+- Review after each batch (3 tasks)
+- Get feedback, apply, continue
+
+**Ad-Hoc Development:**
+- Review before merge
+- Review when stuck
+
+## Red Flags
+
+**Never:**
+- Skip review because "it's simple"
+- Ignore Critical issues
+- Proceed with unfixed Important issues
+- Argue with valid technical feedback
+
+**If reviewer wrong:**
+- Push back with technical reasoning
+- Show code/tests that prove it works
+- Request clarification
+
+See template at: requesting-code-review/code-reviewer.md

package/skills/engineering/code-review/references/verification-before-completion.md

@@ -0,0 +1,139 @@
+---
+name: verification-before-completion
+description: Use when about to claim work is complete, fixed, or passing, before committing or creating PRs - requires running verification commands and confirming output before making any success claims; evidence before assertions always
+---
+
+# Verification Before Completion
+
+## Overview
+
+Claiming work is complete without verification is dishonesty, not efficiency.
+
+**Core principle:** Evidence before claims, always.
+
+**Violating the letter of this rule is violating the spirit of this rule.**
+
+## The Iron Law
+
+```
+NO COMPLETION CLAIMS WITHOUT FRESH VERIFICATION EVIDENCE
+```
+
+If you haven't run the verification command in this message, you cannot claim it passes.
+
+## The Gate Function
+
+```
+BEFORE claiming any status or expressing satisfaction:
+
+1. IDENTIFY: What command proves this claim?
+2. RUN: Execute the FULL command (fresh, complete)
+3. READ: Full output, check exit code, count failures
+4. VERIFY: Does output confirm the claim?
+   - If NO: State actual status with evidence
+   - If YES: State claim WITH evidence
+5. ONLY THEN: Make the claim
+
+Skip any step = lying, not verifying
+```
+
+## Common Failures
+
+| Claim | Requires | Not Sufficient |
+|-------|----------|----------------|
+| Tests pass | Test command output: 0 failures | Previous run, "should pass" |
+| Linter clean | Linter output: 0 errors | Partial check, extrapolation |
+| Build succeeds | Build command: exit 0 | Linter passing, logs look good |
+| Bug fixed | Test original symptom: passes | Code changed, assumed fixed |
+| Regression test works | Red-green cycle verified | Test passes once |
+| Agent completed | VCS diff shows changes | Agent reports "success" |
+| Requirements met | Line-by-line checklist | Tests passing |
+
+## Red Flags - STOP
+
+- Using "should", "probably", "seems to"
+- Expressing satisfaction before verification ("Great!", "Perfect!", "Done!", etc.)
+- About to commit/push/PR without verification
+- Trusting agent success reports
+- Relying on partial verification
+- Thinking "just this once"
+- Tired and wanting work over
+- **ANY wording implying success without having run verification**
+
+## Rationalization Prevention
+
+| Excuse | Reality |
+|--------|---------|
+| "Should work now" | RUN the verification |
+| "I'm confident" | Confidence ≠ evidence |
+| "Just this once" | No exceptions |
+| "Linter passed" | Linter ≠ compiler |
+| "Agent said success" | Verify independently |
+| "I'm tired" | Exhaustion ≠ excuse |
+| "Partial check is enough" | Partial proves nothing |
+| "Different words so rule doesn't apply" | Spirit over letter |
+
+## Key Patterns
+
+**Tests:**
+```
+✅ [Run test command] [See: 34/34 pass] "All tests pass"
+❌ "Should pass now" / "Looks correct"
+```
+
+**Regression tests (TDD Red-Green):**
+```
+✅ Write → Run (pass) → Revert fix → Run (MUST FAIL) → Restore → Run (pass)
+❌ "I've written a regression test" (without red-green verification)
+```
+
+**Build:**
+```
+✅ [Run build] [See: exit 0] "Build passes"
+❌ "Linter passed" (linter doesn't check compilation)
+```
+
+**Requirements:**
+```
+✅ Re-read plan → Create checklist → Verify each → Report gaps or completion
+❌ "Tests pass, phase complete"
+```
+
+**Agent delegation:**
+```
+✅ Agent reports success → Check VCS diff → Verify changes → Report actual state
+❌ Trust agent report
+```
+
+## Why This Matters
+
+From 24 failure memories:
+- your human partner said "I don't believe you" - trust broken
+- Undefined functions shipped - would crash
+- Missing requirements shipped - incomplete features
+- Time wasted on false completion → redirect → rework
+- Violates: "Honesty is a core value. If you lie, you'll be replaced."
+
+## When To Apply
+
+**ALWAYS before:**
+- ANY variation of success/completion claims
+- ANY expression of satisfaction
+- ANY positive statement about work state
+- Committing, PR creation, task completion
+- Moving to next task
+- Delegating to agents
+
+**Rule applies to:**
+- Exact phrases
+- Paraphrases and synonyms
+- Implications of success
+- ANY communication suggesting completion/correctness
+
+## The Bottom Line
+
+**No shortcuts for verification.**
+
+Run the command. Read the output. THEN claim the result.
+
+This is non-negotiable.

package/skills/engineering/code-review-checklist/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,109 @@
+---
+name: code-review-checklist
+description: Code review guidelines covering code quality, security, and best practices.
+allowed-tools: Read, Glob, Grep
+---
+
+# Code Review Checklist
+
+## Quick Review Checklist
+
+### Correctness
+- [ ] Code does what it's supposed to do
+- [ ] Edge cases handled
+- [ ] Error handling in place
+- [ ] No obvious bugs
+
+### Security
+- [ ] Input validated and sanitized
+- [ ] No SQL/NoSQL injection vulnerabilities
+- [ ] No XSS or CSRF vulnerabilities
+- [ ] No hardcoded secrets or sensitive credentials
+- [ ] **AI-Specific:** Protection against Prompt Injection (if applicable)
+- [ ] **AI-Specific:** Outputs are sanitized before being used in critical sinks
+
+### Performance
+- [ ] No N+1 queries
+- [ ] No unnecessary loops
+- [ ] Appropriate caching
+- [ ] Bundle size impact considered
+
+### Code Quality
+- [ ] Clear naming
+- [ ] DRY - no duplicate code
+- [ ] SOLID principles followed
+- [ ] Appropriate abstraction level
+
+### Testing
+- [ ] Unit tests for new code
+- [ ] Edge cases tested
+- [ ] Tests readable and maintainable
+
+### Documentation
+- [ ] Complex logic commented
+- [ ] Public APIs documented
+- [ ] README updated if needed
+
+## AI & LLM Review Patterns (2025)
+
+### Logic & Hallucinations
+- [ ] **Chain of Thought:** Does the logic follow a verifiable path?
+- [ ] **Edge Cases:** Did the AI account for empty states, timeouts, and partial failures?
+- [ ] **External State:** Is the code making safe assumptions about file systems or networks?
+
+### Prompt Engineering Review
+```markdown
+// ❌ Vague prompt in code
+const response = await ai.generate(userInput);
+
+// ✅ Structured & Safe prompt
+const response = await ai.generate({
+  system: "You are a specialized parser...",
+  input: sanitize(userInput),
+  schema: ResponseSchema
+});
+```
+
+## Anti-Patterns to Flag
+
+```typescript
+// ❌ Magic numbers
+if (status === 3) { ... }
+
+// ✅ Named constants
+if (status === Status.ACTIVE) { ... }
+
+// ❌ Deep nesting
+if (a) { if (b) { if (c) { ... } } }
+
+// ✅ Early returns
+if (!a) return;
+if (!b) return;
+if (!c) return;
+// do work
+
+// ❌ Long functions (100+ lines)
+// ✅ Small, focused functions
+
+// ❌ any type
+const data: any = ...
+
+// ✅ Proper types
+const data: UserData = ...
+```
+
+## Review Comments Guide
+
+```
+// Blocking issues use 🔴
+🔴 BLOCKING: SQL injection vulnerability here
+
+// Important suggestions use 🟡
+🟡 SUGGESTION: Consider using useMemo for performance
+
+// Minor nits use 🟢
+🟢 NIT: Prefer const over let for immutable variable
+
+// Questions use ❓
+❓ QUESTION: What happens if user is null here?
+```