@webpresso/plugin-antigravity 0.0.0-stage → 0.0.17

package/skills/ai-deslop/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,96 @@
+---
+type: skill
+slug: ai-deslop
+title: AI Deslop
+status: active
+scope: repo
+applies_to: [agents]
+related: [fix, verify, investigate]
+created: "2026-07-16"
+last_reviewed: "2026-07-16"
+name: ai-deslop
+description: "Anti-slop cleanup after green. Use for elegance, simplify, deslop, trim noise."
+license: MIT
+upstream:
+  source: https://github.com/Yeachan-Heo/oh-my-claudecode/tree/590fb988931d34a12604be0ca4215c818079018e/skills/ai-slop-cleaner
+  last_synced: "2026-07-16"
+argument-hint: "[--review] <files|path|scope>"
+---
+
+# AI Deslop
+
+## Use when (freeform)
+
+- "deslop", "elegance", "simplify", "cleanup slop", "trim noise"
+- after `verify` finds green behavior with leftover machine-shaped debt
+
+Use this skill after behavior is already correct but the resulting code or docs
+still feel bloated, repetitive, over-scaffolded, or obviously machine-shaped.
+
+## Boundary
+
+- `ai-deslop` is a cleanup pass, not a feature lane.
+- Preserve behavior. If the work needs a logic change, route back to `fix`.
+- Prefer deletion and simplification over new abstraction.
+- Keep scope bounded to the requested files, changed files, or clearly named
+  area. Do not expand into broad redesign.
+
+## When to use it
+
+- The user explicitly asks to deslop, clean up AI slop, simplify, or trim noise.
+- A completed feature still contains dead code, duplicate helpers, wrapper
+  layers, weak boundaries, or generated-sounding prose/comments.
+- `verify` finds stale compatibility branches, cargo-cult abstractions, or
+  cleanup debt after the behavioral proof is already green.
+- The user wants a reviewer-only anti-slop pass via `--review`.
+
+## When not to use it
+
+- Behavior is still failing or root cause is not established.
+- The request is really a new feature, redesign, or semantic refactor.
+- Verification is too weak to protect preserved behavior.
+
+## Modes
+
+### Standard mode
+
+1. Lock behavior first with the narrowest regression proof available.
+2. Write a short cleanup plan naming the concrete slop to remove.
+3. Classify each smell:
+   - dead code / unused exports
+   - duplication / needless wrappers
+   - compatibility scaffolding that no longer serves a consumer
+   - noisy comments, docs, or prompts that restate the obvious
+   - weak boundaries or helper proliferation with no clear owner
+4. Apply the smallest safe deletions and consolidations first.
+5. Re-run the same scoped verification after each meaningful pass.
+
+### Review mode (`--review`)
+
+Use this to review a drafted cleanup pass without writing code.
+
+1. Inspect the cleanup plan, changed files, and verification evidence.
+2. Look specifically for leftover dead code, duplicate logic, needless
+   abstraction, and accidental behavior drift.
+3. Return a verdict plus required follow-ups.
+4. Do not both write and self-approve the same high-impact cleanup pass.
+
+## Verification
+
+Run only the narrowest checks that protect preserved behavior:
+
+- targeted tests
+- targeted lint/typecheck
+- any changed docs or command-surface checks
+
+If the cleanup touches shared/public surfaces or broad repo-owned docs, hand the
+result to `verify` before calling it done.
+
+## Output
+
+Return:
+
+- cleanup scope
+- slop classes removed
+- proof that behavior stayed locked
+- remaining follow-ups, if any

package/skills/antigravity/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,52 @@
+---
+name: antigravity
+description: "Antigravity outside-voice reviewer through Webpresso MCP."
+license: MIT
+---
+
+# Antigravity outside-voice review
+
+Use only for a requested content-bound plan or delivery review. Treat output as external advice
+until independently verified.
+
+## MCP-only contract
+
+- Call `review_gate` exactly once for the real plan version or delivery diff.
+- Observe the same durable operation with `review_gate_wait` when needed.
+- Never invoke a provider command, the legacy review CLI, or a removed review-run surface.
+- If the review MCP is unavailable, stop and report it unavailable. There is no CLI fallback.
+
+## Gate call
+
+```jsonc
+{
+  "project_id": "<project>",
+  "slug": "<blueprint-slug>",
+  "purpose": "delivery",
+  "base_ref": "<full-base-sha>",
+  "authority_ref": "<full-head-sha>",
+  "caller_model": "<your own model id, exactly as your host reports it>",
+  "repository_access": "none",
+}
+```
+
+Each newly executed provider review that reaches a verdict is one formal round of the
+slug's budget, and its approval is authority. An identical-subject call replays the recorded
+verdict with no new review and no new round. A partial approval, withheld because adjudication
+is incomplete (not every prior finding was briefed, or a briefed prior claim was marked
+still-open without a matching finding), grants no authority and spends no round.
+
+## Reviewer selection
+
+Pass `caller_model` with your OWN model id, exactly as your host reports it, and omit
+`provider`, `model`, and `effort`: the gate selects the reviewer route itself — a cross-family
+reviewer chosen for capability, current provider limits, and measured daily cost — and reports
+the choice in `policy_selection`. Never name a reviewer model, probe a provider CLI for its
+catalog, or read a credential store to discover models at invocation time; provider catalog
+discovery belongs to the snapshot drift workflow. An operator may still pass an explicit
+`provider`/`model` as a human override; agents must not.
+
+## Review quality
+
+Follow `catalog/agent/rules/review-methodology-sota.md`; report typed verdict, model,
+artifact, grounded findings, and independently verified conclusions.

package/skills/autopilot/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,82 @@
+---
+type: skill
+slug: autopilot
+title: Autopilot
+status: active
+scope: repo
+applies_to: [agents]
+related: [goal, plan-refine, verify, testing-philosophy, ultragoal, fix]
+created: "2026-07-10"
+last_reviewed: "2026-07-21"
+name: autopilot
+description: "Bounded goal/autopilot pipeline with budgets. Use for full autopilot, /goal, parallel ready-set."
+argument-hint: "<brief|force: brief>"
+---
+
+# Autopilot
+
+## Use when (freeform)
+
+- "/goal", "autopilot", "full autopilot" **with** scope + budgets
+- parallel ready-set execution under ultragoal controller
+
+Drive an approved brief through `plan -> execute -> qa -> validate -> land -> complete`
+using `ultragoal_run` / `wp ultragoal run` and the current handoff.
+
+## Outside-voice (required)
+
+After each ultragoal **phase or plan-gate milestone**, run an outside-voice review. Pass `caller_model` with your own model id and omit `provider`/`model`/`effort`: the gate selects the cross-family reviewer route itself (capability, limits, measured daily cost) and reports it in `policy_selection`. Never resolve model ids from a live catalog at invocation time. `review_gate` has one mode: purpose plan for exact-version draft plan approval/auto-promotion, purpose delivery for implementation/phase review; each new provider verdict is a formal round and an approval is authority immediately. Never self-approve. Full protocol: the `ultragoal` skill. Respect `review_budget` (default owned by `workflow-skills-routing.md`): one sequential path, no multi-host stampede.
+
+## Vague gate
+
+A brief is anchored when it includes a file path, symbol, issue number, test name, or numbered steps
+(blueprint slug and explicit budgets also count). Route any unanchored brief through
+`plan-refine` before execution.
+
+**Reject** (unless rewritten with scope + budgets): “complete all”, “full autopilot”,
+“go to sleep”, “elegantly merge everything” without a named blueprint/PR set.
+
+A leading `force:` is the only explicit bypass; strip it before creating the goal and
+record the bypass in the blueprint.
+
+Default budgets if the user omits them: `concurrency=4`, `fix_budget=1`, no
+`/loop`; `review_budget` per `workflow-skills-routing.md`. See `ultragoal`
+skill.
+
+## Tooling map
+
+| Pipeline step        | Tools                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             |
+| -------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
+| Plan                 | `plan-refine`, `blueprint_*`, `session_capture` for decisions                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     |
+| Create controller    | `ultragoal_new`, `worktree`                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       |
+| Execute              | ready-set via blueprint tools; `/goal` or parallel subagents; `session_context` for delegates; `blueprint_task_verify` only to complete tasks                                                                                                                                                     |
+| Opportunistic repair | `/fix` up to `fix_budget`; else handoff backlog                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   |
+| QA                   | `qa` / `lint` / `typecheck` / `test`; PR checks via `pr_status` / `pr_wait`                                                                                                                                                                                                                       |
+| Validate             | one outside voice if merge-bound (the gate picks the cross-family reviewer from `caller_model`); `wp review gate` for authority                                                                                                                                                                   |
+| Land                 | `pr_upsert`, green required checks, merge + owner cleanup                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         |
+| Blocked / stop       | `ultragoal_handoff` ≤40 lines; if the send channel is capped, the handoff records send-budget state (attempt count, last canary result); judgment requests ride the typed envelope or are named in the manifest; preserve the outbox, never route around a pause; `ultragoal_cancel` if abandoned |
+
+## Pipeline
+
+1. **Plan:** refine blueprints and satisfy provenance-backed promotion approvals.
+2. **Execute:** implement current **ready** tasks in parallel up to `concurrency`; use only
+   `blueprint_task_verify` to mark them done.
+3. **QA:** run affected checks and `qa`; preserve normalized failure evidence. Prefer
+   PR-bound CI when a PR exists.
+4. **Validate:** obtain verification + code-review evidence within `review_budget`. Each
+   lane appends a tracked `reviews.md` record in one of these exact forms:
+
+   ```text
+   <!-- wp:goal-validation {"kind":"verify","reviewer":"<identity>","artifact":"<tracked-path>"} -->
+   <!-- wp:goal-validation {"kind":"code-review","reviewer":"<different-identity>","artifact":"<tracked-path>"} -->
+   ```
+
+5. **Land:** require green PR checks, complete the blueprint in the same PR, merge, and
+   run owner cleanup.
+6. **Complete:** stop only when `ultragoal_run` records terminal evidence.
+
+Resume from durable state after interruption. Obey `WP_ULTRAGOAL_DISABLE=1`,
+iteration/error/validation caps, and repository ownership. Never self-approve, directly
+mark tasks done, bypass evidence, push to main, or increase timeouts (keep every loop bounded and never increase timeouts). After every phase
+transition recorded by `wp ultragoal run`, obtain a fresh outside-voice review
+before treating the milestone as closed (see Outside-voice above and the `ultragoal` skill).

package/skills/autoresearch/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,49 @@
+---
+type: skill
+slug: autoresearch
+title: Autoresearch
+status: active
+scope: repo
+applies_to: [agents]
+related: [deep-research, best-practice-research, plan-refine, verify]
+created: "2026-07-13"
+last_reviewed: "2026-07-13"
+name: autoresearch
+description: "Artifact-gated research loop with explicit validation."
+argument-hint: "<research mission and validator>"
+---
+
+# Autoresearch
+
+Use when the user wants research to continue until a concrete validator accepts the result. This is for bounded research deliverables, not quick factual lookup or ordinary planning context.
+
+## Boundary
+
+- Use `deep-research` for one-pass citation-backed reports.
+- Use `best-practice-research` for focused upstream guidance.
+- Use `autoresearch` when completion depends on an explicit evaluator, benchmark, review rubric, or acceptance artifact.
+
+## Workflow
+
+1. Define the research mission, output artifact path, validator, and stop condition.
+2. Choose one validation mode:
+   - command validator: a repo command or script must pass and write the result.
+   - review validator: an independent review must approve the produced artifact against the mission.
+3. Create or update the durable research artifact before iterating.
+4. Gather sources and repo context until the artifact addresses the mission and cites material claims.
+5. Run the validator. If it fails, preserve the failure evidence, revise the artifact, and repeat.
+6. Stop only when the validator passes or a blocker prevents more evidence-gathering.
+
+## Output
+
+Return:
+
+- mission
+- artifact path
+- validation mode
+- validator command or review rubric
+- evidence gathered
+- pass/fail result
+- remaining gaps or blocker
+
+Do not treat elapsed turns, model confidence, or a draft report as completion evidence. Completion requires the declared validator to pass.

package/skills/best-practice-research/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,102 @@
+---
+name: best-practice-research
+description: "Upstream best-practice research with citations. Use for SOTA, what others do, official guidance."
+argument-hint: "<technology|decision|practice question>"
+---
+
+# Best-Practice Research
+
+## Use when (freeform)
+
+- "best practice", "SOTA", "what do others do", "official guidance", "web research" for external practice
+- Prefer **early** when correctness depends on upstream behavior — not only after thrashing
+
+Use this skill when a task depends on current external best practices, version-aware guidance, standards, official recommendations, or upstream behavior. This is a workflow wrapper: it routes evidence gathering and synthesis; it is not a new research authority and it does not replace the `deep-research` skill.
+
+## Purpose
+
+Produce a cited, reusable best-practice answer or handoff that separates current external evidence from repo-local facts and dependency-selection decisions.
+
+## Destination
+
+Repo-scoped research is committed as `docs/research/{YYYY-MM-DD}-{slug}.md` on the
+owning blueprint branch (the same convention as the `deep-research` skill). Scratch
+notes go to a sanctioned sink (`$TMPDIR/webpresso/scratch/` or
+`.webpresso/agent-scratch/`); a new root subdirectory is policy-allowed but is
+unwhitelisted dirt for `wp ci-preflight` and `wp worktree merge-cleanup`.
+
+## Activate When
+
+- The user asks for best practices, recommended approach, current guidance, official recommendations, standards, or version-aware external behavior.
+- `$ralplan`, `$team`, or another workflow needs current external evidence before planning or execution can be correct.
+- The task involves an already chosen technology and needs authoritative usage guidance, migration notes, API behavior, lifecycle rules, or current safety guidance.
+
+## Do Not Activate When
+
+- The answer is fully repo-local; use `explore` for codebase facts.
+- The main question is whether to adopt, replace, upgrade, or compare dependencies — that decision is out of scope; inform it with evidence but return the choice to the caller.
+- The user only needs implementation against already-grounded requirements; hand off to the caller's execution workflow (`$team` or `$ralplan`) as appropriate.
+- The task can be answered from stable local project conventions without current external lookup.
+
+## Specialist Routing
+
+1. Use `explore` first for brownfield facts: current code usage, local constraints, versions, config, and integration points.
+2. Gather official/upstream docs, release notes, standards, migration guides, and source-backed evidence yourself with web search and doc fetches; escalate to the `deep-research` skill for exhaustive multi-source research on an already chosen technology.
+3. Adoption / upgrade / replacement / comparison decisions are out of scope: surface the evidence, but return the decision to the caller.
+4. Return to the caller with explicit evidence, uncertainty, and any implementation handoff constraints.
+
+## Source-Quality Rules
+
+- Prefer official documentation, upstream source, release notes, changelogs, standards, and maintainer guidance.
+- Include source URLs for material claims.
+- State date/version context for current best-practice claims.
+- Label third-party summaries as supplemental; do not use them before official/upstream sources.
+- Flag stale, conflicting, undocumented, or version-mismatched evidence.
+- Do not over-fetch: gather the smallest evidence set that can support the decision.
+
+## Workflow
+
+1. Classify the question: conceptual best practice, implementation guidance, migration/version guidance, standards/compliance guidance, or mixed local + external guidance.
+2. Gather repo-local facts with `explore` when local usage or constraints affect the answer.
+3. Gather external evidence with web search and official-doc fetches (escalate to the `deep-research` skill for depth) when current or version-aware practice affects correctness.
+4. Synthesize a concise answer with source quality, version/date context, caveats, and an implementation or planning handoff.
+5. Stop when the answer is grounded enough for the caller; otherwise report the exact blocker or specialist handoff needed.
+
+## Output Contract
+
+```md
+## Best-Practice Research: <question>
+
+### Direct Recommendation
+
+<actionable guidance or decision support>
+
+### Evidence Used
+
+- Official/upstream: <source URL> — <what it establishes>
+- Supplemental, if any: <source URL> — <why it is secondary>
+
+### Version / Date Context
+
+<versions, dates, release channels, or unknowns>
+
+### Repo-Local Context
+
+<facts from explore, or "not needed">
+
+### Boundaries / Non-goals
+
+<what this research does not decide>
+
+### Handoff
+
+<planning/execution/test implications>
+```
+
+## Stop Rules
+
+- Stop after a source-backed recommendation is reusable by the caller.
+- Stop and route upward if the task becomes dependency comparison, broad architecture, or implementation.
+- Do not continue researching when remaining work would only polish wording rather than change the recommendation.
+
+Task: {{ARGUMENTS}}

package/skills/browse/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,25 @@
+---
+name: browse
+description: "Browser/page inspection via Webpresso Playwright: inspect DOM, console, network basics, screenshots, and findings."
+license: MIT
+allowed-tools:
+  - Read
+  - Glob
+  - Grep
+  - Bash
+---
+
+# Browse
+
+Use `wp browser doctor` first if browser availability is unknown; if it reports a missing browser, run `wp browser ensure chromium`. Prefer repo-local preview or dev-server URLs; if none are discoverable, ask for a URL.
+
+## Read-only inspection
+
+The `allowed-tools` frontmatter is an audited disclosure for supported hosts;
+pretool-guard remains the enforced mutation backstop when a host does not prove
+skill-frontmatter enforcement.
+
+1. Identify the URL and whether headed or headless mode is needed.
+2. Use `wp browser open <url> --json` for a lightweight smoke snapshot, or a project Playwright test for deeper flows.
+3. Report URL, title, status evidence, console/page errors when available, and any screenshots/artifacts.
+4. Do not mutate app data unless the user explicitly asks for a mutating browser flow.

package/skills/claude/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,52 @@
+---
+name: claude
+description: "Claude outside-voice reviewer through Webpresso MCP."
+license: MIT
+---
+
+# Claude outside-voice review
+
+Use only for a requested content-bound plan or delivery review. Treat output as external advice
+until independently verified.
+
+## MCP-only contract
+
+- Call `review_gate` exactly once for the real plan version or delivery diff.
+- Observe the same durable operation with `review_gate_wait` when needed.
+- Never invoke a provider command, the legacy review CLI, or a removed review-run surface.
+- If the review MCP is unavailable, stop and report it unavailable. There is no CLI fallback.
+
+## Gate call
+
+```jsonc
+{
+  "project_id": "<project>",
+  "slug": "<blueprint-slug>",
+  "purpose": "delivery",
+  "base_ref": "<full-base-sha>",
+  "authority_ref": "<full-head-sha>",
+  "caller_model": "<your own model id, exactly as your host reports it>",
+  "repository_access": "none",
+}
+```
+
+Each newly executed provider review that reaches a verdict is one formal round of the
+slug's budget, and its approval is authority. An identical-subject call replays the recorded
+verdict with no new review and no new round. A partial approval, withheld because adjudication
+is incomplete (not every prior finding was briefed, or a briefed prior claim was marked
+still-open without a matching finding), grants no authority and spends no round.
+
+## Reviewer selection
+
+Pass `caller_model` with your OWN model id, exactly as your host reports it, and omit
+`provider`, `model`, and `effort`: the gate selects the reviewer route itself — a cross-family
+reviewer chosen for capability, current provider limits, and measured daily cost — and reports
+the choice in `policy_selection`. Never name a reviewer model, probe a provider CLI for its
+catalog, or read a credential store to discover models at invocation time; provider catalog
+discovery belongs to the snapshot drift workflow. An operator may still pass an explicit
+`provider`/`model` as a human override; agents must not.
+
+## Review quality
+
+Follow `catalog/agent/rules/review-methodology-sota.md`; report typed verdict, model,
+artifact, grounded findings, and independently verified conclusions.

package/skills/codex/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,52 @@
+---
+name: codex
+description: "Codex outside-voice reviewer through Webpresso MCP."
+license: MIT
+---
+
+# Codex outside-voice review
+
+Use only for a requested content-bound plan or delivery review. Treat output as external advice
+until independently verified.
+
+## MCP-only contract
+
+- Call `review_gate` exactly once for the real plan version or delivery diff.
+- Observe the same durable operation with `review_gate_wait` when needed.
+- Never invoke a provider command, the legacy review CLI, or a removed review-run surface.
+- If the review MCP is unavailable, stop and report it unavailable. There is no CLI fallback.
+
+## Gate call
+
+```jsonc
+{
+  "project_id": "<project>",
+  "slug": "<blueprint-slug>",
+  "purpose": "delivery",
+  "base_ref": "<full-base-sha>",
+  "authority_ref": "<full-head-sha>",
+  "caller_model": "<your own model id, exactly as your host reports it>",
+  "repository_access": "none",
+}
+```
+
+Each newly executed provider review that reaches a verdict is one formal round of the
+slug's budget, and its approval is authority. An identical-subject call replays the recorded
+verdict with no new review and no new round. A partial approval, withheld because adjudication
+is incomplete (not every prior finding was briefed, or a briefed prior claim was marked
+still-open without a matching finding), grants no authority and spends no round.
+
+## Reviewer selection
+
+Pass `caller_model` with your OWN model id, exactly as your host reports it, and omit
+`provider`, `model`, and `effort`: the gate selects the reviewer route itself — a cross-family
+reviewer chosen for capability, current provider limits, and measured daily cost — and reports
+the choice in `policy_selection`. Never name a reviewer model, probe a provider CLI for its
+catalog, or read a credential store to discover models at invocation time; provider catalog
+discovery belongs to the snapshot drift workflow. An operator may still pass an explicit
+`provider`/`model` as a human override; agents must not.
+
+## Review quality
+
+Follow `catalog/agent/rules/review-methodology-sota.md`; report typed verdict, model,
+artifact, grounded findings, and independently verified conclusions.

package/skills/deep-interview/LICENSE.txt

@@ -0,0 +1,28 @@
+MIT License
+
+Copyright (c) 2026 Yeachan Heo
+
+Applies to the upstream deep-interview skill vendored from
+https://github.com/Yeachan-Heo/oh-my-codex at commit
+0e00a6ebdd12a6674f5a4735942940b9bdcdb8c0. The upstream repository declares
+the MIT license in its package.json and Cargo.toml at that commit without
+shipping a standalone LICENSE file; this file preserves the standard MIT
+copyright and permission notice for the vendored material.
+
+Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy
+of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal
+in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights
+to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell
+copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is
+furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:
+
+The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all
+copies or substantial portions of the Software.
+
+THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR
+IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY,
+FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE
+AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER
+LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM,
+OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE
+SOFTWARE.