@zmice/zc 0.2.7 → 0.2.8

package/vendor/packages/toolkit/src/content/skills/test-driven-development/body.md

@@ -1,78 +1,78 @@
-# 测试驱动开发
-
-## 角色定位
-
-先用测试定义期望行为，再写最小实现让测试通过。这个 skill 负责行为变更的证据闭环，不负责铺满测试理论或替代专项浏览器 QA。
-
-## 何时使用
-
-- 新增或修改可观察行为。
-- 修复 bug，需要先复现再修复。
-- 重构可能影响现有行为。
-- 需要为边界条件、错误路径或兼容性补回归保护。
-
-不适用：纯文档、纯静态内容、无行为影响的配置调整。浏览器体验改动需要再接 `browser-qa-testing`。
-
-## 快速路径
-
-1. 写清要证明的行为或 bug 症状。
-2. 选择最小测试层级：unit / integration / E2E。
-3. **RED**：先写一个会失败的测试，确认失败原因匹配目标。
-4. **GREEN**：写最小实现，只让当前测试通过。
-5. **REFACTOR**：在测试保持绿色的前提下简化实现。
-6. 跑相关回归测试，确认没有破坏邻近行为。
-7. 记录测试证据和仍未覆盖的风险。
-
-## Bug 修复 Prove-It 模式
-
-```text
-Bug report -> Reproduction test fails -> Fix -> Reproduction test passes -> Regression suite passes
-```
-
-如果无法先写复现测试，必须说明原因，并给出替代证据，例如最小命令、日志、浏览器 transcript 或人工可复查步骤。
-
-## 测试层级选择
-
-| 层级 | 何时选 | 代价 |
-|---|---|---|
-| Unit | 纯逻辑、边界判断、数据转换 | 快，信心局部 |
-| Integration | API、数据库、文件系统、模块边界 | 中等，能发现契约问题 |
-| E2E / Browser | 用户关键路径、前端集成体验 | 慢，但最接近真实用户 |
-
-默认从能证明目标的最低成本层级开始。不要为了形式写高层测试，也不要用过度 mock 让测试只证明实现细节。
-
-## 测试质量门禁
-
-- 测试名字描述行为，而不是实现细节。
-- 断言结果状态，少断言内部调用顺序。
-- 测试数据最小且可读，优先 DAMP 而不是过度 DRY。
-- mock 只用于慢、不可控或有副作用的外部依赖。
-- 每个测试失败时应指向一个清晰原因。
-
-## 反模式
-
-- 先写实现，再补一个永远会过的测试。
-- 修改测试来迁就错误实现。
-- 跳过失败测试继续加功能。
-- 用快照覆盖大量不稳定 UI，导致 diff 不可审。
-- 为了覆盖率写不验证业务行为的测试。
-
-## 输出契约
-
-```text
-TDD evidence:
-- Behavior:
-- Test added/changed:
-- Red result:
-- Green result:
-- Regression command:
-- Remaining risk:
-```
-
-推荐结论使用：
-
-```text
-Recommendation: <继续实现 / 修复测试 / 补更高层验证 / 进入 review> because <测试证据、风险和被放弃替代方案>。
-```
-
-没有读过失败输出和通过输出，不要声明测试闭环成立。
+# 测试驱动开发
+
+## 角色定位
+
+先用测试定义期望行为，再写最小实现让测试通过。这个 skill 负责行为变更的证据闭环，不负责铺满测试理论或替代专项浏览器 QA。
+
+## 何时使用
+
+- 新增或修改可观察行为。
+- 修复 bug，需要先复现再修复。
+- 重构可能影响现有行为。
+- 需要为边界条件、错误路径或兼容性补回归保护。
+
+不适用：纯文档、纯静态内容、无行为影响的配置调整。浏览器体验改动需要再接 `browser-qa-testing`。
+
+## 快速路径
+
+1. 写清要证明的行为或 bug 症状。
+2. 选择最小测试层级：unit / integration / E2E。
+3. **RED**：先写一个会失败的测试，确认失败原因匹配目标。
+4. **GREEN**：写最小实现，只让当前测试通过。
+5. **REFACTOR**：在测试保持绿色的前提下简化实现。
+6. 跑相关回归测试，确认没有破坏邻近行为。
+7. 记录测试证据和仍未覆盖的风险。
+
+## Bug 修复 Prove-It 模式
+
+```text
+Bug report -> Reproduction test fails -> Fix -> Reproduction test passes -> Regression suite passes
+```
+
+如果无法先写复现测试，必须说明原因，并给出替代证据，例如最小命令、日志、浏览器 transcript 或人工可复查步骤。
+
+## 测试层级选择
+
+| 层级 | 何时选 | 代价 |
+|---|---|---|
+| Unit | 纯逻辑、边界判断、数据转换 | 快，信心局部 |
+| Integration | API、数据库、文件系统、模块边界 | 中等，能发现契约问题 |
+| E2E / Browser | 用户关键路径、前端集成体验 | 慢，但最接近真实用户 |
+
+默认从能证明目标的最低成本层级开始。不要为了形式写高层测试，也不要用过度 mock 让测试只证明实现细节。
+
+## 测试质量门禁
+
+- 测试名字描述行为，而不是实现细节。
+- 断言结果状态，少断言内部调用顺序。
+- 测试数据最小且可读，优先 DAMP 而不是过度 DRY。
+- mock 只用于慢、不可控或有副作用的外部依赖。
+- 每个测试失败时应指向一个清晰原因。
+
+## 反模式
+
+- 先写实现，再补一个永远会过的测试。
+- 修改测试来迁就错误实现。
+- 跳过失败测试继续加功能。
+- 用快照覆盖大量不稳定 UI，导致 diff 不可审。
+- 为了覆盖率写不验证业务行为的测试。
+
+## 输出契约
+
+```text
+TDD evidence:
+- Behavior:
+- Test added/changed:
+- Red result:
+- Green result:
+- Regression command:
+- Remaining risk:
+```
+
+推荐结论使用：
+
+```text
+Recommendation: <继续实现 / 修复测试 / 补更高层验证 / 进入 review> because <测试证据、风险和被放弃替代方案>。
+```
+
+没有读过失败输出和通过输出，不要声明测试闭环成立。

package/vendor/packages/toolkit/src/content/skills/using-agent-skills/body.md

@@ -1,193 +1,193 @@
-# Using Agent Skills
-
-## Overview
-
-Agent Skills is a collection of engineering workflow skills organized by development phase. Each skill encodes a specific process that senior engineers follow. This meta-skill helps you discover and apply the right skill for your current task.
-
-## Skill Discovery
-
-When a task arrives, identify the development phase and apply the corresponding skill:
-
-```
-Task arrives
-    │
-    ├── Vague idea/need refinement? ──→ idea-refine
-    ├── New project/feature/change? ──→ spec-driven-development
-    ├── Have a spec, need tasks? ──────→ planning-and-task-breakdown
-    ├── Implementing code? ────────────→ incremental-implementation
-    │   ├── UI work? ─────────────────→ frontend-ui-engineering
-    │   ├── API work? ────────────────→ api-and-interface-design
-    │   ├── Need better context? ─────→ context-engineering
-    │   └── Need doc-verified code? ───→ source-driven-development
-    ├── Writing/running tests? ────────→ test-driven-development
-    │   └── Browser-based? ───────────→ browser-testing-with-devtools
-    ├── Something broke? ──────────────→ debugging-and-error-recovery
-    ├── Reviewing code? ───────────────→ code-review-and-quality
-    │   ├── Security concerns? ───────→ security-and-hardening
-    │   └── Performance concerns? ────→ performance-optimization
-    ├── Committing/branching? ─────────→ git-workflow-and-versioning
-    ├── CI/CD pipeline work? ──────────→ ci-cd-and-automation
-    ├── Writing docs/ADRs? ───────────→ documentation-and-adrs
-    └── Deploying/launching? ─────────→ shipping-and-launch
-```
-
-## Routing Metadata and Context Loading
-
-Skill discovery depends on short metadata before the full skill is loaded. Treat each
-skill description as an activation contract:
-
-- It must say what capability the skill provides.
-- It must say when to activate it.
-- It should include exclusions when a nearby skill would be a better fit.
-- It should not summarize the entire workflow; the agent should read the full skill
-  only after the skill is selected.
-
-Prefer on-demand skill loading over always-on context. Persistent files such as
-`AGENTS.md`, `GEMINI.md`, `CLAUDE.md`, or platform rules should contain stable project
-conventions and canonical routing only. Do not load every skill into every session;
-that wastes context and makes phase-specific rules compete with each other.
-
-When a platform has native skill discovery, use its native directory or metadata model.
-When it does not, use agent-driven routing through the project entry file. Do not imply
-native plugin or slash-command behavior that the platform does not actually support.
-
-## Core Operating Behaviors
-
-These behaviors apply at all times, across all skills. They are non-negotiable.
-
-### 1. Surface Assumptions
-
-Before implementing anything non-trivial, explicitly state your assumptions:
-
-```
-ASSUMPTIONS I'M MAKING:
-1. [assumption about requirements]
-2. [assumption about architecture]
-3. [assumption about scope]
-→ Correct me now or I'll proceed with these.
-```
-
-Don't silently fill in ambiguous requirements. The most common failure mode is making wrong assumptions and running with them unchecked. Surface uncertainty early — it's cheaper than rework.
-
-### 2. Manage Confusion Actively
-
-When you encounter inconsistencies, conflicting requirements, or unclear specifications:
-
-1. **STOP.** Do not proceed with a guess.
-2. Name the specific confusion.
-3. Present the tradeoff or ask the clarifying question.
-4. Wait for resolution before continuing.
-
-**Bad:** Silently picking one interpretation and hoping it's right.
-**Good:** "I see X in the spec but Y in the existing code. Which takes precedence?"
-
-### 3. Push Back When Warranted
-
-You are not a yes-machine. When an approach has clear problems:
-
-- Point out the issue directly
-- Explain the concrete downside (quantify when possible — "this adds ~200ms latency" not "this might be slower")
-- Propose an alternative
-- Accept the human's decision if they override with full information
-
-Sycophancy is a failure mode. "Of course!" followed by implementing a bad idea helps no one. Honest technical disagreement is more valuable than false agreement.
-
-### 4. Enforce Simplicity
-
-Your natural tendency is to overcomplicate. Actively resist it.
-
-Before finishing any implementation, ask:
-- Can this be done in fewer lines?
-- Are these abstractions earning their complexity?
-- Would a staff engineer look at this and say "why didn't you just..."?
-
-If you build 1000 lines and 100 would suffice, you have failed. Prefer the boring, obvious solution. Cleverness is expensive.
-
-### 5. Maintain Scope Discipline
-
-Touch only what you're asked to touch.
-
-Do NOT:
-- Remove comments you don't understand
-- "Clean up" code orthogonal to the task
-- Refactor adjacent systems as a side effect
-- Delete code that seems unused without explicit approval
-- Add features not in the spec because they "seem useful"
-
-Your job is surgical precision, not unsolicited renovation.
-
-### 6. Verify, Don't Assume
-
-Every skill includes a verification step. A task is not complete until verification passes. "Seems right" is never sufficient — there must be evidence (passing tests, build output, runtime data).
-
-## Failure Modes to Avoid
-
-These are the subtle errors that look like productivity but create problems:
-
-1. Making wrong assumptions without checking
-2. Not managing your own confusion — plowing ahead when lost
-3. Not surfacing inconsistencies you notice
-4. Not presenting tradeoffs on non-obvious decisions
-5. Being sycophantic ("Of course!") to approaches with clear problems
-6. Overcomplicating code and APIs
-7. Modifying code or comments orthogonal to the task
-8. Removing things you don't fully understand
-9. Building without a spec because "it's obvious"
-10. Skipping verification because "it looks right"
-
-## Skill Rules
-
-1. **Check for an applicable skill before starting work.** Skills encode processes that prevent common mistakes.
-
-2. **Skills are workflows, not suggestions.** Follow the steps in order. Don't skip verification steps.
-
-3. **Load only the skills needed for the current phase.** If a task moves from planning to implementation, switch skills instead of carrying the entire planning context forward.
-
-4. **Multiple skills can apply in sequence.** A feature implementation might involve `idea-refine` → `spec-driven-development` → `planning-and-task-breakdown` → `incremental-implementation` → `test-driven-development` → `code-review-and-quality` → `shipping-and-launch`.
-
-5. **When in doubt, start with a spec.** If the task is non-trivial and there's no spec, begin with `spec-driven-development`.
-
-6. **Ask only when it changes the route.** If the correct skill can be inferred from evidence, select it and state the assumption. Ask only for high-stakes ambiguity, conflicting goals, or missing context that would change the workflow.
-
-## Lifecycle Sequence
-
-For a complete feature, the typical skill sequence is:
-
-```
-1. idea-refine                 → Refine vague ideas
-2. spec-driven-development     → Define what we're building
-3. planning-and-task-breakdown → Break into verifiable chunks
-4. context-engineering         → Load the right context
-5. source-driven-development   → Verify against official docs
-6. incremental-implementation  → Build slice by slice
-7. test-driven-development     → Prove each slice works
-8. code-review-and-quality     → Review before merge
-9. git-workflow-and-versioning → Clean commit history
-10. documentation-and-adrs     → Document decisions
-11. shipping-and-launch        → Deploy safely
-```
-
-Not every task needs every skill. A bug fix might only need: `debugging-and-error-recovery` → `test-driven-development` → `code-review-and-quality`.
-
-## Quick Reference
-
-| Phase | Skill | One-Line Summary |
-|-------|-------|-----------------|
-| Define | idea-refine | Refine ideas through structured divergent and convergent thinking |
-| Define | spec-driven-development | Requirements and acceptance criteria before code |
-| Plan | planning-and-task-breakdown | Decompose into small, verifiable tasks |
-| Build | incremental-implementation | Thin vertical slices, test each before expanding |
-| Build | source-driven-development | Verify against official docs before implementing |
-| Build | context-engineering | Right context at the right time |
-| Build | frontend-ui-engineering | Production-quality UI with accessibility |
-| Build | api-and-interface-design | Stable interfaces with clear contracts |
-| Verify | test-driven-development | Failing test first, then make it pass |
-| Verify | browser-testing-with-devtools | Chrome DevTools MCP for runtime verification |
-| Verify | debugging-and-error-recovery | Reproduce → localize → fix → guard |
-| Review | code-review-and-quality | Five-axis review with quality gates |
-| Review | security-and-hardening | OWASP prevention, input validation, least privilege |
-| Review | performance-optimization | Measure first, optimize only what matters |
-| Ship | git-workflow-and-versioning | Atomic commits, clean history |
-| Ship | ci-cd-and-automation | Automated quality gates on every change |
-| Ship | documentation-and-adrs | Document the why, not just the what |
-| Ship | shipping-and-launch | Pre-launch checklist, monitoring, rollback plan |
+# Using Agent Skills
+
+## Overview
+
+Agent Skills is a collection of engineering workflow skills organized by development phase. Each skill encodes a specific process that senior engineers follow. This meta-skill helps you discover and apply the right skill for your current task.
+
+## Skill Discovery
+
+When a task arrives, identify the development phase and apply the corresponding skill:
+
+```
+Task arrives
+    │
+    ├── Vague idea/need refinement? ──→ idea-refine
+    ├── New project/feature/change? ──→ spec-driven-development
+    ├── Have a spec, need tasks? ──────→ planning-and-task-breakdown
+    ├── Implementing code? ────────────→ incremental-implementation
+    │   ├── UI work? ─────────────────→ frontend-ui-engineering
+    │   ├── API work? ────────────────→ api-and-interface-design
+    │   ├── Need better context? ─────→ context-engineering
+    │   └── Need doc-verified code? ───→ source-driven-development
+    ├── Writing/running tests? ────────→ test-driven-development
+    │   └── Browser-based? ───────────→ browser-testing-with-devtools
+    ├── Something broke? ──────────────→ debugging-and-error-recovery
+    ├── Reviewing code? ───────────────→ code-review-and-quality
+    │   ├── Security concerns? ───────→ security-and-hardening
+    │   └── Performance concerns? ────→ performance-optimization
+    ├── Committing/branching? ─────────→ git-workflow-and-versioning
+    ├── CI/CD pipeline work? ──────────→ ci-cd-and-automation
+    ├── Writing docs/ADRs? ───────────→ documentation-and-adrs
+    └── Deploying/launching? ─────────→ shipping-and-launch
+```
+
+## Routing Metadata and Context Loading
+
+Skill discovery depends on short metadata before the full skill is loaded. Treat each
+skill description as an activation contract:
+
+- It must say what capability the skill provides.
+- It must say when to activate it.
+- It should include exclusions when a nearby skill would be a better fit.
+- It should not summarize the entire workflow; the agent should read the full skill
+  only after the skill is selected.
+
+Prefer on-demand skill loading over always-on context. Persistent files such as
+`AGENTS.md`, `GEMINI.md`, `CLAUDE.md`, or platform rules should contain stable project
+conventions and canonical routing only. Do not load every skill into every session;
+that wastes context and makes phase-specific rules compete with each other.
+
+When a platform has native skill discovery, use its native directory or metadata model.
+When it does not, use agent-driven routing through the project entry file. Do not imply
+native plugin or slash-command behavior that the platform does not actually support.
+
+## Core Operating Behaviors
+
+These behaviors apply at all times, across all skills. They are non-negotiable.
+
+### 1. Surface Assumptions
+
+Before implementing anything non-trivial, explicitly state your assumptions:
+
+```
+ASSUMPTIONS I'M MAKING:
+1. [assumption about requirements]
+2. [assumption about architecture]
+3. [assumption about scope]
+→ Correct me now or I'll proceed with these.
+```
+
+Don't silently fill in ambiguous requirements. The most common failure mode is making wrong assumptions and running with them unchecked. Surface uncertainty early — it's cheaper than rework.
+
+### 2. Manage Confusion Actively
+
+When you encounter inconsistencies, conflicting requirements, or unclear specifications:
+
+1. **STOP.** Do not proceed with a guess.
+2. Name the specific confusion.
+3. Present the tradeoff or ask the clarifying question.
+4. Wait for resolution before continuing.
+
+**Bad:** Silently picking one interpretation and hoping it's right.
+**Good:** "I see X in the spec but Y in the existing code. Which takes precedence?"
+
+### 3. Push Back When Warranted
+
+You are not a yes-machine. When an approach has clear problems:
+
+- Point out the issue directly
+- Explain the concrete downside (quantify when possible — "this adds ~200ms latency" not "this might be slower")
+- Propose an alternative
+- Accept the human's decision if they override with full information
+
+Sycophancy is a failure mode. "Of course!" followed by implementing a bad idea helps no one. Honest technical disagreement is more valuable than false agreement.
+
+### 4. Enforce Simplicity
+
+Your natural tendency is to overcomplicate. Actively resist it.
+
+Before finishing any implementation, ask:
+- Can this be done in fewer lines?
+- Are these abstractions earning their complexity?
+- Would a staff engineer look at this and say "why didn't you just..."?
+
+If you build 1000 lines and 100 would suffice, you have failed. Prefer the boring, obvious solution. Cleverness is expensive.
+
+### 5. Maintain Scope Discipline
+
+Touch only what you're asked to touch.
+
+Do NOT:
+- Remove comments you don't understand
+- "Clean up" code orthogonal to the task
+- Refactor adjacent systems as a side effect
+- Delete code that seems unused without explicit approval
+- Add features not in the spec because they "seem useful"
+
+Your job is surgical precision, not unsolicited renovation.
+
+### 6. Verify, Don't Assume
+
+Every skill includes a verification step. A task is not complete until verification passes. "Seems right" is never sufficient — there must be evidence (passing tests, build output, runtime data).
+
+## Failure Modes to Avoid
+
+These are the subtle errors that look like productivity but create problems:
+
+1. Making wrong assumptions without checking
+2. Not managing your own confusion — plowing ahead when lost
+3. Not surfacing inconsistencies you notice
+4. Not presenting tradeoffs on non-obvious decisions
+5. Being sycophantic ("Of course!") to approaches with clear problems
+6. Overcomplicating code and APIs
+7. Modifying code or comments orthogonal to the task
+8. Removing things you don't fully understand
+9. Building without a spec because "it's obvious"
+10. Skipping verification because "it looks right"
+
+## Skill Rules
+
+1. **Check for an applicable skill before starting work.** Skills encode processes that prevent common mistakes.
+
+2. **Skills are workflows, not suggestions.** Follow the steps in order. Don't skip verification steps.
+
+3. **Load only the skills needed for the current phase.** If a task moves from planning to implementation, switch skills instead of carrying the entire planning context forward.
+
+4. **Multiple skills can apply in sequence.** A feature implementation might involve `idea-refine` → `spec-driven-development` → `planning-and-task-breakdown` → `incremental-implementation` → `test-driven-development` → `code-review-and-quality` → `shipping-and-launch`.
+
+5. **When in doubt, start with a spec.** If the task is non-trivial and there's no spec, begin with `spec-driven-development`.
+
+6. **Ask only when it changes the route.** If the correct skill can be inferred from evidence, select it and state the assumption. Ask only for high-stakes ambiguity, conflicting goals, or missing context that would change the workflow.
+
+## Lifecycle Sequence
+
+For a complete feature, the typical skill sequence is:
+
+```
+1. idea-refine                 → Refine vague ideas
+2. spec-driven-development     → Define what we're building
+3. planning-and-task-breakdown → Break into verifiable chunks
+4. context-engineering         → Load the right context
+5. source-driven-development   → Verify against official docs
+6. incremental-implementation  → Build slice by slice
+7. test-driven-development     → Prove each slice works
+8. code-review-and-quality     → Review before merge
+9. git-workflow-and-versioning → Clean commit history
+10. documentation-and-adrs     → Document decisions
+11. shipping-and-launch        → Deploy safely
+```
+
+Not every task needs every skill. A bug fix might only need: `debugging-and-error-recovery` → `test-driven-development` → `code-review-and-quality`.
+
+## Quick Reference
+
+| Phase | Skill | One-Line Summary |
+|-------|-------|-----------------|
+| Define | idea-refine | Refine ideas through structured divergent and convergent thinking |
+| Define | spec-driven-development | Requirements and acceptance criteria before code |
+| Plan | planning-and-task-breakdown | Decompose into small, verifiable tasks |
+| Build | incremental-implementation | Thin vertical slices, test each before expanding |
+| Build | source-driven-development | Verify against official docs before implementing |
+| Build | context-engineering | Right context at the right time |
+| Build | frontend-ui-engineering | Production-quality UI with accessibility |
+| Build | api-and-interface-design | Stable interfaces with clear contracts |
+| Verify | test-driven-development | Failing test first, then make it pass |
+| Verify | browser-testing-with-devtools | Chrome DevTools MCP for runtime verification |
+| Verify | debugging-and-error-recovery | Reproduce → localize → fix → guard |
+| Review | code-review-and-quality | Five-axis review with quality gates |
+| Review | security-and-hardening | OWASP prevention, input validation, least privilege |
+| Review | performance-optimization | Measure first, optimize only what matters |
+| Ship | git-workflow-and-versioning | Atomic commits, clean history |
+| Ship | ci-cd-and-automation | Automated quality gates on every change |
+| Ship | documentation-and-adrs | Document the why, not just the what |
+| Ship | shipping-and-launch | Pre-launch checklist, monitoring, rollback plan |