agemon 0.1.0 → 6.0.0

package/assets/skills/self-review/agemon-review-request/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,104 @@
+---
+name: agemon-review-request
+description: Use when completing tasks, implementing major features, or before merging to verify work meets requirements
+---
+
+# Requesting Code Review
+
+Dispatch a code reviewer subagent to catch issues before they cascade. The reviewer gets precisely crafted context for evaluation — never your session's history.
+
+**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:**
+
+Dispatch a `general-purpose` subagent, filling the template at [code-reviewer.md](code-reviewer.md)
+
+**Placeholders:**
+- `{DESCRIPTION}` - Brief summary of what you built
+- `{PLAN_OR_REQUIREMENTS}` - What it should do
+- `{BASE_SHA}` - Starting commit
+- `{HEAD_SHA}` - Ending commit
+
+**3. Act on feedback:**
+- Fix Critical issues immediately
+- Fix Important issues before proceeding
+- Fix Important readability issues by simplifying or splitting the code; do not mask them with explanatory comments.
+- Note Minor issues for later
+- Push back if reviewer is wrong (with reasoning)
+
+## Mandatory Readability Gate
+
+Every review must explicitly assess whether the changed code is self-documenting. The reviewer must confirm that names, function boundaries, and control flow make the code understandable without ordinary explanatory comments.
+
+Treat code that needs comments to explain routine logic, variable meaning, or control flow as an **Important** issue. The required fix is to rewrite or split the code until the comment is unnecessary. Comments remain appropriate only for non-obvious context that cannot be expressed in code, such as compatibility constraints or external contracts.
+
+Do not mark work ready to merge while an Important readability issue remains unresolved.
+
+## 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]
+  DESCRIPTION: Added verifyIndex() and repairIndex() with 4 issue types
+  PLAN_OR_REQUIREMENTS: Task 2 from docs/superpowers/plans/deployment-plan.md
+  BASE_SHA: a7981ec
+  HEAD_SHA: 3df7661
+
+[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]
+```
+
+## Common Rationalizations
+
+| Excuse | Reality |
+|--------|---------|
+| "I'll just review the diff myself instead of dispatching a reviewer" | You're the coordinator — reviewing the diff inline burns the context window you need to keep driving the work. Dispatch a reviewer subagent: the diff and the evaluation live in its context, and only the findings come back to you. |
+| "The reviewer needs my whole session history to understand the change" | Hand it precisely crafted context, never your session's history. That keeps the reviewer on the work product, not your thought process. |
+
+## 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: [code-reviewer.md](code-reviewer.md)

package/assets/skills/self-review/agemon-review-request/code-reviewer.md

@@ -0,0 +1,188 @@
+# Code Reviewer Prompt Template
+
+Use this template when dispatching a code reviewer subagent.
+
+**Purpose:** Review completed work against requirements and code quality standards before it cascades into more work.
+
+```
+Subagent (general-purpose):
+  description: "Review code changes"
+  prompt: |
+    You are a Senior Code Reviewer with expertise in software architecture,
+    design patterns, and best practices. Your job is to review completed work
+    against its plan or requirements and identify issues before they cascade.
+
+    ## What Was Implemented
+
+    [DESCRIPTION]
+
+    ## Requirements / Plan
+
+    [PLAN_OR_REQUIREMENTS]
+
+    ## Git Range to Review
+
+    **Base:** [BASE_SHA]
+    **Head:** [HEAD_SHA]
+
+    ```bash
+    git diff --stat [BASE_SHA]..[HEAD_SHA]
+    git diff [BASE_SHA]..[HEAD_SHA]
+    ```
+
+    ## Read-Only Review
+
+    Your review is read-only on this checkout. Do not mutate the working tree, the index, HEAD, or branch state in any way. Use tools like `git show`, `git diff`, and `git log` to inspect history. If you need a working copy of a different revision, check it out into a separate temporary directory (e.g. `git worktree add /tmp/review-[SHA] [SHA]`) — never move HEAD on this checkout.
+
+    ## You Do Not Dispatch Subagents
+
+    Do all of this review yourself. Never spawn a subagent to review part
+    of the diff, and never spawn another reviewer for a second opinion.
+    This process already provides every review seat the work gets; a
+    reviewer you spawn duplicates one of them at full cost, and its
+    verdict counts for nothing. If the diff feels too large for one
+    pass, review it in passes yourself and say so in your report.
+
+    ## What to Check
+
+    **Plan alignment:**
+    - Does the implementation match the plan / requirements?
+    - Are deviations justified improvements, or problematic departures?
+    - Is all planned functionality present?
+
+    **Code quality:**
+    - Clean separation of concerns?
+    - Proper error handling?
+    - Type safety where applicable?
+    - DRY without premature abstraction?
+    - Edge cases handled?
+
+   **Readability and self-documenting code (mandatory):**
+   - Can a maintainer understand the changed code from its names, function boundaries, and control flow without ordinary explanatory comments?
+   - Are functions focused enough that distinct responsibilities are split into readable units?
+   - Are comments limited to non-obvious context that cannot be expressed in code, such as compatibility constraints or external contracts?
+   - Flag comments that explain routine logic, variable meaning, or control flow as an **Important** issue. Require the implementation to be simplified or split instead of retaining explanatory comments.
+
+    **Architecture:**
+    - Sound design decisions?
+    - Reasonable scalability and performance?
+    - Security concerns?
+    - Integrates cleanly with surrounding code?
+
+    **Testing:**
+    - Tests verify real behavior, not mocks?
+    - Edge cases covered?
+    - Integration tests where they matter?
+    - All tests passing?
+
+    **Production readiness:**
+    - Migration strategy if schema changed?
+    - Backward compatibility considered?
+    - Documentation complete?
+    - No obvious bugs?
+
+    ## Calibration
+
+    Categorize issues by actual severity. Not everything is Critical.
+    Acknowledge what was done well before listing issues — accurate praise
+    helps the implementer trust the rest of the feedback.
+
+    If you find significant deviations from the plan, flag them specifically
+    so the implementer can confirm whether the deviation was intentional.
+    If you find issues with the plan itself rather than the implementation,
+    say so.
+
+    ## Output Format
+
+    ### Strengths
+    [What's well done? Be specific.]
+
+    ### Issues
+
+    #### Critical (Must Fix)
+    [Bugs, security issues, data loss risks, broken functionality]
+
+    #### Important (Should Fix)
+    [Architecture problems, missing features, poor error handling, test gaps]
+
+    #### Minor (Nice to Have)
+    [Code style, optimization opportunities, documentation polish]
+
+    For each issue:
+    - File:line reference
+    - What's wrong
+    - Why it matters
+    - How to fix (if not obvious)
+
+    ### Recommendations
+    [Improvements for code quality, architecture, or process]
+
+    ### Assessment
+
+    **Ready to merge?** [Yes | No | With fixes]
+
+    **Reasoning:** [1-2 sentence technical assessment]
+
+    ## Critical Rules
+
+    **DO:**
+    - Categorize by actual severity
+    - Be specific (file:line, not vague)
+    - Explain WHY each issue matters
+    - Acknowledge strengths
+    - Give a clear verdict
+
+    **DON'T:**
+    - Say "looks good" without checking
+    - Mark nitpicks as Critical
+    - Give feedback on code you didn't actually read
+    - Be vague ("improve error handling")
+    - Avoid giving a clear verdict
+   - Approve work with unresolved Important readability or self-documenting-code issues
+```
+
+**Placeholders:**
+- `[DESCRIPTION]` — brief summary of what was built
+- `[PLAN_OR_REQUIREMENTS]` — what it should do (plan file path, task text, or requirements)
+- `[BASE_SHA]` — starting commit
+- `[HEAD_SHA]` — ending commit
+
+**Reviewer returns:** Strengths, Issues (Critical / Important / Minor), Recommendations, Assessment
+
+## Example Output
+
+```
+### Strengths
+- Clean database schema with proper migrations (db.ts:15-42)
+- Comprehensive test coverage (18 tests, all edge cases)
+- Good error handling with fallbacks (summarizer.ts:85-92)
+
+### Issues
+
+#### Important
+1. **Missing help text in CLI wrapper**
+   - File: index-conversations:1-31
+   - Issue: No --help flag, users won't discover --concurrency
+   - Fix: Add --help case with usage examples
+
+2. **Date validation missing**
+   - File: search.ts:25-27
+   - Issue: Invalid dates silently return no results
+   - Fix: Validate ISO format, throw error with example
+
+#### Minor
+1. **Progress indicators**
+   - File: indexer.ts:130
+   - Issue: No "X of Y" counter for long operations
+   - Impact: Users don't know how long to wait
+
+### Recommendations
+- Add progress reporting for user experience
+- Consider config file for excluded projects (portability)
+
+### Assessment
+
+**Ready to merge: With fixes**
+
+**Reasoning:** Core implementation is solid with good architecture and tests. Important issues (help text, date validation) are easily fixed and don't affect core functionality.
+```

package/assets/skills/self-review/agemon-root-cause/LICENSE

@@ -0,0 +1,21 @@
+MIT License
+
+Copyright (c) 2025 Jesse Vincent
+
+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.

package/assets/skills/self-review/agemon-root-cause/NOTICE.md

@@ -0,0 +1,10 @@
+# Vendored skill
+
+- Source: https://github.com/obra/superpowers
+- Path in source: skills/systematic-debugging
+- Commit: b36e0829c6d0140e93cfef2ca599b1b07d4a7797
+- Retrieved: 2026-08-17
+- License: MIT — see `LICENSE` in this directory.
+- One of several skills cherry-picked from the much larger superpowers framework; not a full vendor of that repo.
+- Renamed from `systematic-debugging` to `agemon-root-cause` for agemon branding — installed skills should read as agemon's own, not a third-party project name.
+- Left out upstream's `CREATION-LOG.md`: it records how upstream wrote the skill and is not part of the instructions.

package/assets/skills/self-review/agemon-root-cause/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,283 @@
+---
+name: agemon-root-cause
+description: Use when encountering any bug, test failure, or unexpected behavior, before proposing fixes
+---
+
+# Systematic Debugging
+
+## Overview
+
+**Core principle:** ALWAYS find root cause before attempting fixes. Symptom fixes are failure.
+
+**Violating the letter of this process is violating the spirit of debugging.**
+
+## The Iron Law
+
+```
+NO FIXES WITHOUT ROOT CAUSE INVESTIGATION FIRST
+```
+
+If you haven't completed Phase 1, you cannot propose fixes.
+
+## When to Use
+
+Use for ANY technical issue:
+- Test failures
+- Bugs in production
+- Unexpected behavior
+- Performance problems
+- Build failures
+- Integration issues
+
+**Use this ESPECIALLY when:**
+- Under time pressure (emergencies make guessing tempting)
+- "Just one quick fix" seems obvious
+- You've already tried multiple fixes
+- Previous fix didn't work
+- You don't fully understand the issue
+
+**Don't skip when:**
+- Issue seems simple (simple bugs have root causes too)
+- You're in a hurry (rushing guarantees rework)
+- Manager wants it fixed NOW (systematic is faster than thrashing)
+
+## The Four Phases
+
+You MUST complete each phase before proceeding to the next.
+
+### Phase 1: Root Cause Investigation
+
+**BEFORE attempting ANY fix:**
+
+1. **Read Error Messages Carefully**
+   - Don't skip past errors or warnings
+   - They often contain the exact solution
+   - Read stack traces completely
+   - Note line numbers, file paths, error codes
+
+2. **Reproduce Consistently**
+   - Can you trigger it reliably?
+   - What are the exact steps?
+   - Does it happen every time?
+   - If not reproducible → gather more data, don't guess
+
+3. **Check Recent Changes**
+   - What changed that could cause this?
+   - Git diff, recent commits
+   - New dependencies, config changes
+   - Environmental differences
+
+4. **Gather Evidence in Multi-Component Systems**
+
+   **WHEN system has multiple components (CI → build → signing, API → service → database):**
+
+   **BEFORE proposing fixes, add diagnostic instrumentation:**
+   ```
+   For EACH component boundary:
+     - Log what data enters component
+     - Log what data exits component
+     - Verify environment/config propagation
+     - Check state at each layer
+
+   Run once to gather evidence showing WHERE it breaks
+   THEN analyze evidence to identify failing component
+   THEN investigate that specific component
+   ```
+
+   **Example (multi-layer system):**
+   ```bash
+   # Layer 1: Workflow
+   echo "=== Secrets available in workflow: ==="
+   echo "IDENTITY: ${IDENTITY:+SET}${IDENTITY:-UNSET}"
+
+   # Layer 2: Build script
+   echo "=== Env vars in build script: ==="
+   env | grep IDENTITY || echo "IDENTITY not in environment"
+
+   # Layer 3: Signing script
+   echo "=== Keychain state: ==="
+   security list-keychains
+   security find-identity -v
+
+   # Layer 4: Actual signing
+   codesign --sign "$IDENTITY" --verbose=4 "$APP"
+   ```
+
+   **This reveals:** Which layer fails (secrets → workflow ✓, workflow → build ✗)
+
+5. **Trace Data Flow**
+
+   **WHEN error is deep in call stack:**
+
+   See `root-cause-tracing.md` in this directory for the complete backward tracing technique.
+
+   **Quick version:**
+   - Where does bad value originate?
+   - What called this with bad value?
+   - Keep tracing up until you find the source
+   - Fix at source, not at symptom
+
+### Phase 2: Pattern Analysis
+
+**Find the pattern before fixing:**
+
+1. **Find Working Examples**
+   - Locate similar working code in same codebase
+   - What works that's similar to what's broken?
+
+2. **Compare Against References**
+   - If implementing pattern, read reference implementation COMPLETELY
+   - Don't skim - read every line
+   - Understand the pattern fully before applying
+
+3. **Identify Differences**
+   - What's different between working and broken?
+   - List every difference, however small
+   - Don't assume "that can't matter"
+
+4. **Understand Dependencies**
+   - What other components does this need?
+   - What settings, config, environment?
+   - What assumptions does it make?
+
+### Phase 3: Hypothesis and Testing
+
+**Scientific method:**
+
+1. **Form Single Hypothesis**
+   - State clearly: "I think X is the root cause because Y"
+   - Write it down
+   - Be specific, not vague
+
+2. **Test Minimally**
+   - Make the SMALLEST possible change to test hypothesis
+   - One variable at a time
+   - Don't fix multiple things at once
+
+3. **Verify Before Continuing**
+   - Did it work? Yes → Phase 4
+   - Didn't work? Form NEW hypothesis
+   - DON'T add more fixes on top
+
+4. **When You Don't Know**
+   - Say "I don't understand X"
+   - Don't pretend to know
+   - Ask for help
+   - Research more
+
+### Phase 4: Implementation
+
+**Fix the root cause, not the symptom:**
+
+1. **Create Failing Test Case**
+   - Simplest possible reproduction
+   - Automated test if possible
+   - One-off test script if no framework
+   - MUST have before fixing
+   - Use the `superpowers:test-driven-development` skill for writing proper failing tests
+
+2. **Implement Single Fix**
+   - Address the root cause identified
+   - ONE change at a time
+   - No "while I'm here" improvements
+   - No bundled refactoring
+
+3. **Verify Fix**
+   - Test passes now?
+   - No other tests broken?
+   - Issue actually resolved?
+   - Use the `superpowers:verification-before-completion` skill before claiming success
+
+4. **If Fix Doesn't Work**
+   - STOP
+   - Count: How many fixes have you tried?
+   - If < 3: Return to Phase 1, re-analyze with new information
+   - **If ≥ 3: STOP and question the architecture (step 5 below)**
+   - DON'T attempt Fix #4 without architectural discussion
+
+5. **If 3+ Fixes Failed: Question Architecture**
+
+   **Pattern indicating architectural problem:**
+   - Each fix reveals new shared state/coupling/problem in different place
+   - Fixes require "massive refactoring" to implement
+   - Each fix creates new symptoms elsewhere
+
+   **STOP and question fundamentals:**
+   - Is this pattern fundamentally sound?
+   - Are we "sticking with it through sheer inertia"?
+   - Should we refactor architecture vs. continue fixing symptoms?
+
+   **Discuss with your human partner before attempting more fixes**
+
+   This is NOT a failed hypothesis - this is a wrong architecture.
+
+## Red Flags - STOP and Follow Process
+
+If you catch yourself thinking:
+- "Quick fix for now, investigate later"
+- "Just try changing X and see if it works"
+- "Add multiple changes, run tests"
+- "Skip the test, I'll manually verify"
+- "It's probably X, let me fix that"
+- "I don't fully understand but this might work"
+- "Pattern says X but I'll adapt it differently"
+- "Here are the main problems: [lists fixes without investigation]"
+- Proposing solutions before tracing data flow
+- **"One more fix attempt" (when already tried 2+)**
+- **Each fix reveals new problem in different place**
+
+**ALL of these mean: STOP. Return to Phase 1.**
+
+**If 3+ fixes failed:** Question the architecture (see Phase 4.5)
+
+## your human partner's Signals You're Doing It Wrong
+
+**Watch for these redirections:**
+- "Is that not happening?" - You assumed without verifying
+- "Will it show us...?" - You should have added evidence gathering
+- "Stop guessing" - You're proposing fixes without understanding
+- "Ultra-think this" - Question fundamentals, not just symptoms
+- "We're stuck?" (frustrated) - Your approach isn't working
+
+**When you see these:** STOP. Return to Phase 1.
+
+## Common Rationalizations
+
+| Excuse | Reality |
+|--------|---------|
+| "Issue is simple, don't need process" | Simple issues have root causes too. Process is fast for simple bugs. |
+| "Emergency, no time for process" | Systematic debugging is FASTER than guess-and-check thrashing. |
+| "Just try this first, then investigate" | First fix sets the pattern. Do it right from the start. |
+| "I'll write test after confirming fix works" | Untested fixes don't stick. Test first proves it. |
+| "Multiple fixes at once saves time" | Can't isolate what worked. Causes new bugs. |
+| "Reference too long, I'll adapt the pattern" | Partial understanding guarantees bugs. Read it completely. |
+| "I see the problem, let me fix it" | Seeing symptoms ≠ understanding root cause. |
+| "One more fix attempt" (after 2+ failures) | 3+ failures = architectural problem. Question pattern, don't fix again. |
+
+## Quick Reference
+
+| Phase | Key Activities | Success Criteria |
+|-------|---------------|------------------|
+| **1. Root Cause** | Read errors, reproduce, check changes, gather evidence | Understand WHAT and WHY |
+| **2. Pattern** | Find working examples, compare | Identify differences |
+| **3. Hypothesis** | Form theory, test minimally | Confirmed or new hypothesis |
+| **4. Implementation** | Create test, fix, verify | Bug resolved, tests pass |
+
+## When Process Reveals "No Root Cause"
+
+If systematic investigation reveals issue is truly environmental, timing-dependent, or external:
+
+1. You've completed the process
+2. Document what you investigated
+3. Implement appropriate handling (retry, timeout, error message)
+4. Add monitoring/logging for future investigation
+
+**But:** 95% of "no root cause" cases are incomplete investigation.
+
+## Supporting Techniques
+
+These techniques are part of systematic debugging and available in this directory:
+
+- **`root-cause-tracing.md`** - Trace bugs backward through call stack to find original trigger
+- **`defense-in-depth.md`** - Add validation at multiple layers after finding root cause
+- **`condition-based-waiting.md`** - Replace arbitrary timeouts with condition polling