agemon 0.1.0 → 6.3.0

package/assets/skills/self-review/agemon-review-intake/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-review-intake/NOTICE.md

@@ -0,0 +1,9 @@
+# Vendored skill
+
+- Source: https://github.com/obra/superpowers
+- Path in source: skills/receiving-code-review
+- 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 `receiving-code-review` to `agemon-review-intake` for agemon branding — installed skills should read as agemon's own, not a third-party project name.

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

@@ -0,0 +1,205 @@
+---
+name: agemon-review-intake
+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 instruction-file 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
+
+**If you're uncomfortable pushing back out loud:** Name that tension, then tell your partner about the issue you've seen. They'll appreciate your honesty.
+
+## 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."
+```
+
+## GitHub Thread Replies
+
+When replying to inline review comments on GitHub, reply in the comment thread (`gh api repos/{owner}/{repo}/pulls/{pr}/comments/{id}/replies`), not as a top-level PR comment.

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

@@ -0,0 +1,9 @@
+# Vendored skill
+
+- Source: https://github.com/obra/superpowers
+- Path in source: skills/requesting-code-review
+- 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 `requesting-code-review` to `agemon-review-request` for agemon branding — installed skills should read as agemon's own, not a third-party project name.

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.