agent-skill-kit 3.9.135

package/.agent/skills/code-constitution/examples/violation-chart-injection/before.tsx

@@ -0,0 +1,57 @@
+// ❌ VIOLATION: Realtime ticks injected into historical chart
+// Violates Law 3 (Realtime Ephemerality) and Law 4 (Chart Truthfulness)
+
+import { useEffect, useRef } from 'react';
+import { createChart } from 'lightweight-charts';
+
+export function BitcoinChart() {
+    const chartRef = useRef(null);
+    const seriesRef = useRef(null);
+
+    useEffect(() => {
+        const chart = createChart(chartRef.current, { width: 600, height: 400 });
+        const series = chart.addLineSeries();
+
+        // ✅ Load historical data (OK)
+        fetch('/api/bitcoin/historical')
+            .then(res => res.json())
+            .then(data => {
+                series.setData(data); // Historical data
+            });
+
+        // ❌ CRITICAL VIOLATION: WebSocket realtime injection
+        const ws = new WebSocket('wss://stream.binance.com/ws/btcusdt@trade');
+
+        ws.onmessage = (event) => {
+            const tick = JSON.parse(event.data);
+            const price = parseFloat(tick.p);
+            const time = Math.floor(tick.T / 1000);
+
+            // ❌ VIOLATION: Adding realtime tick to historical chart
+            series.update({
+                time,
+                value: price,
+            });
+
+            // ❌ VIOLATION: Persisting realtime as history
+            const existingData = series.data();
+            const updated = [...existingData, { time, value: price }];
+
+            // ❌ This permanently alters the historical record
+            series.setData(updated);
+        };
+
+        seriesRef.current = series;
+
+        return () => ws.close();
+    }, []);
+
+    return <div ref={chartRef} />;
+}
+
+// ❌ Result: Chart now contains MIX of:
+// - Historical aggregated data (5m candles from backend)
+// - Realtime individual ticks (streaming)
+//
+// This is FORBIDDEN. Users cannot distinguish history from realtime.
+// The chart is now lying about the past.

package/.agent/skills/code-constitution/examples/violation-chart-injection/explanation.md

@@ -0,0 +1,120 @@
+# Chart Injection Violation Example
+
+## Why This Matters
+
+This example demonstrates **Law 3: Realtime Ephemerality** and **Law 4: Chart Truthfulness**.
+
+### The Problem (before.tsx)
+
+The implementation:
+1. ❌ Mixes realtime ticks with historical aggregates
+2. ❌ Mutates historical chart data
+3. ❌ Persists ephemeral realtime as permanent history
+4. ❌ Misleads users about data accuracy
+
+### The Systemic Risks
+
+1. **Data Corruption**
+   - Historical chart contains individual ticks (millisecond resolution)
+   - Mixed with 5-minute aggregated candles
+   - Impossible to distinguish which is which
+   - Chart appears "more accurate" but is actually lying
+
+2. **Financial Incorrectness**
+   - Users making decisions on fake "historical" data
+   - Backtesting on contaminated data produces wrong signals
+   - Aggregates (MA, RSI) calculated on mixed data are invalid
+
+3. **Performance Degradation**
+   - Chart contains thousands of individual ticks
+   - Memory bloat as realtime data accumulates
+   - Rendering lag from excessive data points
+
+4. **Predictability Failure**
+   - Refresh page → different data (depends on when you connected to WebSocket)
+   - Users see different "history"
+   - No reproducibility
+
+### The Solution (after.tsx)
+
+**Separation of Concerns**:
+
+1. **Historical Chart** (Immutable)
+   - Only contains backend-aggregated data
+   - Consistent across all users
+   - Never modified by frontend
+   - Refreshing shows same data
+
+2. **Realtime Display** (Ephemeral)
+   - Separate visual component
+   - Clearly labeled "Live Price"
+   - Not persisted
+   - Not in chart
+   - Shows change from last historical close
+
+3. **Backend Aggregation** (Truth)
+   - Backend collects realtime ticks
+   - Aggregates at fixed intervals (5min)
+   - Appends to historical table
+   - Frontend receives pre-aggregated data
+
+## Constitutional Justification
+
+> **Law 3 — Realtime Ephemerality**
+> 
+> Realtime data is transient and display-only.
+> It MUST NOT:
+> - Be persisted as history
+> - Affect aggregates
+> - Contaminate charts
+
+> **Law 4 — Chart Truthfulness**
+> 
+> Charts represent historical financial truth, not realtime excitement.
+> Realtime ticks MUST NEVER be injected into charts.
+
+From: Code Constitution — Master Laws
+
+## Chart Data Doctrine
+
+> Historical data and realtime data MUST be visually and architecturally separated.
+> 
+> If a user cannot distinguish historical from realtime, the system is broken.
+
+From: Code Constitution — Data Integrity Doctrine
+
+## Visual Separation Examples
+
+### ✅ Good Patterns
+- Separate "Live Price" badge above/below chart
+- Realtime ticker with "ephemeral" label
+- Crosshair showing "last close" vs "current price"
+- Explicit timestamp showing historical data ends
+
+### ❌ Bad Patterns
+- Extending chart line with realtime ticks
+- Updating last candle with realtime data
+- Showing realtime on same Y-axis scale without separation
+- Any approach where user can't tell what's historical
+
+## When to Apply This Pattern
+
+- **Always** when displaying charts
+- **Always** when showing financial time-series
+- **Always** when mixing historical + realtime
+- **Always** when users make trading decisions
+
+## Key Takeaway
+
+**Charts show HISTORY. Realtime shows NOW. Never mix them.**
+
+If your chart is "updating in realtime," you're violating Laws 3 and 4.
+
+Historical data is **append-only from the backend**.  
+Realtime data is **ephemeral display-only in the frontend**.
+
+Stop, separate, and preserve chart truthfulness.
+
+---
+
+⚡ PikaKit v3.9.134

package/.agent/skills/code-constitution/knowledge/lessons-learned.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+version: 1.0.0
+last_updated: ""
+lessons: []

package/.agent/skills/code-constitution/metadata/precedence.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,117 @@
+# Doctrine Precedence Map
+# Defines absolute authority order for conflict resolution.
+# Higher precedence ALWAYS overrides lower precedence.
+# No implicit override is permitted.
+
+version: 1.0.0
+status: LOCKED
+authority: SUPREME
+
+precedence:
+  - id: master-constitution
+    level: 0
+    authority: supreme
+    description: >
+      Ultimate constitutional authority.
+      Overrides all doctrines, skills, enforcement rules,
+      agent behavior, and developer preference.
+
+  - id: architecture-doctrine
+    level: 1
+    authority: constitutional
+    description: >
+      System-wide architectural boundaries, ownership,
+      scalability invariants, and dependency direction.
+
+  - id: backend-data-engine-doctrine
+    level: 2
+    authority: constitutional
+    description: >
+      Backend truth ownership, ingestion taxonomy,
+      persistence, caching, and cost control laws.
+
+  - id: data-integrity-doctrine
+    level: 3
+    authority: constitutional
+    description: >
+      Data integrity, historical immutability,
+      and truth enforcement.
+
+  - id: commercial-guardrails-doctrine
+    level: 4
+    authority: constitutional
+    description: >
+      Enterprise safety, legal exposure,
+      blast radius control, and business continuity rules.
+
+  - id: performance-doctrine
+    level: 5
+    authority: constitutional
+    description: >
+      User-perceived performance, visual stability,
+      cache-first rendering, and trust preservation.
+
+  - id: frontend-mobile-doctrine
+    level: 6
+    authority: constitutional
+    description: >
+      Mobile-first layout invariants, scroll ownership,
+      and structural UX rules.
+
+  - id: interaction-patterns-doctrine
+    level: 7
+    authority: constitutional
+    description: >
+      Universal interaction architecture,
+      gesture arbitration, and navigation consistency.
+
+  - id: code-review-doctrine
+    level: 8
+    authority: enforcement
+    description: >
+      Review authority, rejection rules,
+      and enforcement of architectural law.
+
+  - id: learning-engine-doctrine
+    level: 9
+    authority: controlled-learning
+    description: >
+      Controlled reasoning improvement,
+      learning boundaries, and rollback rules.
+
+  - id: agent-enforcement-protocol
+    level: 10
+    authority: enforcement
+    description: >
+      AI agent permission model,
+      compliance enforcement, and shutdown rules.
+
+  - id: frontend-review-checklist
+    level: 11
+    authority: enforcement
+    description: >
+      Hard merge gate for frontend interaction
+      and scroll-related changes.
+
+  - id: developer-or-agent-preference
+    level: 99
+    authority: none
+    description: >
+      Lowest priority.
+      Never allowed to override any doctrine or law.
+
+resolution_rules:
+  - rule: higher_precedence_wins
+    description: >
+      When two documents conflict, the document
+      with the LOWER level number wins.
+
+  - rule: ambiguity_equals_rejection
+    description: >
+      If conflict resolution is ambiguous,
+      the change MUST be rejected.
+
+  - rule: no_silent_override
+    description: >
+      Overrides must be explicit, versioned,
+      and approved via a Change Proposal.

package/.agent/skills/code-constitution/metadata/scope-map.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,156 @@
+# Doctrine Scope Map
+# Maps change scopes to applicable doctrines.
+# Used by agents to automatically determine
+# which doctrines MUST be enforced for a given request.
+
+version: 1.0.0
+status: LOCKED
+authority: SUPREME
+
+scopes:
+
+  architecture:
+    description: >
+      System-level architecture, boundaries, ownership,
+      dependency direction, and scalability decisions.
+    applies:
+      - master-constitution
+      - architecture-doctrine
+      - commercial-guardrails-doctrine
+    examples:
+      - system boundaries
+      - ownership changes
+      - dependency inversion
+      - scalability design
+      - cross-layer coupling
+
+  backend-data:
+    description: >
+      Backend data ingestion, normalization,
+      persistence, caching, and cost control.
+    applies:
+      - master-constitution
+      - architecture-doctrine
+      - backend-data-engine-doctrine
+      - data-integrity-doctrine
+      - performance-doctrine
+    examples:
+      - data ingestion pipelines
+      - cron jobs
+      - caching logic
+      - database schema changes
+      - persistence rules
+
+  data-integrity:
+    description: >
+      Data integrity, historical truth,
+      aggregation, and visualization integrity.
+    applies:
+      - master-constitution
+      - architecture-doctrine
+      - data-integrity-doctrine
+      - performance-doctrine
+    examples:
+      - chart rendering
+      - timeframe aggregation
+      - historical data corrections
+      - visualization logic
+
+  frontend-mobile:
+    description: >
+      Mobile layout, scroll ownership,
+      structural hierarchy, and UX invariants.
+    applies:
+      - master-constitution
+      - architecture-doctrine
+      - frontend-mobile-doctrine
+      - performance-doctrine
+    examples:
+      - mobile layout changes
+      - header / tab bar structure
+      - scroll containers
+      - sticky behavior
+
+  interactions:
+    description: >
+      Swipe, touch gestures, and navigation interaction.
+    applies:
+      - master-constitution
+      - architecture-doctrine
+      - frontend-mobile-doctrine
+      - interaction-patterns-doctrine
+      - performance-doctrine
+    examples:
+      - swipe tabs
+      - gesture arbitration
+      - horizontal navigation
+      - touch handling
+
+  performance:
+    description: >
+      Rendering speed, caching behavior,
+      loading states, and perceived performance.
+    applies:
+      - master-constitution
+      - architecture-doctrine
+      - performance-doctrine
+    examples:
+      - loading strategy
+      - cache invalidation
+      - background refresh
+      - render optimization
+
+  commercial-risk:
+    description: >
+      Changes affecting user trust, revenue,
+      legal exposure, or operational safety.
+    applies:
+      - master-constitution
+      - architecture-doctrine
+      - commercial-guardrails-doctrine
+    examples:
+      - breaking changes
+      - migrations
+      - irreversible operations
+      - compliance-impacting changes
+
+  code-review:
+    description: >
+      Review decisions, enforcement,
+      approval or rejection logic.
+    applies:
+      - master-constitution
+      - architecture-doctrine
+      - code-review-doctrine
+    examples:
+      - PR approval
+      - rejection decisions
+      - enforcement escalation
+
+  ai-agents:
+    description: >
+      AI agent behavior, learning,
+      autonomy, and enforcement.
+    applies:
+      - master-constitution
+      - architecture-doctrine
+      - learning-engine-doctrine
+      - agent-enforcement-protocol
+    examples:
+      - AI-generated code
+      - automated refactors
+      - agent learning behavior
+      - agent refusal or escalation
+
+default_behavior:
+  rule: conservative
+  description: >
+    If scope cannot be confidently determined,
+    ALL doctrines MUST be applied and
+    explicit human review is required.
+
+failure_mode:
+  rule: reject
+  description: >
+    If scope mapping is ambiguous or incomplete,
+    the change MUST be rejected.

package/.agent/skills/code-constitution/proposals/v1.1-change-proposal-template.md

@@ -0,0 +1,201 @@
+---
+name: v1.1-change-proposal-template
+version: "3.9.134"
+status: TEMPLATE
+authority: GOVERNANCE
+parent: master-constitution
+---
+
+# 🏷️ PikaKit Change Proposal — v1.1+  
+**(Controlled Doctrine Evolution Request)**
+
+⚠️ **THIS IS NOT A PULL REQUEST**
+
+This document proposes a **potential change** to PikaKit’s
+Constitution, doctrines, or enforcement rules.
+
+If this proposal is **REJECTED**,  
+**NO IMPLEMENTATION MAY PROCEED**.
+
+Doctrine evolution is **rare by design**.
+
+---
+
+## 1. Proposal Metadata
+
+- **Proposal ID:** CP-YYYY-MM-DD-XX
+- **Author(s):**
+- **Date:**
+- **Target Version:** v1.1.x / v2.0.0
+- **Status:** Draft / Under Review / Approved / Rejected
+
+---
+
+## 2. Change Summary (Plain Language)
+
+Describe the proposed change **without implementation details**:
+
+- What is changing?
+- Which law, doctrine, or invariant is affected?
+- What problem does this change attempt to solve?
+
+If this cannot be explained clearly,  
+the proposal is **INVALID**.
+
+---
+
+## 3. Change Classification (MANDATORY)
+
+This proposal affects (check all that apply):
+
+- [ ] Constitution
+- [ ] Architecture Doctrine
+- [ ] Backend Data Engine Doctrine
+- [ ] Chart Data Doctrine
+- [ ] Frontend Mobile / Gesture Doctrine
+- [ ] Performance Doctrine
+- [ ] Commercial Guardrails
+- [ ] Review / Enforcement Rules
+- [ ] AI Learning / Agent Governance
+
+Unclassified impact = **AUTOMATIC REJECTION**.
+
+---
+
+## 4. Constitutional Impact Analysis (MANDATORY)
+
+For EACH Prime Directive, explicitly state impact:
+
+- **Correctness > Convenience:** Affected / Not Affected
+- **Trust > Speed:** Affected / Not Affected
+- **Architecture > Trends:** Affected / Not Affected
+- **Predictability > Cleverness:** Affected / Not Affected
+- **Explicit Trade-offs Only:** Affected / Not Affected
+
+If ANY directive is weakened,  
+the proposal is **EXTREMELY UNLIKELY TO PASS**.
+
+---
+
+## 5. Doctrine Impact Matrix
+
+List **ALL** affected documents.
+
+| Doctrine / File | Impact Level | Explanation |
+|-----------------|--------------|-------------|
+| master-constitution | None / Minor / Major | |
+| architecture-doctrine | | |
+| backend-data-engine-doctrine | | |
+| data-integrity-doctrine | | |
+| frontend-mobile-doctrine | | |
+| interaction-patterns-doctrine | | |
+| performance-doctrine | | |
+| commercial-guardrails-doctrine | | |
+| code-review-doctrine | | |
+| learning-engine-doctrine | | |
+| agent-enforcement-protocol | | |
+
+Missing an affected doctrine = **REJECTION**.
+
+---
+
+## 6. Motivation & Evidence (MANDATORY)
+
+This section MUST include **concrete evidence**:
+
+- Production incidents
+- Real-world constraints
+- Measurable limitations
+- Audit or compliance findings
+
+Speculation, taste, or elegance  
+are **NOT VALID MOTIVATIONS**.
+
+---
+
+## 7. Alternatives Considered
+
+List alternatives that were considered and rejected:
+
+- Alternative A:
+- Alternative B:
+
+Explain **why each alternative fails**
+without changing doctrine.
+
+No alternatives considered = **INCOMPLETE PROPOSAL**.
+
+---
+
+## 8. Risk & Blast Radius Assessment
+
+Explicitly describe:
+
+- What could break if this change is wrong
+- Which users or systems are affected
+- Worst-case failure scenario
+- Reversibility (Yes / No)
+
+Irreversible changes are  
+**STRONGLY DISCOURAGED**.
+
+---
+
+## 9. Compatibility & Migration Plan
+
+- Is v1.0 behavior preserved during transition?
+- Is migration explicit and bounded?
+- Is rollback possible and documented?
+
+Breaking compatibility without transition = **REJECTION**.
+
+---
+
+## 10. Recommendation
+
+The author recommends:
+
+- [ ] Approve
+- [ ] Approve with constraints
+- [ ] Reject
+
+Explain the recommendation  
+**without implementation bias**.
+
+---
+
+## 11. Constitutional Review & Verdict
+
+**Reviewed by:**
+- Architecture
+- Commercial / Risk
+- Performance
+- AI Governance
+
+**Final Verdict:**
+
+- [ ] Approved → Scheduled for v1.1+
+- [ ] Rejected → Doctrine v1.0 remains authoritative
+
+---
+
+## Enforcement Notice
+
+No code, PR, workflow, or agent output  
+may assume this change until it is:
+
+- Explicitly approved
+- Versioned
+- Released
+
+Doctrine changes without approval  
+are **GOVERNANCE VIOLATIONS**.
+
+---
+
+**Template Status:** ACTIVE  
+**Applies To:** Humans & AI Agents
+
+---
+
+⚡ PikaKit v3.9.134