agents-templated 1.2.7 → 1.2.9
This diff represents the content of publicly available package versions that have been released to one of the supported registries. The information contained in this diff is provided for informational purposes only and reflects changes between package versions as they appear in their respective public registries.
- package/README.md +40 -9
- package/bin/cli.js +5 -3
- package/package.json +1 -1
- package/templates/.github/copilot-instructions.md +11 -3
- package/templates/AGENTS.MD +579 -2
- package/templates/CLAUDE.md +13 -4
- package/templates/GEMINI.md +15 -6
- package/templates/README.md +13 -4
- package/templates/agent-docs/ARCHITECTURE.md +1 -1
- package/templates/agent-docs/README.md +2 -2
- package/templates/agents/commands/README.md +24 -0
- package/templates/agents/commands/SCHEMA.md +22 -0
- package/templates/agents/commands/audit.md +38 -0
- package/templates/agents/commands/docs.md +34 -0
- package/templates/agents/commands/fix.md +34 -0
- package/templates/agents/commands/perf.md +34 -0
- package/templates/agents/commands/plan.md +34 -0
- package/templates/agents/commands/pr.md +35 -0
- package/templates/agents/commands/refactor.md +34 -0
- package/templates/agents/commands/release.md +39 -0
- package/templates/agents/commands/scaffold.md +34 -0
- package/templates/agents/commands/task.md +35 -0
- package/templates/agents/commands/test.md +34 -0
- package/templates/agents/rules/hardening.mdc +52 -0
- package/templates/agents/rules/intent-routing.mdc +45 -0
- package/templates/agents/rules/security.mdc +9 -1
- package/templates/agents/rules/system-workflow.mdc +63 -0
- package/templates/agents/rules/testing.mdc +14 -1
- package/templates/agents/rules/workflows.mdc +7 -0
- package/templates/agents/skills/README.md +15 -1
- package/templates/agents/skills/app-hardening/SKILL.md +45 -0
- package/templates/agents/skills/bug-triage/SKILL.md +36 -0
- package/templates/agents/skills/feature-delivery/SKILL.md +38 -0
package/templates/README.md
CHANGED
|
@@ -105,7 +105,7 @@ Agents Templated automatically configures 4 major AI coding assistants:
|
|
|
105
105
|
| **Claude** | `CLAUDE.md` | ✅ Auto-loads in Claude IDE/API |
|
|
106
106
|
| **Gemini** | `GEMINI.md` | ✅ Auto-loads in Gemini IDE/API |
|
|
107
107
|
|
|
108
|
-
**All agents follow the same
|
|
108
|
+
**All agents follow the same standards:** `agents/rules/` contains behavior rules, and `agents/commands/` contains deterministic slash-command contracts.
|
|
109
109
|
|
|
110
110
|
---
|
|
111
111
|
|
|
@@ -116,7 +116,7 @@ When you run `agents-templated init`, you get:
|
|
|
116
116
|
```
|
|
117
117
|
your-project/
|
|
118
118
|
├── agent-docs/ # 📚 Comprehensive documentation
|
|
119
|
-
│ ├── AGENTS.
|
|
119
|
+
│ ├── AGENTS.MD # AI assistant guide
|
|
120
120
|
│ ├── ARCHITECTURE.md # Project architecture & tech stack
|
|
121
121
|
│ └── README.md # Human-readable setup guide
|
|
122
122
|
│
|
|
@@ -128,8 +128,17 @@ your-project/
|
|
|
128
128
|
│ │ ├── frontend.mdc # Frontend patterns
|
|
129
129
|
│ │ ├── database.mdc # Database patterns
|
|
130
130
|
│ │ └── style.mdc # Code style guidelines
|
|
131
|
+
│ ├── commands/
|
|
132
|
+
│ │ ├── SCHEMA.md # Global slash-command response schema
|
|
133
|
+
│ │ ├── plan.md # /plan contract
|
|
134
|
+
│ │ ├── fix.md # /fix contract
|
|
135
|
+
│ │ ├── audit.md # /audit contract
|
|
136
|
+
│ │ ├── release.md # /release contract
|
|
137
|
+
│ │ ├── ... # Other command contracts
|
|
138
|
+
│ │ └── README.md # Commands directory guide
|
|
131
139
|
│ └── skills/
|
|
132
140
|
│ ├── find-skills/ # Skill discovery helper
|
|
141
|
+
│ ├── ui-ux-pro-max/ # Advanced UI/UX design implementation skill
|
|
133
142
|
│ ├── README.md # Guide for creating custom skills
|
|
134
143
|
│ └── [your-custom-skills]/ # Your project-specific skills
|
|
135
144
|
│
|
|
@@ -256,7 +265,7 @@ Skills define *how to execute specific tasks*, complementing rules that define *
|
|
|
256
265
|
|
|
257
266
|
### 4. Read the Documentation
|
|
258
267
|
|
|
259
|
-
- **[AGENTS.
|
|
268
|
+
- **[AGENTS.MD](AGENTS.MD)** – AI assistant guide
|
|
260
269
|
- **[agent-docs/ARCHITECTURE.md](agent-docs/ARCHITECTURE.md)** – Project architecture & tech stack guidance
|
|
261
270
|
- **[agents/skills/README.md](agents/skills/README.md)** – Custom skills guide
|
|
262
271
|
- **[agents/rules/security.mdc](agents/rules/security.mdc)** – Security patterns (CRITICAL)
|
|
@@ -306,7 +315,7 @@ Your AI will follow the enterprise patterns automatically!
|
|
|
306
315
|
| **TestAgent** | Unit, integration, E2E, accessibility testing |
|
|
307
316
|
| **SecurityAgent** | Input validation, authentication, OWASP compliance |
|
|
308
317
|
|
|
309
|
-
**Reference**: [AGENTS.
|
|
318
|
+
**Reference**: [AGENTS.MD](AGENTS.MD)
|
|
310
319
|
|
|
311
320
|
---
|
|
312
321
|
|
|
@@ -7,7 +7,7 @@ These guidelines are for both humans and AI assistants working with any technolo
|
|
|
7
7
|
- **Agent responsibilities** and MCP integration are documented in `AGENTS.MD`.
|
|
8
8
|
- **Detailed implementation rules** live in `agents/rules/*.mdc` files.
|
|
9
9
|
|
|
10
|
-
Read this file first to understand the architecture, then consult `AGENTS.
|
|
10
|
+
Read this file first to understand the architecture, then consult `AGENTS.MD` for agent delegation.
|
|
11
11
|
|
|
12
12
|
---
|
|
13
13
|
|
|
@@ -8,7 +8,7 @@ Depending on what you installed, you may have:
|
|
|
8
8
|
|
|
9
9
|
- **AGENTS.MD**: Agent patterns and delegation guide
|
|
10
10
|
- **ARCHITECTURE.md**: Project guidelines and architecture
|
|
11
|
-
- **AGENTS.
|
|
11
|
+
- **AGENTS.MD**: Instructions for AI assistants
|
|
12
12
|
- **agents/rules/**: Development rules and patterns (6 files)
|
|
13
13
|
- **agents/skills/**: Reusable agent skills
|
|
14
14
|
- **CLAUDE.md**: Claude AI configuration
|
|
@@ -68,7 +68,7 @@ All AI assistants support skill references. Create custom skills in `agents/skil
|
|
|
68
68
|
|
|
69
69
|
## Getting Started
|
|
70
70
|
|
|
71
|
-
1. Review AGENTS.
|
|
71
|
+
1. Review AGENTS.MD for AI assistance guidance
|
|
72
72
|
2. Review ARCHITECTURE.md for overall project guidelines
|
|
73
73
|
3. Adapt the rules to your specific technology stack
|
|
74
74
|
4. Create custom skills in `agents/skills/` for your domain
|
|
@@ -0,0 +1,24 @@
|
|
|
1
|
+
# Deterministic Slash Command Contracts
|
|
2
|
+
|
|
3
|
+
This directory is the modular source of truth for slash-command execution contracts.
|
|
4
|
+
|
|
5
|
+
- Global protocol and safety framework: `AGENTS.MD` → `Deterministic Slash Command System Standard`
|
|
6
|
+
- Global response schema: `agents/commands/SCHEMA.md`
|
|
7
|
+
- Command contracts:
|
|
8
|
+
- `plan.md`
|
|
9
|
+
- `task.md`
|
|
10
|
+
- `scaffold.md`
|
|
11
|
+
- `fix.md`
|
|
12
|
+
- `refactor.md`
|
|
13
|
+
- `audit.md`
|
|
14
|
+
- `perf.md`
|
|
15
|
+
- `test.md`
|
|
16
|
+
- `pr.md`
|
|
17
|
+
- `release.md`
|
|
18
|
+
- `docs.md`
|
|
19
|
+
|
|
20
|
+
Execution requirements:
|
|
21
|
+
- Parse slash commands deterministically.
|
|
22
|
+
- Return structured output only.
|
|
23
|
+
- No conversational fallback in slash mode.
|
|
24
|
+
- Enforce destructive confirmation token: `CONFIRM-DESTRUCTIVE:<target>`.
|
|
@@ -0,0 +1,22 @@
|
|
|
1
|
+
# Slash Command Output Schema
|
|
2
|
+
|
|
3
|
+
All slash command responses MUST include the following top-level fields:
|
|
4
|
+
|
|
5
|
+
- `command`
|
|
6
|
+
- `execution_id`
|
|
7
|
+
- `mode`
|
|
8
|
+
- `status`
|
|
9
|
+
- `inputs`
|
|
10
|
+
- `prechecks`
|
|
11
|
+
- `execution_log`
|
|
12
|
+
- `artifacts`
|
|
13
|
+
- `risks`
|
|
14
|
+
- `safety_checks`
|
|
15
|
+
- `stop_condition`
|
|
16
|
+
- `next_action`
|
|
17
|
+
|
|
18
|
+
Constraints:
|
|
19
|
+
- `mode` MUST be one of: `slash-command`, `slash-command-auto`.
|
|
20
|
+
- `status` MUST be one of: `completed`, `blocked`, `failed`.
|
|
21
|
+
- If a field value is unknown, set it to `null`.
|
|
22
|
+
- Unknown or malformed slash commands MUST return structured error output and stop.
|
|
@@ -0,0 +1,38 @@
|
|
|
1
|
+
# /audit
|
|
2
|
+
|
|
3
|
+
## A. Intent
|
|
4
|
+
Run structured engineering audit across security, correctness, and maintainability.
|
|
5
|
+
|
|
6
|
+
## B. When to Use
|
|
7
|
+
Use before high-impact merges, releases, and external reviews.
|
|
8
|
+
|
|
9
|
+
## C. Required Inputs
|
|
10
|
+
- Audit scope
|
|
11
|
+
- Risk profile
|
|
12
|
+
- Compliance baseline
|
|
13
|
+
- Hardening profile requirement (if applicable)
|
|
14
|
+
|
|
15
|
+
## D. Deterministic Execution Flow
|
|
16
|
+
1. Resolve audit scope.
|
|
17
|
+
2. Run static checks.
|
|
18
|
+
3. Run security checks.
|
|
19
|
+
4. Run dependency/config checks.
|
|
20
|
+
5. Verify hardening evidence when hardening-required profile applies.
|
|
21
|
+
6. Classify findings by severity.
|
|
22
|
+
7. Emit audit report.
|
|
23
|
+
|
|
24
|
+
## E. Structured Output Template
|
|
25
|
+
- `scope`
|
|
26
|
+
- `checks_executed[]`
|
|
27
|
+
- `findings[]`
|
|
28
|
+
- `severity_summary`
|
|
29
|
+
- `remediation_plan[]`
|
|
30
|
+
- `hardening_evidence_status`
|
|
31
|
+
|
|
32
|
+
## F. Stop Conditions
|
|
33
|
+
- Inaccessible scope.
|
|
34
|
+
- Unavailable tooling.
|
|
35
|
+
|
|
36
|
+
## G. Safety Constraints
|
|
37
|
+
- Classify secret leaks and auth bypass as critical.
|
|
38
|
+
- Classify missing hardening verification evidence as release-blocking when hardening is required.
|
|
@@ -0,0 +1,34 @@
|
|
|
1
|
+
# /docs
|
|
2
|
+
|
|
3
|
+
## A. Intent
|
|
4
|
+
Generate or update documentation aligned to implemented behavior.
|
|
5
|
+
|
|
6
|
+
## B. When to Use
|
|
7
|
+
Use when code, APIs, operations, or workflows change.
|
|
8
|
+
|
|
9
|
+
## C. Required Inputs
|
|
10
|
+
- Documentation scope
|
|
11
|
+
- Source changes
|
|
12
|
+
- Target audience
|
|
13
|
+
|
|
14
|
+
## D. Deterministic Execution Flow
|
|
15
|
+
1. Resolve source-of-truth artifacts.
|
|
16
|
+
2. Extract behavior and API deltas.
|
|
17
|
+
3. Map deltas to sections.
|
|
18
|
+
4. Apply concise updates.
|
|
19
|
+
5. Validate examples/commands.
|
|
20
|
+
6. Emit docs change report.
|
|
21
|
+
|
|
22
|
+
## E. Structured Output Template
|
|
23
|
+
- `scope`
|
|
24
|
+
- `sources[]`
|
|
25
|
+
- `sections_updated[]`
|
|
26
|
+
- `example_validation`
|
|
27
|
+
- `follow_up_actions[]`
|
|
28
|
+
|
|
29
|
+
## F. Stop Conditions
|
|
30
|
+
- Missing source artifacts.
|
|
31
|
+
- Unresolved ambiguity.
|
|
32
|
+
|
|
33
|
+
## G. Safety Constraints
|
|
34
|
+
- Do not publish secrets, tokens, or credentials.
|
|
@@ -0,0 +1,34 @@
|
|
|
1
|
+
# /fix
|
|
2
|
+
|
|
3
|
+
## A. Intent
|
|
4
|
+
Apply the smallest safe change that resolves a verified defect.
|
|
5
|
+
|
|
6
|
+
## B. When to Use
|
|
7
|
+
Use for bugs with reproducible evidence.
|
|
8
|
+
|
|
9
|
+
## C. Required Inputs
|
|
10
|
+
- Defect description
|
|
11
|
+
- Reproduction evidence
|
|
12
|
+
- Target scope
|
|
13
|
+
|
|
14
|
+
## D. Deterministic Execution Flow
|
|
15
|
+
1. Validate defect evidence.
|
|
16
|
+
2. Reproduce failure.
|
|
17
|
+
3. Locate root cause.
|
|
18
|
+
4. Generate minimal patch.
|
|
19
|
+
5. Execute targeted validation.
|
|
20
|
+
6. Emit fix report.
|
|
21
|
+
|
|
22
|
+
## E. Structured Output Template
|
|
23
|
+
- `defect_id`
|
|
24
|
+
- `root_cause`
|
|
25
|
+
- `patch_summary`
|
|
26
|
+
- `files_changed[]`
|
|
27
|
+
- `validation_results[]`
|
|
28
|
+
|
|
29
|
+
## F. Stop Conditions
|
|
30
|
+
- Non-reproducible failure.
|
|
31
|
+
- Root cause unresolved.
|
|
32
|
+
|
|
33
|
+
## G. Safety Constraints
|
|
34
|
+
- Do not broaden scope beyond defect boundary.
|
|
@@ -0,0 +1,34 @@
|
|
|
1
|
+
# /perf
|
|
2
|
+
|
|
3
|
+
## A. Intent
|
|
4
|
+
Evaluate and optimize performance using measurable baselines.
|
|
5
|
+
|
|
6
|
+
## B. When to Use
|
|
7
|
+
Use when latency, throughput, memory, or build-time regressions are reported.
|
|
8
|
+
|
|
9
|
+
## C. Required Inputs
|
|
10
|
+
- Target metrics
|
|
11
|
+
- Baseline environment
|
|
12
|
+
- Optimization scope
|
|
13
|
+
|
|
14
|
+
## D. Deterministic Execution Flow
|
|
15
|
+
1. Capture baseline metrics.
|
|
16
|
+
2. Identify bottlenecks.
|
|
17
|
+
3. Apply one optimization unit.
|
|
18
|
+
4. Re-measure metrics.
|
|
19
|
+
5. Compare against baseline.
|
|
20
|
+
6. Emit performance report.
|
|
21
|
+
|
|
22
|
+
## E. Structured Output Template
|
|
23
|
+
- `baseline_metrics`
|
|
24
|
+
- `optimization_units[]`
|
|
25
|
+
- `post_metrics`
|
|
26
|
+
- `regression_check`
|
|
27
|
+
- `recommendation`
|
|
28
|
+
|
|
29
|
+
## F. Stop Conditions
|
|
30
|
+
- Missing baseline metrics.
|
|
31
|
+
- Non-reproducible benchmark.
|
|
32
|
+
|
|
33
|
+
## G. Safety Constraints
|
|
34
|
+
- Do not trade security controls for performance.
|
|
@@ -0,0 +1,34 @@
|
|
|
1
|
+
# /plan
|
|
2
|
+
|
|
3
|
+
## A. Intent
|
|
4
|
+
Generate an executable implementation plan with ordered steps and risk controls.
|
|
5
|
+
|
|
6
|
+
## B. When to Use
|
|
7
|
+
Use for non-trivial work requiring sequencing, dependencies, and checkpoints.
|
|
8
|
+
|
|
9
|
+
## C. Required Inputs
|
|
10
|
+
- Objective
|
|
11
|
+
- Scope boundaries
|
|
12
|
+
- Constraints
|
|
13
|
+
|
|
14
|
+
## D. Deterministic Execution Flow
|
|
15
|
+
1. Parse objective and constraints.
|
|
16
|
+
2. Extract atomic work units.
|
|
17
|
+
3. Compute dependency order.
|
|
18
|
+
4. Attach validation checkpoints.
|
|
19
|
+
5. Attach risk and rollback notes.
|
|
20
|
+
6. Emit plan artifacts.
|
|
21
|
+
|
|
22
|
+
## E. Structured Output Template
|
|
23
|
+
- `plan_summary`
|
|
24
|
+
- `work_units[]`
|
|
25
|
+
- `dependency_graph`
|
|
26
|
+
- `validation_checkpoints[]`
|
|
27
|
+
- `risk_register[]`
|
|
28
|
+
|
|
29
|
+
## F. Stop Conditions
|
|
30
|
+
- Missing objective or scope.
|
|
31
|
+
- Contradictory constraints.
|
|
32
|
+
|
|
33
|
+
## G. Safety Constraints
|
|
34
|
+
- Include security and testing gates for code-changing units.
|
|
@@ -0,0 +1,35 @@
|
|
|
1
|
+
# /pr
|
|
2
|
+
|
|
3
|
+
## A. Intent
|
|
4
|
+
Prepare a deterministic pull request payload with implementation evidence.
|
|
5
|
+
|
|
6
|
+
## B. When to Use
|
|
7
|
+
Use after validated changes are ready for review.
|
|
8
|
+
|
|
9
|
+
## C. Required Inputs
|
|
10
|
+
- Change summary
|
|
11
|
+
- Linked issues/tasks
|
|
12
|
+
- Validation evidence
|
|
13
|
+
|
|
14
|
+
## D. Deterministic Execution Flow
|
|
15
|
+
1. Collect changed files.
|
|
16
|
+
2. Summarize intent and impact.
|
|
17
|
+
3. Attach validation evidence.
|
|
18
|
+
4. Classify risk and rollout impact.
|
|
19
|
+
5. Build reviewer checklist.
|
|
20
|
+
6. Emit PR package.
|
|
21
|
+
|
|
22
|
+
## E. Structured Output Template
|
|
23
|
+
- `title`
|
|
24
|
+
- `summary`
|
|
25
|
+
- `files_changed[]`
|
|
26
|
+
- `validation_evidence[]`
|
|
27
|
+
- `risk_assessment`
|
|
28
|
+
- `review_checklist[]`
|
|
29
|
+
|
|
30
|
+
## F. Stop Conditions
|
|
31
|
+
- Missing validation evidence.
|
|
32
|
+
- Open critical findings.
|
|
33
|
+
|
|
34
|
+
## G. Safety Constraints
|
|
35
|
+
- Block PR package when critical issues remain unresolved.
|
|
@@ -0,0 +1,34 @@
|
|
|
1
|
+
# /refactor
|
|
2
|
+
|
|
3
|
+
## A. Intent
|
|
4
|
+
Improve internal structure without changing externally observable behavior.
|
|
5
|
+
|
|
6
|
+
## B. When to Use
|
|
7
|
+
Use for maintainability and modularity improvements.
|
|
8
|
+
|
|
9
|
+
## C. Required Inputs
|
|
10
|
+
- Target component/module
|
|
11
|
+
- Non-functional goals
|
|
12
|
+
- Behavior invariants
|
|
13
|
+
|
|
14
|
+
## D. Deterministic Execution Flow
|
|
15
|
+
1. Capture behavior invariants.
|
|
16
|
+
2. Define refactor units.
|
|
17
|
+
3. Apply one unit at a time.
|
|
18
|
+
4. Verify invariants after each unit.
|
|
19
|
+
5. Measure complexity delta.
|
|
20
|
+
6. Emit refactor report.
|
|
21
|
+
|
|
22
|
+
## E. Structured Output Template
|
|
23
|
+
- `target`
|
|
24
|
+
- `invariants[]`
|
|
25
|
+
- `transformations[]`
|
|
26
|
+
- `behavior_check_results[]`
|
|
27
|
+
- `complexity_delta`
|
|
28
|
+
|
|
29
|
+
## F. Stop Conditions
|
|
30
|
+
- Invariant violation.
|
|
31
|
+
- Missing baseline behavior.
|
|
32
|
+
|
|
33
|
+
## G. Safety Constraints
|
|
34
|
+
- Abort on behavior-change risk.
|
|
@@ -0,0 +1,39 @@
|
|
|
1
|
+
# /release
|
|
2
|
+
|
|
3
|
+
## A. Intent
|
|
4
|
+
Produce deterministic release readiness decision and rollout contract.
|
|
5
|
+
|
|
6
|
+
## B. When to Use
|
|
7
|
+
Use when promoting validated changes to release channels.
|
|
8
|
+
|
|
9
|
+
## C. Required Inputs
|
|
10
|
+
- Version/tag
|
|
11
|
+
- Change manifest
|
|
12
|
+
- Rollback strategy
|
|
13
|
+
- Hardening verification evidence (when required by risk profile)
|
|
14
|
+
|
|
15
|
+
## D. Deterministic Execution Flow
|
|
16
|
+
1. Validate release prerequisites.
|
|
17
|
+
2. Validate compatibility and migration risks.
|
|
18
|
+
3. Validate security and test gates.
|
|
19
|
+
4. Validate hardening verification evidence when hardening-required profile applies.
|
|
20
|
+
5. Build release notes.
|
|
21
|
+
6. Build rollout and rollback steps.
|
|
22
|
+
7. Emit release contract.
|
|
23
|
+
|
|
24
|
+
## E. Structured Output Template
|
|
25
|
+
- `version`
|
|
26
|
+
- `release_readiness`
|
|
27
|
+
- `gates[]`
|
|
28
|
+
- `rollout_plan[]`
|
|
29
|
+
- `rollback_plan[]`
|
|
30
|
+
- `release_notes`
|
|
31
|
+
- `hardening_verification`
|
|
32
|
+
|
|
33
|
+
## F. Stop Conditions
|
|
34
|
+
- Gate failure.
|
|
35
|
+
- Missing rollback strategy.
|
|
36
|
+
|
|
37
|
+
## G. Safety Constraints
|
|
38
|
+
- Block release when any critical gate fails.
|
|
39
|
+
- Block release when required hardening evidence is missing.
|
|
@@ -0,0 +1,34 @@
|
|
|
1
|
+
# /scaffold
|
|
2
|
+
|
|
3
|
+
## A. Intent
|
|
4
|
+
Create deterministic project/module boilerplate with secure defaults.
|
|
5
|
+
|
|
6
|
+
## B. When to Use
|
|
7
|
+
Use to initialize new modules/features with approved structure.
|
|
8
|
+
|
|
9
|
+
## C. Required Inputs
|
|
10
|
+
- Target module name
|
|
11
|
+
- Runtime/stack
|
|
12
|
+
- Required patterns
|
|
13
|
+
|
|
14
|
+
## D. Deterministic Execution Flow
|
|
15
|
+
1. Validate target path non-conflict.
|
|
16
|
+
2. Resolve scaffold template.
|
|
17
|
+
3. Generate file tree.
|
|
18
|
+
4. Apply secure defaults.
|
|
19
|
+
5. Generate baseline tests.
|
|
20
|
+
6. Emit scaffold manifest.
|
|
21
|
+
|
|
22
|
+
## E. Structured Output Template
|
|
23
|
+
- `target`
|
|
24
|
+
- `template_source`
|
|
25
|
+
- `files_created[]`
|
|
26
|
+
- `secure_defaults[]`
|
|
27
|
+
- `tests_created[]`
|
|
28
|
+
|
|
29
|
+
## F. Stop Conditions
|
|
30
|
+
- Path collision.
|
|
31
|
+
- Unsupported template/runtime.
|
|
32
|
+
|
|
33
|
+
## G. Safety Constraints
|
|
34
|
+
- Do not overwrite existing files without explicit confirmation.
|
|
@@ -0,0 +1,35 @@
|
|
|
1
|
+
# /task
|
|
2
|
+
|
|
3
|
+
## A. Intent
|
|
4
|
+
Convert a plan item into a deterministic execution task.
|
|
5
|
+
|
|
6
|
+
## B. When to Use
|
|
7
|
+
Use for bounded work with clear acceptance criteria.
|
|
8
|
+
|
|
9
|
+
## C. Required Inputs
|
|
10
|
+
- Task identifier
|
|
11
|
+
- Acceptance criteria
|
|
12
|
+
- Allowed scope
|
|
13
|
+
|
|
14
|
+
## D. Deterministic Execution Flow
|
|
15
|
+
1. Resolve task identifier.
|
|
16
|
+
2. Validate acceptance criteria completeness.
|
|
17
|
+
3. Validate scope boundaries.
|
|
18
|
+
4. Define execution steps.
|
|
19
|
+
5. Define verification steps.
|
|
20
|
+
6. Emit task contract.
|
|
21
|
+
|
|
22
|
+
## E. Structured Output Template
|
|
23
|
+
- `task_id`
|
|
24
|
+
- `objective`
|
|
25
|
+
- `allowed_scope`
|
|
26
|
+
- `execution_steps[]`
|
|
27
|
+
- `verification_steps[]`
|
|
28
|
+
- `acceptance_criteria[]`
|
|
29
|
+
|
|
30
|
+
## F. Stop Conditions
|
|
31
|
+
- Unknown task identifier.
|
|
32
|
+
- Missing acceptance criteria.
|
|
33
|
+
|
|
34
|
+
## G. Safety Constraints
|
|
35
|
+
- Reject out-of-scope changes.
|
|
@@ -0,0 +1,34 @@
|
|
|
1
|
+
# /test
|
|
2
|
+
|
|
3
|
+
## A. Intent
|
|
4
|
+
Generate or execute deterministic test plans and test artifacts.
|
|
5
|
+
|
|
6
|
+
## B. When to Use
|
|
7
|
+
Use for feature validation, regression prevention, and release readiness.
|
|
8
|
+
|
|
9
|
+
## C. Required Inputs
|
|
10
|
+
- Target scope
|
|
11
|
+
- Test level
|
|
12
|
+
- Expected behavior
|
|
13
|
+
|
|
14
|
+
## D. Deterministic Execution Flow
|
|
15
|
+
1. Resolve test scope.
|
|
16
|
+
2. Map behavior to test cases.
|
|
17
|
+
3. Execute or generate tests.
|
|
18
|
+
4. Capture pass/fail artifacts.
|
|
19
|
+
5. Classify failures.
|
|
20
|
+
6. Emit test report.
|
|
21
|
+
|
|
22
|
+
## E. Structured Output Template
|
|
23
|
+
- `scope`
|
|
24
|
+
- `test_matrix[]`
|
|
25
|
+
- `execution_results[]`
|
|
26
|
+
- `coverage_delta`
|
|
27
|
+
- `failures[]`
|
|
28
|
+
|
|
29
|
+
## F. Stop Conditions
|
|
30
|
+
- Unavailable runtime.
|
|
31
|
+
- Undefined scope.
|
|
32
|
+
|
|
33
|
+
## G. Safety Constraints
|
|
34
|
+
- Do not mark success if critical tests are skipped.
|
|
@@ -0,0 +1,52 @@
|
|
|
1
|
+
---
|
|
2
|
+
title: "Application Hardening & Obfuscation"
|
|
3
|
+
description: "Risk-based hardening model including obfuscation, tamper resilience, and verification"
|
|
4
|
+
version: "1.0.0"
|
|
5
|
+
tags: ["hardening", "obfuscation", "anti-tamper", "security"]
|
|
6
|
+
---
|
|
7
|
+
|
|
8
|
+
## Purpose
|
|
9
|
+
|
|
10
|
+
Define a technology-agnostic hardening baseline for distributed applications and high-value logic.
|
|
11
|
+
|
|
12
|
+
## Core Principles
|
|
13
|
+
|
|
14
|
+
- Hardening is defense-in-depth, not a replacement for secure design.
|
|
15
|
+
- Obfuscation increases reverse-engineering cost but does not eliminate risk.
|
|
16
|
+
- Keep authentication, authorization, secrets management, and validation as primary controls.
|
|
17
|
+
|
|
18
|
+
## Risk-Based Applicability
|
|
19
|
+
|
|
20
|
+
Use hardening when one or more conditions apply:
|
|
21
|
+
- Client-distributed app (mobile/desktop/browser-delivered logic)
|
|
22
|
+
- High-value IP in client-side logic
|
|
23
|
+
- Elevated tampering, hooking, or repackaging threat model
|
|
24
|
+
- High-risk business operations exposed in untrusted runtime
|
|
25
|
+
|
|
26
|
+
## Hardening Control Set
|
|
27
|
+
|
|
28
|
+
- Code obfuscation/minification hardening as applicable
|
|
29
|
+
- Runtime integrity/tamper detection where platform allows
|
|
30
|
+
- Debug/instrumentation resistance where legally and technically appropriate
|
|
31
|
+
- Binary/artifact integrity verification in delivery pipeline
|
|
32
|
+
- Secure handling of symbol/mapping artifacts
|
|
33
|
+
|
|
34
|
+
## Obfuscation Guidance
|
|
35
|
+
|
|
36
|
+
- Apply near build/release stage, not as source-authoring substitute.
|
|
37
|
+
- Validate behavior after obfuscation with full regression checks.
|
|
38
|
+
- Enforce performance and startup budget checks post-hardening.
|
|
39
|
+
- Maintain reproducible builds and deterministic config snapshots.
|
|
40
|
+
|
|
41
|
+
## Verification Requirements
|
|
42
|
+
|
|
43
|
+
- Functional regression tests pass on hardened build.
|
|
44
|
+
- Performance budgets remain within accepted thresholds.
|
|
45
|
+
- Crash/debug workflow documented with restricted symbol access.
|
|
46
|
+
- Release notes include hardening profile and known tradeoffs.
|
|
47
|
+
|
|
48
|
+
## Safety Constraints
|
|
49
|
+
|
|
50
|
+
- Do not claim obfuscation as complete protection.
|
|
51
|
+
- Do not rely on obfuscation to protect embedded secrets.
|
|
52
|
+
- Block release if hardening-required profile lacks verification evidence.
|
|
@@ -0,0 +1,45 @@
|
|
|
1
|
+
---
|
|
2
|
+
title: "Intent Routing & Command Selection"
|
|
3
|
+
description: "Deterministic intent routing from natural language to executable command contracts"
|
|
4
|
+
version: "1.0.0"
|
|
5
|
+
tags: ["routing", "deterministic", "workflow", "commands"]
|
|
6
|
+
---
|
|
7
|
+
|
|
8
|
+
## Purpose
|
|
9
|
+
|
|
10
|
+
Provide deterministic routing from user intent to the correct execution pathway, with minimal clarification and strict safety behavior.
|
|
11
|
+
|
|
12
|
+
## Deterministic Routing Contract
|
|
13
|
+
|
|
14
|
+
1. Normalize input (trim, collapse whitespace, preserve semantic tokens).
|
|
15
|
+
2. Detect explicit slash command first.
|
|
16
|
+
3. If no slash command, run implicit intent routing against known command set.
|
|
17
|
+
4. Select exactly one command only when confidence is sufficient.
|
|
18
|
+
5. If ambiguous, return blocked output with decision-critical missing fields.
|
|
19
|
+
6. Never execute destructive actions without confirmation token.
|
|
20
|
+
|
|
21
|
+
## Confidence & Ambiguity Rules
|
|
22
|
+
|
|
23
|
+
- High confidence: execute selected contract.
|
|
24
|
+
- Medium confidence: execute with explicit assumptions in output.
|
|
25
|
+
- Low confidence: return `status: blocked` with 1-2 critical clarifications.
|
|
26
|
+
- Multi-intent input: split into ordered tasks only when boundaries are explicit; otherwise block.
|
|
27
|
+
|
|
28
|
+
## Minimal Clarification Policy
|
|
29
|
+
|
|
30
|
+
- Ask questions only when unsafe or logically blocked.
|
|
31
|
+
- Ask at most 2 questions per command cycle.
|
|
32
|
+
- Questions must be single-purpose and decision-critical.
|
|
33
|
+
|
|
34
|
+
## Structured Output Defaults
|
|
35
|
+
|
|
36
|
+
All routed executions must return schema-compliant output:
|
|
37
|
+
- `command`, `execution_id`, `mode`, `status`, `inputs`
|
|
38
|
+
- `prechecks`, `execution_log`, `artifacts`
|
|
39
|
+
- `risks`, `safety_checks`, `stop_condition`, `next_action`
|
|
40
|
+
|
|
41
|
+
## Safety Behavior
|
|
42
|
+
|
|
43
|
+
- Unknown slash command: structured error and stop.
|
|
44
|
+
- Ambiguous non-slash intent: blocked with minimal missing inputs.
|
|
45
|
+
- High-risk actions: blocked until explicit confirmation token is present.
|
|
@@ -241,6 +241,14 @@ No sensitive variables should ever be:
|
|
|
241
241
|
- Included in client-side code
|
|
242
242
|
- Transmitted in URLs
|
|
243
243
|
|
|
244
|
+
## Application Hardening & Obfuscation
|
|
245
|
+
|
|
246
|
+
- Treat obfuscation as **defense in depth**, not a replacement for authentication, authorization, secrets hygiene, or validation.
|
|
247
|
+
- Apply hardening selectively by risk profile, especially for distributed clients (mobile/desktop/browser) and high-value IP logic.
|
|
248
|
+
- Integrate hardening into build/release flow and require post-hardening functional regression and performance checks.
|
|
249
|
+
- Protect symbol/mapping/debug artifacts with restricted access and secure retention policies.
|
|
250
|
+
- Require reproducible builds and a clear rollback path for hardened releases.
|
|
251
|
+
|
|
244
252
|
## Security Checklist
|
|
245
253
|
|
|
246
254
|
Before deploying to production:
|
|
@@ -266,4 +274,4 @@ Before deploying to production:
|
|
|
266
274
|
---
|
|
267
275
|
|
|
268
276
|
Remember: **Security must be built in from the beginning, not added as an afterthought.**
|
|
269
|
-
Every feature should consider security implications, and every developer should understand these principles.
|
|
277
|
+
Every feature should consider security implications, and every developer should understand these principles.
|