agents-templated 2.2.18 → 2.2.20
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/package.json +1 -1
- package/templates/agents/commands/arch-check.md +58 -58
- package/templates/agents/commands/audit.md +58 -58
- package/templates/agents/commands/debug-track.md +58 -58
- package/templates/agents/commands/docs.md +58 -58
- package/templates/agents/commands/fix.md +58 -58
- package/templates/agents/commands/learn-loop.md +58 -58
- package/templates/agents/commands/perf.md +58 -58
- package/templates/agents/commands/plan.md +58 -58
- package/templates/agents/commands/pr.md +58 -58
- package/templates/agents/commands/problem-map.md +58 -58
- package/templates/agents/commands/release-ready.md +58 -58
- package/templates/agents/commands/release.md +58 -58
- package/templates/agents/commands/risk-review.md +58 -58
- package/templates/agents/commands/scope-shape.md +58 -58
- package/templates/agents/commands/task.md +58 -58
- package/templates/agents/commands/test.md +58 -58
- package/templates/agents/commands/ux-bar.md +58 -58
- package/templates/agents/rules/core.md +173 -173
- package/templates/agents/rules/database.md +305 -305
- package/templates/agents/rules/frontend.md +217 -217
- package/templates/agents/rules/security.md +278 -278
- package/templates/agents/rules/style.md +344 -344
- package/templates/agents/rules/testing.md +371 -371
- package/templates/agents/rules/workflows.md +56 -56
|
@@ -1,58 +1,58 @@
|
|
|
1
|
-
# /test
|
|
2
|
-
|
|
3
|
-
## A. Intent
|
|
4
|
-
Run deterministic validation and gate release readiness based on test evidence.
|
|
5
|
-
|
|
6
|
-
## B. When to Use
|
|
7
|
-
- Use when validating behavior after implementation or before merge/release.
|
|
8
|
-
- This command now includes quality-gate behavior; do not use /quality-gate.
|
|
9
|
-
|
|
10
|
-
## C. Context Assumptions
|
|
11
|
-
- Test targets are defined.
|
|
12
|
-
- Required environments are available.
|
|
13
|
-
- Pass/fail criteria are explicit.
|
|
14
|
-
|
|
15
|
-
## D. Required Inputs
|
|
16
|
-
| Input | Type | Example |
|
|
17
|
-
|---------------------|------------|----------------------------------|
|
|
18
|
-
| `test_scope` | string | "api regression" |
|
|
19
|
-
| `test_suites` | string[] | ["unit", "integration", "critical-flow"] |
|
|
20
|
-
| `evidence_artifact` | artifact | test report path or CI run URL |
|
|
21
|
-
|
|
22
|
-
## E. Pre-Execution Guards <- fail fast, check ALL before running
|
|
23
|
-
- [ ] test scope is non-empty
|
|
24
|
-
- [ ] critical test suites are executable
|
|
25
|
-
- [ ] pass criteria are declared
|
|
26
|
-
|
|
27
|
-
## F. Execution Flow
|
|
28
|
-
1. Collect test targets and runtime config.
|
|
29
|
-
2. Execute suites in deterministic order.
|
|
30
|
-
3. Aggregate results and failures.
|
|
31
|
-
4. Decision point ->
|
|
32
|
-
- condition A -> critical failures present -> gate = blocked
|
|
33
|
-
- condition B -> no critical failures -> gate = pass.
|
|
34
|
-
5. Build validation evidence and remediation list.
|
|
35
|
-
6. Emit test and gate report.
|
|
36
|
-
|
|
37
|
-
## G. Output Schema
|
|
38
|
-
|
|
39
|
-
```json
|
|
40
|
-
{
|
|
41
|
-
"test_run_id": "string",
|
|
42
|
-
"results": ["array","of","strings"],
|
|
43
|
-
"gate_status": "low | medium | high",
|
|
44
|
-
"blocker": "string | null"
|
|
45
|
-
}
|
|
46
|
-
```
|
|
47
|
-
|
|
48
|
-
## H. Output Target
|
|
49
|
-
- Default delivery: stdout
|
|
50
|
-
- Override flag: --output=<target>
|
|
51
|
-
|
|
52
|
-
## I. Stop Conditions <- abort with error message, never emit partial output
|
|
53
|
-
- critical test suite cannot run
|
|
54
|
-
- result schema cannot be produced
|
|
55
|
-
|
|
56
|
-
## J. Safety Constraints
|
|
57
|
-
- Hard block: hard block when critical flow tests fail
|
|
58
|
-
- Warn only: warn when flaky tests are excluded with justification
|
|
1
|
+
# /test
|
|
2
|
+
|
|
3
|
+
## A. Intent
|
|
4
|
+
Run deterministic validation and gate release readiness based on test evidence.
|
|
5
|
+
|
|
6
|
+
## B. When to Use
|
|
7
|
+
- Use when validating behavior after implementation or before merge/release.
|
|
8
|
+
- This command now includes quality-gate behavior; do not use /quality-gate.
|
|
9
|
+
|
|
10
|
+
## C. Context Assumptions
|
|
11
|
+
- Test targets are defined.
|
|
12
|
+
- Required environments are available.
|
|
13
|
+
- Pass/fail criteria are explicit.
|
|
14
|
+
|
|
15
|
+
## D. Required Inputs
|
|
16
|
+
| Input | Type | Example |
|
|
17
|
+
|---------------------|------------|----------------------------------|
|
|
18
|
+
| `test_scope` | string | "api regression" |
|
|
19
|
+
| `test_suites` | string[] | ["unit", "integration", "critical-flow"] |
|
|
20
|
+
| `evidence_artifact` | artifact | test report path or CI run URL |
|
|
21
|
+
|
|
22
|
+
## E. Pre-Execution Guards <- fail fast, check ALL before running
|
|
23
|
+
- [ ] test scope is non-empty
|
|
24
|
+
- [ ] critical test suites are executable
|
|
25
|
+
- [ ] pass criteria are declared
|
|
26
|
+
|
|
27
|
+
## F. Execution Flow
|
|
28
|
+
1. Collect test targets and runtime config.
|
|
29
|
+
2. Execute suites in deterministic order.
|
|
30
|
+
3. Aggregate results and failures.
|
|
31
|
+
4. Decision point ->
|
|
32
|
+
- condition A -> critical failures present -> gate = blocked
|
|
33
|
+
- condition B -> no critical failures -> gate = pass.
|
|
34
|
+
5. Build validation evidence and remediation list.
|
|
35
|
+
6. Emit test and gate report.
|
|
36
|
+
|
|
37
|
+
## G. Output Schema
|
|
38
|
+
|
|
39
|
+
```json
|
|
40
|
+
{
|
|
41
|
+
"test_run_id": "string",
|
|
42
|
+
"results": ["array","of","strings"],
|
|
43
|
+
"gate_status": "low | medium | high",
|
|
44
|
+
"blocker": "string | null"
|
|
45
|
+
}
|
|
46
|
+
```
|
|
47
|
+
|
|
48
|
+
## H. Output Target
|
|
49
|
+
- Default delivery: stdout
|
|
50
|
+
- Override flag: --output=<target>
|
|
51
|
+
|
|
52
|
+
## I. Stop Conditions <- abort with error message, never emit partial output
|
|
53
|
+
- critical test suite cannot run
|
|
54
|
+
- result schema cannot be produced
|
|
55
|
+
|
|
56
|
+
## J. Safety Constraints
|
|
57
|
+
- Hard block: hard block when critical flow tests fail
|
|
58
|
+
- Warn only: warn when flaky tests are excluded with justification
|
|
@@ -1,58 +1,58 @@
|
|
|
1
|
-
# /ux-bar
|
|
2
|
-
|
|
3
|
-
## A. Intent
|
|
4
|
-
Assess UX quality bar and guarantee core interaction states are defined before build.
|
|
5
|
-
|
|
6
|
-
## B. When to Use
|
|
7
|
-
- Use when UX quality and accessibility need pre-implementation validation.
|
|
8
|
-
- Do not use as a replacement for visual design exploration.
|
|
9
|
-
|
|
10
|
-
## C. Context Assumptions
|
|
11
|
-
- Scope and architecture are available.
|
|
12
|
-
- Primary user flows are identified.
|
|
13
|
-
- Design references exist.
|
|
14
|
-
|
|
15
|
-
## D. Required Inputs
|
|
16
|
-
| Input | Type | Example |
|
|
17
|
-
|---------------------|------------|----------------------------------|
|
|
18
|
-
| `ux_goal` | string | "reduce checkout friction" |
|
|
19
|
-
| `flows` | string[] | ["cart", "payment", "confirmation"] |
|
|
20
|
-
| `design_artifact` | artifact | wireframes, Figma link, screenshots |
|
|
21
|
-
|
|
22
|
-
## E. Pre-Execution Guards <- fail fast, check ALL before running
|
|
23
|
-
- [ ] critical flows are enumerated
|
|
24
|
-
- [ ] interaction states include loading/error/empty
|
|
25
|
-
- [ ] accessibility checks are defined
|
|
26
|
-
|
|
27
|
-
## F. Execution Flow
|
|
28
|
-
1. Review flows and interaction states.
|
|
29
|
-
2. Evaluate accessibility and usability risks.
|
|
30
|
-
3. Score UX gaps by severity.
|
|
31
|
-
4. Decision point ->
|
|
32
|
-
- condition A -> critical UX gap -> block readiness
|
|
33
|
-
- condition B -> manageable gaps -> continue.
|
|
34
|
-
5. Build prioritized improvement list.
|
|
35
|
-
6. Emit UX quality package.
|
|
36
|
-
|
|
37
|
-
## G. Output Schema
|
|
38
|
-
|
|
39
|
-
```json
|
|
40
|
-
{
|
|
41
|
-
"ux_review_id": "string",
|
|
42
|
-
"ux_gaps": ["array","of","strings"],
|
|
43
|
-
"severity": "low | medium | high",
|
|
44
|
-
"blocker": "string | null"
|
|
45
|
-
}
|
|
46
|
-
```
|
|
47
|
-
|
|
48
|
-
## H. Output Target
|
|
49
|
-
- Default delivery: stdout
|
|
50
|
-
- Override flag: --output=<target>
|
|
51
|
-
|
|
52
|
-
## I. Stop Conditions <- abort with error message, never emit partial output
|
|
53
|
-
- critical flow lacks defined interaction states
|
|
54
|
-
- accessibility baseline is not addressed
|
|
55
|
-
|
|
56
|
-
## J. Safety Constraints
|
|
57
|
-
- Hard block: hard block on unaddressed critical accessibility failures
|
|
58
|
-
- Warn only: warn when medium UX issues are deferred
|
|
1
|
+
# /ux-bar
|
|
2
|
+
|
|
3
|
+
## A. Intent
|
|
4
|
+
Assess UX quality bar and guarantee core interaction states are defined before build.
|
|
5
|
+
|
|
6
|
+
## B. When to Use
|
|
7
|
+
- Use when UX quality and accessibility need pre-implementation validation.
|
|
8
|
+
- Do not use as a replacement for visual design exploration.
|
|
9
|
+
|
|
10
|
+
## C. Context Assumptions
|
|
11
|
+
- Scope and architecture are available.
|
|
12
|
+
- Primary user flows are identified.
|
|
13
|
+
- Design references exist.
|
|
14
|
+
|
|
15
|
+
## D. Required Inputs
|
|
16
|
+
| Input | Type | Example |
|
|
17
|
+
|---------------------|------------|----------------------------------|
|
|
18
|
+
| `ux_goal` | string | "reduce checkout friction" |
|
|
19
|
+
| `flows` | string[] | ["cart", "payment", "confirmation"] |
|
|
20
|
+
| `design_artifact` | artifact | wireframes, Figma link, screenshots |
|
|
21
|
+
|
|
22
|
+
## E. Pre-Execution Guards <- fail fast, check ALL before running
|
|
23
|
+
- [ ] critical flows are enumerated
|
|
24
|
+
- [ ] interaction states include loading/error/empty
|
|
25
|
+
- [ ] accessibility checks are defined
|
|
26
|
+
|
|
27
|
+
## F. Execution Flow
|
|
28
|
+
1. Review flows and interaction states.
|
|
29
|
+
2. Evaluate accessibility and usability risks.
|
|
30
|
+
3. Score UX gaps by severity.
|
|
31
|
+
4. Decision point ->
|
|
32
|
+
- condition A -> critical UX gap -> block readiness
|
|
33
|
+
- condition B -> manageable gaps -> continue.
|
|
34
|
+
5. Build prioritized improvement list.
|
|
35
|
+
6. Emit UX quality package.
|
|
36
|
+
|
|
37
|
+
## G. Output Schema
|
|
38
|
+
|
|
39
|
+
```json
|
|
40
|
+
{
|
|
41
|
+
"ux_review_id": "string",
|
|
42
|
+
"ux_gaps": ["array","of","strings"],
|
|
43
|
+
"severity": "low | medium | high",
|
|
44
|
+
"blocker": "string | null"
|
|
45
|
+
}
|
|
46
|
+
```
|
|
47
|
+
|
|
48
|
+
## H. Output Target
|
|
49
|
+
- Default delivery: stdout
|
|
50
|
+
- Override flag: --output=<target>
|
|
51
|
+
|
|
52
|
+
## I. Stop Conditions <- abort with error message, never emit partial output
|
|
53
|
+
- critical flow lacks defined interaction states
|
|
54
|
+
- accessibility baseline is not addressed
|
|
55
|
+
|
|
56
|
+
## J. Safety Constraints
|
|
57
|
+
- Hard block: hard block on unaddressed critical accessibility failures
|
|
58
|
+
- Warn only: warn when medium UX issues are deferred
|
|
@@ -1,173 +1,173 @@
|
|
|
1
|
-
---
|
|
2
|
-
title: "Core Project Guidelines"
|
|
3
|
-
description: "Apply to all architecture, type safety, code organization, and enterprise quality standards. Foundation for every feature"
|
|
4
|
-
alwaysApply: true
|
|
5
|
-
version: "3.0.0"
|
|
6
|
-
tags: ["architecture", "core", "enterprise", "technology-agnostic"]
|
|
7
|
-
globs:
|
|
8
|
-
- "*"
|
|
9
|
-
---
|
|
10
|
-
|
|
11
|
-
## Developer Identity
|
|
12
|
-
|
|
13
|
-
- The AI assistant should provide clear, step-by-step solutions
|
|
14
|
-
- Focus on security-first thinking in all recommendations
|
|
15
|
-
- Provide concise but comprehensive instructions
|
|
16
|
-
- Adapt all patterns to the chosen technology stack
|
|
17
|
-
|
|
18
|
-
## Architecture Principles
|
|
19
|
-
|
|
20
|
-
### Security-First Development
|
|
21
|
-
- **Validate all inputs** at application boundaries with appropriate validation libraries
|
|
22
|
-
- **Authenticate and authorize** every protected endpoint with secure session management
|
|
23
|
-
- **Rate limit** public endpoints to prevent abuse and DoS attacks
|
|
24
|
-
- **Sanitize outputs** to prevent injection attacks and data leaks
|
|
25
|
-
- **Use encryption** for sensitive data in transit and at rest
|
|
26
|
-
- **Log security events** appropriately without exposing sensitive information
|
|
27
|
-
|
|
28
|
-
### Performance-Focused
|
|
29
|
-
- **Optimize asset delivery** with compression, caching, and lazy loading
|
|
30
|
-
- **Monitor performance metrics** specific to your platform (Web Vitals, response times, etc.)
|
|
31
|
-
- **Implement appropriate caching strategies** for your data freshness requirements
|
|
32
|
-
- **Optimize critical paths** - database queries, API responses, asset loading
|
|
33
|
-
- **Profile and benchmark** before and after optimization changes
|
|
34
|
-
|
|
35
|
-
### Type Safety & Validation
|
|
36
|
-
- **Use strong typing systems** available in your chosen language
|
|
37
|
-
- **Implement runtime validation** for all external/user-provided data
|
|
38
|
-
- **Validate at boundaries** - API endpoints, form submissions, configuration
|
|
39
|
-
- **Document type contracts** between system components
|
|
40
|
-
- **Generate types** from schemas when possible (OpenAPI, GraphQL, database schemas)
|
|
41
|
-
|
|
42
|
-
### Testing Strategy
|
|
43
|
-
- **Unit tests** for business logic and utility functions (80% of test effort)
|
|
44
|
-
- **Integration tests** for API endpoints and data access layers (15% of test effort)
|
|
45
|
-
- **E2E tests** for critical user journeys and workflows (5% of test effort)
|
|
46
|
-
- **Accessibility tests** for all user-facing interfaces
|
|
47
|
-
- **Performance tests** for critical paths and known bottlenecks
|
|
48
|
-
- **Security tests** for authentication, authorization, and validation flows
|
|
49
|
-
|
|
50
|
-
## Code Quality Standards
|
|
51
|
-
|
|
52
|
-
### Architecture & Organization
|
|
53
|
-
- **Feature-based structure** - organize code by business domain, not just technical layer
|
|
54
|
-
- **Separation of concerns** - keep UI, business logic, and data access separate
|
|
55
|
-
- **DRY principle** - don't repeat yourself, extract common patterns
|
|
56
|
-
- **SOLID principles** - single responsibility, open/closed, Liskov substitution, interface segregation, dependency inversion
|
|
57
|
-
- **Consistent naming** conventions throughout the codebase
|
|
58
|
-
|
|
59
|
-
### Code Style
|
|
60
|
-
- **Consistent formatting** with automated tools (prettier, black, gofmt, rustfmt, etc.)
|
|
61
|
-
- **Linting rules** enforced via pre-commit hooks or CI/CD
|
|
62
|
-
- **Clear comments** for complex logic, architectural decisions, and gotchas
|
|
63
|
-
- **Self-documenting code** with meaningful variable and function names
|
|
64
|
-
- **No magic numbers** - extract constants with descriptive names
|
|
65
|
-
|
|
66
|
-
### Component/Module Standards (Framework-Specific)
|
|
67
|
-
- **Single responsibility** - each component/module should have one clear purpose
|
|
68
|
-
- **Reusable units** - build components/modules that can be used in multiple places
|
|
69
|
-
- **Proper error handling** for production resilience
|
|
70
|
-
- **Accessibility attributes** included for user-facing components
|
|
71
|
-
- **Proper documentation** of public APIs and interfaces
|
|
72
|
-
|
|
73
|
-
### Database Standards
|
|
74
|
-
- **Choose ONE approach** and maintain consistency (SQL with ORM, NoSQL, managed service, etc.)
|
|
75
|
-
- **Schema migrations only** for schema changes (never manual database edits in production)
|
|
76
|
-
- **ORM/ODM patterns** to prevent injection attacks (no raw SQL unless performance-critical)
|
|
77
|
-
- **Connection pooling** for all production deployments
|
|
78
|
-
- **Audit logs** for sensitive data operations
|
|
79
|
-
- **Proper indexing** to prevent N+1 query problems
|
|
80
|
-
|
|
81
|
-
## Development Workflow
|
|
82
|
-
|
|
83
|
-
### Quality Gates
|
|
84
|
-
- **Automated formatting** checks before code submission
|
|
85
|
-
- **Type checking** must pass (strict mode where available)
|
|
86
|
-
- **Linting** must pass with zero critical violations
|
|
87
|
-
- **Unit tests** must pass with adequate coverage (>80% for business logic)
|
|
88
|
-
- **Integration tests** must pass for API and data layer changes
|
|
89
|
-
- **Security scans** must pass without high-severity issues
|
|
90
|
-
- **Code review** approval required before merging
|
|
91
|
-
|
|
92
|
-
### Environment Management
|
|
93
|
-
- **Environment variables** with runtime validation at startup
|
|
94
|
-
- **Secrets management** never in code, version control, or logs
|
|
95
|
-
- **Database migrations** applied consistently across environments
|
|
96
|
-
- **Feature flags** for gradual rollouts and A/B testing
|
|
97
|
-
- **Health checks** for deployment validation and monitoring
|
|
98
|
-
|
|
99
|
-
### Performance Standards
|
|
100
|
-
- **Monitor resource usage** - memory, CPU, disk, network
|
|
101
|
-
- **Track performance metrics** specific to your platform
|
|
102
|
-
- **Profile critical paths** regularly to identify bottlenecks
|
|
103
|
-
- **Implement caching** appropriately for your use case
|
|
104
|
-
- **Alert on regressions** when performance degrades
|
|
105
|
-
|
|
106
|
-
## Technology Stack Selection
|
|
107
|
-
|
|
108
|
-
This template is technology-agnostic. Choose your stack based on:
|
|
109
|
-
- **Team expertise** and preferred languages/frameworks
|
|
110
|
-
- **Project requirements** - performance needs, scalability, real-time features
|
|
111
|
-
- **Deployment environment** - cloud platform, container requirements, resources
|
|
112
|
-
- **Time constraints** - rapid prototyping vs. long-term maintenance
|
|
113
|
-
|
|
114
|
-
### Frontend Tiers
|
|
115
|
-
- **Full-stack frameworks**: Next.js, Nuxt, SvelteKit, Remix
|
|
116
|
-
- **Component libraries**: React, Vue, Angular, Svelte, Solid
|
|
117
|
-
- **Traditional**: Server-side rendering with templates (Django, Rails, Laravel)
|
|
118
|
-
- **Mobile-first**: React Native, Flutter, Kotlin, Swift
|
|
119
|
-
|
|
120
|
-
### Backend Tiers
|
|
121
|
-
- **Node.js**: Express, Fastify, NestJS, Koa
|
|
122
|
-
- **Python**: Django, FastAPI, Flask
|
|
123
|
-
- **Go**: Gin, Echo, Fiber
|
|
124
|
-
- **Rust**: Actix-web, Axum, Rocket
|
|
125
|
-
- **Java**: Spring Boot, Quarkus, Ktor
|
|
126
|
-
- **Other**: Ruby on Rails, C#/.NET, PHP, etc.
|
|
127
|
-
|
|
128
|
-
### Database Tiers
|
|
129
|
-
- **SQL**: PostgreSQL, MySQL, SQLite, SQL Server
|
|
130
|
-
- **NoSQL**: MongoDB, DynamoDB, CouchDB, Firestore
|
|
131
|
-
- **Cloud-native**: Supabase, Firebase, AWS RDS, Azure SQL
|
|
132
|
-
- **Search**: Elasticsearch, Meilisearch, Algolia
|
|
133
|
-
|
|
134
|
-
### Authentication
|
|
135
|
-
- **Self-managed**: Custom implementation with JWT, sessions, or cookies
|
|
136
|
-
- **Framework-integrated**: NextAuth, Passport, Django's auth system
|
|
137
|
-
- **SaaS**: Auth0, Firebase Auth, AWS Cognito, Supabase Auth
|
|
138
|
-
|
|
139
|
-
## Maintenance & Evolution
|
|
140
|
-
|
|
141
|
-
### Regular Reviews
|
|
142
|
-
- **Dependency updates** - keep packages current with security patches
|
|
143
|
-
- **Security audits** - regular vulnerability scanning and code review
|
|
144
|
-
- **Performance monitoring** - track metrics and address regressions
|
|
145
|
-
- **Code quality** - refactoring and technical debt management
|
|
146
|
-
- **Documentation** - keep docs current with code changes
|
|
147
|
-
|
|
148
|
-
### Technology Updates
|
|
149
|
-
- **Framework versions** - planned upgrades with migration strategies
|
|
150
|
-
- **Critical patches** - immediate application of security updates
|
|
151
|
-
- **Feature adoption** - stay current with language/framework improvements
|
|
152
|
-
- **Deprecation management** - handle deprecated APIs and patterns
|
|
153
|
-
|
|
154
|
-
## Documentation and Research
|
|
155
|
-
|
|
156
|
-
When deciding what to recommend or implement:
|
|
157
|
-
|
|
158
|
-
- **Local rules** (this file and other `agents/rules/*.mdc`): Use as the primary source for architecture, security, testing, and style. Follow these when the stack is generic or already covered.
|
|
159
|
-
- **Context7 MCP**: Use for **up-to-date library and framework documentation**. When suggesting or implementing patterns for a specific stack (e.g. Next.js, Express, React), query Context7 (`resolve-library-id` then `query-docs`) so recommendations match current APIs and official guidance.
|
|
160
|
-
- **NotebookLM MCP**: Use for **research and best-practice discourse** (e.g. OWASP, building-systems advice, template design). Query when adding or changing guidelines, or when the audit/planning needs external best practices. Not for real-time API docs—use Context7 for that.
|
|
161
|
-
|
|
162
|
-
## Communication & Collaboration
|
|
163
|
-
|
|
164
|
-
- When providing solutions, be explicit about what to change
|
|
165
|
-
- Show code examples in the language/framework being used
|
|
166
|
-
- Focus on actionable steps, minimize unnecessary explanation
|
|
167
|
-
- Explain security implications of code changes
|
|
168
|
-
- Flag performance implications of design decisions
|
|
169
|
-
|
|
170
|
-
---
|
|
171
|
-
|
|
172
|
-
Remember: This template adapts to **any modern technology stack** while maintaining **enterprise-grade quality standards**.
|
|
173
|
-
Choose your technologies wisely, apply these principles consistently, and keep your codebase maintainable.
|
|
1
|
+
---
|
|
2
|
+
title: "Core Project Guidelines"
|
|
3
|
+
description: "Apply to all architecture, type safety, code organization, and enterprise quality standards. Foundation for every feature"
|
|
4
|
+
alwaysApply: true
|
|
5
|
+
version: "3.0.0"
|
|
6
|
+
tags: ["architecture", "core", "enterprise", "technology-agnostic"]
|
|
7
|
+
globs:
|
|
8
|
+
- "*"
|
|
9
|
+
---
|
|
10
|
+
|
|
11
|
+
## Developer Identity
|
|
12
|
+
|
|
13
|
+
- The AI assistant should provide clear, step-by-step solutions
|
|
14
|
+
- Focus on security-first thinking in all recommendations
|
|
15
|
+
- Provide concise but comprehensive instructions
|
|
16
|
+
- Adapt all patterns to the chosen technology stack
|
|
17
|
+
|
|
18
|
+
## Architecture Principles
|
|
19
|
+
|
|
20
|
+
### Security-First Development
|
|
21
|
+
- **Validate all inputs** at application boundaries with appropriate validation libraries
|
|
22
|
+
- **Authenticate and authorize** every protected endpoint with secure session management
|
|
23
|
+
- **Rate limit** public endpoints to prevent abuse and DoS attacks
|
|
24
|
+
- **Sanitize outputs** to prevent injection attacks and data leaks
|
|
25
|
+
- **Use encryption** for sensitive data in transit and at rest
|
|
26
|
+
- **Log security events** appropriately without exposing sensitive information
|
|
27
|
+
|
|
28
|
+
### Performance-Focused
|
|
29
|
+
- **Optimize asset delivery** with compression, caching, and lazy loading
|
|
30
|
+
- **Monitor performance metrics** specific to your platform (Web Vitals, response times, etc.)
|
|
31
|
+
- **Implement appropriate caching strategies** for your data freshness requirements
|
|
32
|
+
- **Optimize critical paths** - database queries, API responses, asset loading
|
|
33
|
+
- **Profile and benchmark** before and after optimization changes
|
|
34
|
+
|
|
35
|
+
### Type Safety & Validation
|
|
36
|
+
- **Use strong typing systems** available in your chosen language
|
|
37
|
+
- **Implement runtime validation** for all external/user-provided data
|
|
38
|
+
- **Validate at boundaries** - API endpoints, form submissions, configuration
|
|
39
|
+
- **Document type contracts** between system components
|
|
40
|
+
- **Generate types** from schemas when possible (OpenAPI, GraphQL, database schemas)
|
|
41
|
+
|
|
42
|
+
### Testing Strategy
|
|
43
|
+
- **Unit tests** for business logic and utility functions (80% of test effort)
|
|
44
|
+
- **Integration tests** for API endpoints and data access layers (15% of test effort)
|
|
45
|
+
- **E2E tests** for critical user journeys and workflows (5% of test effort)
|
|
46
|
+
- **Accessibility tests** for all user-facing interfaces
|
|
47
|
+
- **Performance tests** for critical paths and known bottlenecks
|
|
48
|
+
- **Security tests** for authentication, authorization, and validation flows
|
|
49
|
+
|
|
50
|
+
## Code Quality Standards
|
|
51
|
+
|
|
52
|
+
### Architecture & Organization
|
|
53
|
+
- **Feature-based structure** - organize code by business domain, not just technical layer
|
|
54
|
+
- **Separation of concerns** - keep UI, business logic, and data access separate
|
|
55
|
+
- **DRY principle** - don't repeat yourself, extract common patterns
|
|
56
|
+
- **SOLID principles** - single responsibility, open/closed, Liskov substitution, interface segregation, dependency inversion
|
|
57
|
+
- **Consistent naming** conventions throughout the codebase
|
|
58
|
+
|
|
59
|
+
### Code Style
|
|
60
|
+
- **Consistent formatting** with automated tools (prettier, black, gofmt, rustfmt, etc.)
|
|
61
|
+
- **Linting rules** enforced via pre-commit hooks or CI/CD
|
|
62
|
+
- **Clear comments** for complex logic, architectural decisions, and gotchas
|
|
63
|
+
- **Self-documenting code** with meaningful variable and function names
|
|
64
|
+
- **No magic numbers** - extract constants with descriptive names
|
|
65
|
+
|
|
66
|
+
### Component/Module Standards (Framework-Specific)
|
|
67
|
+
- **Single responsibility** - each component/module should have one clear purpose
|
|
68
|
+
- **Reusable units** - build components/modules that can be used in multiple places
|
|
69
|
+
- **Proper error handling** for production resilience
|
|
70
|
+
- **Accessibility attributes** included for user-facing components
|
|
71
|
+
- **Proper documentation** of public APIs and interfaces
|
|
72
|
+
|
|
73
|
+
### Database Standards
|
|
74
|
+
- **Choose ONE approach** and maintain consistency (SQL with ORM, NoSQL, managed service, etc.)
|
|
75
|
+
- **Schema migrations only** for schema changes (never manual database edits in production)
|
|
76
|
+
- **ORM/ODM patterns** to prevent injection attacks (no raw SQL unless performance-critical)
|
|
77
|
+
- **Connection pooling** for all production deployments
|
|
78
|
+
- **Audit logs** for sensitive data operations
|
|
79
|
+
- **Proper indexing** to prevent N+1 query problems
|
|
80
|
+
|
|
81
|
+
## Development Workflow
|
|
82
|
+
|
|
83
|
+
### Quality Gates
|
|
84
|
+
- **Automated formatting** checks before code submission
|
|
85
|
+
- **Type checking** must pass (strict mode where available)
|
|
86
|
+
- **Linting** must pass with zero critical violations
|
|
87
|
+
- **Unit tests** must pass with adequate coverage (>80% for business logic)
|
|
88
|
+
- **Integration tests** must pass for API and data layer changes
|
|
89
|
+
- **Security scans** must pass without high-severity issues
|
|
90
|
+
- **Code review** approval required before merging
|
|
91
|
+
|
|
92
|
+
### Environment Management
|
|
93
|
+
- **Environment variables** with runtime validation at startup
|
|
94
|
+
- **Secrets management** never in code, version control, or logs
|
|
95
|
+
- **Database migrations** applied consistently across environments
|
|
96
|
+
- **Feature flags** for gradual rollouts and A/B testing
|
|
97
|
+
- **Health checks** for deployment validation and monitoring
|
|
98
|
+
|
|
99
|
+
### Performance Standards
|
|
100
|
+
- **Monitor resource usage** - memory, CPU, disk, network
|
|
101
|
+
- **Track performance metrics** specific to your platform
|
|
102
|
+
- **Profile critical paths** regularly to identify bottlenecks
|
|
103
|
+
- **Implement caching** appropriately for your use case
|
|
104
|
+
- **Alert on regressions** when performance degrades
|
|
105
|
+
|
|
106
|
+
## Technology Stack Selection
|
|
107
|
+
|
|
108
|
+
This template is technology-agnostic. Choose your stack based on:
|
|
109
|
+
- **Team expertise** and preferred languages/frameworks
|
|
110
|
+
- **Project requirements** - performance needs, scalability, real-time features
|
|
111
|
+
- **Deployment environment** - cloud platform, container requirements, resources
|
|
112
|
+
- **Time constraints** - rapid prototyping vs. long-term maintenance
|
|
113
|
+
|
|
114
|
+
### Frontend Tiers
|
|
115
|
+
- **Full-stack frameworks**: Next.js, Nuxt, SvelteKit, Remix
|
|
116
|
+
- **Component libraries**: React, Vue, Angular, Svelte, Solid
|
|
117
|
+
- **Traditional**: Server-side rendering with templates (Django, Rails, Laravel)
|
|
118
|
+
- **Mobile-first**: React Native, Flutter, Kotlin, Swift
|
|
119
|
+
|
|
120
|
+
### Backend Tiers
|
|
121
|
+
- **Node.js**: Express, Fastify, NestJS, Koa
|
|
122
|
+
- **Python**: Django, FastAPI, Flask
|
|
123
|
+
- **Go**: Gin, Echo, Fiber
|
|
124
|
+
- **Rust**: Actix-web, Axum, Rocket
|
|
125
|
+
- **Java**: Spring Boot, Quarkus, Ktor
|
|
126
|
+
- **Other**: Ruby on Rails, C#/.NET, PHP, etc.
|
|
127
|
+
|
|
128
|
+
### Database Tiers
|
|
129
|
+
- **SQL**: PostgreSQL, MySQL, SQLite, SQL Server
|
|
130
|
+
- **NoSQL**: MongoDB, DynamoDB, CouchDB, Firestore
|
|
131
|
+
- **Cloud-native**: Supabase, Firebase, AWS RDS, Azure SQL
|
|
132
|
+
- **Search**: Elasticsearch, Meilisearch, Algolia
|
|
133
|
+
|
|
134
|
+
### Authentication
|
|
135
|
+
- **Self-managed**: Custom implementation with JWT, sessions, or cookies
|
|
136
|
+
- **Framework-integrated**: NextAuth, Passport, Django's auth system
|
|
137
|
+
- **SaaS**: Auth0, Firebase Auth, AWS Cognito, Supabase Auth
|
|
138
|
+
|
|
139
|
+
## Maintenance & Evolution
|
|
140
|
+
|
|
141
|
+
### Regular Reviews
|
|
142
|
+
- **Dependency updates** - keep packages current with security patches
|
|
143
|
+
- **Security audits** - regular vulnerability scanning and code review
|
|
144
|
+
- **Performance monitoring** - track metrics and address regressions
|
|
145
|
+
- **Code quality** - refactoring and technical debt management
|
|
146
|
+
- **Documentation** - keep docs current with code changes
|
|
147
|
+
|
|
148
|
+
### Technology Updates
|
|
149
|
+
- **Framework versions** - planned upgrades with migration strategies
|
|
150
|
+
- **Critical patches** - immediate application of security updates
|
|
151
|
+
- **Feature adoption** - stay current with language/framework improvements
|
|
152
|
+
- **Deprecation management** - handle deprecated APIs and patterns
|
|
153
|
+
|
|
154
|
+
## Documentation and Research
|
|
155
|
+
|
|
156
|
+
When deciding what to recommend or implement:
|
|
157
|
+
|
|
158
|
+
- **Local rules** (this file and other `agents/rules/*.mdc`): Use as the primary source for architecture, security, testing, and style. Follow these when the stack is generic or already covered.
|
|
159
|
+
- **Context7 MCP**: Use for **up-to-date library and framework documentation**. When suggesting or implementing patterns for a specific stack (e.g. Next.js, Express, React), query Context7 (`resolve-library-id` then `query-docs`) so recommendations match current APIs and official guidance.
|
|
160
|
+
- **NotebookLM MCP**: Use for **research and best-practice discourse** (e.g. OWASP, building-systems advice, template design). Query when adding or changing guidelines, or when the audit/planning needs external best practices. Not for real-time API docs—use Context7 for that.
|
|
161
|
+
|
|
162
|
+
## Communication & Collaboration
|
|
163
|
+
|
|
164
|
+
- When providing solutions, be explicit about what to change
|
|
165
|
+
- Show code examples in the language/framework being used
|
|
166
|
+
- Focus on actionable steps, minimize unnecessary explanation
|
|
167
|
+
- Explain security implications of code changes
|
|
168
|
+
- Flag performance implications of design decisions
|
|
169
|
+
|
|
170
|
+
---
|
|
171
|
+
|
|
172
|
+
Remember: This template adapts to **any modern technology stack** while maintaining **enterprise-grade quality standards**.
|
|
173
|
+
Choose your technologies wisely, apply these principles consistently, and keep your codebase maintainable.
|