ai-developer-skill-os 7.5.0 → 8.1.4

package/skills/qk-engineering-standard/SKILL.md

@@ -1,351 +0,0 @@
----
-name: qk-engineering-standard
-category: qa
-version: 7.5.0
-description: "Ép buộc SOLID, DRY, Clean Code với ngưỡng số liệu cụ thể — không có rule mơ hồ."
-platforms: [antigravity, claude-code, cursor, windsurf, kilo-code]
-execution_mode: deterministic
-
-cost: medium
-latency: medium
-risk: low
-side_effects: read_only
-produces: [report]
-consumes: [source-code]
-
-token_budget:
-  max_files_read: 5
-  max_lines_per_read: 150
-  max_shell_commands: 1
-  stop_early: true
-
-exit_codes: [SUCCESS, BLOCKED, FAILED, PARTIAL]
-skill_version: 7.5.0
-runtime_version: 1
-schema_version: 2
----
-
-# qk-engineering-standard — Code Quality Enforcer
-
-> **Language rule:** Code, identifiers, file names ? English. Explanations, summaries ? Vietnamese.
-
-skill_version: 7.5.0
-runtime_version: 1
-schema_version: 2
----
-
-## Preconditions
-- [ ] Target file(s) or module(s) are specified
-
-```
-On missing precondition:
-  EXIT: BLOCKED
-  Message: "Vui lòng chỉ định file hoặc module cần kiểm tra."
-```
-
-skill_version: 7.5.0
-runtime_version: 1
-schema_version: 2
----
-
-## Scope
-- ✅ Detect violations with exact file:line references
-- ✅ Classify by severity with concrete thresholds
-- ✅ Suggest minimal, targeted refactors
-
-## Non-Goals
-- ❌ Auto-fix code — report only (fixes go to qk-bug-resolution or qk-feature-delivery)
-- ❌ Rewrite architecture
-- ❌ Touch files outside the specified scope
-
-skill_version: 7.5.0
-runtime_version: 1
-schema_version: 2
----
-
-## Concrete Thresholds (Non-Negotiable)
-
-```yaml
-function:
-  max_lines: 30              # Lines of code, excluding comments/blanks
-  max_cyclomatic_complexity: 10
-  max_parameters: 4
-
-file:
-  max_lines: 300
-  max_public_methods_per_class: 10  # God Class threshold
-
-dry:
-  violation_threshold: 3    # Same logic duplicated in ≥ 3 places
-
-separation_of_concerns:
-  violation: "File mixes UI rendering + API calls + State management"
-
-naming:
-  min_variable_name_length: 2  # Single-letter vars (except i,j,k in loops)
-  max_abbreviation_ratio: 0.3  # > 30% abbreviations in identifiers = violation
-
-dependency:
-  max_imports_per_file: 15  # Beyond this: likely a God File
-```
-
-skill_version: 7.5.0
-runtime_version: 1
-schema_version: 2
----
-
-## Priority Order
-
-| Priority | Check | Severity | Skip Threshold |
-|----------|-------|----------|----------------|
-| P1 | Security violations (hardcoded secrets, SQL injection) | CRITICAL | Never |
-| P2 | God Functions > 30 lines / complexity > 10 | HIGH | Budget < 30% |
-| P3 | God Files > 300 lines / God Classes | HIGH | Budget < 40% |
-| P4 | DRY violations (3+ duplicates) | MEDIUM | Budget < 50% |
-| P5 | Mixed concerns in single file | MEDIUM | Budget < 60% |
-| P6 | Naming convention violations | LOW | Budget < 70% |
-| P7 | Excessive imports / coupling | LOW | Budget < 80% |
-
-skill_version: 7.5.0
-runtime_version: 1
-schema_version: 2
----
-
-## Workflow
-
-### Phase 1 — Scan for Critical & High Violations
-
-**Steps:**
-1. `grep_search` — search for: hardcoded secrets, `console.log`, `eval(`, `any` types
-2. `view_file[targeted]` — read function definitions to count lines and parameters
-3. Log each violation with Evidence Format
-
-**Decision:**
-```
-IF CRITICAL violation found (e.g., hardcoded API key)
-  → Report immediately, mark EXIT: FAILED
-  → Still continue scanning (don't stop at first critical)
-
-IF function line count > 30 OR complexity > 10
-  → Log as [HIGH]
-
-IF file line count > 300
-  → Log as [HIGH] — God File suspected
-```
-
-**Exit When:**
-- All P1+P2+P3 checks done → go to Phase 2
-- Token budget < 30% → go to Phase 3 directly with PARTIAL flag
-
-skill_version: 7.5.0
-runtime_version: 1
-schema_version: 2
----
-
-### Phase 2 — Scan for Medium & Low Violations
-
-**Steps:**
-1. `grep_search` — find duplicate logic patterns (copy-paste code)
-2. Check import counts per file
-3. Check naming conventions
-
-**Decision:**
-```
-IF same logic block appears ≥ 3 times
-  → Log as [MEDIUM] DRY violation
-
-IF file has > 15 imports
-  → Log as [LOW] — potential God File or tight coupling
-
-IF token budget < 50%
-  → Skip P6+P7, go to Phase 3
-```
-
-skill_version: 7.5.0
-runtime_version: 1
-schema_version: 2
----
-
-### Phase 3 — Score & Report
-
-**Steps:**
-1. Count violations by severity
-2. Calculate health score: start at 100, deduct per violation
-3. Generate report
-
-**Deduction Scale:**
-```
-CRITICAL: -25 pts each
-HIGH:     -10 pts each
-MEDIUM:   -5 pts each
-LOW:      -2 pts each
-```
-
-**Decision:**
-```
-IF score ≥ 80 AND no CRITICAL violations
-  → EXIT: SUCCESS
-
-IF score 60–79 OR any HIGH violations
-  → EXIT: PARTIAL — list fixes needed
-
-IF score < 60 OR any CRITICAL violations
-  → EXIT: FAILED — requires immediate action
-```
-
-skill_version: 7.5.0
-runtime_version: 1
-schema_version: 2
----
-
-## Confidence Model
-
-| Level | Condition | Action |
-|-------|-----------|--------|
-| HIGH | Direct line count, exact pattern match | Report as violation |
-| MEDIUM | Inferred cyclomatic complexity without tool | Note estimate |
-| LOW | Architectural smell inferred from structure | Mark as "suspected — verify manually" |
-
-skill_version: 7.5.0
-runtime_version: 1
-schema_version: 2
----
-
-## Severity
-
-| Level | Definition | Example |
-|-------|-----------|---------|
-| CRITICAL | Security risk or data integrity | Hardcoded secret, SQL injection via string concat |
-| HIGH | Technical debt that blocks scaling | Function 80 lines, God Class 15+ methods |
-| MEDIUM | DRY or SoC violation, fixable in < 1 hour | Same validation logic in 3 components |
-| LOW | Style/naming issue, non-blocking | Single-letter variable `x` outside loop |
-
-skill_version: 7.5.0
-runtime_version: 1
-schema_version: 2
----
-
-## Evidence Format
-
-```
-[SEVERITY] path/to/file.ts:LINE
-Rule:       [FUNCTION_LENGTH | COMPLEXITY | DRY | SOC | NAMING | GOD_CLASS | SECRET]
-Reason:     [specific measurement vs threshold]
-Confidence: [HIGH|MEDIUM|LOW]
-Fix:        [one-line suggestion]
-Deduction:  -N pts
-```
-
-**Example:**
-```
-[HIGH] src/services/order.service.ts:45
-Rule:       FUNCTION_LENGTH
-Reason:     Function `processOrder` is 87 lines (threshold: 30)
-Confidence: HIGH
-Fix:        Extract payment logic to `processPayment()`, shipping to `scheduleShipment()`
-Deduction:  -10 pts
-```
-
-skill_version: 7.5.0
-runtime_version: 1
-schema_version: 2
----
-
-## Retry Policy
-```
-Audit is read-only — no retry needed.
-If file is inaccessible → skip and note in report as PARTIAL.
-```
-
-skill_version: 7.5.0
-runtime_version: 1
-schema_version: 2
----
-
-## Escalation Rules
-
-```
-BLOCKED: No target specified
-Missing:
-  - File path or module name to audit
-Questions:
-  1. Bạn muốn kiểm tra file nào hoặc toàn bộ module nào?
-  2. Có ngưỡng cụ thể nào bạn muốn thay đổi không? (mặc định: 30 lines/function)
-```
-
-skill_version: 7.5.0
-runtime_version: 1
-schema_version: 2
----
-
-## Handoff Contract
-
-### Consumes
-```json
-{
-  "from": "user or qk-orchestrator",
-  "required_fields": ["target_files_or_module"],
-  "optional_fields": ["custom_thresholds"]
-}
-```
-
-### Produces
-```json
-{
-  "to": "user",
-  "output_fields": ["health_score", "violations_list", "severity_counts", "exit_code"]
-}
-```
-
-skill_version: 7.5.0
-runtime_version: 1
-schema_version: 2
----
-
-## Output Format
-
-```
-⚙️ Engineering Standard Audit
-─────────────────────────────────────────────────
-Target:      [file or module]
-
-Health Score: [X/100]
-  CRITICAL violations: [N] (-Npts)
-  HIGH violations:     [N] (-Npts)
-  MEDIUM violations:   [N] (-Npts)
-  LOW violations:      [N] (-Npts)
-
-Violations (priority order):
-  [SEVERITY] file:LINE — Rule — reason — Fix — (-Xpts)
-
-Required Actions:
-  1. [Most critical fix]
-  2. [Second fix]
-
-Exit Code:   [SUCCESS | PARTIAL | FAILED]
-```
-
-skill_version: 7.5.0
-runtime_version: 1
-schema_version: 2
----
-
-## Exit Codes
-
-| Code | Meaning | When |
-|------|---------|------|
-| SUCCESS | Score ≥ 80, no CRITICAL | Code meets V7.5 standards |
-| PARTIAL | Score 60–79 or incomplete scan | Some categories skipped |
-| BLOCKED | No target specified | Cannot audit without scope |
-| FAILED | Score < 60 or CRITICAL found | Immediate action required |
-
-skill_version: 7.5.0
-runtime_version: 1
-schema_version: 2
----
-
-## References
-- Detailed thresholds with rationale: `references/thresholds.md`
-
----
-

package/skills/qk-engineering-standard/rules/backend.md

@@ -1,122 +0,0 @@
-# Backend Rules
-
-- Define rules here.
-
----
-
-## 🔄 [Merged from qk-backend-architecture]
-
-# Backend Architecture
-
-> **Language rule:**
-> Use English for: code, identifiers, file names, architecture terms, technical decisions.
-> Use the user's language for: explanations, questions, summaries, and feedback.
-> The user may write in any language — detect and match it automatically.
-
----
-
-## Trigger
-
-Activate this skill when:
-- Creating new backend API endpoints, services, or models
-- User asks "where should I put this business logic?"
-- Project audit flags mixed concerns (e.g., SQL queries inside a controller)
-- Inheriting or setting up a Node.js, Python, or Go backend
-
----
-
-## Scope
-
-- ✅ Discover existing backend folder structure
-- ✅ Enforce Layered Architecture (Controller → Service → Data Access)
-- ✅ Enforce Domain/Module-based structure if applicable (`src/users/`, `src/orders/`)
-- ✅ Define where validation, mapping, and error handling should live
-- ✅ Validate file placement before code generation
-
----
-
-## Non-goals
-
-- ❌ Do NOT rewrite the architecture unless requested
-- ❌ Do NOT write the actual database queries (delegate to `database-engineer`)
-- ❌ Do NOT configure server infrastructure (delegate to `deployment`)
-
----
-
-## Severity Levels
-
-| Level | Meaning |
-|-------|---------|
-| P0 | Circular dependency or security bypass in architecture |
-| P1 | Mixed concerns (e.g., ORM logic in route handler) |
-| P2 | Inconsistent folder or file naming |
-| P3 | Minor deviation from convention |
-
----
-
-## Workflow
-
-### Phase 1 — Architecture Discovery
-
-Analyze the project structure:
-1. **Classic MVC / Layered:** `controllers/`, `services/`, `models/`, `routes/`
-2. **Domain-Driven (Module):** `src/modules/user/{controller, service, repository}`
-3. **Framework-specific:** NestJS (`.controller.ts`, `.service.ts`), Django apps, Express monolithic.
-4. **Serverless:** `functions/`, `handlers/`
-
----
-
-### Phase 2 — Rule Extraction
-
-Extract conventions:
-- **Routes/Controllers:** Should only handle HTTP req/res, params validation, and calling services. No business logic.
-- **Services:** Pure business logic. Does not know about HTTP (`req`/`res`).
-- **Repositories/Data Access:** Only layer that interacts with the DB.
-- **Error Handling:** Centralized error middleware vs local try/catch.
-
----
-
-### Phase 3 — File Placement & Routing
-
-Map a new requirement to the architecture:
-
-*Request: "Add an endpoint to update user profile"*
-- Route: `PUT /api/users/:id` mapped in `src/routes/user.routes.ts`
-- Controller: `updateProfile(req, res)` in `src/controllers/user.controller.ts`
-- Service: `updateUserProfile(userId, data)` in `src/services/user.service.ts`
-
----
-
-## Decision Tree
-
-```
-Does the project group files by Layer or by Domain?
-  ├── Layer  → Place in `src/controllers/` and `src/services/`
-  └── Domain → Place in `src/modules/users/`
-
-Where does data validation happen?
-  ├── Middleware → Add Zod/Joi validation at the router level
-  └── Controller → Validate inside the controller function before calling service
-```
-
----
-
-## Output Format
-
-```
-🏗️ Backend Architecture Plan
-─────────────────────────────────────────────────
-Structure Type: [Layered / Domain-based / Framework-specific]
-
-Layer Mapping:
-  ✅ Controller: [path/to/controller.ts] — handles HTTP
-  ✅ Service:    [path/to/service.ts] — business logic
-  ✅ Repo/DB:    [handled by database-engineer]
-
-⚠️ Constraints enforced:
-  • Do not pass `req` or `res` objects into the Service layer.
-  • Validate all inputs at the Controller/Route level.
-
-🔗 Next Steps:
-  Proceeding to implement the layers.
-```

package/skills/qk-engineering-standard/rules/database.md

@@ -1,3 +0,0 @@
-# Database Rules
-
-- Define rules here.

package/skills/qk-engineering-standard/rules/frontend.md

@@ -1,152 +0,0 @@
-# Frontend Rules
-
-- Define rules here.
-
----
-
-## 🔄 [Merged from qk-frontend-architecture]
-
-# Frontend Architecture
-
-> **Language rule:**
-> Use English for: code, identifiers, file names, architecture terms, technical decisions.
-> Use the user's language for: explanations, questions, summaries, and feedback.
-> The user may write in any language — detect and match it automatically.
-
----
-
-## Trigger
-
-Activate this skill when:
-- About to create new files or components
-- User asks "where should I put this file?" or "how should I organize this?"
-- Moving or refactoring code across different modules
-- Inheriting an unfamiliar frontend project
-
----
-
-## Scope
-
-- ✅ Discover the existing frontend folder structure
-- ✅ Define where new components, hooks, services, and types should be placed
-- ✅ Enforce separation of concerns (e.g., UI vs. Business Logic vs. Data)
-- ✅ Identify architectural patterns in use (e.g., Feature-based, Layer-based)
-- ✅ Validate file placement before execution by other skills
-
----
-
-## Non-goals
-
-- ❌ Do NOT rewrite the entire project architecture unless explicitly asked
-- ❌ Do NOT generate code (delegate to `component-generator` or `ui-builder`)
-- ❌ Do NOT enforce personal preferences over established project conventions
-
----
-
-## Severity Levels
-
-| Level | Meaning |
-|-------|---------|
-| P0 | Architectural violation that breaks the build or creates circular dependencies |
-| P1 | File placed in completely wrong layer (e.g., API logic in UI component) |
-| P2 | Inconsistent folder or file naming |
-| P3 | Minor deviation from convention |
-
----
-
-## Workflow
-
-### Phase 1 — Structure Discovery
-
-*(Relies on `context-manager` if already loaded)*
-
-Analyze the root source directory (e.g., `src/`, `app/`):
-1. **Layer-based:** `components/`, `hooks/`, `services/`, `utils/`, `types/`
-2. **Feature-based:** `features/auth/`, `features/products/`
-3. **Framework-specific:** `app/` (Next.js App Router), `pages/` (Next.js Pages Router, Nuxt)
-4. **Domain-driven:** `domains/user/`, `domains/payment/`
-5. **FSD (Feature Sliced Design):** `app/`, `processes/`, `pages/`, `widgets/`, `features/`, `entities/`, `shared/`
-
----
-
-### Phase 2 — Rule Extraction
-
-Based on discovery, define the project's rules for:
-- **Components:** Are they flat? Grouped by feature? Atomic design?
-- **Hooks:** Shared in `src/hooks/` or collocated with components?
-- **State:** Global store vs. feature stores?
-- **API/Services:** Where are HTTP calls made?
-- **Types:** Centralized `types/` or collocated?
-- **Naming Conventions:** PascalCase, camelCase, kebab-case, `index.ts` usage?
-
----
-
-### Phase 3 — File Placement Decision
-
-When a new feature/component is requested, map it to the structure:
-
-**Input:** "Create a User Profile card that fetches user data."
-**Decision:**
-- UI Component: `src/features/user/components/UserProfileCard.tsx`
-- API Hook: `src/features/user/api/useUser.ts`
-- Types: `src/features/user/types/index.ts`
-
----
-
-### Phase 4 — Enforcement & Validation
-
-Before passing control to a generation skill (like `ui-builder`), ensure the plan adheres to the rules.
-
-- [ ] Does it mix concerns? (e.g., putting an API call directly in a shared UI button)
-- [ ] Does it violate import boundaries? (e.g., a shared component importing from a specific feature)
-- [ ] Is the naming consistent?
-
----
-
-## Decision Tree
-
-```
-Is the project using a Feature-based structure?
-  ├── Yes → Place feature-specific code in `features/<feature-name>/`
-  └── No  → Use Layer-based structure (`components/`, `hooks/`, etc.)
-
-Is the code shared across multiple domains/features?
-  ├── Yes → Place in `shared/` or global `components/` / `hooks/`
-  └── No  → Collocate with the specific domain/feature
-
-Are there existing examples of this type of file?
-  ├── Yes → Copy their placement and naming pattern
-  └── No  → Propose a standard location and ask user to confirm
-```
-
----
-
-## Output Format
-
-```
-🏗️ Frontend Architecture Plan
-─────────────────────────────────────────────────
-Structure Type: [Feature-based / Layer-based / FSD / etc.]
-Naming:         [PascalCase for components, camelCase for functions]
-
-File Placement:
-  📄 [path/to/new/file1.tsx] — [Why it goes here]
-  📄 [path/to/new/file2.ts]  — [Why it goes here]
-
-⚠️ Constraints enforced:
-  • [Constraint 1, e.g., "API calls must be in hooks, not components"]
-  • [Constraint 2, e.g., "Shared UI components cannot import from features/"]
-
-🔗 Next Steps:
-  Delegating to `[skill-name]` to generate the files.
-```
-
----
-
-## Validation Checklist
-
-- [ ] Structure type identified correctly
-- [ ] File placement follows existing conventions
-- [ ] Naming matches project standards
-- [ ] Separation of concerns maintained
-- [ ] Plan ready to be executed by generation skills

package/skills/qk-engineering-standard/rules/security.md

@@ -1,3 +0,0 @@
-# Security Rules
-
-- Define rules here.

package/skills/qk-engineering-standard/rules/testing.md

@@ -1,3 +0,0 @@
-# Testing Rules
-
-- Define rules here.