ai-engineering-kit 0.1.0

package/template/skills/core-workflow/implement/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,107 @@
+---
+name: implement
+description: Test-driven development with red-green-refactor loop. Use when user wants to build features or fix bugs using TDD, mentions "red-green-refactor", wants integration tests, or asks for test-first development.
+---
+
+# Test-Driven Development
+
+## Philosophy
+
+**Core principle**: Tests should verify behavior through public interfaces, not implementation details. Code can change entirely; tests shouldn't.
+
+**Good tests** are integration-style: they exercise real code paths through public APIs. They describe _what_ the system does, not _how_ it does it. A good test reads like a specification - "user can checkout with valid cart" tells you exactly what capability exists. These tests survive refactors because they don't care about internal structure.
+
+**Bad tests** are coupled to implementation. They mock internal collaborators, test private methods, or verify through external means (like querying a database directly instead of using the interface). The warning sign: your test breaks when you refactor, but behavior hasn't changed. If you rename an internal function and tests fail, those tests were testing implementation, not behavior.
+
+See [tests.md](tests.md) for examples and [mocking.md](mocking.md) for mocking guidelines.
+
+## Anti-Pattern: Horizontal Slices
+
+**DO NOT write all tests first, then all implementation.** This is "horizontal slicing" - treating RED as "write all tests" and GREEN as "write all code."
+
+This produces **crap tests**:
+
+- Tests written in bulk test _imagined_ behavior, not _actual_ behavior
+- You end up testing the _shape_ of things (data structures, function signatures) rather than user-facing behavior
+- Tests become insensitive to real changes - they pass when behavior breaks, fail when behavior is fine
+- You outrun your headlights, committing to test structure before understanding the implementation
+
+**Correct approach**: Vertical slices via tracer bullets. One test → one implementation → repeat. Each test responds to what you learned from the previous cycle. Because you just wrote the code, you know exactly what behavior matters and how to verify it.
+
+```
+WRONG (horizontal):
+  RED:   test1, test2, test3, test4, test5
+  GREEN: impl1, impl2, impl3, impl4, impl5
+
+RIGHT (vertical):
+  RED→GREEN: test1→impl1
+  RED→GREEN: test2→impl2
+  RED→GREEN: test3→impl3
+  ...
+```
+
+## Workflow
+
+### 1. Planning
+
+Before writing any code:
+
+- [ ] Confirm with user what interface changes are needed
+- [ ] Confirm with user which behaviors to test (prioritize)
+- [ ] Identify opportunities for [deep modules](deep-modules.md) (small interface, deep implementation)
+- [ ] Design interfaces for [testability](interface-design.md)
+- [ ] List the behaviors to test (not implementation steps)
+- [ ] Get user approval on the plan
+
+Ask: "What should the public interface look like? Which behaviors are most important to test?"
+
+**You can't test everything.** Confirm with the user exactly which behaviors matter most. Focus testing effort on critical paths and complex logic, not every possible edge case.
+
+### 2. Tracer Bullet
+
+Write ONE test that confirms ONE thing about the system:
+
+```
+RED:   Write test for first behavior → test fails
+GREEN: Write minimal code to pass → test passes
+```
+
+This is your tracer bullet - proves the path works end-to-end.
+
+### 3. Incremental Loop
+
+For each remaining behavior:
+
+```
+RED:   Write next test → fails
+GREEN: Minimal code to pass → passes
+```
+
+Rules:
+
+- One test at a time
+- Only enough code to pass current test
+- Don't anticipate future tests
+- Keep tests focused on observable behavior
+
+### 4. Refactor
+
+After all tests pass, look for [refactor candidates](refactoring.md):
+
+- [ ] Extract duplication
+- [ ] Deepen modules (move complexity behind simple interfaces)
+- [ ] Apply SOLID principles where natural
+- [ ] Consider what new code reveals about existing code
+- [ ] Run tests after each refactor step
+
+**Never refactor while RED.** Get to GREEN first.
+
+## Checklist Per Cycle
+
+```
+[ ] Test describes behavior, not implementation
+[ ] Test uses public interface only
+[ ] Test would survive internal refactor
+[ ] Code is minimal for this test
+[ ] No speculative features added
+```

package/template/skills/core-workflow/implement/deep-modules.md

@@ -0,0 +1,33 @@
+# Deep Modules
+
+From "A Philosophy of Software Design":
+
+**Deep module** = small interface + lots of implementation
+
+```
+┌─────────────────────┐
+│   Small Interface   │  ← Few methods, simple params
+├─────────────────────┤
+│                     │
+│                     │
+│  Deep Implementation│  ← Complex logic hidden
+│                     │
+│                     │
+└─────────────────────┘
+```
+
+**Shallow module** = large interface + little implementation (avoid)
+
+```
+┌─────────────────────────────────┐
+│       Large Interface           │  ← Many methods, complex params
+├─────────────────────────────────┤
+│  Thin Implementation            │  ← Just passes through
+└─────────────────────────────────┘
+```
+
+When designing interfaces, ask:
+
+- Can I reduce the number of methods?
+- Can I simplify the parameters?
+- Can I hide more complexity inside?

package/template/skills/core-workflow/implement/interface-design.md

@@ -0,0 +1,31 @@
+# Interface Design for Testability
+
+Good interfaces make testing natural:
+
+1. **Accept dependencies, don't create them**
+
+   ```typescript
+   // Testable
+   function processOrder(order, paymentGateway) {}
+
+   // Hard to test
+   function processOrder(order) {
+     const gateway = new StripeGateway();
+   }
+   ```
+
+2. **Return results, don't produce side effects**
+
+   ```typescript
+   // Testable
+   function calculateDiscount(cart): Discount {}
+
+   // Hard to test
+   function applyDiscount(cart): void {
+     cart.total -= discount;
+   }
+   ```
+
+3. **Small surface area**
+   - Fewer methods = fewer tests needed
+   - Fewer params = simpler test setup

package/template/skills/core-workflow/implement/mocking.md

@@ -0,0 +1,59 @@
+# When to Mock
+
+Mock at **system boundaries** only:
+
+- External APIs (payment, email, etc.)
+- Databases (sometimes - prefer test DB)
+- Time/randomness
+- File system (sometimes)
+
+Don't mock:
+
+- Your own classes/modules
+- Internal collaborators
+- Anything you control
+
+## Designing for Mockability
+
+At system boundaries, design interfaces that are easy to mock:
+
+**1. Use dependency injection**
+
+Pass external dependencies in rather than creating them internally:
+
+```typescript
+// Easy to mock
+function processPayment(order, paymentClient) {
+  return paymentClient.charge(order.total);
+}
+
+// Hard to mock
+function processPayment(order) {
+  const client = new StripeClient(process.env.STRIPE_KEY);
+  return client.charge(order.total);
+}
+```
+
+**2. Prefer SDK-style interfaces over generic fetchers**
+
+Create specific functions for each external operation instead of one generic function with conditional logic:
+
+```typescript
+// GOOD: Each function is independently mockable
+const api = {
+  getUser: (id) => fetch(`/users/${id}`),
+  getOrders: (userId) => fetch(`/users/${userId}/orders`),
+  createOrder: (data) => fetch('/orders', { method: 'POST', body: data }),
+};
+
+// BAD: Mocking requires conditional logic inside the mock
+const api = {
+  fetch: (endpoint, options) => fetch(endpoint, options),
+};
+```
+
+The SDK approach means:
+- Each mock returns one specific shape
+- No conditional logic in test setup
+- Easier to see which endpoints a test exercises
+- Type safety per endpoint

package/template/skills/core-workflow/implement/refactoring.md

@@ -0,0 +1,10 @@
+# Refactor Candidates
+
+After TDD cycle, look for:
+
+- **Duplication** → Extract function/class
+- **Long methods** → Break into private helpers (keep tests on public interface)
+- **Shallow modules** → Combine or deepen
+- **Feature envy** → Move logic to where data lives
+- **Primitive obsession** → Introduce value objects
+- **Existing code** the new code reveals as problematic

package/template/skills/core-workflow/implement/tests.md

@@ -0,0 +1,61 @@
+# Good and Bad Tests
+
+## Good Tests
+
+**Integration-style**: Test through real interfaces, not mocks of internal parts.
+
+```typescript
+// GOOD: Tests observable behavior
+test("user can checkout with valid cart", async () => {
+  const cart = createCart();
+  cart.add(product);
+  const result = await checkout(cart, paymentMethod);
+  expect(result.status).toBe("confirmed");
+});
+```
+
+Characteristics:
+
+- Tests behavior users/callers care about
+- Uses public API only
+- Survives internal refactors
+- Describes WHAT, not HOW
+- One logical assertion per test
+
+## Bad Tests
+
+**Implementation-detail tests**: Coupled to internal structure.
+
+```typescript
+// BAD: Tests implementation details
+test("checkout calls paymentService.process", async () => {
+  const mockPayment = jest.mock(paymentService);
+  await checkout(cart, payment);
+  expect(mockPayment.process).toHaveBeenCalledWith(cart.total);
+});
+```
+
+Red flags:
+
+- Mocking internal collaborators
+- Testing private methods
+- Asserting on call counts/order
+- Test breaks when refactoring without behavior change
+- Test name describes HOW not WHAT
+- Verifying through external means instead of interface
+
+```typescript
+// BAD: Bypasses interface to verify
+test("createUser saves to database", async () => {
+  await createUser({ name: "Alice" });
+  const row = await db.query("SELECT * FROM users WHERE name = ?", ["Alice"]);
+  expect(row).toBeDefined();
+});
+
+// GOOD: Verifies through interface
+test("createUser makes user retrievable", async () => {
+  const user = await createUser({ name: "Alice" });
+  const retrieved = await getUser(user.id);
+  expect(retrieved.name).toBe("Alice");
+});
+```

package/template/skills/core-workflow/investigate-bug/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,104 @@
+---
+name: investigate-bug
+description: Triage a bug or issue by exploring the codebase to find root cause, then write a local markdown report with a TDD-based fix plan. Use when user reports a bug, wants to investigate a problem, mentions "triage", or wants to plan a fix.
+---
+
+# Triage Issue
+
+Investigate a reported problem, find its root cause, and write a local markdown report in `ai/bugs/` with a TDD fix plan. This is a mostly hands-off workflow - minimize questions to the user.
+
+To track externally, run `gh issue create` (or your tracker's equivalent) on the resulting file after.
+
+## Process
+
+### 1. Capture the problem
+
+Get a brief description of the issue from the user. If they haven't provided one, ask ONE question: "What's the problem you're seeing?"
+
+Do NOT ask follow-up questions yet. Start investigating immediately.
+
+### 2. Explore and diagnose
+
+Use the Agent tool with subagent_type=Explore to deeply investigate the codebase. Your goal is to find:
+
+- **Where** the bug manifests (entry points, UI, API responses)
+- **What** code path is involved (trace the flow)
+- **Why** it fails (the root cause, not just the symptom)
+- **What** related code exists (similar patterns, tests, adjacent modules)
+
+Look at:
+- Related source files and their dependencies
+- Existing tests (what's tested, what's missing)
+- Recent changes to affected files (`git log` on relevant files)
+- Error handling in the code path
+- Similar patterns elsewhere in the codebase that work correctly
+
+### 3. Identify the fix approach
+
+Based on your investigation, determine:
+
+- The minimal change needed to fix the root cause
+- Which modules/interfaces are affected
+- What behaviors need to be verified via tests
+- Whether this is a regression, missing feature, or design flaw
+
+### 4. Design TDD fix plan
+
+Create a concrete, ordered list of RED-GREEN cycles. Each cycle is one vertical slice:
+
+- **RED**: Describe a specific test that captures the broken/missing behavior
+- **GREEN**: Describe the minimal code change to make that test pass
+
+Rules:
+- Tests verify behavior through public interfaces, not implementation details
+- One test at a time, vertical slices (NOT all tests first, then all code)
+- Each test should survive internal refactors
+- Include a final refactor step if needed
+- **Durability**: Only suggest fixes that would survive radical codebase changes. Describe behaviors and contracts, not internal structure. Tests assert on observable outcomes (API responses, UI state, user-visible effects), not internal state. A good suggestion reads like a spec; a bad one reads like a diff.
+
+### 5. Write the bug report
+
+Create `ai/bugs/` if it doesn't exist. Write the report to `ai/bugs/<YYYY-MM-DD>-<slug>.md` using the template below. Do NOT ask the user to review before writing — just write it and share the path.
+
+<issue-template>
+
+## Problem
+
+A clear description of the bug or issue, including:
+- What happens (actual behavior)
+- What should happen (expected behavior)
+- How to reproduce (if applicable)
+
+## Root Cause Analysis
+
+Describe what you found during investigation:
+- The code path involved
+- Why the current code fails
+- Any contributing factors
+
+Do NOT include specific file paths, line numbers, or implementation details that couple to current code layout. Describe modules, behaviors, and contracts instead. The issue should remain useful even after major refactors.
+
+## TDD Fix Plan
+
+A numbered list of RED-GREEN cycles:
+
+1. **RED**: Write a test that [describes expected behavior]
+   **GREEN**: [Minimal change to make it pass]
+
+2. **RED**: Write a test that [describes next behavior]
+   **GREEN**: [Minimal change to make it pass]
+
+...
+
+**REFACTOR**: [Any cleanup needed after all tests pass]
+
+## Acceptance Criteria
+
+- [ ] Criterion 1
+- [ ] Criterion 2
+- [ ] All new tests pass
+- [ ] Existing tests still pass
+
+</issue-template>
+
+After writing the file, print the file path and a one-line summary of the root cause.

package/template/skills/core-workflow/kickoff/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,10 @@
+---
+name: kickoff
+description: Interview the user relentlessly about a plan or design until reaching shared understanding, resolving each branch of the decision tree. Use when user wants to start a plan, kick off a feature or refactor, stress-test a design, or mentions "grill me".
+---
+
+Interview me relentlessly about every aspect of this plan until we reach a shared understanding. Walk down each branch of the design tree, resolving dependencies between decisions one-by-one. For each question, provide your recommended answer.
+
+Ask the questions one at a time.
+
+If a question can be answered by exploring the codebase, explore the codebase instead.

package/template/skills/core-workflow/load-context/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,26 @@
+---
+name: load-context
+description: Load relevant project context at the start of a session or when picking up in-flight work. Use when starting a new conversation, resuming a feature, or when the user mentions continuity — read the relevant PRD in ai/prds/ and the active plan in ai/plans/.
+---
+
+# Load Context
+
+Run at session start or when the user asks to pick up previous work.
+
+## Steps
+
+1. Identify the in-flight initiative from the user's prompt or the current branch name.
+2. List `ai/prds/` and read the matching PRD (if any).
+3. List `ai/plans/` and read the matching plan. Plans carry status via checkboxes — that is the authoritative source for "what is done and what is next."
+4. Skim `ai/brainstorms/` only if the PRD references one and the rationale is unclear without it.
+5. Confirm with the user what to focus on before starting work.
+
+## When to trigger
+
+- User opens a new session mentioning ongoing work
+- User says "pick up where we left off", "continue", or references a feature by name
+- CLAUDE.md instructs: "When picking up in-flight work or the user mentions continuity"
+
+## What NOT to do
+
+Do not invent a session doc to record this conversation's state. Plans-with-checkboxes are the durable status record. If something genuinely needs to survive into the next conversation and does not fit in the plan, add it to the plan itself or save it to memory.

package/template/skills/core-workflow/plan-feature/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,107 @@
+---
+name: plan-feature
+description: Turn a PRD into a multi-phase implementation plan using tracer-bullet vertical slices, saved as a local Markdown file in ./plans/. Use when user wants to break down a PRD, create an implementation plan, plan phases from a PRD, or mentions "tracer bullets".
+---
+
+# PRD to Plan
+
+Break a PRD into a phased implementation plan using vertical slices (tracer bullets). Output is a Markdown file in `./plans/`.
+
+## Process
+
+### 1. Confirm the PRD is in context
+
+The PRD should already be in the conversation. If it isn't, ask the user to paste it or point you to the file.
+
+### 2. Explore the codebase
+
+If you have not already explored the codebase, do so to understand the current architecture, existing patterns, and integration layers.
+
+### 3. Identify durable architectural decisions
+
+Before slicing, identify high-level decisions that are unlikely to change throughout implementation:
+
+- Route structures / URL patterns
+- Database schema shape
+- Key data models
+- Authentication / authorization approach
+- Third-party service boundaries
+
+These go in the plan header so every phase can reference them.
+
+### 4. Draft vertical slices
+
+Break the PRD into **tracer bullet** phases. Each phase is a thin vertical slice that cuts through ALL integration layers end-to-end, NOT a horizontal slice of one layer.
+
+<vertical-slice-rules>
+- Each slice delivers a narrow but COMPLETE path through every layer (schema, API, UI, tests)
+- A completed slice is demoable or verifiable on its own
+- Prefer many thin slices over few thick ones
+- Do NOT include specific file names, function names, or implementation details that are likely to change as later phases are built
+- DO include durable decisions: route paths, schema shapes, data model names
+</vertical-slice-rules>
+
+### 5. Quiz the user
+
+Present the proposed breakdown as a numbered list. For each phase show:
+
+- **Title**: short descriptive name
+- **User stories covered**: which user stories from the PRD this addresses
+
+Ask the user:
+
+- Does the granularity feel right? (too coarse / too fine)
+- Should any phases be merged or split further?
+
+Iterate until the user approves the breakdown.
+
+### 6. Write the plan file
+
+Create `./plans/` if it doesn't exist. Write the plan as a Markdown file named after the feature (e.g. `./plans/user-onboarding.md`). Use the template below.
+
+<plan-template>
+# Plan: <Feature Name>
+
+> Source PRD: <brief identifier or link>
+
+## Architectural decisions
+
+Durable decisions that apply across all phases:
+
+- **Routes**: ...
+- **Schema**: ...
+- **Key models**: ...
+- (add/remove sections as appropriate)
+
+---
+
+## Phase 1: <Title>
+
+**User stories**: <list from PRD>
+
+### What to build
+
+A concise description of this vertical slice. Describe the end-to-end behavior, not layer-by-layer implementation.
+
+### Acceptance criteria
+
+- [ ] Criterion 1
+- [ ] Criterion 2
+- [ ] Criterion 3
+
+---
+
+## Phase 2: <Title>
+
+**User stories**: <list from PRD>
+
+### What to build
+
+...
+
+### Acceptance criteria
+
+- [ ] ...
+
+<!-- Repeat for each phase -->
+</plan-template>

package/template/skills/core-workflow/plan-refactor/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+---
+name: plan-refactor
+description: Create a detailed refactor plan with tiny commits via user interview, then file it as a GitHub issue. Use when user wants to plan a refactor, create a refactoring RFC, or break a refactor into safe incremental steps.
+---
+
+This skill will be invoked when the user wants to create a refactor request. You should go through the steps below. You may skip steps if you don't consider them necessary.
+
+1. Ask the user for a long, detailed description of the problem they want to solve and any potential ideas for solutions.
+
+2. Explore the repo to verify their assertions and understand the current state of the codebase.
+
+3. Ask whether they have considered other options, and present other options to them.
+
+4. Interview the user about the implementation. Be extremely detailed and thorough.
+
+5. Hammer out the exact scope of the implementation. Work out what you plan to change and what you plan not to change.
+
+6. Look in the codebase to check for test coverage of this area of the codebase. If there is insufficient test coverage, ask the user what their plans for testing are.
+
+7. Break the implementation into a plan of tiny commits. Remember Martin Fowler's advice to "make each refactoring step as small as possible, so that you can always see the program working."
+
+8. Create a GitHub issue with the refactor plan. Use the following template for the issue description:
+
+<refactor-plan-template>
+
+## Problem Statement
+
+The problem that the developer is facing, from the developer's perspective.
+
+## Solution
+
+The solution to the problem, from the developer's perspective.
+
+## Commits
+
+A LONG, detailed implementation plan. Write the plan in plain English, breaking down the implementation into the tiniest commits possible. Each commit should leave the codebase in a working state.
+
+## Decision Document
+
+A list of implementation decisions that were made. This can include:
+
+- The modules that will be built/modified
+- The interfaces of those modules that will be modified
+- Technical clarifications from the developer
+- Architectural decisions
+- Schema changes
+- API contracts
+- Specific interactions
+
+Do NOT include specific file paths or code snippets. They may end up being outdated very quickly.
+
+## Testing Decisions
+
+A list of testing decisions that were made. Include:
+
+- A description of what makes a good test (only test external behavior, not implementation details)
+- Which modules will be tested
+- Prior art for the tests (i.e. similar types of tests in the codebase)
+
+## Out of Scope
+
+A description of the things that are out of scope for this refactor.
+
+## Further Notes (optional)
+
+Any further notes about the refactor.
+
+</refactor-plan-template>