aiblueprint-cli 1.4.88 → 1.4.90

package/agents-config/skills/apex/steps/step-05-examine.md

@@ -0,0 +1,400 @@
+---
+name: step-05-examine
+description: Adversarial code review - security, logic, and quality analysis
+prev_step: steps/step-04-validate.md
+next_step: steps/step-06-resolve.md
+---
+
+# Step 5: Examine (Adversarial Review)
+
+## MANDATORY EXECUTION RULES (READ FIRST):
+
+- 🛑 NEVER skip security review
+- 🛑 NEVER dismiss findings without justification
+- 🛑 NEVER auto-approve without thorough review
+- ✅ ALWAYS check OWASP top 10 vulnerabilities
+- ✅ ALWAYS classify findings by severity and validity
+- ✅ ALWAYS present findings table to user
+- 📋 YOU ARE A SKEPTICAL REVIEWER, not a defender
+- 💬 FOCUS on "What could go wrong?"
+- 🚫 FORBIDDEN to approve without thorough analysis
+
+## EXECUTION PROTOCOLS:
+
+- 🎯 Launch 4+ parallel review sub-agents in ONE message (unless economy_mode)
+- 🛑 NEVER launch only 1 review agent - you MUST launch Security + Logic + Clean Code + Thermo-Nuclear as separate agents
+- 🛑 NEVER skip the Thermo-Nuclear quality audit - it is the final maintainability gate
+- 💾 Document all findings with severity
+- 📖 Create todos for each finding
+- 🚫 FORBIDDEN to skip security analysis
+- 🚫 FORBIDDEN to skip thermo-nuclear maintainability review
+- 🚫 FORBIDDEN to combine review categories into a single agent
+
+## CONTEXT BOUNDARIES:
+
+- Implementation is complete and validated
+- All tests pass
+- Now looking for issues that tests miss
+- Adversarial mindset - assume bugs exist
+- **If `{teams_mode}` = true:** Agent team is still alive. Do NOT shutdown teammates - that happens in step-09-finish only.
+
+## YOUR TASK:
+
+Conduct an adversarial code review to identify security vulnerabilities, logic flaws, and quality issues.
+
+---
+
+<available_state>
+From previous steps:
+
+| Variable | Description |
+|----------|-------------|
+| `{task_description}` | What was implemented |
+| `{task_id}` | Kebab-case identifier |
+| `{auto_mode}` | Auto-fix Real findings |
+| `{save_mode}` | Save outputs to files |
+| `{economy_mode}` | No subagents, direct review |
+| `{output_dir}` | Path to output (if save_mode) |
+| Files modified | From step-03 |
+</available_state>
+
+---
+
+## EXECUTION SEQUENCE:
+
+### 1. Initialize Save Output (if save_mode)
+
+**If `{save_mode}` = true:**
+
+```bash
+bash {skill_dir}/scripts/update-progress.sh "{task_id}" "05" "examine" "in_progress"
+```
+
+Append findings to `{output_dir}/05-examine.md` as you work.
+
+### 2. Gather Changes
+
+```bash
+git diff --name-only HEAD~1
+git status --porcelain
+```
+
+Group files: source, tests, config, other.
+
+### 3. Conduct Review
+
+**If `{economy_mode}` = true:**
+→ Self-review with checklist:
+
+```markdown
+## Security Checklist
+- [ ] No SQL injection (parameterized queries)
+- [ ] No XSS (output encoding)
+- [ ] No secrets in code
+- [ ] Input validation present
+- [ ] Auth checks on protected routes
+
+## Logic Checklist
+- [ ] Error handling for all failure modes
+- [ ] Edge cases handled
+- [ ] Null/undefined checks
+- [ ] Race conditions considered
+
+## Quality Checklist
+- [ ] Follows existing patterns
+- [ ] No code duplication
+- [ ] Clear naming
+
+## Thermo-Nuclear Maintainability Checklist
+- [ ] No file pushed from under 1k lines to over 1k lines without strong justification
+- [ ] No new ad-hoc conditionals / spaghetti branches in unrelated flows
+- [ ] No thin abstractions, identity wrappers, or "magic" mechanisms added
+- [ ] No unnecessary casts / `any` / `unknown` / optional params muddying contracts
+- [ ] Feature logic stays in the canonical layer (no leaking into shared paths)
+- [ ] Reuses existing canonical helpers instead of bespoke near-duplicates
+- [ ] No "code judo" simplification was missed (could this be dramatically simpler?)
+- [ ] Orchestration is parallel / atomic where the cleaner structure is obvious
+```
+
+**If `{economy_mode}` = false:**
+→ Launch parallel review sub-agents.
+
+**🛑 CRITICAL: You MUST launch ALL 4 agents (or 5 if Next.js) in a SINGLE message using MULTIPLE sub-agent launches. DO NOT launch them one at a time. DO NOT use only 1 agent. Each agent reviews a DIFFERENT aspect. The Thermo-Nuclear agent is MANDATORY and runs alongside the others.**
+
+First, gather the list of modified files:
+```bash
+git diff --name-only HEAD~1
+```
+
+Then, in **ONE message with 4+ parallel sub-agent launches**, launch:
+
+---
+
+**Agent 1: Security Review** - sub-agent profile/type: `code-reviewer`
+```
+prompt: |
+  You are a SECURITY reviewer. Review ONLY the following files for security vulnerabilities:
+  {list of modified files}
+
+  Focus exclusively on:
+  - OWASP Top 10: injection flaws (SQL, command, XSS)
+  - Authentication and authorization issues
+  - Sensitive data exposure (secrets, tokens, PII in logs)
+  - Security misconfiguration
+  - Insecure deserialization
+  - Missing input validation at system boundaries
+
+  For each finding, provide: file:line, severity (CRITICAL/HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW), description, and suggested fix.
+  If no security issues found, explicitly state "No security issues found."
+```
+
+---
+
+**Agent 2: Logic & Edge Cases Review** - sub-agent profile/type: `code-reviewer`
+```
+prompt: |
+  You are a LOGIC reviewer. Review ONLY the following files for logic correctness:
+  {list of modified files}
+
+  Focus exclusively on:
+  - Edge cases not handled (empty arrays, null/undefined, boundary values)
+  - Race conditions and concurrency issues
+  - Incorrect conditional logic or off-by-one errors
+  - Missing error handling for failure modes
+  - State management bugs
+  - Incorrect assumptions about data shape or types
+
+  For each finding, provide: file:line, severity (CRITICAL/HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW), description, and suggested fix.
+  If no logic issues found, explicitly state "No logic issues found."
+```
+
+---
+
+**Agent 3: Clean Code & Quality Review** - sub-agent profile/type: `code-reviewer`
+```
+prompt: |
+  You are a CLEAN CODE reviewer. Review ONLY the following files for code quality:
+  {list of modified files}
+
+  Focus exclusively on:
+  - SOLID principle violations
+  - Code smells (long methods, god objects, feature envy)
+  - Cyclomatic complexity > 10
+  - Code duplication > 20 lines
+  - Naming that doesn't communicate intent
+  - Functions doing too many things
+
+  For each finding, provide: file:line, severity (CRITICAL/HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW), description, and suggested fix.
+  If no quality issues found, explicitly state "No quality issues found."
+```
+
+---
+
+**Agent 4: Thermo-Nuclear Code Quality Review** (MANDATORY - launch alongside Agents 1-3)
+
+This is the **final verification gate**. After the other reviewers find issues, this agent performs an extremely strict maintainability audit using the `thermo-nuclear-code-quality-review` skill. It is **not optional** and must run on every examine pass.
+
+Sub-agent profile/type: `thermo-nuclear-code-quality-review`
+```
+prompt: |
+  Perform a Thermo-Nuclear Code Quality Review on the current branch's changes.
+
+  Modified files to audit:
+  {list of modified files}
+
+  Load and strictly apply the rubric from the `thermo-nuclear-code-quality-review` skill.
+
+  Verify and challenge:
+  - Structural code-quality regressions and missed "code judo" opportunities
+  - Any file pushed from under 1k lines to over 1k lines (presumptive blocker)
+  - New ad-hoc conditionals or spaghetti branching bolted onto unrelated flows
+  - Thin abstractions, identity wrappers, pass-through helpers, "magic" mechanisms
+  - Unnecessary casts, `any`, `unknown`, optional params obscuring real contracts
+  - Feature logic leaking into shared/canonical paths
+  - Bespoke helpers duplicating existing canonical utilities
+  - Unnecessary sequential orchestration or non-atomic update flows
+  - Whether the implementation could be dramatically simpler / smaller / more direct
+
+  For each finding, provide: file:line, severity (CRITICAL/HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW), description, and a concrete restructuring suggestion (prefer DELETING complexity over rearranging it).
+
+  Be ambitious, direct, and demanding. Do not soften major maintainability issues.
+  Apply the skill's Approval Bar strictly - flag presumptive blockers explicitly.
+
+  If no significant maintainability issues found, explicitly state "No thermo-nuclear findings."
+```
+
+---
+
+**Agent 5: Vercel/Next.js Best Practices** (CONDITIONAL - launch alongside Agents 1-4)
+
+→ **Detection:** Check if modified files match Next.js/Vercel patterns:
+```
+- *.tsx, *.jsx files in app/, pages/, components/
+- next.config.* files
+- Server actions (use server)
+- API routes (app/api/*, pages/api/*)
+- Middleware (middleware.ts)
+- Server components, client components
+```
+
+→ **If Next.js/Vercel code detected:** Add a 5th parallel review sub-agent:
+
+Sub-agent profile/type: `code-reviewer`
+```
+prompt: |
+  You are a NEXT.JS / REACT PERFORMANCE reviewer. Review ONLY the following files:
+  {list of modified files}
+
+  Focus exclusively on:
+  - Sequential awaits that should use Promise.all for parallel fetching
+  - Barrel imports causing bundle bloat (import from index files)
+  - Missing dynamic imports for heavy client components
+  - Server-side caching opportunities (React cache, unstable_cache)
+  - Unnecessary re-renders (missing memo, useMemo, useCallback)
+  - Wrong Server vs Client component boundaries
+  - Data fetching patterns (preloading, parallel fetching, waterfall detection)
+
+  For each finding, provide: file:line, severity (CRITICAL/HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW), description, and suggested fix.
+  If no performance issues found, explicitly state "No performance issues found."
+```
+
+→ **If NOT Next.js/Vercel code:** Skip this agent (launch only Agents 1-4)
+
+---
+
+**🛑 REMINDER: You MUST have 4+ sub-agent launches in a SINGLE response (Security + Logic + Clean Code + Thermo-Nuclear, plus Next.js if applicable). If you only launched 1-3 agents, you are doing it WRONG. Go back and launch all agents. The Thermo-Nuclear agent is MANDATORY - never skip it.**
+
+### 4. Classify Findings
+
+For each finding:
+
+**Severity:**
+- CRITICAL: Security vulnerability, data loss risk
+- HIGH: Significant bug, will cause issues
+- MEDIUM: Should fix, not urgent
+- LOW: Minor improvement
+
+**Validity:**
+- Real: Definitely needs fixing
+- Noise: Not actually a problem
+- Uncertain: Needs discussion
+
+### 5. Present Findings Table
+
+```markdown
+## Findings
+
+| ID | Severity | Category | Location | Issue | Validity |
+|----|----------|----------|----------|-------|----------|
+| F1 | CRITICAL | Security | auth.ts:42 | SQL injection | Real |
+| F2 | HIGH | Logic | handler.ts:78 | Missing null check | Real |
+| F3 | MEDIUM | Quality | utils.ts:15 | Complex function | Uncertain |
+
+**Summary:** {count} findings ({blocking} blocking)
+```
+
+### 6. Create Finding Todos
+
+```
+- [ ] F1 [CRITICAL] Fix SQL injection in auth.ts:42
+- [ ] F2 [HIGH] Add null check in handler.ts:78
+```
+
+### 7. Get User Approval (review → resolve/test)
+
+**If `{auto_mode}` = true:**
+→ Proceed automatically based on findings
+
+**If `{auto_mode}` = false:**
+
+```yaml
+questions:
+  - header: "Review"
+    question: "Review complete. How would you like to proceed?"
+    options:
+      - label: "Resolve findings (Recommended)"
+        description: "Address the identified issues"
+      - label: "Skip to tests"
+        description: "Skip resolution, proceed to test creation"
+      - label: "Skip resolution"
+        description: "Accept findings, don't make changes"
+      - label: "Discuss findings"
+        description: "I want to discuss specific findings"
+    multiSelect: false
+```
+
+<critical>
+This is one of the THREE transition points that requires user confirmation:
+1. plan → execute
+2. validate → review
+3. review → resolve/test (THIS ONE)
+</critical>
+
+### 8. Complete Save Output (if save_mode)
+
+**If `{save_mode}` = true:**
+
+Append to `{output_dir}/05-examine.md`:
+```markdown
+---
+## Step Complete
+**Status:** ✓ Complete
+**Findings:** {count}
+**Critical:** {count}
+**Next:** step-06-resolve.md
+**Timestamp:** {ISO timestamp}
+```
+
+---
+
+## SUCCESS METRICS:
+
+✅ All modified files reviewed
+✅ Security checklist completed
+✅ Findings classified by severity
+✅ Validity assessed for each finding
+✅ Findings table presented
+✅ Todos created for tracking
+✅ Thermo-Nuclear maintainability audit completed (mandatory final gate)
+✅ Next.js/Vercel best practices checked (if applicable)
+
+## FAILURE MODES:
+
+❌ **CRITICAL**: Launching only 1 review agent instead of 4+ - each category (Security, Logic, Clean Code, Thermo-Nuclear) MUST be a separate agent
+❌ **CRITICAL**: Skipping the Thermo-Nuclear maintainability review - it is the mandatory final verification gate
+❌ Combining multiple review categories into a single agent prompt
+❌ Skipping security review
+❌ Not classifying by severity
+❌ Auto-dismissing findings
+❌ Launching agents sequentially instead of in parallel
+❌ Using subagents when economy_mode
+❌ Skipping Vercel/Next.js review when React/Next.js files are modified
+❌ **CRITICAL**: Not using AskUserQuestion for review → resolve/test transition
+
+## REVIEW PROTOCOLS:
+
+- Adversarial mindset - assume bugs exist
+- Check security FIRST
+- Every finding gets severity and validity
+- Don't dismiss without justification
+- Present clear summary
+
+---
+
+## NEXT STEP:
+
+After user confirms via AskUserQuestion (or auto-proceed):
+
+**If user chooses "Resolve findings":** → Load `./step-06-resolve.md`
+
+**If user chooses "Skip to tests" (and test_mode):** → Load `./step-07-tests.md`
+
+**If user chooses "Skip resolution":**
+- **If test_mode:** → Load `./step-07-tests.md`
+- **If pr_mode:** → Load `./step-09-finish.md` to create pull request
+- **Otherwise:** → Workflow complete - show summary
+
+<critical>
+Remember: Be SKEPTICAL - your job is to find problems, not approve code!
+This step MUST ask before proceeding (unless auto_mode).
+</critical>

package/agents-config/skills/apex/steps/step-06-resolve.md

@@ -0,0 +1,239 @@
+---
+name: step-06-resolve
+description: Resolve findings - interactively address review issues
+prev_step: steps/step-05-examine.md
+next_step: COMPLETE
+---
+
+# Step 6: Resolve Findings
+
+## MANDATORY EXECUTION RULES (READ FIRST):
+
+- 🛑 NEVER auto-fix Noise or Uncertain findings
+- 🛑 NEVER skip validation after fixes
+- ✅ ALWAYS present resolution options to user (unless auto_mode)
+- ✅ ALWAYS validate after applying fixes
+- ✅ ALWAYS provide clear completion summary
+- 📋 YOU ARE A RESOLVER, addressing identified issues
+- 💬 FOCUS on "How do we fix these issues?"
+- 🚫 FORBIDDEN to proceed with failing validation
+
+## EXECUTION PROTOCOLS:
+
+- 🎯 Present resolution options first
+- 💾 Log each fix applied (if save_mode)
+- 📖 Validate after all fixes
+- 🚫 FORBIDDEN to skip post-fix validation
+
+## CONTEXT BOUNDARIES:
+
+- Findings from step-05 are classified
+- Some are Real, some Noise, some Uncertain
+- User may want different resolution strategies
+- Must validate after any changes
+- **If `{teams_mode}` = true:** Agent team is still alive. Do NOT shutdown teammates - that happens in step-09-finish only.
+
+## YOUR TASK:
+
+Address adversarial review findings interactively - fix real issues, dismiss noise, discuss uncertain items.
+
+---
+
+<available_state>
+From previous steps:
+
+| Variable | Description |
+|----------|-------------|
+| `{task_description}` | What was implemented |
+| `{task_id}` | Kebab-case identifier |
+| `{auto_mode}` | Auto-fix Real findings |
+| `{save_mode}` | Save outputs to files |
+| `{output_dir}` | Path to output (if save_mode) |
+| Findings table | IDs, severity, validity |
+| Finding todos | For tracking |
+</available_state>
+
+---
+
+## EXECUTION SEQUENCE:
+
+### 1. Initialize Save Output (if save_mode)
+
+**If `{save_mode}` = true:**
+
+```bash
+bash {skill_dir}/scripts/update-progress.sh "{task_id}" "06" "resolve" "in_progress"
+```
+
+Append logs to `{output_dir}/06-resolve.md` as you work.
+
+### 2. Present Resolution Options
+
+**If `{auto_mode}` = true:**
+→ Auto-fix all "Real" findings, skip Noise/Uncertain
+
+**If `{auto_mode}` = false:**
+
+```yaml
+questions:
+  - header: "Resolution"
+    question: "How would you like to handle these findings?"
+    options:
+      - label: "Auto-fix Real issues (Recommended)"
+        description: "Fix 'Real' findings, skip noise/uncertain"
+      - label: "Walk through each finding"
+        description: "Decide on each finding individually"
+      - label: "Fix only critical"
+        description: "Only fix CRITICAL/BLOCKING issues"
+      - label: "Skip all"
+        description: "Acknowledge but don't change"
+    multiSelect: false
+```
+
+### 3. Apply Fixes Based on Choice
+
+**Auto-fix Real:**
+1. Filter to Real findings only
+2. For each: Read file → Apply fix → Verify
+3. Log each fix
+
+**Walk through each:**
+For each finding in severity order:
+
+```yaml
+questions:
+  - header: "F1"
+    question: "How should we handle this finding?"
+    options:
+      - label: "Fix now (Recommended)"
+        description: "Apply the suggested fix"
+      - label: "Skip"
+        description: "Acknowledge but don't fix"
+      - label: "Discuss"
+        description: "Need more context"
+      - label: "Mark as noise"
+        description: "Not a real issue"
+    multiSelect: false
+```
+
+**Fix only critical:**
+1. Filter to CRITICAL/BLOCKING only
+2. Auto-fix those, skip others
+
+**Skip all:**
+1. Acknowledge findings
+2. If Critical/High exist, confirm:
+
+```yaml
+questions:
+  - header: "Confirm"
+    question: "You have unresolved Critical/High findings. Proceed anyway?"
+    options:
+      - label: "Go back and fix"
+        description: "Return to resolution options"
+      - label: "Proceed anyway"
+        description: "Accept risks, continue"
+      - label: "Fix only critical"
+        description: "Just fix critical issues"
+    multiSelect: false
+```
+
+### 4. Post-Resolution Validation
+
+After any fixes:
+
+```bash
+pnpm run typecheck && pnpm run lint
+```
+
+Both MUST pass.
+
+### 5. Resolution Summary
+
+```
+**Resolution Complete**
+
+**Fixed:** {count}
+- F1: Parameterized SQL query in auth.ts:42
+- F2: Added null check in handler.ts:78
+
+**Skipped:** {count}
+- F3: Complex function (uncertain)
+
+**Validation:** ✓ Passed
+```
+
+### 6. Complete Save Output (if save_mode)
+
+**If `{save_mode}` = true:**
+
+Append to `{output_dir}/06-resolve.md`:
+```markdown
+---
+## Step Complete
+**Status:** ✓ Complete
+**Findings fixed:** {count}
+**Findings skipped:** {count}
+**Validation:** ✓ Passed
+**Timestamp:** {ISO timestamp}
+```
+
+### 7. Completion Summary
+
+```
+**APEX Workflow Complete**
+
+**Task:** {task_description}
+
+**Implementation:**
+- Files modified: {count}
+- All checks passing: ✓
+
+**Review:**
+- Findings identified: {total}
+- Findings resolved: {fixed}
+- Findings skipped: {skipped}
+
+**Next Steps:**
+- [ ] Commit changes
+- [ ] Run full test suite
+- [ ] Deploy when ready
+```
+
+---
+
+## SUCCESS METRICS:
+
+✅ User chose resolution approach
+✅ All chosen fixes applied correctly
+✅ Validation passes after fixes
+✅ Clear summary of resolved/skipped
+✅ User understands next steps
+
+## FAILURE MODES:
+
+❌ Auto-fixing Noise or Uncertain findings
+❌ Not validating after fixes
+❌ No clear completion summary
+❌ Proceeding with failing validation
+❌ **CRITICAL**: Not using AskUserQuestion for decisions
+
+## RESOLUTION PROTOCOLS:
+
+- Only auto-fix Real findings
+- Validate after EVERY fix round
+- Clear summary at the end
+- User controls final decision
+
+---
+
+## NEXT STEP:
+
+Based on flags:
+- **If verify_mode:** Load `./step-10-verify.md` to verify feature
+- **If pr_mode:** Load `./step-09-finish.md` to create pull request
+- **Otherwise:** Workflow complete - show summary
+
+<critical>
+Remember: Always validate after fixes - never proceed with failing checks!
+</critical>