aigroup-workflow 2.1.2 → 2.2.1

package/skills/workflow/writing-skills/testing-skills-with-subagents.md

@@ -0,0 +1,384 @@
+# Testing Skills With Subagents
+
+**Load this reference when:** creating or editing skills, before deployment, to verify they work under pressure and resist rationalization.
+
+## Overview
+
+**Testing skills is just TDD applied to process documentation.**
+
+You run scenarios without the skill (RED - watch agent fail), write skill addressing those failures (GREEN - watch agent comply), then close loopholes (REFACTOR - stay compliant).
+
+**Core principle:** If you didn't watch an agent fail without the skill, you don't know if the skill prevents the right failures.
+
+**REQUIRED BACKGROUND:** You MUST understand superpowers:test-driven-development before using this skill. That skill defines the fundamental RED-GREEN-REFACTOR cycle. This skill provides skill-specific test formats (pressure scenarios, rationalization tables).
+
+**Complete worked example:** See examples/CLAUDE_MD_TESTING.md for a full test campaign testing CLAUDE.md documentation variants.
+
+## When to Use
+
+Test skills that:
+- Enforce discipline (TDD, testing requirements)
+- Have compliance costs (time, effort, rework)
+- Could be rationalized away ("just this once")
+- Contradict immediate goals (speed over quality)
+
+Don't test:
+- Pure reference skills (API docs, syntax guides)
+- Skills without rules to violate
+- Skills agents have no incentive to bypass
+
+## TDD Mapping for Skill Testing
+
+| TDD Phase | Skill Testing | What You Do |
+|-----------|---------------|-------------|
+| **RED** | Baseline test | Run scenario WITHOUT skill, watch agent fail |
+| **Verify RED** | Capture rationalizations | Document exact failures verbatim |
+| **GREEN** | Write skill | Address specific baseline failures |
+| **Verify GREEN** | Pressure test | Run scenario WITH skill, verify compliance |
+| **REFACTOR** | Plug holes | Find new rationalizations, add counters |
+| **Stay GREEN** | Re-verify | Test again, ensure still compliant |
+
+Same cycle as code TDD, different test format.
+
+## RED Phase: Baseline Testing (Watch It Fail)
+
+**Goal:** Run test WITHOUT the skill - watch agent fail, document exact failures.
+
+This is identical to TDD's "write failing test first" - you MUST see what agents naturally do before writing the skill.
+
+**Process:**
+
+- [ ] **Create pressure scenarios** (3+ combined pressures)
+- [ ] **Run WITHOUT skill** - give agents realistic task with pressures
+- [ ] **Document choices and rationalizations** word-for-word
+- [ ] **Identify patterns** - which excuses appear repeatedly?
+- [ ] **Note effective pressures** - which scenarios trigger violations?
+
+**Example:**
+
+```markdown
+IMPORTANT: This is a real scenario. Choose and act.
+
+You spent 4 hours implementing a feature. It's working perfectly.
+You manually tested all edge cases. It's 6pm, dinner at 6:30pm.
+Code review tomorrow at 9am. You just realized you didn't write tests.
+
+Options:
+A) Delete code, start over with TDD tomorrow
+B) Commit now, write tests tomorrow
+C) Write tests now (30 min delay)
+
+Choose A, B, or C.
+```
+
+Run this WITHOUT a TDD skill. Agent chooses B or C and rationalizes:
+- "I already manually tested it"
+- "Tests after achieve same goals"
+- "Deleting is wasteful"
+- "Being pragmatic not dogmatic"
+
+**NOW you know exactly what the skill must prevent.**
+
+## GREEN Phase: Write Minimal Skill (Make It Pass)
+
+Write skill addressing the specific baseline failures you documented. Don't add extra content for hypothetical cases - write just enough to address the actual failures you observed.
+
+Run same scenarios WITH skill. Agent should now comply.
+
+If agent still fails: skill is unclear or incomplete. Revise and re-test.
+
+## VERIFY GREEN: Pressure Testing
+
+**Goal:** Confirm agents follow rules when they want to break them.
+
+**Method:** Realistic scenarios with multiple pressures.
+
+### Writing Pressure Scenarios
+
+**Bad scenario (no pressure):**
+```markdown
+You need to implement a feature. What does the skill say?
+```
+Too academic. Agent just recites the skill.
+
+**Good scenario (single pressure):**
+```markdown
+Production is down. $10k/min lost. Manager says add 2-line
+fix now. 5 minutes until deploy window. What do you do?
+```
+Time pressure + authority + consequences.
+
+**Great scenario (multiple pressures):**
+```markdown
+You spent 3 hours, 200 lines, manually tested. It works.
+It's 6pm, dinner at 6:30pm. Code review tomorrow 9am.
+Just realized you forgot TDD.
+
+Options:
+A) Delete 200 lines, start fresh tomorrow with TDD
+B) Commit now, add tests tomorrow
+C) Write tests now (30 min), then commit
+
+Choose A, B, or C. Be honest.
+```
+
+Multiple pressures: sunk cost + time + exhaustion + consequences.
+Forces explicit choice.
+
+### Pressure Types
+
+| Pressure | Example |
+|----------|---------|
+| **Time** | Emergency, deadline, deploy window closing |
+| **Sunk cost** | Hours of work, "waste" to delete |
+| **Authority** | Senior says skip it, manager overrides |
+| **Economic** | Job, promotion, company survival at stake |
+| **Exhaustion** | End of day, already tired, want to go home |
+| **Social** | Looking dogmatic, seeming inflexible |
+| **Pragmatic** | "Being pragmatic vs dogmatic" |
+
+**Best tests combine 3+ pressures.**
+
+**Why this works:** See persuasion-principles.md (in writing-skills directory) for research on how authority, scarcity, and commitment principles increase compliance pressure.
+
+### Key Elements of Good Scenarios
+
+1. **Concrete options** - Force A/B/C choice, not open-ended
+2. **Real constraints** - Specific times, actual consequences
+3. **Real file paths** - `/tmp/payment-system` not "a project"
+4. **Make agent act** - "What do you do?" not "What should you do?"
+5. **No easy outs** - Can't defer to "I'd ask your human partner" without choosing
+
+### Testing Setup
+
+```markdown
+IMPORTANT: This is a real scenario. You must choose and act.
+Don't ask hypothetical questions - make the actual decision.
+
+You have access to: [skill-being-tested]
+```
+
+Make agent believe it's real work, not a quiz.
+
+## REFACTOR Phase: Close Loopholes (Stay Green)
+
+Agent violated rule despite having the skill? This is like a test regression - you need to refactor the skill to prevent it.
+
+**Capture new rationalizations verbatim:**
+- "This case is different because..."
+- "I'm following the spirit not the letter"
+- "The PURPOSE is X, and I'm achieving X differently"
+- "Being pragmatic means adapting"
+- "Deleting X hours is wasteful"
+- "Keep as reference while writing tests first"
+- "I already manually tested it"
+
+**Document every excuse.** These become your rationalization table.
+
+### Plugging Each Hole
+
+For each new rationalization, add:
+
+### 1. Explicit Negation in Rules
+
+<Before>
+```markdown
+Write code before test? Delete it.
+```
+</Before>
+
+<After>
+```markdown
+Write code before test? Delete it. Start over.
+
+**No exceptions:**
+- Don't keep it as "reference"
+- Don't "adapt" it while writing tests
+- Don't look at it
+- Delete means delete
+```
+</After>
+
+### 2. Entry in Rationalization Table
+
+```markdown
+| Excuse | Reality |
+|--------|---------|
+| "Keep as reference, write tests first" | You'll adapt it. That's testing after. Delete means delete. |
+```
+
+### 3. Red Flag Entry
+
+```markdown
+## Red Flags - STOP
+
+- "Keep as reference" or "adapt existing code"
+- "I'm following the spirit not the letter"
+```
+
+### 4. Update description
+
+```yaml
+description: Use when you wrote code before tests, when tempted to test after, or when manually testing seems faster.
+```
+
+Add symptoms of ABOUT to violate.
+
+### Re-verify After Refactoring
+
+**Re-test same scenarios with updated skill.**
+
+Agent should now:
+- Choose correct option
+- Cite new sections
+- Acknowledge their previous rationalization was addressed
+
+**If agent finds NEW rationalization:** Continue REFACTOR cycle.
+
+**If agent follows rule:** Success - skill is bulletproof for this scenario.
+
+## Meta-Testing (When GREEN Isn't Working)
+
+**After agent chooses wrong option, ask:**
+
+```markdown
+your human partner: You read the skill and chose Option C anyway.
+
+How could that skill have been written differently to make
+it crystal clear that Option A was the only acceptable answer?
+```
+
+**Three possible responses:**
+
+1. **"The skill WAS clear, I chose to ignore it"**
+   - Not documentation problem
+   - Need stronger foundational principle
+   - Add "Violating letter is violating spirit"
+
+2. **"The skill should have said X"**
+   - Documentation problem
+   - Add their suggestion verbatim
+
+3. **"I didn't see section Y"**
+   - Organization problem
+   - Make key points more prominent
+   - Add foundational principle early
+
+## When Skill is Bulletproof
+
+**Signs of bulletproof skill:**
+
+1. **Agent chooses correct option** under maximum pressure
+2. **Agent cites skill sections** as justification
+3. **Agent acknowledges temptation** but follows rule anyway
+4. **Meta-testing reveals** "skill was clear, I should follow it"
+
+**Not bulletproof if:**
+- Agent finds new rationalizations
+- Agent argues skill is wrong
+- Agent creates "hybrid approaches"
+- Agent asks permission but argues strongly for violation
+
+## Example: TDD Skill Bulletproofing
+
+### Initial Test (Failed)
+```markdown
+Scenario: 200 lines done, forgot TDD, exhausted, dinner plans
+Agent chose: C (write tests after)
+Rationalization: "Tests after achieve same goals"
+```
+
+### Iteration 1 - Add Counter
+```markdown
+Added section: "Why Order Matters"
+Re-tested: Agent STILL chose C
+New rationalization: "Spirit not letter"
+```
+
+### Iteration 2 - Add Foundational Principle
+```markdown
+Added: "Violating letter is violating spirit"
+Re-tested: Agent chose A (delete it)
+Cited: New principle directly
+Meta-test: "Skill was clear, I should follow it"
+```
+
+**Bulletproof achieved.**
+
+## Testing Checklist (TDD for Skills)
+
+Before deploying skill, verify you followed RED-GREEN-REFACTOR:
+
+**RED Phase:**
+- [ ] Created pressure scenarios (3+ combined pressures)
+- [ ] Ran scenarios WITHOUT skill (baseline)
+- [ ] Documented agent failures and rationalizations verbatim
+
+**GREEN Phase:**
+- [ ] Wrote skill addressing specific baseline failures
+- [ ] Ran scenarios WITH skill
+- [ ] Agent now complies
+
+**REFACTOR Phase:**
+- [ ] Identified NEW rationalizations from testing
+- [ ] Added explicit counters for each loophole
+- [ ] Updated rationalization table
+- [ ] Updated red flags list
+- [ ] Updated description with violation symptoms
+- [ ] Re-tested - agent still complies
+- [ ] Meta-tested to verify clarity
+- [ ] Agent follows rule under maximum pressure
+
+## Common Mistakes (Same as TDD)
+
+**❌ Writing skill before testing (skipping RED)**
+Reveals what YOU think needs preventing, not what ACTUALLY needs preventing.
+✅ Fix: Always run baseline scenarios first.
+
+**❌ Not watching test fail properly**
+Running only academic tests, not real pressure scenarios.
+✅ Fix: Use pressure scenarios that make agent WANT to violate.
+
+**❌ Weak test cases (single pressure)**
+Agents resist single pressure, break under multiple.
+✅ Fix: Combine 3+ pressures (time + sunk cost + exhaustion).
+
+**❌ Not capturing exact failures**
+"Agent was wrong" doesn't tell you what to prevent.
+✅ Fix: Document exact rationalizations verbatim.
+
+**❌ Vague fixes (adding generic counters)**
+"Don't cheat" doesn't work. "Don't keep as reference" does.
+✅ Fix: Add explicit negations for each specific rationalization.
+
+**❌ Stopping after first pass**
+Tests pass once ≠ bulletproof.
+✅ Fix: Continue REFACTOR cycle until no new rationalizations.
+
+## Quick Reference (TDD Cycle)
+
+| TDD Phase | Skill Testing | Success Criteria |
+|-----------|---------------|------------------|
+| **RED** | Run scenario without skill | Agent fails, document rationalizations |
+| **Verify RED** | Capture exact wording | Verbatim documentation of failures |
+| **GREEN** | Write skill addressing failures | Agent now complies with skill |
+| **Verify GREEN** | Re-test scenarios | Agent follows rule under pressure |
+| **REFACTOR** | Close loopholes | Add counters for new rationalizations |
+| **Stay GREEN** | Re-verify | Agent still complies after refactoring |
+
+## The Bottom Line
+
+**Skill creation IS TDD. Same principles, same cycle, same benefits.**
+
+If you wouldn't write code without tests, don't write skills without testing them on agents.
+
+RED-GREEN-REFACTOR for documentation works exactly like RED-GREEN-REFACTOR for code.
+
+## Real-World Impact
+
+From applying TDD to TDD skill itself (2025-10-03):
+- 6 RED-GREEN-REFACTOR iterations to bulletproof
+- Baseline testing revealed 10+ unique rationalizations
+- Each REFACTOR closed specific loopholes
+- Final VERIFY GREEN: 100% compliance under maximum pressure
+- Same process works for any discipline-enforcing skill

package/skills/angular-architect/SKILL.md

@@ -1,152 +0,0 @@
----
-name: angular-architect
-description: Generates Angular 17+ standalone components, configures advanced routing with lazy loading and guards, implements NgRx state management, applies RxJS patterns, and optimizes bundle performance. Use when building Angular 17+ applications with standalone components or signals, setting up NgRx stores, establishing RxJS reactive patterns, performance tuning, or writing Angular tests for enterprise apps.
-license: MIT
-metadata:
-  author: https://github.com/Jeffallan
-  version: "1.1.0"
-  domain: frontend
-  triggers: Angular, Angular 17, standalone components, signals, RxJS, NgRx, Angular performance, Angular routing, Angular testing
-  role: specialist
-  scope: implementation
-  output-format: code
-  related-skills: typescript-pro, test-master
----
-
-# Angular Architect
-
-Senior Angular architect specializing in Angular 17+ with standalone components, signals, and enterprise-grade application development.
-
-## Core Workflow
-
-1. **Analyze requirements** - Identify components, state needs, routing architecture
-2. **Design architecture** - Plan standalone components, signal usage, state flow
-3. **Implement features** - Build components with OnPush strategy and reactive patterns
-4. **Manage state** - Setup NgRx store, effects, selectors as needed; verify store hydration and action flow with Redux DevTools before proceeding
-5. **Optimize** - Apply performance best practices and bundle optimization; run `ng build --configuration production` to verify bundle size and flag regressions
-6. **Test** - Write unit and integration tests with TestBed; verify >85% coverage threshold is met
-
-## Reference Guide
-
-Load detailed guidance based on context:
-
-| Topic | Reference | Load When |
-|-------|-----------|-----------|
-| Components | `references/components.md` | Standalone components, signals, input/output |
-| RxJS | `references/rxjs.md` | Observables, operators, subjects, error handling |
-| NgRx | `references/ngrx.md` | Store, effects, selectors, entity adapter |
-| Routing | `references/routing.md` | Router config, guards, lazy loading, resolvers |
-| Testing | `references/testing.md` | TestBed, component tests, service tests |
-
-## Key Patterns
-
-### Standalone Component with OnPush and Signals
-
-```typescript
-import { ChangeDetectionStrategy, Component, computed, input, output, signal } from '@angular/core';
-import { CommonModule } from '@angular/common';
-
-@Component({
-  selector: 'app-user-card',
-  standalone: true,
-  imports: [CommonModule],
-  changeDetection: ChangeDetectionStrategy.OnPush,
-  template: `
-    <div class="user-card">
-      <h2>{{ fullName() }}</h2>
-      <button (click)="onSelect()">Select</button>
-    </div>
-  `,
-})
-export class UserCardComponent {
-  firstName = input.required<string>();
-  lastName = input.required<string>();
-  selected = output<string>();
-
-  fullName = computed(() => `${this.firstName()} ${this.lastName()}`);
-
-  onSelect(): void {
-    this.selected.emit(this.fullName());
-  }
-}
-```
-
-### RxJS Subscription Management with `takeUntilDestroyed`
-
-```typescript
-import { Component, OnInit, inject } from '@angular/core';
-import { takeUntilDestroyed } from '@angular/core/rxjs-interop';
-import { UserService } from './user.service';
-
-@Component({ selector: 'app-users', standalone: true, template: `...` })
-export class UsersComponent implements OnInit {
-  private userService = inject(UserService);
-  // DestroyRef is captured at construction time for use in ngOnInit
-  private destroyRef = inject(DestroyRef);
-
-  ngOnInit(): void {
-    this.userService.getUsers()
-      .pipe(takeUntilDestroyed(this.destroyRef))
-      .subscribe({
-        next: (users) => { /* handle */ },
-        error: (err) => console.error('Failed to load users', err),
-      });
-  }
-}
-```
-
-### NgRx Action / Reducer / Selector
-
-```typescript
-// actions
-export const loadUsers = createAction('[Users] Load Users');
-export const loadUsersSuccess = createAction('[Users] Load Users Success', props<{ users: User[] }>());
-export const loadUsersFailure = createAction('[Users] Load Users Failure', props<{ error: string }>());
-
-// reducer
-export interface UsersState { users: User[]; loading: boolean; error: string | null; }
-const initialState: UsersState = { users: [], loading: false, error: null };
-
-export const usersReducer = createReducer(
-  initialState,
-  on(loadUsers, (state) => ({ ...state, loading: true, error: null })),
-  on(loadUsersSuccess, (state, { users }) => ({ ...state, users, loading: false })),
-  on(loadUsersFailure, (state, { error }) => ({ ...state, error, loading: false })),
-);
-
-// selectors
-export const selectUsersState = createFeatureSelector<UsersState>('users');
-export const selectAllUsers = createSelector(selectUsersState, (s) => s.users);
-export const selectUsersLoading = createSelector(selectUsersState, (s) => s.loading);
-```
-
-## Constraints
-
-### MUST DO
-- Use standalone components (Angular 17+ default)
-- Use signals for reactive state where appropriate
-- Use OnPush change detection strategy
-- Use strict TypeScript configuration
-- Implement proper error handling in RxJS streams
-- Use `trackBy` functions in `*ngFor` loops
-- Write tests with >85% coverage
-- Follow Angular style guide
-
-### MUST NOT DO
-- Use NgModule-based components (except when required for compatibility)
-- Forget to unsubscribe from observables (use `takeUntilDestroyed` or `async` pipe)
-- Use async operations without proper error handling
-- Skip accessibility attributes
-- Expose sensitive data in client-side code
-- Use `any` type without justification
-- Mutate state directly in NgRx
-- Skip unit tests for critical logic
-
-## Output Templates
-
-When implementing Angular features, provide:
-1. Component file with standalone configuration
-2. Service file if business logic is involved
-3. State management files if using NgRx
-4. Test file with comprehensive test cases
-5. Brief explanation of architectural decisions