aigroup-workflow 2.2.1 → 2.2.3

package/skills/workflow/verification-before-completion/SKILL.md

@@ -1,139 +1,139 @@
----
-name: verification-before-completion
-description: Use when about to claim work is complete, fixed, or passing, before committing or creating PRs - requires running verification commands and confirming output before making any success claims; evidence before assertions always
----
-
-# Verification Before Completion
-
-## Overview
-
-Claiming work is complete without verification is dishonesty, not efficiency.
-
-**Core principle:** Evidence before claims, always.
-
-**Violating the letter of this rule is violating the spirit of this rule.**
-
-## The Iron Law
-
-```
-NO COMPLETION CLAIMS WITHOUT FRESH VERIFICATION EVIDENCE
-```
-
-If you haven't run the verification command in this message, you cannot claim it passes.
-
-## The Gate Function
-
-```
-BEFORE claiming any status or expressing satisfaction:
-
-1. IDENTIFY: What command proves this claim?
-2. RUN: Execute the FULL command (fresh, complete)
-3. READ: Full output, check exit code, count failures
-4. VERIFY: Does output confirm the claim?
-   - If NO: State actual status with evidence
-   - If YES: State claim WITH evidence
-5. ONLY THEN: Make the claim
-
-Skip any step = lying, not verifying
-```
-
-## Common Failures
-
-| Claim | Requires | Not Sufficient |
-|-------|----------|----------------|
-| Tests pass | Test command output: 0 failures | Previous run, "should pass" |
-| Linter clean | Linter output: 0 errors | Partial check, extrapolation |
-| Build succeeds | Build command: exit 0 | Linter passing, logs look good |
-| Bug fixed | Test original symptom: passes | Code changed, assumed fixed |
-| Regression test works | Red-green cycle verified | Test passes once |
-| Agent completed | VCS diff shows changes | Agent reports "success" |
-| Requirements met | Line-by-line checklist | Tests passing |
-
-## Red Flags - STOP
-
-- Using "should", "probably", "seems to"
-- Expressing satisfaction before verification ("Great!", "Perfect!", "Done!", etc.)
-- About to commit/push/PR without verification
-- Trusting agent success reports
-- Relying on partial verification
-- Thinking "just this once"
-- Tired and wanting work over
-- **ANY wording implying success without having run verification**
-
-## Rationalization Prevention
-
-| Excuse | Reality |
-|--------|---------|
-| "Should work now" | RUN the verification |
-| "I'm confident" | Confidence ≠ evidence |
-| "Just this once" | No exceptions |
-| "Linter passed" | Linter ≠ compiler |
-| "Agent said success" | Verify independently |
-| "I'm tired" | Exhaustion ≠ excuse |
-| "Partial check is enough" | Partial proves nothing |
-| "Different words so rule doesn't apply" | Spirit over letter |
-
-## Key Patterns
-
-**Tests:**
-```
-✅ [Run test command] [See: 34/34 pass] "All tests pass"
-❌ "Should pass now" / "Looks correct"
-```
-
-**Regression tests (TDD Red-Green):**
-```
-✅ Write → Run (pass) → Revert fix → Run (MUST FAIL) → Restore → Run (pass)
-❌ "I've written a regression test" (without red-green verification)
-```
-
-**Build:**
-```
-✅ [Run build] [See: exit 0] "Build passes"
-❌ "Linter passed" (linter doesn't check compilation)
-```
-
-**Requirements:**
-```
-✅ Re-read plan → Create checklist → Verify each → Report gaps or completion
-❌ "Tests pass, phase complete"
-```
-
-**Agent delegation:**
-```
-✅ Agent reports success → Check VCS diff → Verify changes → Report actual state
-❌ Trust agent report
-```
-
-## Why This Matters
-
-From 24 failure memories:
-- your human partner said "I don't believe you" - trust broken
-- Undefined functions shipped - would crash
-- Missing requirements shipped - incomplete features
-- Time wasted on false completion → redirect → rework
-- Violates: "Honesty is a core value. If you lie, you'll be replaced."
-
-## When To Apply
-
-**ALWAYS before:**
-- ANY variation of success/completion claims
-- ANY expression of satisfaction
-- ANY positive statement about work state
-- Committing, PR creation, task completion
-- Moving to next task
-- Delegating to agents
-
-**Rule applies to:**
-- Exact phrases
-- Paraphrases and synonyms
-- Implications of success
-- ANY communication suggesting completion/correctness
-
-## The Bottom Line
-
-**No shortcuts for verification.**
-
-Run the command. Read the output. THEN claim the result.
-
-This is non-negotiable.
+---
+name: verification-before-completion
+description: Use when about to claim work is complete, fixed, or passing, before committing or creating PRs - requires running verification commands and confirming output before making any success claims; evidence before assertions always
+---
+
+# Verification Before Completion
+
+## Overview
+
+Claiming work is complete without verification is dishonesty, not efficiency.
+
+**Core principle:** Evidence before claims, always.
+
+**Violating the letter of this rule is violating the spirit of this rule.**
+
+## The Iron Law
+
+```
+NO COMPLETION CLAIMS WITHOUT FRESH VERIFICATION EVIDENCE
+```
+
+If you haven't run the verification command in this message, you cannot claim it passes.
+
+## The Gate Function
+
+```
+BEFORE claiming any status or expressing satisfaction:
+
+1. IDENTIFY: What command proves this claim?
+2. RUN: Execute the FULL command (fresh, complete)
+3. READ: Full output, check exit code, count failures
+4. VERIFY: Does output confirm the claim?
+   - If NO: State actual status with evidence
+   - If YES: State claim WITH evidence
+5. ONLY THEN: Make the claim
+
+Skip any step = lying, not verifying
+```
+
+## Common Failures
+
+| Claim | Requires | Not Sufficient |
+|-------|----------|----------------|
+| Tests pass | Test command output: 0 failures | Previous run, "should pass" |
+| Linter clean | Linter output: 0 errors | Partial check, extrapolation |
+| Build succeeds | Build command: exit 0 | Linter passing, logs look good |
+| Bug fixed | Test original symptom: passes | Code changed, assumed fixed |
+| Regression test works | Red-green cycle verified | Test passes once |
+| Agent completed | VCS diff shows changes | Agent reports "success" |
+| Requirements met | Line-by-line checklist | Tests passing |
+
+## Red Flags - STOP
+
+- Using "should", "probably", "seems to"
+- Expressing satisfaction before verification ("Great!", "Perfect!", "Done!", etc.)
+- About to commit/push/PR without verification
+- Trusting agent success reports
+- Relying on partial verification
+- Thinking "just this once"
+- Tired and wanting work over
+- **ANY wording implying success without having run verification**
+
+## Rationalization Prevention
+
+| Excuse | Reality |
+|--------|---------|
+| "Should work now" | RUN the verification |
+| "I'm confident" | Confidence ≠ evidence |
+| "Just this once" | No exceptions |
+| "Linter passed" | Linter ≠ compiler |
+| "Agent said success" | Verify independently |
+| "I'm tired" | Exhaustion ≠ excuse |
+| "Partial check is enough" | Partial proves nothing |
+| "Different words so rule doesn't apply" | Spirit over letter |
+
+## Key Patterns
+
+**Tests:**
+```
+✅ [Run test command] [See: 34/34 pass] "All tests pass"
+❌ "Should pass now" / "Looks correct"
+```
+
+**Regression tests (TDD Red-Green):**
+```
+✅ Write → Run (pass) → Revert fix → Run (MUST FAIL) → Restore → Run (pass)
+❌ "I've written a regression test" (without red-green verification)
+```
+
+**Build:**
+```
+✅ [Run build] [See: exit 0] "Build passes"
+❌ "Linter passed" (linter doesn't check compilation)
+```
+
+**Requirements:**
+```
+✅ Re-read plan → Create checklist → Verify each → Report gaps or completion
+❌ "Tests pass, phase complete"
+```
+
+**Agent delegation:**
+```
+✅ Agent reports success → Check VCS diff → Verify changes → Report actual state
+❌ Trust agent report
+```
+
+## Why This Matters
+
+From 24 failure memories:
+- your human partner said "I don't believe you" - trust broken
+- Undefined functions shipped - would crash
+- Missing requirements shipped - incomplete features
+- Time wasted on false completion → redirect → rework
+- Violates: "Honesty is a core value. If you lie, you'll be replaced."
+
+## When To Apply
+
+**ALWAYS before:**
+- ANY variation of success/completion claims
+- ANY expression of satisfaction
+- ANY positive statement about work state
+- Committing, PR creation, task completion
+- Moving to next task
+- Delegating to agents
+
+**Rule applies to:**
+- Exact phrases
+- Paraphrases and synonyms
+- Implications of success
+- ANY communication suggesting completion/correctness
+
+## The Bottom Line
+
+**No shortcuts for verification.**
+
+Run the command. Read the output. THEN claim the result.
+
+This is non-negotiable.

package/skills/workflow/writing-plans/SKILL.md

@@ -1,151 +1,151 @@
----
-name: writing-plans
-description: Use when you have a spec or requirements for a multi-step task, before touching code
----
-
-# Writing Plans
-
-## Overview
-
-Write comprehensive implementation plans assuming the engineer has zero context for our codebase and questionable taste. Document everything they need to know: which files to touch for each task, code, testing, docs they might need to check, how to test it. Give them the whole plan as bite-sized tasks. DRY. YAGNI. TDD. Frequent commits.
-
-Assume they are a skilled developer, but know almost nothing about our toolset or problem domain. Assume they don't know good test design very well.
-
-**Announce at start:** "I'm using the writing-plans skill to create the implementation plan."
-
-**Context:** This should be run in a dedicated worktree (created by brainstorming skill).
-
-**Save plans to:** `docs/superpowers/plans/YYYY-MM-DD-<feature-name>.md`
-- (User preferences for plan location override this default)
-
-## Scope Check
-
-If the spec covers multiple independent subsystems, it should have been broken into sub-project specs during brainstorming. If it wasn't, suggest breaking this into separate plans — one per subsystem. Each plan should produce working, testable software on its own.
-
-## File Structure
-
-Before defining tasks, map out which files will be created or modified and what each one is responsible for. This is where decomposition decisions get locked in.
-
-- Design units with clear boundaries and well-defined interfaces. Each file should have one clear responsibility.
-- You reason best about code you can hold in context at once, and your edits are more reliable when files are focused. Prefer smaller, focused files over large ones that do too much.
-- Files that change together should live together. Split by responsibility, not by technical layer.
-- In existing codebases, follow established patterns. If the codebase uses large files, don't unilaterally restructure - but if a file you're modifying has grown unwieldy, including a split in the plan is reasonable.
-
-This structure informs the task decomposition. Each task should produce self-contained changes that make sense independently.
-
-## Bite-Sized Task Granularity
-
-**Each step is one action (2-5 minutes):**
-- "Write the failing test" - step
-- "Run it to make sure it fails" - step
-- "Implement the minimal code to make the test pass" - step
-- "Run the tests and make sure they pass" - step
-- "Commit" - step
-
-## Plan Document Header
-
-**Every plan MUST start with this header:**
-
-```markdown
-# [Feature Name] Implementation Plan
-
-> **For agentic workers:** Dispatch subagents per the rules in `docs/rules/agents.md` (recommended), or use the `executing-plans` skill for inline batch execution. Steps use checkbox (`- [ ]`) syntax for tracking.
-
-**Goal:** [One sentence describing what this builds]
-
-**Architecture:** [2-3 sentences about approach]
-
-**Tech Stack:** [Key technologies/libraries]
-
----
-```
-
-## Task Structure
-
-````markdown
-### Task N: [Component Name]
-
-**Files:**
-- Create: `exact/path/to/file.py`
-- Modify: `exact/path/to/existing.py:123-145`
-- Test: `tests/exact/path/to/test.py`
-
-- [ ] **Step 1: Write the failing test**
-
-```python
-def test_specific_behavior():
-    result = function(input)
-    assert result == expected
-```
-
-- [ ] **Step 2: Run test to verify it fails**
-
-Run: `pytest tests/path/test.py::test_name -v`
-Expected: FAIL with "function not defined"
-
-- [ ] **Step 3: Write minimal implementation**
-
-```python
-def function(input):
-    return expected
-```
-
-- [ ] **Step 4: Run test to verify it passes**
-
-Run: `pytest tests/path/test.py::test_name -v`
-Expected: PASS
-
-- [ ] **Step 5: Commit**
-
-```bash
-git add tests/path/test.py src/path/file.py
-git commit -m "feat: add specific feature"
-```
-````
-
-## No Placeholders
-
-Every step must contain the actual content an engineer needs. These are **plan failures** — never write them:
-- "TBD", "TODO", "implement later", "fill in details"
-- "Add appropriate error handling" / "add validation" / "handle edge cases"
-- "Write tests for the above" (without actual test code)
-- "Similar to Task N" (repeat the code — the engineer may be reading tasks out of order)
-- Steps that describe what to do without showing how (code blocks required for code steps)
-- References to types, functions, or methods not defined in any task
-
-## Remember
-- Exact file paths always
-- Complete code in every step — if a step changes code, show the code
-- Exact commands with expected output
-- DRY, YAGNI, TDD, frequent commits
-
-## Self-Review
-
-After writing the complete plan, look at the spec with fresh eyes and check the plan against it. This is a checklist you run yourself — not a subagent dispatch.
-
-**1. Spec coverage:** Skim each section/requirement in the spec. Can you point to a task that implements it? List any gaps.
-
-**2. Placeholder scan:** Search your plan for red flags — any of the patterns from the "No Placeholders" section above. Fix them.
-
-**3. Type consistency:** Do the types, method signatures, and property names you used in later tasks match what you defined in earlier tasks? A function called `clearLayers()` in Task 3 but `clearFullLayers()` in Task 7 is a bug.
-
-If you find issues, fix them inline. No need to re-review — just fix and move on. If you find a spec requirement with no task, add the task.
-
-## Execution Handoff
-
-After saving the plan, offer execution choice:
-
-**"Plan complete and saved to `docs/superpowers/plans/<filename>.md`. Two execution options:**
-
-**1. Subagent-Driven (recommended)** - I dispatch a fresh subagent per task, review between tasks, fast iteration
-
-**2. Inline Execution** - Execute tasks in this session using executing-plans, batch execution with checkpoints
-
-**Which approach?"**
-
-**If Subagent-Driven chosen:**
-- Dispatch subagents per `docs/rules/agents.md` (fresh subagent per task + two-stage review by `code-reviewer`)
-
-**If Inline Execution chosen:**
-- **REQUIRED SUB-SKILL:** Use superpowers:executing-plans
-- Batch execution with checkpoints for review
+---
+name: writing-plans
+description: Use when you have a spec or requirements for a multi-step task, before touching code
+---
+
+# Writing Plans
+
+## Overview
+
+Write comprehensive implementation plans assuming the engineer has zero context for our codebase and questionable taste. Document everything they need to know: which files to touch for each task, code, testing, docs they might need to check, how to test it. Give them the whole plan as bite-sized tasks. DRY. YAGNI. TDD. Frequent commits.
+
+Assume they are a skilled developer, but know almost nothing about our toolset or problem domain. Assume they don't know good test design very well.
+
+**Announce at start:** "I'm using the writing-plans skill to create the implementation plan."
+
+**Context:** This should be run in a dedicated worktree (created by brainstorming skill).
+
+**Save plans to:** `docs/superpowers/plans/YYYY-MM-DD-<feature-name>.md`
+- (User preferences for plan location override this default)
+
+## Scope Check
+
+If the spec covers multiple independent subsystems, it should have been broken into sub-project specs during brainstorming. If it wasn't, suggest breaking this into separate plans — one per subsystem. Each plan should produce working, testable software on its own.
+
+## File Structure
+
+Before defining tasks, map out which files will be created or modified and what each one is responsible for. This is where decomposition decisions get locked in.
+
+- Design units with clear boundaries and well-defined interfaces. Each file should have one clear responsibility.
+- You reason best about code you can hold in context at once, and your edits are more reliable when files are focused. Prefer smaller, focused files over large ones that do too much.
+- Files that change together should live together. Split by responsibility, not by technical layer.
+- In existing codebases, follow established patterns. If the codebase uses large files, don't unilaterally restructure - but if a file you're modifying has grown unwieldy, including a split in the plan is reasonable.
+
+This structure informs the task decomposition. Each task should produce self-contained changes that make sense independently.
+
+## Bite-Sized Task Granularity
+
+**Each step is one action (2-5 minutes):**
+- "Write the failing test" - step
+- "Run it to make sure it fails" - step
+- "Implement the minimal code to make the test pass" - step
+- "Run the tests and make sure they pass" - step
+- "Commit" - step
+
+## Plan Document Header
+
+**Every plan MUST start with this header:**
+
+```markdown
+# [Feature Name] Implementation Plan
+
+> **For agentic workers:** Dispatch subagents per the rules in `docs/rules/agents.md` (recommended), or use the `executing-plans` skill for inline batch execution. Steps use checkbox (`- [ ]`) syntax for tracking.
+
+**Goal:** [One sentence describing what this builds]
+
+**Architecture:** [2-3 sentences about approach]
+
+**Tech Stack:** [Key technologies/libraries]
+
+---
+```
+
+## Task Structure
+
+````markdown
+### Task N: [Component Name]
+
+**Files:**
+- Create: `exact/path/to/file.py`
+- Modify: `exact/path/to/existing.py:123-145`
+- Test: `tests/exact/path/to/test.py`
+
+- [ ] **Step 1: Write the failing test**
+
+```python
+def test_specific_behavior():
+    result = function(input)
+    assert result == expected
+```
+
+- [ ] **Step 2: Run test to verify it fails**
+
+Run: `pytest tests/path/test.py::test_name -v`
+Expected: FAIL with "function not defined"
+
+- [ ] **Step 3: Write minimal implementation**
+
+```python
+def function(input):
+    return expected
+```
+
+- [ ] **Step 4: Run test to verify it passes**
+
+Run: `pytest tests/path/test.py::test_name -v`
+Expected: PASS
+
+- [ ] **Step 5: Commit**
+
+```bash
+git add tests/path/test.py src/path/file.py
+git commit -m "feat: add specific feature"
+```
+````
+
+## No Placeholders
+
+Every step must contain the actual content an engineer needs. These are **plan failures** — never write them:
+- "TBD", "TODO", "implement later", "fill in details"
+- "Add appropriate error handling" / "add validation" / "handle edge cases"
+- "Write tests for the above" (without actual test code)
+- "Similar to Task N" (repeat the code — the engineer may be reading tasks out of order)
+- Steps that describe what to do without showing how (code blocks required for code steps)
+- References to types, functions, or methods not defined in any task
+
+## Remember
+- Exact file paths always
+- Complete code in every step — if a step changes code, show the code
+- Exact commands with expected output
+- DRY, YAGNI, TDD, frequent commits
+
+## Self-Review
+
+After writing the complete plan, look at the spec with fresh eyes and check the plan against it. This is a checklist you run yourself — not a subagent dispatch.
+
+**1. Spec coverage:** Skim each section/requirement in the spec. Can you point to a task that implements it? List any gaps.
+
+**2. Placeholder scan:** Search your plan for red flags — any of the patterns from the "No Placeholders" section above. Fix them.
+
+**3. Type consistency:** Do the types, method signatures, and property names you used in later tasks match what you defined in earlier tasks? A function called `clearLayers()` in Task 3 but `clearFullLayers()` in Task 7 is a bug.
+
+If you find issues, fix them inline. No need to re-review — just fix and move on. If you find a spec requirement with no task, add the task.
+
+## Execution Handoff
+
+After saving the plan, offer execution choice:
+
+**"Plan complete and saved to `docs/superpowers/plans/<filename>.md`. Two execution options:**
+
+**1. Subagent-Driven (recommended)** - I dispatch a fresh subagent per task, review between tasks, fast iteration
+
+**2. Inline Execution** - Execute tasks in this session using executing-plans, batch execution with checkpoints
+
+**Which approach?"**
+
+**If Subagent-Driven chosen:**
+- Dispatch subagents per `docs/rules/agents.md` (fresh subagent per task + two-stage review by `code-reviewer`)
+
+**If Inline Execution chosen:**
+- **REQUIRED SUB-SKILL:** Use superpowers:executing-plans
+- Batch execution with checkpoints for review