arcane-cli 0.22.10 → 0.22.11
This diff represents the content of publicly available package versions that have been released to one of the supported registries. The information contained in this diff is provided for informational purposes only and reflects changes between package versions as they appear in their respective public registries.
- package/dist/assets/.github/prompts/spell-architect.prompt.md +1 -1
- package/dist/assets/.github/prompts/spell-explain-concept.prompt.md +1 -1
- package/dist/assets/.github/prompts/spell-scope.prompt.md +1 -1
- package/dist/assets/.github/prompts/spell-security-review.prompt.md +22 -0
- package/package.json +1 -1
|
@@ -112,5 +112,5 @@ Workflow:
|
|
|
112
112
|
Rules:
|
|
113
113
|
- Stories must be right-sized per the methodology doc (not "build the entire dashboard").
|
|
114
114
|
- Architecture decisions must reference existing ADRs when relevant.
|
|
115
|
-
- Use Mermaid for all diagrams.
|
|
115
|
+
- Use Mermaid for all diagrams, per rule 8 (`.arcane/governance/universal-agent-rules.md`) — this spell's component/data-flow diagrams are agent-authored design output, not the generated-state-diagrams sub-convention ARC-036 covers.
|
|
116
116
|
- If PRD scope is too large, recommend splitting before proceeding.
|
|
@@ -21,7 +21,7 @@ Follow these rules strictly:
|
|
|
21
21
|
|
|
22
22
|
1. **Start with the one-sentence answer.** What is it, or why does it happen? No preamble.
|
|
23
23
|
2. **Use analogies from the user's world** — relate to tools, systems, or workflows they already use (their editor, their chat/notification tooling, their own agents, their own infrastructure). Check the workspace for context about the user's setup.
|
|
24
|
-
3. **Use diagrams
|
|
24
|
+
3. **Use diagrams per rule 8** (`.arcane/governance/universal-agent-rules.md`) — Mermaid sequence diagrams for flows, flowcharts for decision trees. Don't use diagrams for simple definitions.
|
|
25
25
|
4. **Show the "so what?"** — connect the explanation to what the user can *do* with this knowledge. What decisions does it unlock? What options does it create?
|
|
26
26
|
5. **Name the moving parts** with a summary table when there are multiple components, layers, or options to compare.
|
|
27
27
|
6. **Use real examples from their system** — reference actual agent names, actual config files, actual commands. Don't use generic placeholders when specific is available.
|
|
@@ -175,7 +175,7 @@ Flag any epics that need **multiple roles** (e.g., a full-stack feature = backen
|
|
|
175
175
|
|
|
176
176
|
### 7. Dependency Graph
|
|
177
177
|
|
|
178
|
-
Produce a Mermaid diagram showing epic execution order:
|
|
178
|
+
Produce a Mermaid diagram (per rule 8) showing epic execution order — an agent-authored planning diagram, not the generated-state-diagrams sub-convention ARC-036 covers, since the ordering is this spell's own design output rather than already-computed state:
|
|
179
179
|
|
|
180
180
|
```mermaid
|
|
181
181
|
flowchart LR
|
|
@@ -30,6 +30,25 @@ Workflow:
|
|
|
30
30
|
- Full project audit
|
|
31
31
|
- Particular area of concern (auth, payments, data handling)
|
|
32
32
|
|
|
33
|
+
1a. **Map trust boundaries and data flow** — before running the checklists below, sketch how data crosses trust zones (external actors, the auth boundary, internal services, data stores). This is agent-authored analysis under rule 8 (`.arcane/governance/universal-agent-rules.md`), not the generated-state-diagrams sub-convention ARC-036 covers — there is no already-computed trust-boundary state to read back, only the agent's own reasoning about the code. Use a Mermaid flowchart with a subgraph per trust zone:
|
|
34
|
+
|
|
35
|
+
```mermaid
|
|
36
|
+
flowchart LR
|
|
37
|
+
subgraph External [Untrusted]
|
|
38
|
+
User[User / Client]
|
|
39
|
+
end
|
|
40
|
+
subgraph Boundary [Trust Boundary: Auth]
|
|
41
|
+
API[API Layer]
|
|
42
|
+
end
|
|
43
|
+
subgraph Internal [Trusted]
|
|
44
|
+
DB[(Data Store)]
|
|
45
|
+
end
|
|
46
|
+
User -->|request| API
|
|
47
|
+
API -->|authenticated query| DB
|
|
48
|
+
```
|
|
49
|
+
|
|
50
|
+
Skip this step when the review scope doesn't cross any trust boundary — a single internal utility with no new external interaction, no new data store, and no new auth flow has nothing to diagram.
|
|
51
|
+
|
|
33
52
|
2. **OWASP Top 10 checklist** — check each category:
|
|
34
53
|
|
|
35
54
|
| # | Category | Check |
|
|
@@ -81,6 +100,9 @@ Workflow:
|
|
|
81
100
|
**Date:** [timestamp]
|
|
82
101
|
**Scope:** [What was reviewed]
|
|
83
102
|
|
|
103
|
+
### Trust Boundary / Data Flow
|
|
104
|
+
[Mermaid flowchart from step 1a — omit this section entirely if step 1a was skipped]
|
|
105
|
+
|
|
84
106
|
### OWASP Top 10 Results
|
|
85
107
|
| Category | Status | Findings |
|
|
86
108
|
| ------------------------- | --------- | --------- |
|