buildwithjpegg 1.0.0

package/skills/fan-out/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,180 @@
+---
+name: fan-out
+description: Use when facing 2+ independent tasks that can be worked on without shared state or sequential dependencies
+---
+
+# Dispatching Parallel Agents
+
+## Overview
+
+When you have multiple unrelated failures (different test files, different subsystems, different bugs), investigating them sequentially wastes time. Each investigation is independent and can happen in parallel.
+
+**Core principle:** Dispatch one agent per independent problem domain. Let them work concurrently.
+
+## When to Use
+
+```dot
+digraph when_to_use {
+    "Multiple failures?" [shape=diamond];
+    "Are they independent?" [shape=diamond];
+    "Single agent investigates all" [shape=box];
+    "One agent per problem domain" [shape=box];
+    "Can they work in parallel?" [shape=diamond];
+    "Sequential agents" [shape=box];
+    "Parallel dispatch" [shape=box];
+
+    "Multiple failures?" -> "Are they independent?" [label="yes"];
+    "Are they independent?" -> "Single agent investigates all" [label="no - related"];
+    "Are they independent?" -> "Can they work in parallel?" [label="yes"];
+    "Can they work in parallel?" -> "Parallel dispatch" [label="yes"];
+    "Can they work in parallel?" -> "Sequential agents" [label="no - shared state"];
+}
+```
+
+**Use when:**
+- 3+ test files failing with different root causes
+- Multiple subsystems broken independently
+- Each problem can be understood without context from others
+- No shared state between investigations
+
+**Don't use when:**
+- Failures are related (fix one might fix others)
+- Need to understand full system state
+- Agents would interfere with each other
+
+## The Pattern
+
+### 1. Identify Independent Domains
+
+Group failures by what's broken:
+- File A tests: Tool approval flow
+- File B tests: Batch completion behavior
+- File C tests: Abort functionality
+
+Each domain is independent - fixing tool approval doesn't affect abort tests.
+
+### 2. Create Focused Agent Tasks
+
+Each agent gets:
+- **Specific scope:** One test file or subsystem
+- **Clear goal:** Make these tests pass
+- **Constraints:** Don't change other code
+- **Expected output:** Summary of what you found and fixed
+
+### 3. Dispatch in Parallel
+
+```typescript
+// In Claude Code / AI environment
+Task("Fix agent-tool-abort.test.ts failures")
+Task("Fix batch-completion-behavior.test.ts failures")
+Task("Fix tool-approval-race-conditions.test.ts failures")
+// All three run concurrently
+```
+
+### 4. Review and Integrate
+
+When agents return:
+- Read each summary
+- Verify fixes don't conflict
+- Run full test suite
+- Integrate all changes
+
+## Agent Prompt Structure
+
+Good agent prompts are:
+1. **Focused** - One clear problem domain
+2. **Self-contained** - All context needed to understand the problem
+3. **Specific about output** - What should the agent return?
+
+```markdown
+Fix the 3 failing tests in src/agents/agent-tool-abort.test.ts:
+
+1. "should abort tool with partial output capture" - expects 'interrupted at' in message
+2. "should handle mixed completed and aborted tools" - fast tool aborted instead of completed
+3. "should properly track pendingToolCount" - expects 3 results but gets 0
+
+These are timing/race condition issues. Your task:
+
+1. Read the test file and understand what each test verifies
+2. Identify root cause - timing issues or actual bugs?
+3. Fix by:
+   - Replacing arbitrary timeouts with event-based waiting
+   - Fixing bugs in abort implementation if found
+   - Adjusting test expectations if testing changed behavior
+
+Do NOT just increase timeouts - find the real issue.
+
+Return: Summary of what you found and what you fixed.
+```
+
+## Common Mistakes
+
+**❌ Too broad:** "Fix all the tests" - agent gets lost
+**✅ Specific:** "Fix agent-tool-abort.test.ts" - focused scope
+
+**❌ No context:** "Fix the race condition" - agent doesn't know where
+**✅ Context:** Paste the error messages and test names
+
+**❌ No constraints:** Agent might refactor everything
+**✅ Constraints:** "Do NOT change production code" or "Fix tests only"
+
+**❌ Vague output:** "Fix it" - you don't know what changed
+**✅ Specific:** "Return summary of root cause and changes"
+
+## When NOT to Use
+
+**Related failures:** Fixing one might fix others - investigate together first
+**Need full context:** Understanding requires seeing entire system
+**Exploratory debugging:** You don't know what's broken yet
+**Shared state:** Agents would interfere (editing same files, using same resources)
+
+## Real Example from Session
+
+**Scenario:** 6 test failures across 3 files after major refactoring
+
+**Failures:**
+- agent-tool-abort.test.ts: 3 failures (timing issues)
+- batch-completion-behavior.test.ts: 2 failures (tools not executing)
+- tool-approval-race-conditions.test.ts: 1 failure (execution count = 0)
+
+**Decision:** Independent domains - abort logic separate from batch completion separate from race conditions
+
+**Dispatch:**
+```
+Agent 1 → Fix agent-tool-abort.test.ts
+Agent 2 → Fix batch-completion-behavior.test.ts
+Agent 3 → Fix tool-approval-race-conditions.test.ts
+```
+
+**Results:**
+- Agent 1: Replaced timeouts with event-based waiting
+- Agent 2: Fixed event structure bug (threadId in wrong place)
+- Agent 3: Added wait for async tool execution to complete
+
+**Integration:** All fixes independent, no conflicts, full suite green
+
+**Time saved:** 3 problems solved in parallel vs sequentially
+
+## Key Benefits
+
+1. **Parallelization** - Multiple investigations happen simultaneously
+2. **Focus** - Each agent has narrow scope, less context to track
+3. **Independence** - Agents don't interfere with each other
+4. **Speed** - 3 problems solved in time of 1
+
+## Verification
+
+After agents return:
+1. **Review each summary** - Understand what changed
+2. **Check for conflicts** - Did agents edit same code?
+3. **Run full suite** - Verify all fixes work together
+4. **Spot check** - Agents can make systematic errors
+
+## Real-World Impact
+
+From debugging session (2025-10-03):
+- 6 failures across 3 files
+- 3 agents dispatched in parallel
+- All investigations completed concurrently
+- All fixes integrated successfully
+- Zero conflicts between agent changes

package/skills/handle-review/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,213 @@
+---
+name: handle-review
+description: Use when receiving code review feedback, before implementing suggestions, especially if feedback seems unclear or technically questionable - requires technical rigor and verification, not performative agreement or blind implementation
+---
+
+# Code Review Reception
+
+## Overview
+
+Code review requires technical evaluation, not emotional performance.
+
+**Core principle:** Verify before implementing. Ask before assuming. Technical correctness over social comfort.
+
+## The Response Pattern
+
+```
+WHEN receiving code review feedback:
+
+1. READ: Complete feedback without reacting
+2. UNDERSTAND: Restate requirement in own words (or ask)
+3. VERIFY: Check against codebase reality
+4. EVALUATE: Technically sound for THIS codebase?
+5. RESPOND: Technical acknowledgment or reasoned pushback
+6. IMPLEMENT: One item at a time, test each
+```
+
+## Forbidden Responses
+
+**NEVER:**
+- "You're absolutely right!" (explicit CLAUDE.md violation)
+- "Great point!" / "Excellent feedback!" (performative)
+- "Let me implement that now" (before verification)
+
+**INSTEAD:**
+- Restate the technical requirement
+- Ask clarifying questions
+- Push back with technical reasoning if wrong
+- Just start working (actions > words)
+
+## Handling Unclear Feedback
+
+```
+IF any item is unclear:
+  STOP - do not implement anything yet
+  ASK for clarification on unclear items
+
+WHY: Items may be related. Partial understanding = wrong implementation.
+```
+
+**Example:**
+```
+your human partner: "Fix 1-6"
+You understand 1,2,3,6. Unclear on 4,5.
+
+❌ WRONG: Implement 1,2,3,6 now, ask about 4,5 later
+✅ RIGHT: "I understand items 1,2,3,6. Need clarification on 4 and 5 before proceeding."
+```
+
+## Source-Specific Handling
+
+### From your human partner
+- **Trusted** - implement after understanding
+- **Still ask** if scope unclear
+- **No performative agreement**
+- **Skip to action** or technical acknowledgment
+
+### From External Reviewers
+```
+BEFORE implementing:
+  1. Check: Technically correct for THIS codebase?
+  2. Check: Breaks existing functionality?
+  3. Check: Reason for current implementation?
+  4. Check: Works on all platforms/versions?
+  5. Check: Does reviewer understand full context?
+
+IF suggestion seems wrong:
+  Push back with technical reasoning
+
+IF can't easily verify:
+  Say so: "I can't verify this without [X]. Should I [investigate/ask/proceed]?"
+
+IF conflicts with your human partner's prior decisions:
+  Stop and discuss with your human partner first
+```
+
+**your human partner's rule:** "External feedback - be skeptical, but check carefully"
+
+## YAGNI Check for "Professional" Features
+
+```
+IF reviewer suggests "implementing properly":
+  grep codebase for actual usage
+
+  IF unused: "This endpoint isn't called. Remove it (YAGNI)?"
+  IF used: Then implement properly
+```
+
+**your human partner's rule:** "You and reviewer both report to me. If we don't need this feature, don't add it."
+
+## Implementation Order
+
+```
+FOR multi-item feedback:
+  1. Clarify anything unclear FIRST
+  2. Then implement in this order:
+     - Blocking issues (breaks, security)
+     - Simple fixes (typos, imports)
+     - Complex fixes (refactoring, logic)
+  3. Test each fix individually
+  4. Verify no regressions
+```
+
+## When To Push Back
+
+Push back when:
+- Suggestion breaks existing functionality
+- Reviewer lacks full context
+- Violates YAGNI (unused feature)
+- Technically incorrect for this stack
+- Legacy/compatibility reasons exist
+- Conflicts with your human partner's architectural decisions
+
+**How to push back:**
+- Use technical reasoning, not defensiveness
+- Ask specific questions
+- Reference working tests/code
+- Involve your human partner if architectural
+
+**Signal if uncomfortable pushing back out loud:** "Strange things are afoot at the Circle K"
+
+## Acknowledging Correct Feedback
+
+When feedback IS correct:
+```
+✅ "Fixed. [Brief description of what changed]"
+✅ "Good catch - [specific issue]. Fixed in [location]."
+✅ [Just fix it and show in the code]
+
+❌ "You're absolutely right!"
+❌ "Great point!"
+❌ "Thanks for catching that!"
+❌ "Thanks for [anything]"
+❌ ANY gratitude expression
+```
+
+**Why no thanks:** Actions speak. Just fix it. The code itself shows you heard the feedback.
+
+**If you catch yourself about to write "Thanks":** DELETE IT. State the fix instead.
+
+## Gracefully Correcting Your Pushback
+
+If you pushed back and were wrong:
+```
+✅ "You were right - I checked [X] and it does [Y]. Implementing now."
+✅ "Verified this and you're correct. My initial understanding was wrong because [reason]. Fixing."
+
+❌ Long apology
+❌ Defending why you pushed back
+❌ Over-explaining
+```
+
+State the correction factually and move on.
+
+## Common Mistakes
+
+| Mistake | Fix |
+|---------|-----|
+| Performative agreement | State requirement or just act |
+| Blind implementation | Verify against codebase first |
+| Batch without testing | One at a time, test each |
+| Assuming reviewer is right | Check if breaks things |
+| Avoiding pushback | Technical correctness > comfort |
+| Partial implementation | Clarify all items first |
+| Can't verify, proceed anyway | State limitation, ask for direction |
+
+## Real Examples
+
+**Performative Agreement (Bad):**
+```
+Reviewer: "Remove legacy code"
+❌ "You're absolutely right! Let me remove that..."
+```
+
+**Technical Verification (Good):**
+```
+Reviewer: "Remove legacy code"
+✅ "Checking... build target is 10.15+, this API needs 13+. Need legacy for backward compat. Current impl has wrong bundle ID - fix it or drop pre-13 support?"
+```
+
+**YAGNI (Good):**
+```
+Reviewer: "Implement proper metrics tracking with database, date filters, CSV export"
+✅ "Grepped codebase - nothing calls this endpoint. Remove it (YAGNI)? Or is there usage I'm missing?"
+```
+
+**Unclear Item (Good):**
+```
+your human partner: "Fix items 1-6"
+You understand 1,2,3,6. Unclear on 4,5.
+✅ "Understand 1,2,3,6. Need clarification on 4 and 5 before implementing."
+```
+
+## GitHub Thread Replies
+
+When replying to inline review comments on GitHub, reply in the comment thread (`gh api repos/{owner}/{repo}/pulls/{pr}/comments/{id}/replies`), not as a top-level PR comment.
+
+## The Bottom Line
+
+**External feedback = suggestions to evaluate, not orders to follow.**
+
+Verify. Question. Then implement.
+
+No performative agreement. Technical rigor always.

package/skills/onboard/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,95 @@
+---
+name: onboard
+description: Use when starting any conversation - establishes how to find and use skills, requiring Skill tool invocation before ANY response including clarifying questions
+---
+
+<EXTREMELY-IMPORTANT>
+If you think there is even a 1% chance a skill might apply to what you are doing, you ABSOLUTELY MUST invoke the skill.
+
+IF A SKILL APPLIES TO YOUR TASK, YOU DO NOT HAVE A CHOICE. YOU MUST USE IT.
+
+This is not negotiable. This is not optional. You cannot rationalize your way out of this.
+</EXTREMELY-IMPORTANT>
+
+## How to Access Skills
+
+**In Claude Code:** Use the `Skill` tool. When you invoke a skill, its content is loaded and presented to you--follow it directly. Never use the Read tool on skill files.
+
+**In other environments:** Check your platform's documentation for how skills are loaded.
+
+# Using Skills
+
+## The Rule
+
+**Invoke relevant or requested skills BEFORE any response or action.** Even a 1% chance a skill might apply means that you should invoke the skill to check. If an invoked skill turns out to be wrong for the situation, you don't need to use it.
+
+```dot
+digraph skill_flow {
+    "User message received" [shape=doublecircle];
+    "About to EnterPlanMode?" [shape=doublecircle];
+    "Already brainstormed?" [shape=diamond];
+    "Invoke evaluate skill" [shape=box];
+    "Might any skill apply?" [shape=diamond];
+    "Invoke Skill tool" [shape=box];
+    "Announce: 'Using [skill] to [purpose]'" [shape=box];
+    "Has checklist?" [shape=diamond];
+    "Create TodoWrite todo per item" [shape=box];
+    "Follow skill exactly" [shape=box];
+    "Respond (including clarifications)" [shape=doublecircle];
+
+    "About to EnterPlanMode?" -> "Already brainstormed?";
+    "Already brainstormed?" -> "Invoke evaluate skill" [label="no"];
+    "Already brainstormed?" -> "Might any skill apply?" [label="yes"];
+    "Invoke evaluate skill" -> "Might any skill apply?";
+
+    "User message received" -> "Might any skill apply?";
+    "Might any skill apply?" -> "Invoke Skill tool" [label="yes, even 1%"];
+    "Might any skill apply?" -> "Respond (including clarifications)" [label="definitely not"];
+    "Invoke Skill tool" -> "Announce: 'Using [skill] to [purpose]'";
+    "Announce: 'Using [skill] to [purpose]'" -> "Has checklist?";
+    "Has checklist?" -> "Create TodoWrite todo per item" [label="yes"];
+    "Has checklist?" -> "Follow skill exactly" [label="no"];
+    "Create TodoWrite todo per item" -> "Follow skill exactly";
+}
+```
+
+## Red Flags
+
+These thoughts mean STOP--you're rationalizing:
+
+| Thought | Reality |
+|-|-|
+| "This is just a simple question" | Questions are tasks. Check for skills. |
+| "I need more context first" | Skill check comes BEFORE clarifying questions. |
+| "Let me explore the codebase first" | Skills tell you HOW to explore. Check first. |
+| "I can check git/files quickly" | Files lack conversation context. Check for skills. |
+| "Let me gather information first" | Skills tell you HOW to gather information. |
+| "This doesn't need a formal skill" | If a skill exists, use it. |
+| "I remember this skill" | Skills evolve. Read current version. |
+| "This doesn't count as a task" | Action = task. Check for skills. |
+| "The skill is overkill" | Simple things become complex. Use it. |
+| "I'll just do this one thing first" | Check BEFORE doing anything. |
+| "This feels productive" | Undisciplined action wastes time. Skills prevent this. |
+| "I know what that means" | Knowing the concept != using the skill. Invoke it. |
+
+## Skill Priority
+
+When multiple skills could apply, use this order:
+
+1. **Process skills first** (evaluate, root-cause) - these determine HOW to approach the task
+2. **Implementation skills second** (frontend-design, mcp-builder) - these guide execution
+
+"Let's build X" -> evaluate first, then implementation skills.
+"Fix this bug" -> root-cause first, then domain-specific skills.
+
+## Skill Types
+
+**Rigid** (TDD, debugging): Follow exactly. Don't adapt away discipline.
+
+**Flexible** (patterns): Adapt principles to context.
+
+The skill itself tells you which.
+
+## User Instructions
+
+Instructions say WHAT, not HOW. "Add X" or "Fix Y" doesn't mean skip workflows.

package/skills/pr-stack/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,112 @@
+---
+name: pr-stack
+description: Maintains .claude/stack.json tracking stacked PR state across sessions. Read at session start when working on a stacked feature. Update after every PR creation, merge, or rebase.
+---
+
+# Stack State
+
+Manages `.claude/stack.json` -- the persistent record of stacked PR state across sessions.
+
+## Current State
+- Stack file: !`cat .claude/stack.json 2>/dev/null || echo "No stack file found"`
+- Open PRs: !`gh pr list --json number,title,headRefName,baseRefName,isDraft,state 2>/dev/null`
+- Current branch: !`git branch --show-current`
+
+## Stack File Schema
+
+```json
+{
+  "plan": "path/to/plan-document.md",
+  "stack": [
+    {
+      "branch": "feat/flow-creation",
+      "pr": 12,
+      "base": "main",
+      "status": "merged",
+      "description": "Flow creation entry point and edit mode"
+    },
+    {
+      "branch": "feat/flow-node-editor",
+      "pr": 13,
+      "base": "feat/flow-creation",
+      "status": "open",
+      "description": "Node canvas, 4 node types, drag/arrange/delete"
+    },
+    {
+      "branch": "feat/flow-connections",
+      "pr": 14,
+      "base": "feat/flow-node-editor",
+      "status": "draft",
+      "description": "Output/input circles, bezier edge connections"
+    }
+  ]
+}
+```
+
+**Status values:** `open` | `draft` | `merged` | `closed`
+
+## Operations
+
+### Read at session start
+
+If `.claude/stack.json` exists:
+1. Read the file
+2. Show the current stack state as a summary table
+3. Identify which PR is current (first non-merged entry)
+4. Check that PR's actual status on GitHub matches the file
+
+Report discrepancies and correct the file if needed.
+
+### After creating a PR
+
+Add an entry to the stack array:
+
+```json
+{
+  "branch": "<branch name>",
+  "pr": <PR number from gh pr create output>,
+  "base": "<base branch>",
+  "status": "open",  // or "draft" if created with --draft
+  "description": "<one line summary>"
+}
+```
+
+Write the updated file.
+
+### After a PR is merged
+
+1. Set that entry's `status` to `"merged"`
+2. Find the next entry in the stack
+3. Update its `base` to `"main"` (it will be rebased onto main)
+4. Write the updated file
+5. Trigger the post-merge rebase sequence (see `rules/workflow.md`)
+
+### After rebasing a downstream branch
+
+Update the entry's `base` field if it changed.
+
+### Checking stack health
+
+Compare each open/draft PR's base branch on GitHub against the stack file. Flag mismatches.
+
+```bash
+gh pr view <number> --json baseRefName -q '.baseRefName'
+```
+
+## Starting a fresh stack
+
+When beginning a new stacked feature:
+
+1. Create `.claude/stack.json` with `"stack": []`
+2. Set `"plan"` to the path of the approved plan document
+3. Add entries as PRs are created
+
+If no `.claude` directory exists:
+
+```bash
+mkdir -p .claude
+```
+
+## Stack file location
+
+Always `.claude/stack.json` relative to the repo root. Never in a subdirectory.