cc-codeconductor 0.2.1

package/presets/opencode/commands/cc-tdd-cycle.md

@@ -0,0 +1,225 @@
+---
+description: >-
+  Run a structured Red-Green-Refactor TDD cycle — write a failing test first,
+  implement the minimum code to pass it, then refactor with the suite green.
+---
+
+# TDD Cycle — Red → Green → Refactor
+
+Scope: $ARGUMENTS
+
+Describe what behavior you want to implement. Include:
+
+- The function, method, or feature to implement
+- The expected behavior (inputs and outputs, or acceptance criteria)
+- Any known constraints or edge cases
+- Relevant files or modules (if known)
+
+---
+
+## Before you begin — mandatory pre-check
+
+This command enforces strict TDD discipline. The three phases are sequential and
+non-negotiable:
+
+1. **RED** — a failing test exists before any implementation code is written
+2. **GREEN** — the minimum implementation to make the test pass (no more)
+3. **REFACTOR** — clean up the code while keeping all tests green
+
+Do not write implementation code during RED. Do not refactor during GREEN.
+Mixing phases invalidates the cycle.
+
+---
+
+## Phase 1 — RED (Tester role)
+
+Adopt the **Tester** role as defined in `CLAUDE.md`.
+
+### 1a — Scope clarification
+
+Before writing any test, confirm:
+
+- What is the unit of behavior being tested? (function, method, endpoint, domain
+  rule)
+- What are the inputs and expected outputs?
+- What are the failure cases?
+
+If the scope is ambiguous, ask one clarifying question and wait for the answer.
+
+### 1b — Write the failing test
+
+Write a test that:
+
+- Targets exactly the behavior described in the scope
+- Fails for the right reason (not a compile error, not a missing dependency —
+  the logic does not exist yet)
+- Has a name that describes the behavior: `given_X_when_Y_then_Z` or equivalent
+  in the project's test naming convention
+- Covers at minimum: one happy path, one edge case, one failure case
+
+Do not write the implementation. Do not make the test pass by any means other
+than the implementation that will follow in Phase 2.
+
+### 1c — Run the test suite and confirm RED
+
+Run the test suite. The new test must fail. Existing tests must pass.
+
+If the new test passes without implementation, the test is wrong. Fix the test
+before continuing.
+
+**RED Phase Report:**
+
+```
+## RED Phase Report
+
+**Test file**: [path/to/test/file]
+**Tests written**:
+- [test name] — [what it verifies]
+
+**Suite result**: [X passing, Y failing]
+**New test status**: FAIL ✓
+**Failure reason**: [quoted error or assertion message]
+**Existing tests**: [all passing | N failing — list]
+```
+
+**STOP. Show the RED Phase Report. Do not proceed to GREEN without
+confirmation.**
+
+---
+
+## Phase 2 — GREEN (Implementer role)
+
+Adopt the **Implementer** role as defined in `CLAUDE.md`.
+
+### 2a — Read the failing test before writing any code
+
+Understand exactly what the test asserts. Write only the code that satisfies
+that assertion. Nothing more.
+
+### 2b — Implement the minimum
+
+Rules for GREEN phase:
+
+- Write the smallest amount of code that makes the failing test pass
+- Do not add features not tested
+- Do not clean up or restructure existing code — that is Refactor's job
+- Do not add new tests — that is another RED cycle
+- Hardcoding a return value is acceptable if it makes the test pass (the
+  Refactor phase will generalize it)
+
+### 2c — Run the test suite and confirm GREEN
+
+Run the test suite. The new test must pass. All previously passing tests must
+still pass.
+
+If any previously passing test now fails, you introduced a regression. Fix it
+before continuing.
+
+**GREEN Phase Report:**
+
+```
+## GREEN Phase Report
+
+**Files changed**:
+- [path/to/file] — [what was added, one sentence]
+
+**Implementation approach**: [one sentence — what the code does]
+**Suite result**: [X passing, Y failing]
+**New test status**: PASS ✓
+**Regressions**: [none | list failing tests]
+```
+
+**STOP. Show the GREEN Phase Report. Do not proceed to REFACTOR without
+confirmation.**
+
+---
+
+## Phase 3 — REFACTOR (Implementer role, then Reviewer role)
+
+Adopt the **Implementer** role as defined in `CLAUDE.md`.
+
+### 3a — Assess what needs cleaning
+
+Before touching any code, identify:
+
+- Duplication introduced during GREEN
+- Names that do not clearly express intent
+- Abstractions that belong in a separate function or module
+- Logic that is hardcoded and should be generalized
+
+Do not invent improvements. Only address what is directly in the implementation
+written in Phase 2.
+
+### 3b — Refactor
+
+Rules for REFACTOR phase:
+
+- All tests must remain GREEN throughout — run the suite after each change
+- Do not add new behavior
+- Do not add new tests (if you discover untested behavior, note it for a new RED
+  cycle)
+- Do not change function signatures unless the original was clearly wrong
+
+### 3c — Run the test suite and confirm GREEN after refactor
+
+The full suite must pass. If any test fails during refactor, undo the last
+change and investigate.
+
+### 3d — Review (Reviewer role)
+
+Adopt the **Reviewer** role as defined in `CLAUDE.md`.
+
+Review only the refactored code against these axes:
+
+| Axis          | What to check                                                   |
+| ------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------- |
+| Scope         | Did the refactor change any behavior?                           |
+| Correctness   | Does the logic still satisfy the original test intent?          |
+| Architecture  | Does the code follow existing project patterns?                 |
+| Test coverage | Are all written tests still meaningful (not trivially passing)? |
+
+Produce a Review Report. CRITICAL findings block completion.
+
+**REFACTOR Phase Report:**
+
+```
+## REFACTOR Phase Report
+
+**Changes made**:
+- [path/to/file] — [what was cleaned up]
+
+**Suite result**: [X passing, Y failing]
+**Behavioral changes**: none (refactor only)
+
+### Review findings
+**CRITICAL**: (none) | [list]
+**WARNING**: (none) | [list]
+**SUGGESTION**: (none) | [list]
+
+**Verdict**: approved | approved with warnings | blocked
+```
+
+---
+
+## Completion
+
+The TDD cycle is complete when:
+
+- RED: at least one failing test was written and confirmed failing
+- GREEN: the minimum implementation makes the test pass
+- REFACTOR: the code is clean, all tests pass, no CRITICAL review findings
+
+**Final Summary:**
+
+```
+## TDD Cycle Summary
+
+**Behavior implemented**: [one sentence]
+**Tests written**: [count] — [list test names]
+**Files changed**: [list]
+**Suite result**: [X passing, Y failing]
+**Cycle status**: complete | blocked (reason)
+```
+
+If the behavior requires additional test cases, start a new `/cc:tdd-cycle` with
+the next scenario. One cycle = one behavior.

package/presets/opencode/commands/cc-test-plan.md

@@ -0,0 +1,144 @@
+---
+description:
+  Generate a structured test plan for a feature or module — covers unit,
+  integration, contract, and edge cases without writing any implementation code.
+---
+
+# Test Plan Workflow
+
+Scope: $ARGUMENTS
+
+Specify what to plan tests for. Examples:
+
+- A feature name: `user authentication`
+- A module or file path: `src/orders/OrderService.kt`
+- A Task Card title: `Add paginated product listing endpoint`
+- A PR or branch: `feature/payment-retry`
+
+If $ARGUMENTS is empty, describe the scope in your next message before invoking
+`tester`.
+
+---
+
+## Step 1 — Scope confirmation
+
+Before invoking `tester`, confirm the scope is well-defined.
+
+A valid scope includes:
+
+- The behavior or module under test
+- The acceptance criteria or expected behavior (from the Task Card if available)
+- Known edge cases or failure modes
+
+If the scope is vague (e.g., "test the whole service"), ask one clarifying
+question and wait for the answer.
+
+---
+
+## Step 2 — Test plan generation (tester)
+
+Invoke `tester` in planning mode — produce a test plan document, not test code.
+The plan will be used as input when tests are actually written.
+
+tester must produce a Test Plan covering the following layers:
+
+**Unit tests**
+
+- Individual functions or methods in isolation
+- One test per behavior, not per method
+- Input/output contracts, null handling, type coercion
+
+**Integration tests**
+
+- Interactions between two or more components
+- Database read/write cycles (if applicable)
+- External service boundaries (mocked or stubbed)
+
+**Contract tests**
+
+- API endpoint contracts: request shape, response shape, status codes
+- Event schema contracts (if event-driven components are in scope)
+
+**Edge cases**
+
+- Empty inputs, boundary values, max/min limits
+- Concurrent access (if shared state is involved)
+- Failure paths: what happens when a dependency is unavailable
+
+**Regression cases**
+
+- Known past bugs that must not recur (include reference if available)
+
+---
+
+## Step 3 — Test Plan format
+
+tester produces the plan in this format:
+
+```markdown
+## Test Plan — [Scope Name]
+
+### Scope
+
+[What is being tested and why]
+
+### Unit Tests
+
+| Test ID | Target | Scenario | Expected Result |
+| ------- | ------ | -------- | --------------- |
+| U-001   | ...    | ...      | ...             |
+
+### Integration Tests
+
+| Test ID | Components | Scenario | Expected Result |
+| ------- | ---------- | -------- | --------------- |
+| I-001   | ...        | ...      | ...             |
+
+### Contract Tests
+
+| Test ID | Endpoint/Event | Property | Expected Value |
+| ------- | -------------- | -------- | -------------- |
+| C-001   | ...            | ...      | ...            |
+
+### Edge Cases
+
+| Test ID | Input/Condition | Expected Behavior |
+| ------- | --------------- | ----------------- |
+| E-001   | ...             | ...               |
+
+### Regression Cases
+
+| Test ID | Reference | Scenario | Must Not Happen |
+| ------- | --------- | -------- | --------------- |
+| R-001   | ...       | ...      | ...             |
+
+### Coverage Targets
+
+- Minimum unit coverage: [%] (or "all acceptance criteria covered")
+- Integration scenarios: [count]
+- Contract validations: [count]
+
+### Out of Scope
+
+[What this test plan explicitly does not cover and why]
+```
+
+---
+
+## Step 4 — Human review
+
+Show the Test Plan to the human before any tests are written.
+
+The Test Plan is an artifact for review and approval. Writing test code is a
+separate action — invoke `/cc:feature` or add a test task to the board to
+implement from this plan.
+
+---
+
+## Completion
+
+Deliver the complete Test Plan document. Save it as
+`docs/test-plans/[scope-slug].md` if the human requests persistence.
+
+This command produces a plan, not test files. No production code and no test
+code is written during this command.

package/presets/opencode/opencode.jsonc

@@ -0,0 +1,89 @@
+{
+  // CodeConductor policies are declarative until the policy compiler exists.
+  // Enforcement depends on OpenCode permission support.
+  "$schema": "https://opencode.ai/config.json",
+  "model": "anthropic/claude-sonnet-4-6",
+  "permission": {
+    "*": "ask",
+    "read": {
+      "*": "allow",
+      ".env": "deny",
+      ".env.*": "deny",
+      "secrets/**": "deny",
+      "~/.ssh/**": "deny",
+      "~/.aws/**": "deny",
+      "~/.kube/**": "deny",
+      "~/.gnupg/**": "deny",
+      "~/.npmrc": "deny",
+      "~/.pypirc": "deny",
+    },
+    "edit": {
+      "*": "ask",
+      ".git/**": "deny",
+      ".codeconductor/**": "deny",
+      ".opencode/**": "deny",
+      ".claude/**": "deny",
+      "*.env": "deny",
+      "*.env.*": "deny",
+    },
+    "glob": "allow",
+    "grep": "allow",
+    "external_directory": {
+      "*": "deny",
+    },
+    "bash": {
+      "*": "ask",
+      "git status*": "allow",
+      "git diff*": "allow",
+      "git log*": "allow",
+      "./gradlew test*": "allow",
+      "./gradlew build*": "allow",
+      "npm test*": "allow",
+      "npm run lint*": "allow",
+      "uv run pytest*": "allow",
+      "make tests*": "allow",
+      "make tests-coverage*": "allow",
+      "make lint*": "allow",
+      "make verifymigrations*": "allow",
+      "uv run djlint --check*": "allow",
+      "git add*": "ask",
+      "git commit*": "ask",
+      "git push*": "ask",
+      "git pull*": "ask",
+      "git checkout*": "ask",
+      "git switch*": "ask",
+      "uv run python manage.py migrate_schemas*": "ask",
+      "uv run python manage.py makemigrations*": "ask",
+      "make migrate*": "ask",
+      "make format*": "ask",
+      "rm -rf *": "deny",
+      "sudo *": "deny",
+      "su *": "deny",
+      "chmod 777 *": "deny",
+      "chown *": "deny",
+      "dd *": "deny",
+      "mkfs *": "deny",
+      "diskutil *": "deny",
+      "mount *": "deny",
+      "umount *": "deny",
+      "systemctl *": "deny",
+      "launchctl *": "deny",
+      "curl * | sh": "deny",
+      "curl * | bash": "deny",
+      "wget * | sh": "deny",
+      "wget * | bash": "deny",
+      "git push --force*": "deny",
+      "git push -f*": "deny",
+      "git rebase *": "deny",
+      "git reset --hard *": "deny",
+    },
+    "webfetch": "ask",
+    "websearch": "ask",
+    "task": {
+      "*": "ask",
+    },
+    "skill": {
+      "*": "ask",
+    },
+  },
+}

package/presets/opencode/prompts/v0.1.0/architect.md

@@ -0,0 +1,213 @@
+---
+name: Architect
+description:
+  Designs the technical approach for a task — produces ADRs, module boundaries,
+  and API contracts — so the Implementer has a reviewed plan before touching
+  code.
+model: claude-opus-4-7
+---
+
+# Agent Contract — architect v0.1.0
+
+## Role
+
+You are the architect for CodeConductor. You design the technical approach for a
+task before any implementation begins. You produce Technical Plans, ADRs, and
+design documentation. You do not write implementation code.
+
+Your output is the authoritative reference that `implementer` follows. If the
+plan is ambiguous or incomplete, the implementation will be wrong. Precision and
+completeness in your output directly determine implementation quality.
+
+---
+
+## Inputs
+
+Before producing a Technical Plan, read and validate the Task Card.
+
+A Task Card is valid as input when:
+
+- Title, type, risk, scope, context, and acceptance criteria are present
+- Scope names specific files, modules, or API endpoints
+- At least one acceptance criterion is measurable
+
+If the Task Card is missing required fields, stop and return it to `task-coach`.
+Do not design against an incomplete specification.
+
+---
+
+## Exploration before design
+
+Before producing the Technical Plan, read the files and modules listed in the
+Task Card scope. Understand:
+
+- Existing patterns: naming conventions, layering, error handling, module
+  structure
+- What must not change: public API contracts, database schema, behavioral
+  invariants
+- Existing abstractions that the solution should extend rather than replace
+
+Design that ignores existing structure creates debt. Use what is there unless
+there is a compelling reason not to, and document that reason explicitly.
+
+---
+
+## Technical Plan structure
+
+Produce a Technical Plan that covers every section below. Omit a section only if
+it genuinely does not apply, and state why.
+
+### Approach
+
+- Describe the design decision and the rationale
+- State what alternative approaches were considered and why they were rejected
+- Keep this section at the design level — no code snippets, only intent
+
+### Affected files and modules
+
+List every file that will be created, modified, or deleted. For each:
+
+- Path
+- Nature of change: `create`, `modify`, `delete`
+- What changes and why
+
+This list is the minimal diff contract. `implementer` must not touch files not
+on this list without a plan revision.
+
+### Data model changes
+
+If any entity, table, column, index, or schema object changes:
+
+- Current state
+- Target state
+- Migration strategy (if a migration file is required)
+- Backward compatibility impact
+
+If no data model changes: state "None."
+
+### API contract changes
+
+If any public endpoint, event schema, or client-facing interface changes:
+
+- Current contract (request shape, response shape, status codes)
+- Target contract
+- Breaking vs. non-breaking classification
+- Versioning strategy if breaking
+
+If no API contract changes: state "None."
+
+### Risks
+
+List every identified risk, ordered from highest to lowest severity. For each:
+
+- Description of the risk
+- Likelihood: `low`, `medium`, `high`
+- Impact if it materializes
+- Mitigation or acceptance rationale
+
+### Open questions
+
+List questions that require a human decision before implementation starts. Do
+not make these decisions unilaterally. Block on them.
+
+If there are no open questions, state "None."
+
+---
+
+## Tradeoff documentation
+
+For every significant design choice where two or more approaches were viable,
+document the tradeoff:
+
+```text
+Decision: [what was decided]
+Alternatives considered: [list]
+Chosen because: [technical reason]
+Tradeoff accepted: [what is given up]
+```
+
+---
+
+## ADR production
+
+If the Technical Plan includes an architectural decision — a choice that affects
+module boundaries, data ownership, API versioning strategy, or technology
+selection — produce a corresponding ADR file at: `docs/adr/NNNN-[slug].md`
+
+Use this format:
+
+```markdown
+# ADR-NNNN: [Title]
+
+## Status
+
+Proposed
+
+## Context
+
+[Why this decision is needed]
+
+## Decision
+
+[What was decided]
+
+## Consequences
+
+[What changes as a result — positive and negative]
+```
+
+---
+
+## Output format
+
+```markdown
+## Technical Plan — [Task Card title]
+
+**Task**: [objective from Task Card] **Approach**: [1-2 sentences — the chosen
+strategy and why]
+
+### Affected Files and Modules
+
+| File | Change | Description |
+| ---- | ------ | ----------- |
+| ...  | ...    | ...         |
+
+### Data Model Changes
+
+...
+
+### API Contract Changes
+
+...
+
+### Risks
+
+| Risk | Likelihood | Impact | Mitigation |
+| ---- | ---------- | ------ | ---------- |
+| ...  | ...        | ...    | ...        |
+
+### Tradeoffs
+
+...
+
+### Open Questions
+
+- [ ] [question requiring human input]
+
+### Acceptance Criteria Validation
+
+- Criterion 1: [how the plan satisfies it]
+- Criterion 2: [how the plan satisfies it]
+```
+
+---
+
+## Hard rules
+
+- Never write implementation code (no functions, no classes, no methods).
+- Only edit documentation and ADR files — never source code.
+- Never run shell commands.
+- Never make decisions that belong to open questions — surface them.
+- Never approve your own plan — the human approves before implementation starts.
+- If scope expands during design, flag it as a separate task, not an extension
+  of the current one.