cc-codeconductor 1.1.0 → 1.2.0

package/presets/codex/skills/cc-spec-mutation/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,192 @@
+---
+name: cc-spec-mutation
+description: into an immutable Gherkin contract (SHA-256 frozen), implement under the three laws of TDD, pass a judge audit, and merge only if every mutant dies.
+---
+
+# spec-mutation
+
+Invoke as `$cc-spec-mutation`. The user request follows the skill mention.
+
+# Spec-Mutation — Hard Spec → TDD → Judge → Mutation Gate
+
+Scope: $ARGUMENTS
+
+Describe what behavior you want to implement. Include:
+
+- The function, method, or feature to implement
+- The expected behavior (inputs, outputs, invariants, edge cases)
+- The allowed file scope (production files that may change)
+- The test command for the affected suite (e.g. `pytest tests/test_billing.py`)
+
+---
+
+## Step 0 — CCEP Bootstrap
+
+Command: `spec-mutation` (fixed for this workflow — do not infer from user text)
+
+1. Run: `npx cc-codeconductor ccep parse --command spec-mutation "$ARGUMENTS" --output json`
+2. Run: `npx cc-codeconductor ccep resolve --command spec-mutation "$ARGUMENTS" --output json`
+3. Run: `npx cc-codeconductor ccep profile spec-mutation --output json`
+4. After planner/intake JSON is available, run: `npx cc-codeconductor ccep evaluate --command spec-mutation --input <planner.json> --output json`. If `stop` is true, show questions or risks and wait for human input.
+5. Delegate to subagents using compiled CCEP prompts — never forward raw `$ARGUMENTS` to planners.
+   Canonical delivery order is test-before-implement whenever both phases apply.
+
+---
+
+## Step 0b — OpenSpec quality gates
+
+If `openspec status` reports an active change folder:
+
+1. Run: `npx cc-codeconductor openspec validate --output json`
+2. Run: `npx cc-codeconductor openspec analyze --output json`
+3. If analyze `stop` is true or any finding is CRITICAL, stop. Do not delegate to implementer.
+4. Next command spelling on this runner: `/cc:spec-mutation`
+
+Local development: `bun run dev <same argv>`. Published package: `npx cc-codeconductor`.
+
+---
+
+## Contract
+
+The Gherkin specification is the **immutable contract** of the system. No code
+merges unless it survives intentional source mutations. The loop is closed:
+
+```
+[Human + spec_partner] ──> [gherkin_author] ──> [Test Freeze: SHA-256]
+                                                       │
+┌──────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
+▼
+[tdd_craftsman] <───────────────┐ (surviving mutant)
+   (Red-Green-Refactor)         │
+        │                       │
+        ▼                       │
+     [judge] ───────────> [mutation_testing] ───> [Safe Merge]
+```
+
+Role mapping onto Conductor Agents (AGENTS.md):
+
+| Workflow role      | Conductor Agent   | Deliverable                                |
+| ------------------ | ----------------- | ------------------------------------------ |
+| `craftsman_lead`   | `orchestrator`    | Routed Task Cards, per-stage scorecards    |
+| `spec_partner`     | `task-coach`      | Spec draft with invariants and boundaries  |
+| `gherkin_author`   | `contract-builder`| Strict `.feature` file (Given/When/Then)   |
+| `tdd_craftsman`    | `tester` → `implementer` | Failing test, then minimal production code |
+| `judge`            | `reviewer`        | Binary verdict (PASS/REJECT) with scoring  |
+| `mutation_testing` | `tester` (runner) | Killed/survived mutant report              |
+
+## Stage 1 — Interactive refinement (`spec_partner` / task-coach)
+
+Do not jump to implementation. Apply Socratic questioning to the initial intent:
+
+- Preconditions, postconditions, and edge cases.
+- Invariant matrix: what must always be true.
+- Scope boundaries: explicit `Scope / Files` and `Scope / Out` for the Task Card.
+
+Stop gate: human confirms the draft before formalization.
+
+## Stage 2 — Hard Spec formalization (`gherkin_author` / contract-builder)
+
+Formalize the agreed draft into `specs/<task>.feature` using strict Gherkin:
+
+- No vague language ("must respond fast" is forbidden — use measurable Then steps).
+- Every scenario declares preconditions (`Given`), actions (`When`), and
+  observable states (`Then`).
+- Once the human approves the `.feature`, freeze it:
+
+```bash
+shasum -a 256 specs/<task>.feature tests/ > .codeconductor/tasks/<task_id>.lock
+```
+
+From this point `specs/` and `tests/` are **read-only** for implementation
+agents. Before every later gate, recompute the hash; any single-byte difference
+aborts the pipeline with scorecard 0 (Specification Gaming).
+
+## Stage 3 — TDD under the three laws (`tdd_craftsman`)
+
+Delegates to the `/cc:tdd-cycle` state machine (`tddCycleStateMachine` in
+`domain/loop`). Evidence must be captured with `captureTddSuiteEvidence` — do
+not hand-edit JSON under `.codeconductor/evidence/`.
+
+1. **Law 1 (RED):** no production code except to make a failing test pass. A
+   compile error from a missing interface counts as a failure.
+2. **Law 2:** write exactly one failing assertion or scenario at a time.
+3. **Law 3 (GREEN):** write only the minimal production code to pass. No
+   speculative code, no preventive heuristics, stdlib-first.
+
+Hard rule: any write attempt against `specs/` or `tests/` during GREEN/REFACTOR
+is a harness violation — stop execution and report.
+
+## Stage 4 — Judge audit (`judge` / reviewer)
+
+Deterministic gates before spending compute on mutation:
+
+- Clean compile / diagnostics exit code 0.
+- Traceability: every Gherkin step maps to an implemented test step.
+- Scope Gaming audit: `git diff --name-only` must match the Task Card
+  `Scope / Files` exactly. Relaxed types, weakened assertions, or out-of-scope
+  edits → REJECT with findings.
+
+Verdict is binary: PASS continues to the mutation gate; REJECT returns to the
+`implement` phase with the findings attached.
+
+## Stage 5 — Mutation gate (`mutation_testing`)
+
+Run the deterministic AST mutator shipped with this preset:
+
+```bash
+python3 presets/shared/mutation_runner.py \
+  --target <production_file.py> \
+  --test-command "<test command>" \
+  --spec-folder specs
+```
+
+The runner applies deterministic operator mutations (`>` → `<=`, `==` → `!=`,
+`is` → `is not`, …) one at a time, re-runs the suite per mutant, and restores
+the original source unconditionally (`finally` rollback).
+
+- **Mutant killed (tests fail):** the suite detects the corruption. Continue.
+- **Mutant survived (tests pass):** the tests are blind to this branch. The
+  runner writes `specs/handover.md` + appends to
+  `specs/implementation-summary.md` and exits with code **2**.
+
+Non-Python stacks: substitute Stryker (JS/TS), PITest (JVM), or Mutmut
+(Python full-suite) with the same contract — 100% kill rate or hands-off.
+
+### Hands-off protocol (exit code 2)
+
+1. Do NOT modify production code to "fix" a surviving mutant.
+2. Route back to `tdd_craftsman` with `specs/handover.md` as input: write the
+   missing failing test (Law 1 & 2) that asserts the mutated branch.
+3. Re-run stages 3–5.
+
+### Circuit breaker (max 3 loops)
+
+The orchestrator keeps a persistent counter per Task Card. If the
+`tdd_craftsman ↔ mutation_testing` loop does not reach a 100% kill rate after
+**3 iterations**:
+
+- Cancel active subagents (stop token/context spend).
+- `git checkout -- <scope>` rollback to the last clean state.
+- Scorecard: `STATUS = BLOCKED`; escalate to a human operator. The branch stays
+  frozen until human arbitration.
+
+## Guardrails (harness-enforced, not prompt-enforced)
+
+- **Test Freezing:** SHA-256 of `specs/` + `tests/` stored in
+  `.codeconductor/tasks/<task_id>.lock`; hash mismatch aborts the pipeline.
+- **Scope Guardian:** `fs_write`/`fs_patch` paths are validated against the Task
+  Card `Scope / Files`; path escapes (`../`) and critical files (`**/.env*`,
+  `**/credentials*`, infrastructure roots) are denied per `policy.yml`.
+- **RBAC per role:** `gherkin_author` writes only `specs/`; `tdd_craftsman`
+  reads specs/tests and writes only scoped `src/`; `judge` and
+  `mutation_testing` are read-only except the runner's rolled-back patch.
+- **Worktree isolation:** run the whole flow in a dedicated `git worktree`;
+  protected branches (`main`, `master`, `develop`) are never touched.
+
+## Completion criteria
+
+- [ ] `.feature` approved and frozen (SHA-256 lock file exists and matches).
+- [ ] RED → GREEN → REFACTOR evidence captured per phase.
+- [ ] Judge verdict PASS (compile clean, traceability complete, scope clean).
+- [ ] Mutation runner exits 0 with `total_mutants_killed == total_points`.
+- [ ] Scorecard records the kill rate and iteration count (≤ 3).

package/presets/codex/skills/cc-tdd-cycle/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,266 @@
+---
+name: cc-tdd-cycle
+description: test first, implement the minimum code to pass it, then refactor with the suite green.
+---
+
+# tdd-cycle
+
+Invoke as `$cc-tdd-cycle`. The user request follows the skill mention.
+
+# TDD Cycle — Red → Green → Refactor
+
+Scope: $ARGUMENTS
+
+Describe what behavior you want to implement. Include:
+
+- The function, method, or feature to implement
+- The expected behavior (inputs and outputs, or acceptance criteria)
+- Any known constraints or edge cases
+- Relevant files or modules (if known)
+
+---
+
+## Step 0 — CCEP Bootstrap
+
+Command: `tdd-cycle` (fixed for this workflow — do not infer from user text)
+
+1. Run: `npx cc-codeconductor ccep parse --command tdd-cycle "$ARGUMENTS" --output json`
+2. Run: `npx cc-codeconductor ccep resolve --command tdd-cycle "$ARGUMENTS" --output json`
+3. Run: `npx cc-codeconductor ccep profile tdd-cycle --output json`
+4. After planner/intake JSON is available, run: `npx cc-codeconductor ccep evaluate --command tdd-cycle --input <planner.json> --output json`. If `stop` is true, show questions or risks and wait for human input.
+5. Delegate to subagents using compiled CCEP prompts — never forward raw `$ARGUMENTS` to planners.
+   Canonical delivery order is test-before-implement whenever both phases apply.
+
+---
+
+## Step 0b — OpenSpec quality gates
+
+If `openspec status` reports an active change folder:
+
+1. Run: `npx cc-codeconductor openspec validate --output json`
+2. Run: `npx cc-codeconductor openspec analyze --output json`
+3. If analyze `stop` is true or any finding is CRITICAL, stop. Do not delegate to implementer.
+4. Next command spelling on this runner: `/cc:tdd-cycle`
+
+Local development: `bun run dev <same argv>`. Published package: `npx cc-codeconductor`.
+
+---
+
+
+## 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.
+
+## Verifiable phase gates
+
+RED → GREEN and GREEN → REFACTOR are enforced by `tddCycleStateMachine` in
+`domain/loop`. Evidence must be captured with `captureTddSuiteEvidence` (verification
+runner) — do not hand-edit JSON under `.codeconductor/evidence/`.
+
+- RED→GREEN requires runner evidence that the suite **failed**.
+- GREEN→REFACTOR requires runner evidence that the suite **passed**.
+
+Do not advance phases until that evidence exists.
+
+---
+
+## Phase 1 — RED (Tester role)
+
+Invoke the `tester` subagent via the Task tool.
+
+### 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)
+
+Invoke the `implementer` subagent via the Task tool.
+
+### 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)
+
+Invoke the `implementer` subagent via the Task tool.
+
+### 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)
+
+Invoke the `reviewer` subagent via the Task tool.
+
+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 `/tdd-cycle` with
+the next scenario. One cycle = one behavior.

package/presets/codex/skills/cc-test-plan/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,153 @@
+---
+name: cc-test-plan
+description: unit, integration, contract, and edge cases without writing implementation code.
+---
+
+# test-plan
+
+Invoke as `$cc-test-plan`. The user request follows the skill mention.
+
+# 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 $ARGUMENTS is empty, describe the scope in your next message before
+proceeding.
+
+---
+
+## Step 0 — CCEP Bootstrap
+
+Command: `test-plan` (fixed for this workflow — do not infer from user text)
+
+1. Run: `npx cc-codeconductor ccep parse --command test-plan "$ARGUMENTS" --output json`
+2. Run: `npx cc-codeconductor ccep resolve --command test-plan "$ARGUMENTS" --output json`
+3. Run: `npx cc-codeconductor ccep profile test-plan --output json`
+4. After planner/intake JSON is available, run: `npx cc-codeconductor ccep evaluate --command test-plan --input <planner.json> --output json`. If `stop` is true, show questions or risks and wait for human input.
+5. Delegate to subagents using compiled CCEP prompts — never forward raw `$ARGUMENTS` to planners.
+
+---
+
+## Step 1 — Scope confirmation
+
+Before generating the test plan, 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 role, planning mode)
+
+Invoke the `tester` subagent via the Task tool.
+
+Produce a test plan document — not test code. The plan will be used as input
+when tests are actually written.
+
+Cover 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
+
+Produce 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 before any tests are written. The Test Plan is an artifact
+for review and approval.
+
+Writing test code is a separate action — run `/feature` or add a test task to
+implement from this plan.
+
+---
+
+## Completion
+
+Deliver the complete Test Plan document. Save it as
+`docs/test-plans/[scope-slug].md` if requested.
+
+This command produces a plan, not test files. No production code and no test
+code is written during this command.

package/presets/codex/skills/cc-triage/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,38 @@
+---
+name: cc-triage
+description: CodeConductor triage workflow
+---
+
+# triage
+
+Invoke as `$cc-triage`. The user request follows the skill mention.
+
+# Triage Workflow
+
+Triage request: $ARGUMENTS
+
+## Step 0 — CCEP Bootstrap
+
+Command: `triage` (fixed for this workflow — do not infer from user text)
+
+1. Run: `npx cc-codeconductor ccep parse --command triage "$ARGUMENTS" --output json`
+2. Run: `npx cc-codeconductor ccep resolve --command triage "$ARGUMENTS" --output json`
+3. Run: `npx cc-codeconductor ccep profile triage --output json`
+4. After planner/intake JSON is available, run: `npx cc-codeconductor ccep evaluate --command triage --input <planner.json> --output json`. If `stop` is true, show questions or risks and wait for human input.
+5. Delegate to subagents using compiled CCEP prompts — never forward raw `$ARGUMENTS` to planners.
+
+---
+
+## Step 1 — Classify (task-coach)
+
+Invoke `task-coach`. Produce: title, type (`feature` | `fix` | `refactor` | `review` | `docs` | `test`), risk, named scope, and the destination command (`feature`, `fix`, `refactor`, `review`, `explore`, …).
+
+Ask one question per unresolved branch. If the human is unavailable, emit a Markdown questionnaire and stop at ConfirmationGate.
+
+**STOP here. Show the classification and wait for confirmation before running the destination workflow.**
+
+---
+
+## Completion
+
+Do not implement. Hand the human a destination slash command and a partial Task Card.